Of 113 answering, 55 have used neither class, course or book, 56 have
tried one or more of these, and 2, saying only that they took no course,
are probably to be included with those having tried none of the three.
Of the 56 who have tried one or more of the three, 40 give definite
reply as to whether, in the elementary stages, they derived benefit, as
follows: much benefit, 6; benefit, 4; some benefit, 5; total 15. No
benefit, 11; some harm, 1; harm, 2; much harm, 1; total, 15. There are
10 who state they derived "little benefit" and this presumably is to be
taken as a negative answer. In any case, out of 40 there are 25 who
derived little or no benefit in the elementary stages of learning their
art, and 4 of the 25 state that they derived actual harm instead of
benefit.
Add the fact that if the remaining 16 of the 56 who have used one or
more of the three derived any benefit they did not take the trouble to
say so, which would indicate that, if there were any benefit at all, it
was not a considerable one. Add the additional damning fact that of the
113 answering the general question 55 (probably 57) have not found it
necessary to success to use any of the three. Out of 113 writers only 15
claim any benefit, in even the elementary stages, from classes, courses
or books purporting to teach the writing of fiction! Ninety-eight
against fifteen!
That testimony fills me with joy. Yes, I've written a book myself on
fiction writing, but it had not been published when this questionnaire
was answered, it was written largely as an earnest protest against
present methods of teaching fiction and a chief purpose of this
questionnaire and of this present book giving its results was to get
proof in facts from a final source that present teaching methods, as
practised in all but a tiny handful of cases, are badly in need of
revolutionary revision.
My feeling in the matter was not due to theorizing. For twenty years my
life-business has been the handling of the results of those methods as
they pour in in the form of submitted manuscripts across the editorial
desk. For twenty years it has been my business to deal with the authors
and would-be authors who write those manuscripts, to try to find their
strong points and their weak points and to ferret out the causes and the
remedies. They have worked with me to this end and have talked frankly.
Even if there had been only the manuscripts themselves to look at, it
would have been evident enough that there was some general cause, other
than the writers' inabilities, for the wide-spread and persistent
weaknesses that were making most of those manuscripts unavailable or at
least far below the standards possible to their authors.
If only half of our 113 successful writers have been touched by these
methods, remember that the successful writers are only some ten per
cent. of those who write and that the remaining ninety per cent. are
more prone to turn to formal books and teaching. The man or woman with
pronounced native ability is more likely to hew his own way or go to
first courses, particularly after examining the outside helps available.
Do not forget, too, that these prevalent weaknesses in manuscripts are
due not only to positive faults in teaching methods, but to the lack of
really helpful, constructive advice and guiding.
A chief bad result of these teaching methods will be taken up in our
consideration of the question on the value of technique. To take up all
the bad results in detail would fill more space than the nature of this
volume warrants its devoting to the subject.
While only 15 derived benefit from these methods in the elementary
stages, still fewer--10--found benefit in the more advanced stages. One
might expect the falling off to be still more pronounced until one
remembers that these books and courses, whatever their general faults,
do cover a vast number of specific points and that in the discussion of
these points a writer who has already built his own foundations can
often find suggestion and information of decided value to him without
suffering from the general faults. None of our answerers reports harm,
in advanced stages, from these methods and none reports failure to get
benefit in the advanced stages specifically, though many simply give a
"no" to the general question of benefit.
Considering class, course and book separately, of 13 reporting
definitely on class experience 7 state benefit of varying degree in
elementary stages, though one of these expresses doubt; 1, "little"; 4,
none, 1 of these reporting harm. Only one reports on advanced stages--no
benefit.
On correspondence courses, 8 state experience; 3, benefit; 1, probably
some; 1, "little"; 3, none. This as to elementary stages. On advanced
stages only 1 reports--some benefit.
On books 40 report. On elementary stages, 35; benefit, 14; possibly, 1;
little, 10; no benefit, 7; harm, 3. On advanced stages, 10, including
some of the 35 reporting also on elementary stages; benefit, 3; little,
3; no benefit, 4.
Tabulating negatively, 78 of the 113 specifically report no class
experience; 73 no correspondence course; 47 no book. As already stated,
55--or 57--make a blanket report of using none of the three.
Unfortunately the questionnaire did not include a specific question on
benefit derived from magazines devoted to writers and their art. In
spite of this omission three or four voluntarily reported benefit
therefrom in elementary stages and no one volunteered to report harm or
lack of benefit. If reports had been asked for on these magazines, I
believe it would have been far more favorable than on books, classes or
courses.
These magazines use many articles by writers telling their own
experiences, difficulties, solutions. The people best equipped to teach
others are those who have themselves learned how--who have accomplished,
not merely theorized. Each is handicapped as a teacher by the facts that
his methods and principles are naturally those he has found best adapted
to his own individual case, that the needs of no two individuals are
exactly alike and that his methods may be for some others altogether
useless or even harmful. But in these magazines where many writers are
heard from these very differences appear and the intelligent reader can
pick and choose with profit. Most of all, he learns that no one rule
applies to all writers alike.