How to steal from great writing
why the prize is hidden in plain sight
This essay was originally a subsection in the draft of my previous one, Try to make your process of writing more inspiring than reading other’s work . I decided to separate and build this idea as its own letter. The context is not dependent but can tie back to the ideas in the other essay, so I’m going to consider it part 2.
For the majority of mediums, we need not be original from the start, but we can instead copy our way into great skill.
Many musicians begin their careers covering their favorite songs.
By attempting performances of the song, it forces them to imitate the skills and the form required to produce the pleasant sounds we hear in the end.
We can practice most physical arts, music, and sports this way because the final product(performance) is a target which leaves clues to how it was done. Learners get better by iterating on their own attempts to replicate the model performance and by this comparison, they get immediate and (somewhat) accurate feedback.
There’s a few things going on here.
1. The model gives the learner a target.
I want to climb like Magnus Midtbo
I want to draw pages from Berserk.
I want to play Free Bird because I’m a sadist.
2. There is a skill to be practiced within the model. A challenge.
In order to climb like Magnus, I have to practice climbing techniques that he uses.
I can try to reproduce earlier drawings by Miura and work up to Berserk panels.
I can print out a music sheet and practice the Free Bird solo.
3. Proximity to the model is a reliable indicator of skill.
I physically can’t climb routes that Magnus climbs without some demonstration of skill. If I fall a little short, I’m still a good climber.
When I compare my drawings to Miura’s for feedback, I probably won’t ever match them, but if I could, I would be an undeniably good artist.
I’m giving up on Free Bird.
This strategy is useless for writers.
Words aren’t a good target.
Writing isn’t valued by the words one uses per se, but by the message they carry.
Words are just tools for communication. The skill of writing is the fluency with those tools to produce more sophisticated or artistic messages.
Therefore, there is no development nor indication of skill in reproducing another’s words.
A 10 year-old could re-produce a perfect copy of a beautiful poem on his first try. Yet he could have no clue what it means, nor any simulation of a process which would improve his skill.
Despite the poem being worthy of winning a competition, the 10 year-old is no better at writing poetry. Sorry McConaughey.1
Instead of the typical cycle we’re allowed: aim for target, improve skills by attempts to hit the target, indication that we’re good if we can get close.
Writers can try to copy whatever we want, but we’ll have zero improvement to show for it.
(Obviously, using a model for feedback isn’t the only way we acquire skills. Volume is still going to be the greatest teacher a writer has.)
Yet there’s more I want to distill from great works of writing than the quotes or messages they carry. I want to break down the skill of an author and how to model it. We just need to place the right target. We must aim to re-produce the fluency with which a great author articulates themself.
We can update the method to fit writers:
Set a target which allows us to model the conceptual skill of an author rather than going straight for the final product.
Let’s learn from a writer who did it and later became famous for his skill.
Benjamin Franklin’s was critiqued harshly by his father when he was young. So, seeking more of that sweet sweet fatherly approval he set out to improve his writing. He recounts in his autobiography how he would learn from his favorite magazine.
I thought the writing excellent, and wished, if possible, to imitate it. … I took some of the papers, and, making short hints of the sentiment in each sentence, laid them by a few days, and then, without looking at the book, tried to complete the papers again.
Ben had the keen idea to remove his access to the answer sheet in order to study. By making sure he’d forgotten the exact words used and only worked off of the hints he gave himself, he could re-produce the writing in a way that developed his skill. This gave him insulation from the wrong target and allowed him to do the work of thinking for himself.
He set a good target to aim for, A challenge that forced him to develop his skills,(which he couldn’t cheat) and still had the benefit of an inspiring benchmark to follow.
The concepts or style of the author is the proper target; not their words.
Re-produce the concept (what is communicated) using your own words.
Re-produce how it is communicated (structure, style, tone, whatever) for a different concept.
It’s a tight line to walk using our inspirations to learn in a medium for which letting others think for us is genuinely easy. It’s a trap we have to actively avoid if we want to do our own work and improve our skills.
Perhaps this is why it can be such a daunting medium. Rather than being able to fail and grow within the shadow of their betters. Writers must stumble along and grow as themselves right from the start.
But that’s the beauty, isn’t it?
Thanks for reading,
Keaton.
P.S. If you like what I explored in this essay and missed out on the last issue, be sure to check out part 1 here.
McConaughey’s mother suggested he plagiarize a poem in the 5th grade for a contest at the school. He won. Writing is a bit unreliable to show skill in this regard. There’s no way to tell if the work has been thought through or copied. I think it’s a hilarious story, it’s also a perfect example to show just how easy it is to subvert the goal of “I want to write better” with “I want approval for good writing” This is why plagiarism is such an offense to english teachers, it’s screwing up the whole point.