Writer's Fallout Shelter

Age isn't a restriction; lack of skill and experience are. You have to live and do and feel in order to writer.

I see the logic in this statement, but the insinuation I'm perceiving is one must “do” and “experience” out there in the world (outside of imagination) for some length of time in order to obtain the skills necessary to write with the kind of quality or depth that we come to expect from our favorite authors. In the case of non-fiction, this might well be the case (for example, it might be hard to write a documentary about climbing Mount Everest without some sort of personal experience, although I’d argue that it can be done). But when it comes to fiction, I have to disagree.

I’m 33. I’ve been writing stories since I’ve known what to do with a pencil. In thirty-three years, I’ve experienced and done many, many things. I’ve lived longer, obviously, than someone half of my age. And yet, there are fifteen-year-olds out there who can write circles around me--perhaps not structurally (although some can), but creatively. Teenagers, children, whose imaginations obliterate my own.

I have a five-year-old son. Science has determined that, at five, he (and children, in general) is my intellectual and creative superior. His mind processes much faster than mine does. His perceptions are sharper and more vivid than my own. And, at five, he is also much more in-tune with his emotions—of which he has the complete range. He feels just as much as I do, only more intensely. He’s also more intuitive than I am. He can sense the emotions of others sooner. All of this, and his imagination is practically unfettered. It hasn’t yet been weighted by all sociological structures, and all the rules and stresses therein, as it will be by the time he reaches my age.

I’d argue that your average 10-year-old has the capacity to be a more imaginative and creative writer than your average 30-year-old, no matter how much the latter has done or experienced.

It’s the skill, the method of communicating these ideas in an engaging and comprehensible way, which must be learned. And the best way to learn these skills isn’t by going out and seeing the world, weeding the lawn, working at the local 7Eleven (not that these are unbeneficial things), or what have you—it’s by reading.

Stephen King said, in his book Writing Fiction, “If you don’t have time to read, you don’t have time to write.” I agree with that statement 100%. It’s true in my own experience. As a rule, I’m an avid reader. I’ll read anything I can get my hands on, including the back of the toothpaste tube while I’m sitting on the can (TMI, I know). But there are times, even despite our best intentions, that we let things lag. Things get in the way. If I go too long without reading, it really shows in my writing.

“I don’t read. I don’t have time to read.” I’ve heard this over and over again from young people who have come up with fantastically creative, but almost unreadable stories. And it’s the reason they can’t write. It’s not because they haven’t lived enough yet, or they don’t have enough emotional experience (we all have the capacity to empathize. One doesn’t necessary need to experience the death of a loved one, for example, to comprehend what such a loss must feel like—even to the extent of conveying those emotions realistically with written words). It’s because they’ve forsaken the one teacher who can really show them the key to the door.

So that’s my advice to writers, young, old, or in-between. Read. As much and as often as you can. Don’t worry about the fact that you’ve never been outside your hometown, or haven’t been to college, or have never played baseball, or what have you. Anything that hasn’t been experienced can be researched, and your imagination and natural capacity for emotion and empathy will deliver the rest.

Scribbler






** Images For Use By Upgraded+ Only **