🚀 go-pugleaf

In a previous article, Alan_Barclay@mindlink.bc.ca (Alan Barclay) says:

>In message #4504457 Bonita Kale quotes Tom Maddox:
>
>"In a previous article, tmaddox@netcom.com (Tom Maddox) says:
>>
>>       Yeah, well, that may or may not be true, but I'm still more inclined to
>>listen to advice about writing from someone whose writing I have read and
>>admire than from someone whose writing about writing is the only thing I have
>>to go on.
>

     An adage that I have heard often says that one should "read the authors
that one enjoys because they have the most to teach you." (Lee K. Abbott)

     Tom M. is saying that without knowing the Abbott adage, and I agree
with Tom.  There are some concepts that will never be fully tangible to me,
yet I suspect I will through talent (if I have any) utilize them.  If I 
don't understand the concepts, how can I use them?  I suspect that the 
reading of the works of those that I admire has inculcated a know-how
into place.  In essence, my mind is copying a technique without knowing
that it is copying and without knowing just what it is copying.


>"This sounds reasonable, but in practice, I have not found that the advice
>of those whose fiction writing I enjoy is always, or even usually, more
>helpful than that of those whose fiction I haven't read or don't enjoy."
>
>Some excellent writers seem to have an implicit understanding of what
>makes good writing, but are unable to isolate what it is they know, nor
>to make it clear to others.  This sort of knowledge seems magical to me.
>I myself must understand a technique or concept well enough to teach it,
>before I can actually use it well.  I find the difference fascinating.
>
>
>
>Alan
>
>
>

-- 
RAZ     ai118@cleveland.freenet.edu