Being an author type fellow, people are often taken aback when I tell them that I simply don't read a lot of fiction recreationally. This is not to say that I haven't read a lot. I have. Much of it was school work. Much of the for-fun reading occurred before I started writing in a serious way.

My position is this: I write because I have stories in my head that simply must be written down. Not writing them down disrupts my life because of this Muse-fueled necessity of putting the words down. What comes out is sometimes just a germ of a story yet to be fulfilled. Other times it develops into something surprising that I do enjoy reading any number of times. You see, the things I write are the things that I like to read.

I think that's a tough lesson for any writer to learn. When you first start learning the craft of writing, the nuts-and-bolts bits and pieces of how to craft a story regardless of any talent, that takes a lot of your concentration. Issues of plot, of structure, of pacing, of scores more tedious little necessity that form the foundation of any accessible writing must take precedence over the content itself.

Starting writers also stumble on the block of what to write. Commercial vs genre. Drawn from life vs purely imagined. Many suggest that you should write in the genre that you most enjoy reading. I confess that I do this myself. However, there is a danger here. While writing in the creative area you are most familiar allows you to avoid the inevitable cliches that abound in any established genre or sub-genre, it can also tie you into convention...of not trying to break out of what is comfortable about the genre. I'm not saying that either is good or bad, but it is something to be mindful of.

More problematic is writing outside of your comfort zone. I find that I get two sorts of mind from editors and publishers about this. One will find a story original while another will find the same story hackneyed. In this case, writing in a genre you aren't familiar with is very problematic.

I find that both methods are valid. I think the young writer should try the second, first. Why? It stretches the mind. It forces the creator to taste an unfamiliar dish. Some tastes, after all, are acquired. On the other hand, and I think this is more common, it makes the writer happier when they return to what they are comfortable with. Plus, they are now armed with new tools in the toolbox; tools that were purchased with the sweat of exploring the unfamiliar.

But what does that have to do with reading or not reading? I can only speak really solidly about myself, but I find that reading others work doesn't so much as inform mine as contaminate it. I like my writing to come from me. That said, when I'm not currently developing or writing a story, I will occasionally crack open a book. While some of it is current, and some from masters of my genre, I often favor the classics. There's something pure about an art form that hasn't been ravaged by time and countless repetition.

I think that it's important to note that when I'm having to pass the time (in waiting rooms, typically), the stories I tend to read on my PDA are the ones I've written. Even when they are unpolished, they are in the style that I've come to enjoy reading.

Some like prose in various shades of purple, some like it terse and to the point, others like stuttering imagery that forces the reader to maintain focus and immersion. Me? I write, and like reading, stories that could be spoken around the campfire. I like there to be a very subtle poetic flow to the text while not sacrificing efficiency. Mostly though, I want the stories to be speakable. Perhaps, in this regard, I'm actually more of a storyteller than a writer. I can live with that. One thing's for sure...I'm definitely not a voracious reader. Why should I be? That's not my job.

Perhaps the fact that I'm other things--artist, computer guy, etc.--also takes away from the free time that other writers often can call on for reading. It just so happens that I have many endeavors that require a lot of focus as well as a smattering of creativity. Perhaps I would be a better writer if I read more. Maybe not. I simply don't have that kind of time very often. What time I do have for reading I mostly spend on reading material written by family, friends, colleagues, and yes, sometimes the newbe. I find that I get more than enough satisfaction from this.

So...reading vs writing. I think that given the time it takes to write well, and the degree of immersion the writer needs to create good verisimilitude, sort of necessitates a throttling back of the reading. Perhaps, once you are established, you can read more...but then, maybe you would now be just "phoning in" your stories and not devoting the sort of time to them as you must.

(Major caveat: I feel that I can say all of this because I did read quite a bit in the first quarter century of life. If you are a young writer, read a lot. Learn what it is that you like. Look at how authors you like create their stories. Listen to the "voice" of their stories. You need to learn. You learn by doing, yes, but you also learn by example. The examples are out there...exploit them.)