How age relates to publishing

[John Jarrold]

It's a subjective thing. Some very good authors start early, others not until they have retired!

Concentrate on your own writing at this point, not on how other writers are doing it or when they started.

[Dean F. Wilson]

Well, think of it this way:

Writer A starts writing when they're 10 and is now 30.

Writer B starts writing when they're 25 and is now 30.

By writing, of course, I mean "actively", as we've all done a few essays, etc. in school (and college, if applicable).

Writer A has 15 years more writing experience than Writer B. Well, we assume they do. What if they've actually only written once a year, while the latter wrote on a daily basis? Also, what if they don't like reading (and are, thereby, exposed to less words and grammar) and Writer B reads regularly and in multiple genres (including those they don't write in)? What if Writer A just took pen to paper and ignores all advice and criticism, while Writer B spent some of their 5 years learning the craft and taking advice and criticism in a healthy fashion? What if Writer A refuses to rewrite, revise, edit, research, or do any of the things that can turn a good piece of writing into a great one, while Writer B actively does these things?

As you can see, it really is a personal matter (subjective, as John said), and just because someone says "I have X number of years experience" doesn't actually mean they're either more qualified, more suitable, or produce a higher quality product. Personally speaking, I'm of the belief that maturity doesn't come with age, and I feel this applies to writing too - the maturity of your writing doen't isn't necessarily dependent on how old you are. You can be young or old, and you can start your writing career at any time (indeed, many successful authors start writing later in life). Your attitude towards the craft, your own writing, and your peers (fellow writers, agents, publishers, etc.) is vitally more important.

-D

[Havlen]

Age is really just a factor of time, and while time is certainly part of becoming a better writer, it's only one part of what makes a better writer. Reading also makes a better writer, study of the craft, and good old fashioned talent all go into making a better writer.

For example, a person might have spent seven years writing five novels, but that experience doesn't mean that he's a better writer than someone who has spent one year writing a single novel but who has also read multiple books on writing, has studied the craft of writing, and who has a natural flare for words.

[Triceratops]

I often have these regrets. I didn't start writing serious until I was 28, and did not continue it through my life, as I'd wanted to. I picked up again recently at 55, and made some pretty good strides. I'll never know where I might have been had I continued. I'm just glad I got back into the ball game again.

Tri

[Teresa Edgerton]

It's been said that you have to write somewhere between 750,000 and a million words (including rewrites) before you get really good at it. And I believe that this is true. Of course you have to make good use of your time while you're writing that many words. You can't just spit them out thoughtlessly; you have to study your craft.

Starting early helps you to get in the work before jobs and children and other responsibilities take over. But some people can juggle jobs and children and writing just fine, while others can't.

55 sounds like a good age, if you've got some of that other stuff out of the way and can really concentrate on the writing. And while some people may be more mature at 20 than others are at 40, the same person is going to have more life-experience to draw on than they did 20 years ago. Youth has one set of advantages and age has another. It's how you make use of those advantages that counts.

[LJonesy]

Originally Posted by Dean F. Wilson

Well, think of it this way:

Writer A starts writing when they're 10 and is now 30.

Writer B starts writing when they're 25 and is now 30.

By writing, of course, I mean "actively", as we've all done a few essays, etc. in school (and college, if applicable).

Writer A has 15 years more writing experience than Writer B. Well, we assume they do. What if they've actually only written once a year, while the latter wrote on a daily basis? Also, what if they don't like reading (and are, thereby, exposed to less words and grammar) and Writer B reads regularly and in multiple genres (including those they don't write in)? What if Writer A just took pen to paper and ignores all advice and criticism, while Writer B spent some of their 5 years learning the craft and taking advice and criticism in a healthy fashion? What if Writer A refuses to rewrite, revise, edit, research, or do any of the things that can turn a good piece of writing into a great one, while Writer B actively does these things?

As you can see, it really is a personal matter (subjective, as John said), and just because someone says "I have X number of years experience" doesn't actually mean they're either more qualified, more suitable, or produce a higher quality product. Personally speaking, I'm of the belief that maturity doesn't come with age, and I feel this applies to writing too - the maturity of your writing doen't isn't necessarily dependent on how old you are. You can be young or old, and you can start your writing career at any time (indeed, many successful authors start writing later in life). Your attitude towards the craft, your own writing, and your peers (fellow writers, agents, publishers, etc.) is vitally more important.

-D

Thankyou for that insight. That's a lot of weight off my shoulders.

[LJonesy]

Originally Posted by John Jarrold

It's a subjective thing. Some very good authors start early, others not until they have retired!

Concentrate on your own writing at this point, not on how other writers are doing it or when they started.

Thankyou, i will. I've got several ideas which can span several novels, so we'll see how it turns out!

[Pravuil]

A staple factor is to never feel intimidated by other writers...unless this intimidation will beget a strong desire to achieve, in which case it can be a driving quality, and also an unhealthy one for some. It doesn't matter if you know within your mind that you will never be as great a writer as Writer A and only half as good as Writer B. What matters is when you sit down to write do you enjoy it? If so then what others think isn't an issue, write from your soul, not your wallet. Of course, nothing is wrong with formatting your books so it is easier to grasp or understand, for the sake of potential readers and the good name of simplicity. I don't mean isolate your thoughts from critique and things of the like either, simply stating that writing is an art, an art that one will be more succesful in when the predetermined object of desire is one of chiefly personal tastes and not of petty thoughts such as greed or an all too popular incentive... "I will become a better writer than Writer B because I know I am not only more intelligent but also more experienced in such and such's topic." (AKA unchecked ambition).

A final point I would like to hit on is the aforementioned "Creative Flare". Some people possess it and others don't, but if you are one of those who don't possess this seemingly innate ability there is no need to fret. I am a strong believer that if one were to lucubratingly study and build for himself a firm grasp of the english language and storytelling/writing skills on which to base the rest of his/her literary career upon, and then ameliorate or embetter such a foundation, one can easily carve out his own place among the ranks of esteemed authors. Experience, will in the end, go leagues further than what a basic feel for the texture of words ever will. And so, even those with a knack for writing and words mustneeds to practice as everyone else must, in order to develop into an accomplished and hopefully quality writer.

[LJonesy]

Originally Posted by Pravuil

A staple factor is to never feel intimidated by other writers...unless this intimidation will beget a strong desire to achieve, in which case it can be a driving quality, and also an unhealthy one for some. It doesn't matter if you know within your mind that you will never be as great a writer as Writer A and only half as good as Writer B. What matters is when you sit down to write do you enjoy it? If so then what others think isn't an issue, write from your soul, not your wallet. Of course, nothing is wrong with formatting your books so it is easier to grasp or understand, for the sake of potential readers and the good name of simplicity. I don't mean isolate your thoughts from critique and things of the like either, simply stating that writing is an art, an art that one will be more succesful in when the predetermined object of desire is one of chiefly personal tastes and not of petty thoughts such as greed or an all too popular incentive... "I will become a better writer than Writer B because I know I am not only more intelligent but also more experienced in such and such's topic." (AKA unchecked ambition).

A final point I would like to hit on is the aforementioned "Creative Flare". Some people possess it and others don't, but if you are one of those who don't possess this seemingly innate ability there is no need to fret. I am a strong believer that if one were to lucubratingly study and build for himself a firm grasp of the english language and storytelling/writing skills on which to base the rest of his/her literary career upon, and then ameliorate or embetter such a foundation, one can easily carve out his own place among the ranks of esteemed authors. Experience, will in the end, go leagues further than what a basic feel for the texture of words ever will. And so, even those with a knack for writing and words mustneeds to practice as everyone else must, in order to develop into an accomplished and hopefully quality writer.

Another piece of advice i'm thankful for.

I do enjoy writing, i know i'm not a prodigy of sorts but it's something i love to do, and do often. My old english teacher described the concept of practice something like this "You practice and practice and practice, until you hit a plateau of a completely new level, excercising the new skill you have practiced to aquire." well that's the best my memory can do considering how long ago it was. But surely all this leisure writing will take me, or anyone else up the mountain onto the plateau?

[John Jarrold]

Only if the talent to write fiction is there in the first place. Most people don't have it.

[Havlen]

Originally Posted by LJonesy

But surely all this leisure writing will take me, or anyone else up the mountain onto the plateau?

Practice is great, and is definitely the number one thing to grow your skill as a writer, but it isn't the only thing needed. Reading and study of the craft are also important.

Take point of view, for example. No matter how much you write, it is extremely doubtful you'll ever discover and understand depth in point of view without reading about it or reading examples of it. (What I mean by depth is the distance of the narrator from the pov character's mind.) To grow as a writer you need to not only write, but also study the art of writing.

As far as talent goes, I see those talented for fiction being split into two categories. Those talented at writing, and those talented at story telling. Raymond Feist, for example, could be called a talented story teller. But he's not going to ever be confused for Vonnegut.

[John Jarrold]

Yep, everyone who can write fiction will still have their own strengths - as always, there is no definitive template...

[Rhi]

Originally Posted by Havlen

As far as talent goes, I see those talented for fiction being split into two categories. Those talented at writing, and those talented at story telling. Raymond Feist, for example, could be called a talented story teller. But he's not going to ever be confused for Vonnegut.

I don't think they're two clearly cut groups. Granted, writers will probably be better at one than the other, but that doesn't mean that the talented writers can't tell stories and that the talented storytellers lack writing skills.

Originally Posted by Dean F. Wilson

The author of "Eragon" (can't remember his name) is a good example for this topic, I feel. Is his second book of a higher standard than his first?

His name was Christopher Paolini. Although he is indeed a good example of a young writer, one must take into account that his parents published and publicised Eragon and without their efforts he probably wouldn't be where he is today. He also had a lot of help writing and editing it. His first and second books didn't, for me, seem very different at all: his writing style hasn't changed much.

[Havlen]

Originally Posted by Rhi

I don't think they're two clearly cut groups. Granted, writers will probably be better at one than the other, but that doesn't mean that the talented writers can't tell stories and that the talented storytellers lack writing skills.

I could have probably explained it better. Simply put: There is natural talent for story telling, and there is natural talent for writing. And they are separate things. Of course, someone can have both, and many great storytellers do. And many writers have one or the other, and varying degrees, etc, etc.

[Montero]

On the suject of storytelling, a few years back I saw a production of 1001 Nights on TV - think it was a series not a film. (Too long, too much detail for a film, but I could be wrong.) Anyway, each day Sheherezade trotted off to the market place storyteller who was teaching her how to keep her audience engaged. He taught her not only how to plot stories, but how to vary the plot style - different ways to start them. Make sure her audience was gripped from the start.
At the time really caught me, meant to make notes on it and haven't so can't give examples. Must track it down and watch it again.