Can You Teach A Writer How to Write?

Yes! (and) No!

This is a common and interesting debate, and often carries a touch of snobbery about it - on the anti side that is, which doesn't automatically make the anti side incorrect. But, is it?

First, what does it mean: teach writing? Obviously, we are all taught to write, hopefully while still young. We are taught grammar and spelling, at least the basics, and punctuation. We learn to 'read' writing, not the content, but the method and purpose. All this is done at school. It's often elementary, but it stands us in good stead for the most part. This said, it is not the real subject of the debate.

Even when I've taught writing (to adults), this can be one of the many topics we discuss, and is often raised by a student. Some genuinely want to know. Some want to know if their investment is generally worth it. Some want to know when they can expect to be published, become famous and rich.

This is where the debate really exists. Most students of writing will improve some can't, some won't for a variety of reasons; but that's probably a topic for a different article.

I started writing at age six, that is to say, I knew from that age that who I am is a writer. I have a natural aptitude for it, have always been good at English classes and was a natural reader, as well as a vociferous one. I wrote my first two novels at age 12 and my first play at 15. I was regularly moved to advanced English classes and, when I couldn't get my hands on anything else, spent hours reading the dictionary! (Yes, I know, tragic.)

Yet, when I decided to undertake a tertiary Professional Writing and Editing Diploma, I was surprised at how little I knew!

One way to look at this debate is to look at why people come to writing classes. Often, there are young people filling in time between leaving secondary education and deciding what they want to do with their lives. Some young students are there because they had to take something, often due to family pressure/expectation, and it seemed like the soft option. Older people are there because they already write or know they want to. Not all but most want to be published, and some want to make it their career and come with dreams of wealth, fame and longevity - often an unrealistic ambition or belief.

Obviously, there is an ongoing need to teach grammar and punctuation, and sometimes spelling - not an easy subject to teach. One of the first modern rules of spelling is not to rely on spell check on your computer, because there are many words with optional meanings and spellings, plus the spell check will miss a word automatically adjusted by your word processor, which might be the wrong choice altogether. There are rules to spelling, but many exceptions, which can be confusing as to when to apply. An example of this is the "i before e except after c" rule. That exception has it's own exceptions.

Why are there so many exceptions in English? It's because the English language is made up of a variety of other languages rather than having all it's own roots and origins and derivatives. This came about because the Roman's invaded before a single language had become widespread across all the peoples of the British Isles, and like all invaders, proceeded to ban the local languages. This lasted for hundreds of years, so it's no wonder that most of the basics were long gone! Then, there are the wars and European rulers at various periods where the King's own native language was the one spoken. This resulted in a 'Bastard' language, that is, one without a 'proper' parentage.

Therefore, the one rule with English is, always check with a reputable and suitable dictionary. If in Australia, use an Australian dictionary; if in America, use an American dictionary; if in the UK, use a British dictionary. There are differences between all three in many instances. You'll see some here if you are not Australian, as I am. For example, I include the letter u in the word labour. This isn't done in American, it is in the UK. Yet, if I'm talking about the political party which is currently in government here, the spelling is Labor, but in the UK, the political party uses the Labour spelling. Confusing, isn't it?

This is a little off topic specificity, though. So, back to the real issue: Teaching Writers to Write.

What does that mean? It means many things, the main ones being (and not necessarily in this order):

• Structure
• Characterisation (note the Aus usage of 's' not 'z' as in US usage)
• Language
• Style
• Plot
• Dialogue
• Scenes and Setting
• Conflict
• Drafts and Rewriting (this is more important than most students realise)
• Titles
• Point of View
• Voice
  
  

Voice, as a topic, is more to define what Voice is than teach the student how to get it. Every writer has their own Voice and this is definitely not something you can teach. However, you can help them recognise and develop it - which is more about confidence than anything else.

Each of the above subjects can then be broken down into a number of segments, e.g.:

Characterisation:

• Who is the Protagonist?
• What is their Name?
• What made them who they are?
• What and Why is their Story interesting or relevant?
• Who should tell it?
• Who and/or What are they up against?

These things and more can be covered in a short course or can be a full Degree course, with many areas available for post-graduate study. Then, there are the specialist areas, e.g. Playwriting, Film Scripts, Radio, Performance, Poetry, Novel, Short Story, Non-Fiction, Articles, etc. Much of what is taught in general fiction writing is applicable to non-fiction, and then some.

Some writers never have trouble finding a subject to write about, or a story to tell, a character to explore, or an idea to express. Others, often good writers, find it difficult. How to find ideas and subjects can take up a whole lesson on its own. It includes how to develop from a basic idea, as well, including ways to go about turning a phrase, sentence, news headline, snatch of conversation, instant impressions (on people, music, scenery, words, etc.) into a fully structured, plotted and developed story.

These are all things that can be taught. There is far more than that which can be taught about writing, including the study of famous writers, famous (or not so famous) novels, the breakdown of any piece of writing to see why and how it works or does not work.

One of the most valuable learning tools for writing is workshopping. This is when you present your work for discussion and feedback. It can be a painful, even destructive exercise if not handled maturely and purposely by the teacher but, when done in a constructive environment, can be the most relevant, important and developmental part of learning to write. Even the most famous and successful writers have trusted people who vet the manuscript along the way; just look at their dedication and thank you pages!

Workshopping brings perspective; helps define what works and what doesn't; if the characters are believable, interesting, worth staying with, speak in different voices; help discover and overcome cliches; if the story being read is the same as what is being written - believe me, there is often a discrepancy between the two! - and much more. It also, and especially, hones our 'public' muscles, because if we are putting our writing into the public arena, we are going to be scrutinised and criticised, even if we make it to the best seller's list.

There are all the above reasons and more for why the answer to the question posed in the title is Yes. So, what about the No?

What can't be taught to a writer? The intrinsic artistic talent that makes a writer exceptional. Literature, like painting, sculpture, music, dance, etc is art. You cannot teach a person to create art. A good piece of writing is not necessarily, or automatically art, either. Art is one of those innate, indefinable things that some people have and most do not. You can teach skill and craft, both of which are important and necessary to success, but that's not art. Some writers have an innate alacrity with story telling; some with language; some with presence; some with all of these. Even so, this does not automatically mean art.

Either people have it or they don't. It cannot be taught.

But, if that innate something is not crafted and honed, remains untrained, taken for granted, left to its own devices, then it is likely to flounder. Not always, obviously. Many successful and great writers never attend a writing course. Some, most, do have mentors, advisers, good old fashioned editors. Like most artists, however, writers need some training. Yet, no-one questions that artists need training. Da Vinci, Mozart and Bach, Margot Fonteyn - all were trained and honed in their craft. All dedicated their lives to perfecting their art - something many writers don't want to do. They were all taught their craft, (yes, even Mozart, although he was a child prodigy) and we both expect and accept that. They had innate artistic gifts, obviously, but not left to grow wild or turn to seed.

It is the same for writers, great or not so great.

I wonder if, one day, it will be acknowledged without question that the answer is always Yes and No, just as it is for all artists.

In the meantime, I shall enjoy the times I teach writing, especially when a student has any type of success. By success, I don't necessarily mean fame and fortune; I mean learning to unleash their innate talent, to trust it, to love it, to want to pursue it and always take it to the next level. That's what real success is.