Young Writers Society

Some works we read are very impressive, to the point and full of eloquence.

How do writers write so great?

Do they write drafts after drafts and finally finalize?

Or afters years of experience and a vast vocabulary, does their masterpiece just pour out onto paper with all the elegance, great use of language, a poetic touch and great thoughts?

What do you think? Please share your experiences and techniques.

Luck

I know a lot of professional and amazing writers, and I find that usually, their best works are products of a lot of different things.

Practice is key, as we all know. Never have I heard of someone just waking up one day and deciding to write, only to find they have an extraordinary talent. That just doesn't happen, at least not that I'm aware of. Practice makes perfect—we've all heard it before, and it's true. Authors that have written books deemed "masterpieces" are only that good because they practiced and practiced, most likely for several years. Decades, even.

Rewriting and editing are also extremely important, and sadly steps that are usually overlooked. We all know practice makes perfect, but I've never heard the saying, "rewriting makes perfect." XD

I feel bad because a lot of young hopefuls think that their first draft is automatically going to be perfect and flawless, and then when they're told it's not, a lot of them will give up on writing. The problem is that many of us fall in love with what we've written and are unable to see any faults with it—and there's usually lots in a first draft, particularly if you're new to writing.

Rewriting and editing not only fixes typos and little repetitive mistakes you may have made, but also helps with flow and wording and all of the "bigger issues." I guarantee you that all "masterpieces" have been slaved over and rewritten multiple times. I've even heard of writers taking years and years to rewrite their finished pieces, until they're left with a story that's almost entirely different from the first version they finished.

And that's good!

I'd like to say masterpieces can be written within a first draft and without the hassle of rewriting, but I've yet to meet a published and successful author that's said this is so.

Writing is hard. And writing a masterpiece requires so much dedication and work that it's pretty rare—I mean, look at all the books that are published compared to the small few that are declared masterpieces.

I think some authors are great enough to write a brilliant first draft. But there's always room for improvement.

Luck does play a part, but there are so many other factors! I can boil it down to a few I think.
Starting with luck, I suppose. One can't be a writer if one doesn't know how to write. I'm thinking of people like Shakespeare who was born in a time where so many were illiterate. It was fairly luckily that he was taught to write at all. Of course, if you go on from there, getting published is a stroke of luck and getting the right people to read your book is also good fortune. However, both of those can be achieved with some really great networking as well.

An author also has to have a relatable story. I think of Charles Dickens and how he used setting that would be familiar to his readers. Of course, readers can relate through characters and plot as well.

One must also have a meaning that resounds with readers. Again, Dickens comes to mind but also Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin. Those are two rather revolutionary examples, both authors here are arguing for serious reforms, but I don't think it had to be society changing. C.S. Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia harnessed Christian metaphors that weren't trying to change the doctrine but the fact remains that they resounded within many readers.

Originality is also a must. Every work isn't entirely unique, but an author can certainly try. Tolkien stands out since he's kinda considered the first of his kind.

So, luck, a relatable story, a meaningful message, and originality are what come to mind when I think of masterpieces.

Pfft. Completely only read one question. I highly doubt anyone who's written a masterpiece has done it with only one try, and I'm fairly sure they didn't start out that way. Often times if you look at the greats who have published a lot of work, they get better as time goes on. Arguably, Shakespeare is like that. So, as Lucrezia said, lots of practice and lots of drafts go into masterpieces.

Heh. The thing with masterpieces aren't some sort of difficult sub-genre which people can just decide to write. Mostly, I'm pretty sure, masterpieces happen to books their writers loved enough to give them a lot of care and attention, along with some talent of course. They're also subjective - I've read some 'masterpieces of (insert genre)' which I found completely meh.. And I've read some 'just books' which were definite masterpieces for me. Sure, I've read some masterpieces which I truly found to be masterpieces, but the point is still that there isn't a general recipe to masterpiece-making.
It's a stage of evolution of a sort, rather than the form a piece comes out of the quill c:

Some absolutely amazing works disappear without ever being noticed no matter how much work was put into them, while absolute trash ends up catching the public's eye, treated as gems, its all a matter of luck, finding something that catches and then milking it.

Zolen wrote:Some absolutely amazing works disappear without ever being noticed no matter how much work was put into them, while absolute trash ends up catching the public's eye, treated as gems, its all a matter of luck, finding something that catches and then milking it.

Yeah, like dystopian worlds where the young people are forced to kill each other at the government's whims. Oh, and vampire love stories.

I remember when Twilight first came out and my reaction was, so what? I didn't think much of it until I became aware that everyone and their brother was writing vampire love stories and fallen angel love stories and all that supernatural romance stuff.

A true masterpiece, at the very least, should be unique.

@ComicalCrafty, that's true, but no one treats Twilight as a masterpiece. Most people make fun of it because they know it's just some teenaged girl's guilty pleasure (this coming from a teenaged girl... lol). Even the Hunger Games hasn't gotten the "masterpiece treatment," though it has fared slightly better than Twilight (at least insofar as the writing is concerned—I've heard it's better-written than the Twilight books).

I do find it interesting that some masterpieces are written in a very messy way. I've read some books that have been praised around the world and are renown works of literature... and yet, the technical stuff is all over the map! Run-on sentences, poor punctuation, et cetera. And not because of stylistic reasons, either.

I think it's the story that really determines a masterpiece. Most books that have gone down in history as being amazing or spectacular have really strong stories and characters, even if the technical stuff is lacking. At the end of the day, it's the plot and the characters that matter.

@Lucrezia--

Lucrezia wrote:@ComicalCrafty, that's true, but no one treats Twilight as a masterpiece. Most people make fun of it because they know it's just some stupid teenaged girl's guilty pleasure (this coming from a teenaged girl... lol). Even the Hunger Games hasn't gotten the "masterpiece treatment," though it has faired slightly better than Twilight (most people say the actual writing in it is stronger than the writing in the Twilight books).

Hehe. I've always regarded Suzanne Collins as a respectable, strong writer who's genuinely good at her trade. I enjoyed the Gregor the Overlander series very much, but I didn't even read HG before its rise in popularity because I felt the content didn't seem right for me. Still, I don't hold the hype over the series due to the movies against her.

I do find it interesting that some masterpieces are written terribly. I've read some books that have been praised around the world and are renown works of literature... and yet, the technical stuff is all over the map! Run-on sentences, poor punctuation, et cetera. And not because of stylistic reasons, either.

Ah, then those must not be true masterpieces. They're just what everybody wants you to think are masterpieces!

I think it's the story that really determines a masterpiece. Most books that have gone down in history as being amazing or spectacular have really strong stories and characters, even if the technical stuff is lacking. At the end of the day, it's the plot and the characters that matter.

I get what you mean, though. I've read excellent, thought-provoking stories that were poorly conveyed by authors who lacked the right magic touch. I tend to get thrown off and turned away by intentional poor grammar from the narrator themselves. If they're going to quote the spoken words of other characters, okay fine; but please, don't make the narrator talk like they ain't been learned to write and cipher 'coz they didn't listen real good in skool.


But believe me, I feel a similar way about the books that win Newbery medals. How are elementary school kids expected to hone the proper language and grammar skills required of them if they're being assigned books that are loaded with intentional, "stylistic" errors of all kinds. And some of the books' plots were just plain sick, like Jacob Have I Loved, for example. I don't know how that book was deemed a "distinguished contribution to children's literature".

@ComicalCrafty, yes and yes to all that. I'm reading Flowers in the Attic right now and, while I don't think it's ever been considered a masterpiece, I was expecting it to be written a bit better considering the hype I've heard about it. Run-ons, typos, repetitiveness, more errors than I can name. It makes me want to pull out a red pen and start correcting all the little problems I see. XD

I really should check out the Hunger Games series to see what I think of the writing. I tend to veer away from popular books like that, for some reason, and go for the "less mainstream books" (hence Flowers in the Attic), but I really ought to see what all the buzz is about...

@Lucrezia -

Lucrezia wrote:@ComicalCrafty, yes and yes to all that. I'm reading Flowers in the Attic right now and, while I don't think it's ever been considered a masterpiece, I was expecting it to be written a bit better considering the hype I've heard about it. Run-ons, typos, repetitiveness, more errors than I can name. It makes me want to pull out a red pen and start correcting all the little problems I see. XD

LOL! I always want to do the same thing, except that my local librarians would kill me. XD

I really should check out the Hunger Games series to see what I think of the writing. I tend to veer away from popular books like that, for some reason, and go for the "less mainstream books" (hence Flowers in the Attic), but I really ought to see what all the buzz is about...

I also find myself avoiding the mainstream, popular books. I want to be able to form an objective opinion of them without the constant peer pressure to think they're "cool". I think a lot of people fall trap to that.

I hadn't heard of Flowers in the Attic until you mentioned it - what's it about?

From what I've seen, although I agree about the luck factor, I feel that most of luck comes from the time period in which the book is released and an opportunity to break the glass ceiling.

For example, Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice became big because it was during a time period when it was frowned upon for women to write, there are topics about marriage that were unconventional, and this is right around the time of Romaticism writing that is still dominant today. Other popular examples are The Graduate and Catcher in the Rye. Both of which were symbols of rebellion and came about in eras that emphasized on 'fighting against The Man'. Their fame is very similar to the idea of Elvis Presley's devilish 'pelvis rotations'.

(Love Flowers in the Attic, btw. It's about three kids, whose father dies, and their mother has resolved to move back into her parent's house, having previously cut ties to marry the kids' father. The kids are raised in the attic and are unable to see their mother. Read the rest. It's great. ;D)

@ComicalCrafty, it's about a twelve-year-old girl and her siblings—an older brother and five-year-old twins—that are taken to live with their grandparents after their father dies. Basically, they're locked away in this old attic by their evil grandmother and have to hide there from their grandfather, who doesn't know they exist... I'm doing an awful job of explaining it, but it's kind of a complicated story to get into, and I don't want to completely get off track on this forum.

It's a good book beyond the technical issues (which are difficult to overlook at first, but you get used to them). The descriptions are absolutely lovely and the storyline itself really sucks you in. There's also some pacing problems, though—it moves along ridiculously quickly, to the point of where it's kind of hard to keep up—but otherwise, it is a fun read. I already know how the series will end because I cheated and read some spoilers online beforehand, and there's several big twists including...



...among other things. Really twisted stuff. Which is why I like it: none of the books meant for my age group today (like the Hunger Games and Twilight) are quite so... colorful. Obviously the Hunger Games is twisted in its own way, but not in the ways I find personally interesting. But then again, I have weird tastes.

Sorry for hijacking your forum with my Flowers in the Attic tangent, @dhyan. I'll go away now. *creeps back into shadows*

Thanks @rawrafied and @Lucrezia for the info. I think because of the spoiler, I'm not sure if I'll read it. Otherwise, it sounds like a very compelling storyline.

Masterpiece is a relative term, I guess. A book that a hundred critics might call a masterpiece may not be a masterpiece to you and vice versa.

A masterpiece just happens, I guess.

(Sorry if my views weren't that helpful xD)