There are exceptions as David pointed out, but I believe the reasons are a combination of challenges for an overwhelming percentage of young would-be writers. Lifetime experiences and imagination (expressing it on a page) are among them no doubt. I would also suggest a vocabulary that hasn't fully matured yet and is still growing through the natural progression of aging. In addition, the patience, dedication and commitment that is needed to complete a novel or long piece is something that a young person would struggle with. They are still in the middle of discovering, understanding and becoming the person they will be. Think of a young person's life and all that entails. The distractions are many: the various school activities, friends, school, sports, boyfriends, girlfriends and on and on.
In television animation, there are many fictional children who achieve many things. But because so many of these programs have children as the target audience, this is probably a bit of "fan service" to make the shows attractive to them. In reality, writings is developed in stages via home life and school, and young children are not expected to write to professional standards unless they are actively encouraged positively or negatively. And this active encouragement may backfire and prevent them from continuing to write.
If teens need an example of one of their own who can write and publish professionally at their age, I would suggest Canada children's/YA master Gordon Korman. His first novel, "This Can't Be Happening At MacDonald Hall", was published when he was 17 years old, and he hasn't let up since.
You started a very interesting argument, Kern! I'd personally put both imagination and experience on the same pedestal. I feel that experience adds layers to the imagination, helping it evolve as you grow up. If imagination is the soul of your writing, experience is its flesh. While I agree that we hardly see a child write a "masterpiece", I'd also argue that the roots of the creation of that "masterpiece" emerge from our childhood.
Another interesting question would be if writers with troubled childhood write more profoundly. Writer P.L. Travers, according to popular belief, created the world of Mary Poppins to fill the gaps of her troubled childhood (dead father, depressed mother who threatened suicide and an unstable household). Mary Poppins, in this case, is an imaginary character that adds life to her experience as a child. American Beat poet Allen Ginsberg had a troubled relationship with his mother, which is reflected in many of his popular poems. Shafak has also admitted that she grew up in a dysfunctional family which was difficult. There are numerous examples where a writer's work is a fictional narration of troubled childhood experiences - a quest to relive those experiences in an ideal manner through imagination.
Hmm so much to talk about here, but I think all of your points intersect. Childhood is when our imaginations are most present, most precious, and of course most active. So yes, I agree that once you add experience to that, you have the ingredients for something masterful. But I would caveat that point with "only if you can tap into that creativity as an adult," which I don't believe all adults can. I think writers and creative people in general have a gift of imagination. We're able to see stories and communicate those stories in whatever artistic field speaks most loudly to us. Continuing with that thought process, when our childhoods have been troubled, something happens. It's like our imagination is stuck in time and we are able to access that moment as vividly as a recent memory. My novels, for example, are largely inspired by the most tumultuous time in my life, which is around the time I became a father at 18. It's led to the creation of all of my characters who by no accident happen to be around that age. So yes, I believe trauma can lead to beautiful art, but I do not believe it's necessary for beautiful art, if that makes sense.
Firstly, I LOVE Elif Shafak! I think experience really helps, but imagination is just as important. I remember playwright David Hare once say that he grew up in such a boring little town that he had no choice but to become a writer, in order to imagine a more exciting childhood. I laughed because my case is the opposite. My childhood was too exciting (read, crazy) that the least I could do to cope was to write about it. Who says one is better than the other. And you could have an incredible experience and still not have the creative imagination to write about it would n an engaging way. As for children, they have an incredible wisdom that I often envy! The way they get right to the heart of things… I have too many examples to give when it concerns my daughters. And when I read what they write, I am convinced that they should be the ones writing! Their imagination is not yet destroyed by all this self-conscious inner chatter that can really get in the way. So to answer your question, yes, wh not encourage children to write novels!?
OMG I would love to read anything by your daughters, Imola. A child's imagination is such a gift. And you're right: as important as experience is, it doesn't inspire without imagination.
Christopher Paolini comes to mind: he started writing "Eregon" at the age of 15,, and after his parents self-published the book, he became a NYT bestselling author at the age of 19.
But to your broader question of imagination vs. experience, I'd put far greater weight on the latter. I'm a far better writer now than I was as a teenager, and even better than I was 10, 5, even 1 year ago.
And I don't mean that just in terms of skill. Of course, the more hours we accumulated doing something, the better we get at it. What I mean is that the life experience I accumulate makes me better at telling the stories I tell -- drawing more realistic characters, creating more realistic conflict, etc.
I suspect the same is true of Paolini -- I never actually read "Eregon," but I suspect it's not a work of great literature compared to his more recent works.
Thanks for your great posts! Compared to other Substacks I follow, yours more frequently prompts me to join the discussion!
First, thanks so much for the compliment, Michael. Really glad you feel curious enough to join these discussions.
I wasn't aware of Paolini so thanks for that. I will certainly look into him. Also, breaking writing down so simply by hours accumulated certainly makes the argument for experience. My question to you is this: yes, experience seems to be the necessary ingredient, but how would you weight imagination? Say it's on a 100% scale, what percentage would you allot to imagination?
I'm not sure I would place them on a zero-sum sliding scale like that. I think they are equally important (which I guess, for your question, would equate to a 50/50 proportion). But as a thought experiment, I guess I would say "it depends" (on the genre, or even the specific story).
For example, Paolini is proof that a genre like fantasy (or, more specifically, a story about dragons) can skew high on imagination and low on experience. But a story with more adult themes, or a genre like literary fiction, would probably require a majority percentage of experience.
That makes perfect sense. When imagination is the star, experience skews lower. Yes, I get it. However, many fantasy novels are centered on grand themes about culture, about society, about politics, etc. So that infers some type of experience to write with such nuance.
A really interesting topic for discussion. I agree with both Jim and David. I think it's partly what they have said, plus, I am reminded of something Abraham Maslow wrote about creativity. He said there are two kinds: one is the imnagination and ideas that people have. Given that most people have great imagination and ideas, you'd thiink there would be millions of latter-day Shakespeare's gracing our cultural lives. However, he also believed that there is a secondary level of creativity, which can be summarised as 'staying power', ie the ability to keep plodding away at something, make corrections, discard bits etc etc. On that basis, given the reality of kids' lives plus their stage of development, I think it would be tantamount to a miracle if many children wrote novels. As often is the case, the exceptions prove the rule.
The staying power is such a good description, Terry. And even though I agree with you, don't you still find it curious that we've rarely ever seen child novels? Like super rare if ever.
Yes and no, I suppose. I mean, you do get child prodigies in all sorts of fields, and I have heard of kids of around nine years old writing novels. I'm pretty sure that Jane Austen wrote a novel or part of a novel when she was a teenager. Mind you, I suppose there was nothing much else to do in those days 🤣
There are exceptions as David pointed out, but I believe the reasons are a combination of challenges for an overwhelming percentage of young would-be writers. Lifetime experiences and imagination (expressing it on a page) are among them no doubt. I would also suggest a vocabulary that hasn't fully matured yet and is still growing through the natural progression of aging. In addition, the patience, dedication and commitment that is needed to complete a novel or long piece is something that a young person would struggle with. They are still in the middle of discovering, understanding and becoming the person they will be. Think of a young person's life and all that entails. The distractions are many: the various school activities, friends, school, sports, boyfriends, girlfriends and on and on.
In television animation, there are many fictional children who achieve many things. But because so many of these programs have children as the target audience, this is probably a bit of "fan service" to make the shows attractive to them. In reality, writings is developed in stages via home life and school, and young children are not expected to write to professional standards unless they are actively encouraged positively or negatively. And this active encouragement may backfire and prevent them from continuing to write.
If teens need an example of one of their own who can write and publish professionally at their age, I would suggest Canada children's/YA master Gordon Korman. His first novel, "This Can't Be Happening At MacDonald Hall", was published when he was 17 years old, and he hasn't let up since.
I like your comment about writing being developed in stages. That makes sense to me and makes sense as to why we don't have child novelists.
You started a very interesting argument, Kern! I'd personally put both imagination and experience on the same pedestal. I feel that experience adds layers to the imagination, helping it evolve as you grow up. If imagination is the soul of your writing, experience is its flesh. While I agree that we hardly see a child write a "masterpiece", I'd also argue that the roots of the creation of that "masterpiece" emerge from our childhood.
Another interesting question would be if writers with troubled childhood write more profoundly. Writer P.L. Travers, according to popular belief, created the world of Mary Poppins to fill the gaps of her troubled childhood (dead father, depressed mother who threatened suicide and an unstable household). Mary Poppins, in this case, is an imaginary character that adds life to her experience as a child. American Beat poet Allen Ginsberg had a troubled relationship with his mother, which is reflected in many of his popular poems. Shafak has also admitted that she grew up in a dysfunctional family which was difficult. There are numerous examples where a writer's work is a fictional narration of troubled childhood experiences - a quest to relive those experiences in an ideal manner through imagination.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on this!
Hmm so much to talk about here, but I think all of your points intersect. Childhood is when our imaginations are most present, most precious, and of course most active. So yes, I agree that once you add experience to that, you have the ingredients for something masterful. But I would caveat that point with "only if you can tap into that creativity as an adult," which I don't believe all adults can. I think writers and creative people in general have a gift of imagination. We're able to see stories and communicate those stories in whatever artistic field speaks most loudly to us. Continuing with that thought process, when our childhoods have been troubled, something happens. It's like our imagination is stuck in time and we are able to access that moment as vividly as a recent memory. My novels, for example, are largely inspired by the most tumultuous time in my life, which is around the time I became a father at 18. It's led to the creation of all of my characters who by no accident happen to be around that age. So yes, I believe trauma can lead to beautiful art, but I do not believe it's necessary for beautiful art, if that makes sense.
Firstly, I LOVE Elif Shafak! I think experience really helps, but imagination is just as important. I remember playwright David Hare once say that he grew up in such a boring little town that he had no choice but to become a writer, in order to imagine a more exciting childhood. I laughed because my case is the opposite. My childhood was too exciting (read, crazy) that the least I could do to cope was to write about it. Who says one is better than the other. And you could have an incredible experience and still not have the creative imagination to write about it would n an engaging way. As for children, they have an incredible wisdom that I often envy! The way they get right to the heart of things… I have too many examples to give when it concerns my daughters. And when I read what they write, I am convinced that they should be the ones writing! Their imagination is not yet destroyed by all this self-conscious inner chatter that can really get in the way. So to answer your question, yes, wh not encourage children to write novels!?
OMG I would love to read anything by your daughters, Imola. A child's imagination is such a gift. And you're right: as important as experience is, it doesn't inspire without imagination.
Thank you Kern. My daughters are my teachers in many ways :) they inspire me as your daughter inspires you…
Christopher Paolini comes to mind: he started writing "Eregon" at the age of 15,, and after his parents self-published the book, he became a NYT bestselling author at the age of 19.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Paolini
But to your broader question of imagination vs. experience, I'd put far greater weight on the latter. I'm a far better writer now than I was as a teenager, and even better than I was 10, 5, even 1 year ago.
And I don't mean that just in terms of skill. Of course, the more hours we accumulated doing something, the better we get at it. What I mean is that the life experience I accumulate makes me better at telling the stories I tell -- drawing more realistic characters, creating more realistic conflict, etc.
I suspect the same is true of Paolini -- I never actually read "Eregon," but I suspect it's not a work of great literature compared to his more recent works.
Thanks for your great posts! Compared to other Substacks I follow, yours more frequently prompts me to join the discussion!
First, thanks so much for the compliment, Michael. Really glad you feel curious enough to join these discussions.
I wasn't aware of Paolini so thanks for that. I will certainly look into him. Also, breaking writing down so simply by hours accumulated certainly makes the argument for experience. My question to you is this: yes, experience seems to be the necessary ingredient, but how would you weight imagination? Say it's on a 100% scale, what percentage would you allot to imagination?
I'm not sure I would place them on a zero-sum sliding scale like that. I think they are equally important (which I guess, for your question, would equate to a 50/50 proportion). But as a thought experiment, I guess I would say "it depends" (on the genre, or even the specific story).
For example, Paolini is proof that a genre like fantasy (or, more specifically, a story about dragons) can skew high on imagination and low on experience. But a story with more adult themes, or a genre like literary fiction, would probably require a majority percentage of experience.
That makes perfect sense. When imagination is the star, experience skews lower. Yes, I get it. However, many fantasy novels are centered on grand themes about culture, about society, about politics, etc. So that infers some type of experience to write with such nuance.
A really interesting topic for discussion. I agree with both Jim and David. I think it's partly what they have said, plus, I am reminded of something Abraham Maslow wrote about creativity. He said there are two kinds: one is the imnagination and ideas that people have. Given that most people have great imagination and ideas, you'd thiink there would be millions of latter-day Shakespeare's gracing our cultural lives. However, he also believed that there is a secondary level of creativity, which can be summarised as 'staying power', ie the ability to keep plodding away at something, make corrections, discard bits etc etc. On that basis, given the reality of kids' lives plus their stage of development, I think it would be tantamount to a miracle if many children wrote novels. As often is the case, the exceptions prove the rule.
The staying power is such a good description, Terry. And even though I agree with you, don't you still find it curious that we've rarely ever seen child novels? Like super rare if ever.
Yes and no, I suppose. I mean, you do get child prodigies in all sorts of fields, and I have heard of kids of around nine years old writing novels. I'm pretty sure that Jane Austen wrote a novel or part of a novel when she was a teenager. Mind you, I suppose there was nothing much else to do in those days 🤣
LMAOOO true, which means Jane Austen would have a bit more focused time, perhaps LOL
😂