The Wood Beyond The World Forum Age & Maturity of the writ..

Ok, we have been discussing some really critical and interest topics lately and I applaude Andy and Loekie for starting them.

The question I will now present since we have all made known our thoughts on various topics, is really very simple.

Age and maturity of the writer vs his audience.

By this, I simply mean, that as we mature in age, we have more life experiences which we incorporate into our stories. But does the reader have equal experience to understand what is being show/told. Does this make sense?

I will simply state that my main body of work that I am currently slaving at, is the the same story I started out with in my 30's. And I am not just talking about the writing itself, but the story line. To me, its a much more mature storyline, even for a unproven or inexperienced writer. So, as we progress as writer, not only does our writing improve, but our thoughts, and life experiences expand into our work.

Interested in anyone's thoughts on this.
Nick.

PS...I am not saying older writers are better with their storylines, because I have read some very mature work by some very gifted young writers. I can only imagine what they will be writing in 20 years or more.

First of all, welcome to the thread making. Andy broke the ice and I just tagged along. Yet I think these threads are as important as reviews because in the days of old, groups like the Inklings would meet in a pub, read some chapters and have discussions like we are having. I am delighted by the different thoughts and points coming up with our threads and I hope other members will soon feel comfortable to start their own threads.

Anyway, age, maturity and the audience. I wouldn't know about maturity because I refuse to grow up. ::biggrin:: Okay, time to get serious.

Quote:


I see your point. There are short stories I wrote back in the 80's that when I've recently gone back to them I wondered how I could have been so naive, let alone simplistic about the world. Yet some of the stories still do work because of how they were written and the characters. It lends a little charm to them.

But I think the reader would have no problems with that, if it had been published in the 80's. Whatever we write is often the product of the times we are in. The reader of the 80's is different than the audience of 07, I feel.

Quote:


It does. Yet I feel that should not be an impediment. Look at the old sci-fi writers, like Asimov, Heinlein, Clarke, etc. Some of their early stuff reflects their time and age. Yet they thought they were dealing with mature subject matter, based on the science of the time, and how people thought society was going to evolve.

As they and the time (and science) matured, so did their stories. Back to be a product of the time. Yet as I find with most writers, they hit a pinnacle, then because really famous, believed their own press and started to write shite. Larry Niven is a good example of a good writer to devolved into a hack.

For me, the age of the writer makes no difference. I have met some extremely intelligent 18 year olds who blew me away with their thoughts and how they presented them (and some were Americans :-). And then I have met 50 years who are complete morons and have no opinion save the pablum they see on TV (and some were Canadians :-)

From the onset, I wrote on mature subject matter and, yes, my lack of life and world experience affected the outcome. But an important thing was I got to know a lot of people from different backgrounds, nationalities, sex, sexuality, political leanings, etc. etc. and I learn much from that.

The audience, I believe is very forgiving. Look at something like Eragon. I was not too impressed but I took into consideration the writer's age. Then we have Sword of Shannara. Here was an older writer yet he wrote utter crap. But I was not the readership he was aiming for. Danielle Steele is not writing for someone who reads Kafka.

Personally, I write for an audience of three: me, myself and I. I feel the audience will come if your stuff is good. Agreed, that is not how publishers think but that is for a different thread.

Boy, I really need to edit before I hit the post reply button.

I hope everyone got the point that the story I started with in the 80's is not the same story I have now. I think it has matured. But is that the product of the writing maturing, the writer maturing, or both?

I agree Eragon is not very good, but I too took in Palloni's age. Now if he's still writing like this when he's 30, I will worry.

Nick.

Personally I feel maturity matters much more than age. Age brings additional chances to learn things you missed (and yes chances to learn new things) but it is not the end all to progression many people seem to tout it as.

I will admit I write for more than just myself. It is my dream to create stories that will inspire the imaginations of readers the same way mine was reading the books of Margarat Weis, Lynn Flewelling, Robert Heinlein, and Raymond Feist (among the better known ones).

As for Eragon and Sword of Shanara (sp) I couldn't agree more on those two.

Shakespeare was a young man when he wrote his work. 'Nuff said.

Yeah but some of his early stuff is quite cranky, in my opinion yet then end up being the most popular. His more mature stuff like Titus is often ignored or avoided. Yet you are right, age does not define maturity.

People grew up quicker in previous ages, too. However, genius is genius and talent is talent -- either one will show itself early, I think.

I had talent from an early age, but I didn't have the maturity to dedicate myself to really thinking through, completing, and revising anything until I hit my 40s. Some people mature earlier than others. I'm still a teenager in many ways. The main thing getting older has done is beat some of my neuroses out of me.

I think most of the things I'm writing now I couldn't have written any earlier, for lack of emotional maturity. That's not to say that other people don't have the same maturity at an earlier age. My advantage now is for myself only -- I can see the way I behaved and thought years ago and understand it well enough to portray it with some distance, some irony.

My first protagonists (Timu and Wythe) are very young where I take up their stories -- young adults in their world -- nearly children if they were in ours -- about 17 years old. I think I can explore their experiences more fully now because I have some distance from what it's like. And I'll be able to carry them forward well into maturity, because distance is easier and quicker to obtain the older I get. I can reflect on being forty now -- but when I was 29 I couldn't reflect on being 20. I think I can even project a bit into being 60 or 70.

Some folks can imagine themselves into entirely unfamiliar experiences. I'm not so good at that -- I have to either experience or do research. Research takes many forms though -- good imaginative literature is where I learned most of what I know about nearly everything, that I didn't learn first hand.

I didn't really address the audience part of the question, did I?

I don't worry much about audience. I read "grown-up" books when I was a kid, and I read kids' books now. I figure my audience is anyone who likes a story about interesting people in interesting circumstances. The sexual element in my work might put it in a "mature" category, but I feel no compunction about letting my 14 year old son read my stuff, because ultimately it's moral: sex without love, while it may seem pleasurable, is eventually harmful to all concerned, and genuine sexual love has a transforming spiritual power.

I do want my work to be accessible to someone who reads just for a good story, and I want the story to be good, but the main focus is always on the characters and their development. Even in the story category I'm more interested in my work being memorable than in it being "a good read." I actually believe that such a quality is still valued by almost every reader, even if he or she doesn't know it. I've read lots of popular fiction that kept me reading to find out what happened, that I can't remember doodly about now. Nor do I want to. That's not a category I want to participate in as a writer.

If we know that some young writers have the ability to produce outstanding work, why is age used as an excuse for works such as Eragon?

Young writers whose works are published, yet still considered to be �not that good� by the majority of their target audience AND manage to be published again, are simply lucky. There is no excuse for it imo.

I do feel that the age and maturity of the target/intended audience makes a difference to this topic.

If you are writing for yourself, your age and level of maturity will no doubt effect how you write and what you write about, and yet writing for a child or young adult will require you to write differently. If you are not writing for a specific audience, wishing to reach all that may be interested in your tale, then you intend to draw from all ages and will reach readers depending upon their maturity and level of understanding on topics within your work.

I was scouting out the Young Adults section in my local Waterstones a while back, and I picked up a book written by a 12 year old. I was astonished. It even seemed that her age was used as a marketing tool. Now, the work may appeal to other young adults and aspiring young writers, especially if this Author has the ability to write, but I very much doubt that a 12 year old�s work would appeal to adult readers. Similarly I don�t think that Tolkien, in all his popularity, would appeal to a 12 year old reader. The fact that Paolini intended to write the book for himself when he wrote it, suggests it should not appear in the adult section.


Quote:


In direct answer to your question Nick, the only way we can assume (because we can never truly know) whether a reader has equal experience to understand what we, the writers, are intending to get across, is to target your work towards a specific reader group.

A meaty topic.

Scribble.
P.S. Just to clarify my 'position' (lol) I turned 26 yesterday.

Happy Birthday, Scribble!

Let's see -- I first read LotR when I was 13. And re-read it as soon as I'd finished it, because I didn't want to leave Middle-earth.

On the Paolini thing -- Of course he was published not on the intrinsic merits of the work (how many books are actually published for that reason, anyway?) but because he was a teen. I'm sure his folks knew people in publishing too. I read Eragon but not the sequel, and it struck me as being about as good as the majority of books of its kind, whatever the age of the author. I wish the fellow luck, in any case, and better books to come.

One of my favorites, Peter S. Beagle, wrote his best stuff in his early 20s.

There are books for young persons that adults can read and enjoy. Jonathan Stroud's Bartameus trilogy comes to mind. Terry Pratchett's books for young readers (the Johnny books, the Bromeliad Trilogy, the Tiffany Aching books.) Joan Aiken wrote a wonderful series back in the '60s, beginning with The Wolves of Willoughby Chase -- just adventure stories, with endangered and plucky orphans, ruthless villains, etc -- but damn fine writing. There are lots more that I can't think of at the moment. Better books than many on the adult best-seller list.

Kids were probably better off when there wasn't a category of YA or teen fiction. They were expected to amuse themselves with real literature -- Dickens, Austen, Melville, Poe, the Brontes -- and they did.

Well, I don't really want to be on the soapbox, so . . . .

Another good kids series was The Dark is Rising...can't remember who wrote it. Susan something. They were actually pretty dark...the only reason it was considered kids' work was because it was rather short (short enough for a young non-avid reader to read through) and the protagonists were young children, and there wasn't any foul language or violence. Still good books though. About Paolini, I've heard rumors in the writing community at school that he had some aunt or uncle or something in publishing. Personally I don't think it would have been such a bestseller if he'd gone through the normal channels. It's pretty much a LotR spinoff, and not very well written at that. But still, it goes to show that young people are being considered more often nowadays, which I like just fine. :)

Thanks Leah!

I agree with your points. But usually the childrens books that cross over and gain adult readership, are written by adults. And that is the key with regards the point I'm making on this thread.

I'm not sure if kids nowadays are better off being limited to 'real literature', but thats a different discussion lol

Scribble

Off topic...

Happy belated 26th brithday...Scribble's.

Nick.

Thanks Nick!

I throw in a belated happy birthday before jumping into the fray again. So happy birthday, Scribble. The best is yet to come!

Now Scribble said:
Quote:


I don't use his age as an excuse but a reminder that many young writers aren't yet there to produce outstanding work (or may never be). You continued with
Quote:


Here I disagree. The publishing companies aim to a mass audience, not a target audience, imo. Eragon was perfect because of the frenzy of LotR. They wanted to rise the crest, especially for younger readers. It works because it is lighter and easier to read the LofR. And for heaven's sake, it has a dragon. Don't you love dragons? ::biggrin::

There is massive profits in simplistic rip-offs and tie-in books for movies and TV shows. One of the worst things about urbis (the last forum I was on) was that there were so many young writers that were just writing rip-off of films like Underworld, Buffy stories or pallid LotRs fantasy. Even worse, all of the D&D crap that was being written. The young writers see the market out there.

You walk into Barnes & Nobles (American) or Chapters (Canadian) and you see row up row of books like this. Easy market, guaranteed audience. It is the same for all of this friggen sequels, but that is another thread. And people are buying it. So the publishers just sit back and rake in the cash. (yeah, just a little cynical).

Now, Leah said:
Quote:


At that age, I refused to read LotR. I was a major sci-fi reader and fantasy was for kids, in my mind. And I was not reading ray gun crap, I was reading stuff like Childhood's End, Stranger in a Strange Land, Dune. By then I was a major fan and promoter of The Prisoner.

The idea of people with furry feet, dragons, faeries flitting about were stories for kids, even though I was one. It was only after Tolkien's death I decided to check what all of fuss was about (when the Silmarillion was published). Then I realized my mistake and arrogance.

Leah finished with:
Quote:


Yes and no. By best friend's daughter, Erin (who is 18) reads "real" literature. Yet she also reads the teen stuff. Each fills a need, as it is with my reading. For me, part of the problem is how writers like Dickens, Austen, Shakespeare has been vaulted by the ivory tower academics, into these special writers, thus scaring away kids.

As Scribble noted that kids should not be limited to "real" literature. And I agree. It is the same for adults. I have my popcorn reads like Tom Clancy (even though lately he's lost it) or Robert Ludlum. Those are my summer or public transit reads. It is the same for kids.

I look at Erin. She is a major Buffy fan. She loves Avatar, the Last Air Bender (which is awesome). Yet she adores Firefly and Pan's Labyrinth. Personally, my dander goes up when the issue of "real" literature comes up.

This does tie in with the discussion on age, maturity and audience. To get published, one has to consider the audience. The publishers do. If Tolkien were publish LofR today, the publishers would not even consider the younger audience. Excluding it is too long, it is too dense. Research shows (for them), they want light and fast paced. No intricate details. And, the most important thing, can it be put up on the big screen? That is was Eragon came in at the right time.

Now Andy wrote:
Quote:


Here I disagree. I got sucked into the hype around Sword of Shannara. I had finished LofR and wanted more good fantasy (this was the 70's). And I thought I was getting it until I dove into it. And it is worse than Eragon in being a rip-off. It almost turned me off fantasy until I picked up Lord Foul's Bane.

And as I said above, there is a big demand of "similar" stories. I honestly believe the publishers saw a chance to cash in on the LofR wave. Plus, what kid doesn't want to read a book about a boy and his dragon (let alone have one).

I think the wood of my soap box just snapped because I'm starting to get knee deep in verbal diarrhoea.

I think what one reads is only a thin slice of the life which grants each individual his insight, wonderment, and disgust concerning the world and its inhabitants.

Therefore it is clear that the very young are as liable to have interesting flashes of insight as are the old.

But writing (or other expressive crafts) has most to do with one's ability to share insight with others. This is not so easily accomplished as simply living life and recording memories, some of which may be astounding and useful to others.

What one has read begins to matter most when s/he sits down to write. While both young and old are liable to have had equally significant experiences, and while both may have reason to believe they have knowledge/insight worth sharing, it is THE EXPERIENCED READER who will have a big step up on the LESS EXPERIENCED READER, regardless of age, when it comes time to transfer that experience to another mind through the written word.

It follows this will be true regarding degree as well. One who has read only comic books or Tom Clancy will be far less likely to produce literature than one who has spent significant time consuming literature. And I would add in closing, the reader who loved his consumption of literature will likely be a better writer than the reader who found reading literature a drudgery.

Loekie --

I'm too lazy to quote all your points.

I have to live with someone who thinks only "real" literature is worth reading (or writing), so I was being a bit of a devil's advocate when I made the remark about what kids should read.

I wasn't told that Dickens was better than the occasional YA title I picked out at the library. I figured it out on my own. I read some of the YA stuff anyway, and liked it. I read mysteries for fun, now. And everything Terry Pratchett publishes. I've read at least one book by the big current best-sellers, or tried to -- I figured it was a professional necessity for a bookseller -- I gave it an honest effort -- but everything seemed so flat, so pedestrian. Like eating at McDonalds.

I let my own kids read anything they want to. But I give them the good stuff. The trouble is, not every kid has someone they trust giving them the good stuff -- they're being told they "should" read it, as you say, and that turns them off. That's why I advocated "literature" being the only thing available. Not advertised as Great, just there as the thing to read if you feel like reading. (I know that's not practical, and I know it's impossible to judge definitively, for everyone, what's worth reading.)

I love Avatar, by the way. It's very western European, I find, in spite of the gloss of orientalism and native cultures. I've watched lots of anime with my sons. Most of it's stultifyingly stupid. The only one I really like is Rurouni Kenshin. I'm catching up with the manga series for that, gradually.

And I've already mentioned, I think, that Sword of Shanarra killed fantasy for me. I entered my realistic period -- Kerouac, John Gardner, John Fowles, etc -- and then became a college English major -- deadly, deadly to the faculty that recognizes great stories, free from preconceptions. I got over it though.

Anyhow, I'm always glad when a kid reads, whatever it is, but I'll always offer what I think is really worth reading.

Quote:


Thanks Loekie!

Quote:


I agree, many are not, but some are. Why not publish them? (If they could be encouraged to throw in a couple Dragons, of course lol ::tongue:: )


Quote:


It is still luck, because the ability of the writer is not what is considered (therefore it could have been any young writer), but rather how the story will appeal to a target audience. That target audience IS the mass audience. It doesn't have to be a select few. As you say it is an 'easier' LoTR and so they are targeting those who loved LoTR and Star Wars and cashing in on the success of both the movies, spin offs and books. The fact that the book was published by the author's parents speaks louder than words.


Quote:


I agree. But then I would say that the book is tailored towards a younger reading audience for those same reasons, which brings me back round the point I was making previously. With regards to what publisher's want, I always take it with a pinch of salt. Not because of blatant disregard of the industry or arrogance or anything, but if we write for ourselves (well, I do), I'm not going to stunt my creativity by limiting myself to light, fast-paced, easily plotted works that can be adapted to big screen with a simple re-write. There are still a lot of hard-core fantasy fans out there and publishers who supply them.

In regards to Nick question, which actually focuses more on the reader rather than the writer (I think!), I agree with Bill that reading widely will open up a reader up to more experiences and therefore make him more susceptible to what the writer is conveying.


Scribble

Wow, the threads in here are getting very interesting, and damn the my real job, for it has been keeping me too busy to be involved.

I read the posts until this point, and l lot of good points were made, but I add this based only off of my experience and opinion of course.

Realm of Shadow was started nearly 20 years ago along with it's partner The Medalion. At this point I was in my early twenties when they began. Since, The Medalion has fallen to the wayside allowing time for the completion of Realm of Shadow. The book was indeed finished within three to four years after it's creation (only working nights and some weekends while I was in the Air Force). It was told to me that it was a good book by family and friends, though they may have been biased.

Anyway, the book was lost a year after I left the military in 1993. So I started to recreate it from my mind, only to find that it was changing. The characters were more in depth and they seemed to have a different point of view than I orgianlly created. The story itself even changed, finding what I believe to be some "believability". I actually feel that the story had "matured" as I had in those past 17 + years.

Now those who had read the orginal and have seen a glimpse of the new, they tell me that the new is far better. Now we must bear in mind that these readers too have grown with me.

As far as young writers, I was there once, though unpublished. I believe a young writer can offer insight to the Maturity of the story, my daughter is one. But the writing sytle to the target audience is a factor for me. I could not get past the first chapther of the first book of the Harry Potter Series, it seemed too childish to me. Though my wife and daughter said to read the others they change a bit, but I simply could not, it seemed unfair to "Skip" a book. Maybe I'll try it again.

Michael Quote:


Well, we have to thank Leah for that. I was a little burnt out from a previous group we were in but I liked Leah's idea and the voices we have here have much to say.

Michael continued: Quote:


In one of the other threads I mentioned losing important stuff for my series Tangled Threads. The same happened to me. At the time, my life got out of control and I ended up 9 months living on the streets. Yet I don't regret what happened. As with you, having to go back added such richness I would not have been able to put in before.

And that is one aspect no one has touched on: empathy. My friends in the military make me more empathic toward those stationed in places like Iraq. This gets reflected in my writing when I present the average warrior in a battle situation. It also allows me to reflect on the frustration the lower ranks have with the upper brass.

Being homeless for 9 months makes me more empathic towards more than the homeless, but the mentally ill who are not getting treatment. The single mother that has two kids and the government is doing dick to help. The person on welfare who wants to get off it but the bureaucracy is against him.

You don't have to have experiences as extreme as I've had but these experiences affect our characters. The more empathy we have for those around us, the richer the characters we develop.

Yet that does not exclude age. I come from a family where abuse occurred. I was an adult without being a teenager. I experienced the tragedy of a violent rape of a good friend in my early twenties. One of my best friends at that time lost his mother because his father brought her out into a field and blew off her head.

Details like this became infused in me as a writer. I was able to draw on these things to empathize with those around me. Thus better characters. But sometimes the execution was naive and dated, since most of my stuff at that time was sci-fi.

For me, maturity comes from the experiences you have had and those around you. There are horrific things 13 year olds experience or know of. And there are 50 year olds who don't know what hardship is. The mark of maturity is when the writer makes you care about the characters on that white piece of paper, because they care.

Enough of my soap opera, I do have one last thing to say on Michael's post: Quote:


Up front, I love the Harry Potter series. But you have to read it not as an adult but a the age group it was intended for. The first book starts at age 11, and then each one another year added on. That is how I approached the books. And fell in love with them. They ain't perfect, but what series is.

And this July, when I get Book 7, I will be there with some many fans, excited and scared. Because once I finish the book, the series is over. The ride is done. But for me, it was well worth it. And I am turning 50 this year!