On writers and their learning
I noticed this while doing my big project on writers and history and while teaching innumerable writers locally and interstate:
1. Writers who are consistently successful in the long term at placing books of varying kinds (who don't write the same book 20 times over) are very good learners. Some of the best learners I've seen anywhere, in fact. This comes from my research, but I won't be talking about it in my studies because it's a by-product and because the numbers are too small for vast generalisations from it. I've amplified the numbers through many, many discussions with writers, but that's not good for research papers, just for personal understanding. I'm pretty sure that I know that the Valerie Parvs of this world are outstanding learners - but I haven't demonstrated it and would need a new study to do so and I have other work to do, so this new study is unlikely. I can demonstrate that the Chaz Brenchleys and Elizabeth Chadwicks are outstanding learners, if anyone wants to sit down with me and go through data, but their numbers in relation to my data are insufficient for extrapolation.
2. Many newbie writers are very good learners. They have this sense of what they want to do, and are willing to work very hard to understand how to get there. This comes from nearly 20 years of teaching newbie writers in various fora.
3. Many newbie writers cease to be good learners the moment they have their second book (sometimes even their first book) published. A few cease to be good learners in about 3rd year of their creative writing university studies. My current theory on the latter is that they cease to understand how learning relates to writing and - through their peers or maybe some of their educators - see writing fiction as privilege and an ego-thing, and lose the sense of discovery. I do not tend to see these writers in my classes, BTW, but at conventions and socially. They often seem to select a lifestyle where their lack of interest in learning won't be challenged or where a mild interest in learning will be treated as a thing of awe.
Number 1 is wonderful, number 3 is awful. But if the same writers are great at learning and then stop being so, then it's theoretically possible to enable more steady-state careers (insofar as there are steady-state careers) in this industry and more consistently good writing from hobby writers. So much focus is on whether writers and publishers can spot the new black or the next sparkly vampire or child wizard, but there's only one novel in the new, whether it be the new writer or the shiny idea. There are many, many novels possible from a writer with skills whose skills continue to grow.
This is not everything. It's not even close to everything. It's me pulling together my teaching and consultation and social experience with one of the more interesting side-results of my research.
What gets me about it is how obvious it looks the moment I say it. Half a dozen of you who read my blog regularly are both good learners (even outstanding learners) and publish regularly despite market vagaries. And I've been telling schoolkids for years that their best path into becoming a good writer of fiction is to learn as much as they can and to develop good learning habits and to make sure they have a second career to earn them regular income (parents love me for this, but I don't say it to make parents love me) so I've 'known' this for a while and not expressed it in these terms.
There must be studies on this. it's too obvious for there not to be. Also, I may have well encountered them and forgotten. Can anyone point me in their direction?
I'm finishing my higher ed in-house certificate (to balance my grad dip in adult ed) next week and so my focus is on teaching and learning issues for a few days. This is a big one, and I wouldn't mind sorting it out a bit and improving the way I teach writers. It will also help when I teach the teachers who teach young writers, which happens in some of my classes.
1. Writers who are consistently successful in the long term at placing books of varying kinds (who don't write the same book 20 times over) are very good learners. Some of the best learners I've seen anywhere, in fact. This comes from my research, but I won't be talking about it in my studies because it's a by-product and because the numbers are too small for vast generalisations from it. I've amplified the numbers through many, many discussions with writers, but that's not good for research papers, just for personal understanding. I'm pretty sure that I know that the Valerie Parvs of this world are outstanding learners - but I haven't demonstrated it and would need a new study to do so and I have other work to do, so this new study is unlikely. I can demonstrate that the Chaz Brenchleys and Elizabeth Chadwicks are outstanding learners, if anyone wants to sit down with me and go through data, but their numbers in relation to my data are insufficient for extrapolation.
2. Many newbie writers are very good learners. They have this sense of what they want to do, and are willing to work very hard to understand how to get there. This comes from nearly 20 years of teaching newbie writers in various fora.
3. Many newbie writers cease to be good learners the moment they have their second book (sometimes even their first book) published. A few cease to be good learners in about 3rd year of their creative writing university studies. My current theory on the latter is that they cease to understand how learning relates to writing and - through their peers or maybe some of their educators - see writing fiction as privilege and an ego-thing, and lose the sense of discovery. I do not tend to see these writers in my classes, BTW, but at conventions and socially. They often seem to select a lifestyle where their lack of interest in learning won't be challenged or where a mild interest in learning will be treated as a thing of awe.
Number 1 is wonderful, number 3 is awful. But if the same writers are great at learning and then stop being so, then it's theoretically possible to enable more steady-state careers (insofar as there are steady-state careers) in this industry and more consistently good writing from hobby writers. So much focus is on whether writers and publishers can spot the new black or the next sparkly vampire or child wizard, but there's only one novel in the new, whether it be the new writer or the shiny idea. There are many, many novels possible from a writer with skills whose skills continue to grow.
This is not everything. It's not even close to everything. It's me pulling together my teaching and consultation and social experience with one of the more interesting side-results of my research.
What gets me about it is how obvious it looks the moment I say it. Half a dozen of you who read my blog regularly are both good learners (even outstanding learners) and publish regularly despite market vagaries. And I've been telling schoolkids for years that their best path into becoming a good writer of fiction is to learn as much as they can and to develop good learning habits and to make sure they have a second career to earn them regular income (parents love me for this, but I don't say it to make parents love me) so I've 'known' this for a while and not expressed it in these terms.
There must be studies on this. it's too obvious for there not to be. Also, I may have well encountered them and forgotten. Can anyone point me in their direction?
I'm finishing my higher ed in-house certificate (to balance my grad dip in adult ed) next week and so my focus is on teaching and learning issues for a few days. This is a big one, and I wouldn't mind sorting it out a bit and improving the way I teach writers. It will also help when I teach the teachers who teach young writers, which happens in some of my classes.
No comments have been added yet.
