Are extremely well read prolific quoter’s and meticulous astute citers sacrificing their unique individual creativity?
I noticed in myself at around age 9-10 as I read perhaps my 5th decent novel that my own writing style was affected by my recent reading in much the same way my accent and vernacular would shift when traveling to new places for extended periods like summer vacations. Likewise as I delved in to science my own theories would become less fanciful and more confined within the knowledge (at that age I took as absolute fact) that was absorbing in to my brain. So much so that for a long period I abstained from reading to allow a less tainted exploration of my own creativity and to this day still refuse to read anything I even slightly determine to be junk i.e. all but scientific magazines and all newspapers, holding to a theory that anything of real importance contained within these rags I could gradually extract through conversation with people who had read them as people usually only pass on the good stuff and then I could research only those topics further myself. Thus preventing unnecessary dilution of my self.
Make no mistake I have observed some superior intellects in my brief 18 hour jaunt here and greatly appreciate the opportunity to lurk on debates albeit dropping the occasional poorly structured utterly unreferenced viewpoint that alongside other posts read as infantile, but hey that’s my style I didn’t steal it from some peer reviewed universally celebrated brilliant researcher/writer. I simply find it easier to remain open minded and creative when my mind is not so cluttered with other peoples ideas, a trait sure to fade if I stay here too long, but likely I won’t, I rarely do.
Or would a stronger mind be better able to discard without influence useless information and by greater exposure become more individual.
Or is it more or less a set condition and exposure/experience has little affect.
I’d have to say my experience with writing has affected my creativity and style more than my reading - I decided 10 years ago to always try to write each post to the best of my ability, and I think it has made me a much stronger writer.
You are allowing yourself to be influenced far too much by whoever put the idea into your head that maintaining your unique individuality, free of outside influences, is either possible or desirable.
I am not trying to be paradoxical. I mean that quite seriously. The less attention you pay to other people’s opinions, ideas, styles, etc., the less interesting and worthwhile your own opinions, ideas etc. are likely to be, and the more you will be enslaved by the relatively small number of influences you have not been able to avoid. The way to become a smart and original thinker is not through avoiding influences (which is impossible, anyway), but through assimilating as many diverse influences as you possibly can. Get reading!
Reading the classics is the easiest way to improve your writing. While reading you unconsciously absorb the grammar and style of the author. Why not learn from the best? Great authors have a tendency to take over your mind. After reading, I’ve observed that my thoughts begin to mirror the writer’s style. This influence carries over to writing, helping form clear, rhythmic sentences.*
If you fail to train yourself to think critically about the ideas of others, you’re unlikely to be able to think critically about your own ideas, increasing the likelihood that you will fall into delusion or error.
It sounds like you’re intimidated by people who have grown accustomed to presenting their ideas plainly and rigorously and are looking for a rationalization for why your approach is superior.
I get paid to be creative. I also know lots of stuff. In my personal opinion, learning new things feeds innovative thought. That’s one of the reasons I hang out here.
I agree with njtt. Outside influences are inevitible. The key to finding your own voice is to work on receiving a wide variety of influences so none of them can predominate by default.
One of the things I advise people who are new to writing poetry is to read everything. Not just poetry, though poetry definitely helps.
As people read and become exposed to new writers and new poets, their own styles will change. Each little bit of exposure creates a ripple effect. The more exposures, the more wonderful echoes and ripples and textures you can (and will, you won’t be able to help it) incorporate into your own writing, through the filter of your own personality and likes and dislikes.
You don’t know what you don’t now until you know something.
I’m sure I’m not the only long-time Doper who is finding their conversations with other people in real life to be different after all the discussions and arguments and fact-finding missions we do here. I can practically see the caption over someone’s head - “Hasn’t done any research on this topic. Only knows what they heard on the six o’clock news.” Yeah, all these influences have changed me.
Yeah, I’ve noticed that my writing becomes a poor[del] mockery[/del] of the authors I’ve been reading a lot of.
So I’ve tried doing what you do and skip reading books and magazines but the only reading I get is from forums and instant messaging and you know how well most of those people write…
I go through cycles I guess. I’m in the forum/IM part of the cycle right now and hate the way I write.
In high school, I was reading a lot of Vonnegut and my writing was pretty dumb because of it. I really can’t remember what I saw in Vonnegut back then. I can’t reread any of those books.
But then there are people like Tolkien and Hemingway who don’t have this in your face writing style that really sticks out.
In my experience, the more reading I do and the more writing I do, the more I sound like myself. I have never made an effort to imitate anyone, or to avoid imitating anyone. It would be interesting to try to guess who an author has read (not even admired, necessarily, just read) based on his or her prose style. I think an analysis of my prose – both my posts here and my published works – would suggest a whole lot of 19th century novelists, given my proclivity for long sentences structured with a series of rhythmically arranged clauses. I don’t do it on purpose, it’s just the way I write.
I can see too much input getting in the way of creativity, as well as too little. It’s just a balance everyone has to find for themselves. Different situations occur also. Sometimes I need to clear my mind of outside influence to create, sometimes it works better if I’m distracted.
Its interesting that that you asked the question instead of creating an answer. Is that because you are reading too much, or too little?
I’ve generally found that in debating an issue with any reasonably intelligent person with whom you disagree, you can generally rely on them making at least a few good points that you had not considered, that even if they don’t change your opinion, you are well advised to address those points in your own arguments.
I tend to think that one of most destructive ideas prevalent in our society today, is that changing your mind is somehow a sign of weakness or lack of intelligence. It’s closely followed by the suggestion that you must “pick a side” rather than considering the merits of both.
I’d also suggest that exposing yourself to, and considering the merits of, a wide range of opinions and view points, even the patently stupid ones, not only helps you challenge your own assumptions, it also helps you understand the processes by which other people arrive at theirs.
If you want to fight ignorance in others, telling them why you think they are wrong is much more helpful than just telling them that they are wrong. It also tends to upset them much more, but no one ever said that this stuff would be easy.
You will almost never regret always considering your own opinions and those of others and the thought processes that lead to those opinions. To paraphrase Terry Pratchett though, once you start thinking about why you are thinking about what you are thinking, you run a serious risk of starting to walk into doors and other stationary objects
I also think that people tend to fall into a particular mental trap, you often find that the less people know about a particular subject, the more insecure and defensive they are about their lack of knowledge, and the more determined they are to not be shown up by “losing” the argument. I’d be kidding myself if I suggested this had never happened to me.
However this also means that the person you are debating with, even if they argue to the bitter end on the opposing viewpoint, will often have taken your points on board even if they don’t want to “lose face” by admitting it at the time. I’ve often heard people who disagreed bitterly with me about a subject bring up a point that I have made the next time the subject comes up
Of course, the other obvious mental trap, is assuming that just because you appear to have won the argument or discussion you are “right”.
On the specific issue of writing, I’ve actually found that reading badly written fiction, tells you a lot more about writing than a lot of the good stuff. Good writing often goes unnoticed, bad writing forces you stop and examine the wreckage. You also get to understand bad writing a lot better when you actually try to do it yourself, it’s all very making fun of info dumps and monologuing villains, until you have to stop and consider how else you are going to get the information into the story.
