I understand reading and writing more but what "how to" books are a must read?
< Is this good?
I see this one often mentioned around here.
>>8140362
Prestigious writing schools base their programs around teaching people to read in a writerly way. Nobody can teach you creative writing, or at least, no school currently operating actually does or can sincerely claim to.
>>8142645
Gardner wrote a bunch of crappy pseudo-intellectual books during the 20th century that were marketed towards the non-literary common folk. He's like a second-rate Norman Mailer, but literally all of his texts are mediocre rather than just some of them. Oh, and then he wrote a bunch of books on writing books, fully embodying the saying that "those who can't do, teach". His methods are usable if your goal is to entertain the masses, but no further.
You can't read your way to patrician prose. Or, rather, you can, but by reading fiction and poetry and other works of creative writing. Not by pouring over books like these. They'll do nothing for you.
>>8142728
>All that bullshit about Gardner
You are literally telling lies at some points, but what else to expect from /lit/
/lit/ should I do creative writing or directing course at uni?
i will still probably want to die
The Making of a Story: A Norton Guide to Creative Writing (LaPlante)
Ron Carlson Writes a Story (Carlson)
On Writing (Stephen King)
any thoughts on Francin Prose's "Read Like a Writer"?
>>8142953
Explain. I don't know how even one thing I said could be considered a lie.
>>8143657
Creative Writing helped me a lot. my before and after are staggering (even though I'm still not very good)
>>8142645
>hasn't read it
>recommends it
How to Speak and Write Correctly, Joseph Devlin
james joyce
They're kind of inspiring, but mostly useless. If you can't see what makes a good sentence after enough practice and experience then you're never going to be good.
Just pick some that interest you and read a style guide. Don't take what they say to seriously and then bin everything you've already written and start again.
>>8144243
>too seriously
I will apply this to your posting.
>>8144027
The history lesson can be corroborated by anyone sufficiently interested but this
>His methods are usable if your goal is to entertain the masses, but no further.
Is complete bullshit and shows that you probably didn't even read Art of Fiction. Every single technique he mentions is something all good writers employ and is supported by many examples from Joyce to Faulkner. Its up to you to actually take the concepts, practice them and make your own.
>You can't read your way to patrician prose. Or, rather, you can, but by reading fiction and poetry and other works of creative writing. Not by pouring over books like these. They'll do nothing for you.
Again this really just shows you no idea how to handle information and make use of it. Technical manuals can help iron out many beginner mistakes alongside giving a greater depth of thought in how to handle your writing. This goes for any craft. There is not one good writer on this planet who didn't desire to reach the uttermost depth of their craft in this way.
Furthermore, this idea of "patrician prose" is just stupid wank. Your prose is only as good as your thoughts are, and how well you can stay focused the premise of your work. If you cant even manage that then who gives a fuck how much you can twink out a sentence.
