Sadly, the people who don't read will almost certainly miss out on writing as well. Writing is immensely rewarding, in that it allows you to put down you thoughts and feelings, in a way that you could never manage in person or in spoken format, by slowly building to the point with ever more narrowly defining word choice and nuance.

You wrong i don't read since i cannot become part of it and exp it like others can however i write poems i write books.

Since when i make up a story i become part of it and i can make up some really good story's and poem's.

Writing a good story, unless you are a genius, involves slowly refining the details, making appropriate changes, and guiding the characters. If you try to tell a story verbally, you have no chance to refine it, because if you try to backtrack to change something, the listeners will protest, or become very bored with the lack of progress.

Certainly, some people are great story tellers, capturing the audience immediately and holding on to them, but if those same stories are written down, there is an obvious lack of depth and detail. The situation in which the story is told is what makes it engaging, despite its shortcomings, but that doesn't carry through to writing. To write well is a much more difficult process, and often requires not only self editing, but the services of others as well.

However, that said, if you are writing for yourself, and not for the benefit of an 'audience', then it is all fine. The cathartic effects of writing down your story is the primary goal, and as such the fine details are in the mind, and need not be in the story itself. I write a bit, and it is purely for my own release of pressures, although I confess to having posted some of my words here and there on miscellaneous forums.

The more you read, the better you write, generally speaking.

Writing for the public is interesting because you have to "be the reader" as you look it over. He/she doesn't know as much about the topic as you. What matters to them? How to simplify, but not oversimplify?

first most well all writer have editors, when books first writes it crap got a lot of good ideals and story but it crap grammar bad and not very detail it the editor job to fix this and put it together right.

A lot of writers only make the story line the character personality's and what the book is about the editor a lot of time is the one who puts it all together. Make it interesting.

I think it is the authors job to make it interesting. the editor fine tunes but I doubt they will bother if the book is not interesting to begin with...........

Editors come in varieties: paid professionals, unpaid professionals, amateurs, and novices. Generally, the editor will suggest changes, leaving it to the author to decide on what is wanted. If the story is to be published, the publisher may require their editor's version be the published version. That may be the price the author needs to pay to have his/her work published and paid for.

Amateur editors will work with authors, pointing out flaws in character development, etc., but it is generally presumed that authors writing professionally will not require that type of interaction with the editor. The professional editor will more often than not do research on mentioned locations and items within the story, to ensure that they are correct. This can be more challenging than you might think, as they may need to go through books and articles from decades back.

I do a little bit of novice editing work, but the majority of what I do is 'proofing'. This involves catching the inconsistencies, typos, spelling and grammatical errors. When asked to describe this function, I use the comparison of an artist displaying her/his works in a gallery, and I am the janitor, ensuring that there is no dust on the work of art. I keep it clean for others to enjoy the quality, making no material difference in the work itself.

How would you feel if I offered as a counterpoint the phrase "The better you think, the better you write."

Good writing, to me, is the capability to make prose either completely transparent or utterly impressionistic - and nothing in between.

Writing is a craft, not an art.

When excellent thinking is added to craft, we can get to art.

Personally, I am not much of a "pleasure reader." I like whatever I read to be instructive or useful as an example of its genre, if it is fiction.

I don't really think that reading makes a writer better, unless, of course, the writer wishes to mimic what already exists or wants to make constant pretentious allusions for the sake of self-aggrandizement.

I don't think many of us learned grammar from Faulkner or punctuation from Hemingway.

We learned it from dowdy old ladies in stuffy grade-school classrooms.

So, to bring this back around: If one defines writing as the act of communicating through words, then good thinking is king. If one defines writing as messing about with words, semi-plagiarizing, or inartful attempts at pretense, then I would agree that reading would be king.

I prefer the former definition, and would like more writers to have read less.

I've read more than I've written and I still cannot properly write.

- Serenity

No, it's good for writers to read, but better still for them to gain even more precious insight from personal experience, which you also seem to believe.

...........

"Good writing, to me, is the capability to make prose either completely transparent or utterly impressionistic - and nothing in between.

Writing is a craft, not an art."

Interesting.

I'm the transparent version, myself.



When excellent thinking is added to craft, we can get to art.