A review of "The 10 Most Harmful Novels for Aspiring Writers," by Crawford Kilian
In this article, published two years ago but highlighted yesterday on NPR, Kilian posits his theory that there are certain novels that should not be read by young writers because doing so will harm their ability to write. Specifically, he says these novels "inspired young writers to imitate them," and badly, he suggests, based almost completely on his own personal experiences as a writer. But there is so much wrong with this statement. Young writers may have imitated them, but it's up to the young writers, not the books, to move beyond that imitation, to learn what they can from the novel and then bring something new and unique to the table.
In my own personal experience, imitation has led to breakthroughs and improved skill. No one should be asked to read, let alone PUBLISH, the crap I was banging out on my grandmother's electric typewriter when I was twelve years old. It was a mishmash imitation of Stephen King and Mark Twain, and featured vampires, werewolves and sexy vampire hunters. I'm pretty sure I've burned the manuscript, if only for everyone's safety. But the experience (sitting in front of a typewriter and actually creating a new world) was vital to my growth as a writer. I was inspired by the books I was reading at the time, and I was imitating the style of certain writers because it was comfortable to me, and it eased me through the initial act of creation.
As I read through Kilian's list of books, and his reasons for including them on the list, I find that he dislikes some of them, and dislikes his own imitations (written as a young writer) of the rest. These are valid opinions, and I do agree a few of them. But I disagree completely with the idea that young writers should avoid these books for the reasons Kilian outlines, and find it slightly preposterous for him to suggest that the act of reading these books is what causes young writers to churn out crap writing.
In this article, published two years ago but highlighted yesterday on NPR, Kilian posits his theory that there are certain novels that should not be read by young writers because doing so will harm their ability to write. Specifically, he says these novels "inspired young writers to imitate them," and badly, he suggests, based almost completely on his own personal experiences as a writer. But there is so much wrong with this statement. Young writers may have imitated them, but it's up to the young writers, not the books, to move beyond that imitation, to learn what they can from the novel and then bring something new and unique to the table.
In my own personal experience, imitation has led to breakthroughs and improved skill. No one should be asked to read, let alone PUBLISH, the crap I was banging out on my grandmother's electric typewriter when I was twelve years old. It was a mishmash imitation of Stephen King and Mark Twain, and featured vampires, werewolves and sexy vampire hunters. I'm pretty sure I've burned the manuscript, if only for everyone's safety. But the experience (sitting in front of a typewriter and actually creating a new world) was vital to my growth as a writer. I was inspired by the books I was reading at the time, and I was imitating the style of certain writers because it was comfortable to me, and it eased me through the initial act of creation.
As I read through Kilian's list of books, and his reasons for including them on the list, I find that he dislikes some of them, and dislikes his own imitations (written as a young writer) of the rest. These are valid opinions, and I do agree a few of them. But I disagree completely with the idea that young writers should avoid these books for the reasons Kilian outlines, and find it slightly preposterous for him to suggest that the act of reading these books is what causes young writers to churn out crap writing.
Everyone churns out crap writing, and they do it because they are learning. You do it, I do it, we all do it. No one breaks through to the other side if they don't allow themselves the benefit of the doubt. Allow yourself to churn out crap writing, and know that this is how you get better.
"Some novels are good but dangerous because they leave us dumbfounded." This is the line that baffles me the most. There's nothing I love better than reading a book that is so good I'm left dumbfounded. When my brain returns again and again to a book I've finished, I know that I've read something important, something well written and powerful. Kilian goes on to suggest that most writers are incapable of writing something as powerful, and so even the act of reading a powerful book will cause writers to give up.
A funny side note: The title is "The 10 Most Harmful," but Kilian lists only nine books by my count.
Because I don't believe in keeping you from bad writing, you can read the article here.
A funny side note: The title is "The 10 Most Harmful," but Kilian lists only nine books by my count.
Because I don't believe in keeping you from bad writing, you can read the article here.
Read the books he doesn't want you to read here:
Every word you read is an act of learning, and even bad novels can teach you something as a writer. The most harmful thing you could ever really do is stop reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment