If it's any consolation, I did read Oscar and Lucinda a few years back - didn't think much of it. Dull and rather pretentious. I guess he was just writing at a higher level than me.

The TV thing is completely ridiculous. Even if you bend over backwards to be generous to Carey (and I'm not really inclined to), the best possible spin you can put on it is that you shouldn't have the TV on while you're writing because it's a distraction. And even that's only going to be true for some people.

More anecdotal evidence for the pile: I wrote a fucking PhD thesis, and for much of the time I was writing it I had the TV on in the background. Usually tuned to something like Jeremy Kyle or Judge Judy or something similarly exploitative and crass. I know science writing isn't the same as writing Great Literature, but I would submit that it requires precisely the same sort of levels of concentration. Some people can maintain that concentration whilst listening to the TV in the background, some can't.

For every person I have met who reads classic literature because they love it, I have met a dozen who read it because they think it makes them look smart. Funnily enough, a lot of the latter sorts tend to be wannabe writers.

Another word beginning with "w" springs to mind.

Good lord--are we sure he didn't write this as a parody of the worst kind of writer stereotype?

I, too, thought the "turn off the TV" was going to be telling us that of course we all watch TV, but sometimes you need to turn it off to concentrate. Who knew that it's actually important to cut ourselves off from all those stories people are telling so we can concentrate on all those stories people told back then that are less accessible because the context is lost.

It reminds me of a line on Malcolm in the Middle (a TV show I wrote tie-in books for, which would probably put me so far below this guy it's not even worth mentioning!) where Malcolm's friend says his parents told him TV makes you stupid. Malcolm replies, "No, TV makes you normal."

Also, I'm sure there's plenty of up and coming writers who learned plenty from Goosebumps and were inspired by them, albeit when they were younger. Just like people are inspired by crappy movies and good movies and good tv shows and bad tv shows. Surely we all know how Star Wars was inspired by the silly serials George Lucas loved as a kid (not that I'm suggesting SW or any SW books would possibly be considered serious writing by Carey!).

Really, I suspect truly creative writers would never make the kind of distinctions about stories this guy's making here. There's a lot of "classic" lit I really like (and yeah, I did feel rewarded when I went to an art show and saw a painting I recognized as illustrating something from the Decameron because I happened to be reading it at the time--but it's not a literary reward, it's a smartypants one), but I'd be more likely to go on and on at how impressed I am by the myth created in the Curse of the Blair Witch/The Blair Witch Project--another great work inspired by Medium Carey doesn't think writers should be watching (blended with the kind of oral folklore that probably doesn't count either).

"No, if you quietly, secretly want to be a genius, go the fuck away and grow the fuck up. Wanting to be a genius is a sure sign that you aren't one."

Excellent, Dan! A good deal ruder than anything I would ever say, granted,but I laughed. Somehow, I get the impression I would never laugh at anything Carey ever wrote.

Also, I think he is quite wrong about not showing things you know to be imperfect to your friends. I am so very, very grateful to my advance readers. They help me to achieve some level of objectivity about my work - I don't always *know* why something seems shaky, and they can help me to see what needs changing. It really isn't possible to be objective about one's own work! What's more, their encouragement and support have helped me to keep writing. The end of my novel is now in sight, and my four beta readers - especially the three who have given me steady and intelligent feedback and *encouragement* - have helped me to get as far as I have. I couldn't have done it without them.

I guess that makes me a lower-level writer than Peter Carey. Of course, I do "want to be a genius" and to make something true and beautiful, but (1) nobody writes a book alone, I don't think; and (2)though I've moved a long, long way away from it, I was partially inspired to write by a TV show!

Ugh, there is so much wrong with that attitude, I barely know where to start. I do want to say that I, like Arthur, write while the TV is on. I actually have more trouble concentrating in silence than with some noise. Sometimes it's music, mostly it's TV. And I actually feel that my TV junkie personality helps me visualize scenes; it definitely helped when I was making my original comic (as that tends to rely more on visuals). I can only imagine what Mr. Carey would have to say about comic writers.

I'm a little offended at him calling out Goosebumps! I won my first ever writing contest (third place) in Disney Adventures Magazine "Finish the Goosebumps Story" contest. It was one of the first positive responses to my writing I ever got! Screw you, dude, Goosebumps rocks. :-)

And most writing teachers tell you to show your work to EVERYONE, as many people as are willing to read it. Various responses and views are the most important thing to a new, aspiring writer. I really hope people don't listen to that advice; it's beyond dumb.

It reminds me of a line on Malcolm in the Middle (a TV show I wrote tie-in books for, which would probably put me so far below this guy it's not even worth mentioning!)

Don't worry. He still thinks its *okay* for you to write Malcom in the Middle tie-in novels. You might even enjoy it. In fact some of his best *friends*...

The Goosebumps thing is particularly symptomatic I think, because I'm pretty sure Goosebumps and the Point line did more for child literacy than any six government initiatives you'd care to name.

I was about to say that 12 year olds are more likely to be reading Point Horror than Goosebumps. Nobody is more likely to denounce the one line as being childish and embrace the other as being cool and grown up than a 12 year old who's convinced that they're basically an adult now that their age is comfortably in the double figures. ;)

Plus, Goosebumps are actually really compelling. I've read some in the last couple of years, and would happily read them again if I had some around (ideal casual reading when staying at someone's house, for example). Quite often you can tell what's going to happen, but the writing is usually interesting enough to keep you engaged anyway, and with enough twists to make it not quite predictable. Some of those twist endings wouldn't disgrace those "proper" books PC presumably reads.

I can't really write (anything) while there's words in the same language around - TV, music, radio... I start writing down what I'm hearing. Oddly it doesn't seem to happen with a different language. Yes, I realise that makes me, too, sound like a pretentious smug git.

And surely you can get the same pleasure-of-recognition from, say, references to Godfather or The Simpsons as from references to Wuthering Heights?

Or even better, references to The Godfather and The Simpsons...

You found paradise in America, you had a good trade, you made a good living. The police protected you and there were courts of law. And you didn't need a friend like me. But, uh, now you come to me, and you say: "Don Corleone, give me justice." But you don't ask with respect. You don't offer friendship. You don't even think to call me Godfather. Instead, you come into my house on the day my daughter is to be married, and you ask me to do murder for money. Worst. Friend. Evar.

Oh by the way, if you think your writing is more important than your kids, that doesn't make you a serious writer, it makes you a fucking shitty parent. And if you want to do something important and beautiful and true then, well maybe I'm old fashioned but I actually think raising your kids properly is every bit as valuable as winning the Booker.

Hear, hear. I remember the preface to one of Tolkien's books (I thought it was Roverandom, but I can't find it in there) where he talks about sitting down to write in the afternoon, with the thought that he had to do this to support his children, who were at that moment playing outside. 'Of course," he continued, "I went out to play."

Despite the fact that I know I'm not responsible, as an Australian I still felt a twinge of shame while reading Carey's foolish and patronising letter. What an awful way to "congratulate" people for finishing NaNo. It comes across as a rather poorly-disguised attempt to pour scorn and bitterness on young writers. I have read a couple of his books and I would probably call them... clever, well-made, and Not My Thing. Sometimes, if someone's a creative genius, I find myself inclined to turn a blind eye (or at least, a soft-focus eye) to their faults. But in that regard, Peter, you're not quite at the right "level".

It is kinda sad if you think of him slavering over some part of his book and the text is actually very good, but he has only written it ten times and he has to do it again and again, no matter that it's actually making the text worse, not better.

I wonder if Carey evaluates all fiction according to some canon and based on genre, in the style of early 20th century literary criticism. So that, for example Rabelais is a work of great literature, but books by Terry Pratchett cannot be, because genre only applies to more modern works and fantasy humour is lower writing in any case, if done by contemporaries.

RE:TV

I'm pretty sure William Gibson was on LSD for most of the time that he was writing Neuromancer.

On what basis do you say that? "The sky was the colour of a television, tuned to a dead channel" might be fancy but it's not outright hallucinatory.

I've read a lot of Burroughs, and I've read even more Philip K Dick. You could tell when they were on something. I've never had the impression that Gibson was high when writing the Sprawl trilogy. It's all a bit too logical and the cause-and-effect are a bit too visible - they're too clearly the product of an ordered mind working according to a plan.

In fact, Gibson's blog entry of the 9th January 2003 confirms it. He'd had LSD experiences, but he never touched it during the writing of Neuromancer, and he doesn't advocate writing whilst high. Which seems a fair point; directly fucking with your brain chemistry seems like a far bigger distraction than TV.

@Arthur B

I was just working off an impression I got from "No Maps for These Territories." The documentary makers made it seem like the drugs were integral, my mistake.

Okay, coming in late once again ...

Stephen King said something similar about TV in his On Writing (which, despite recent evidence is otherwise pretty good), I think because he felt it sucks up way too much of your time (it's been a couple years since I read it).

Holly Lisle has also said something about not watching TV on her website, but I think that may've been just part of her explanation of how she manages to write full time and raise a family at the same time.

On the other hand, the main character of Melina Marchetta's Saving Francesca (review pending) is a Buffy the Vampire Slayer fan. Now I could be wrong, but I take this to mean that Melina Marchetta has more than a passing acquaintance with Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

Let me just make this perfectly clear. If my deductions are correct, that means that Melina freaking Marchetta watches TV, and probably even for pleasure.

Any further arguments that you can't be a “serious writer” if you watch TV will be summarily thrown out of court.

(I hope it's acceptable for me to post this so late...although I suppose it can always be deleted)

I'd never heard of this site or your articles before stumbling in from a Deathly Hallows spork...and then I kept reading for a good twenty articles last night, mostly because I find I agree with quite a lot you say.

I must confess though, I like reading those "awful self-help style books" not so much for any advice, but simply because I enjoy reading them. Or sometimes for the exercises because I can't consider myself anything but a 'student' writer. I still think like a student. But the books are--well, actually, now that I think about it, aren't fun so much anymore because I've outgrown them mostly, but I never did read them to "Learn To Write"

Hiya!

We generally don't object to people commenting on old articles (we're a stubborn lot around here, so it's not like our opinions change much).

I absolutely see the appeal of "How To Write X" type books, if only because they tend to be handy collections of conventions and tropes, so can be fun in roughly the same way TVTropes is fun.

But yeah, I really don't think they're the way to become a successful novelist.