Is reading easier than writing?
Read Streeter Patrick Lackey, who always has an interesting thought about the process of reading, is our guest poster today. Patrick's question (followed by his response): Which would you say is easier, reading or writing?
Many would answer, reading, of course, because not everyone can write, but practically everyone can read. I'd call it a tie.
The relationship of a writer to a reader is like the relationship of a lead dancer to a follow. The one gives directions or sometimes just clues; the other responds. If you've ever done ballroom or swing dancing, you know that following is every bit as difficult as leading, if not more so.
For one thing, the lead in dancing does moves he knows. The follow may know moves the lead doesn't, but that doesn't matter. The follow has to respond to what the lead suggests. Similarly, the writer does what he can do and goes where he can go, using the words he knows. T.C. Boyle doesn't ask himself which words the readers know. He searches his brain for words he knows. The reader may know words Boyle doesn't, but that doesn't matter. The reader has to know all the words Boyle does.
Even as the lead dancer is the choreographer, the writer is a kind of cartographer, leaving the reader to attempt to follow his maps, often an arduous task. The writer, of course, maps territory familiar to him. The reader frequently finds himself in territory that's entirely strange.
The writer rewrites, even as a lead dancer practices a move till he has it mastered. The dance follower does not have that luxury, since she doesn't know what's coming next. The reader could reread every sentence three times, but that would make reading a lot less fun and destroy the pace of the book.
I've both written and read, and I've noticed that I can write tired better than I can read tired. Writing builds up its own momentum. Reading requires an instant alertness that's difficult to maintain when fatigued.
One difference between a reader and a writer is that a remainders table cheers the former and horrifies the latter. Another difference is that the writer, in effect, performs for the public while the reader succeeds or fails in private. A third difference is that readers may be in awe of writers, but writers, while dependent on readers, do not look up to them.
Who can say who's to blame when the attempted communication between writer and reader fails. Henry Kissinger once was asked about the effects of his newfound fame. He responded that now when he was boring at parties people thought it was their fault. Similarly, writers usually get the benefit of the doubt when communication fails, leaving readers to chastise themselves for not getting it.
To me, good reading and good writing are equally hard. What do you say?
In any case, the future of books lies more with readers than with writers. We'd better wish both good health.
While she always preferred The Hardy Boys to Nancy Drew, 
Comments
When I read the title of this post, I thought, "Is this guy nuts? Of course reading is easier than writing." I'm glad I read on. Now I'm not so sure. I liked the comparison to the roles of dancers. So true. And I completely agree it's easier to write than read when you're tired. If my writing is going well, I rarely get tired. It's when it's NOT going well that I get exhausted. By the way, love the Kissinger quote.
Patrick, have you ever thought about doing a book on writing? The title of your post would be a good start. And your consideration of the needs of readers is so important and is often neglected. I've skimmed a lot of books about writing and find most of them awful. The one I thought was wonderful was Stephen King's "On Writing." I'm not a big fan of King's fiction, but I did love that book.
And if you do write that book, be sure to look at what Mary Higgins Clark has to say about writing. I heard her speak once and was very impressed. A few years ago, when she was interviewed by The Journal News, a local paper here in Westchester, New York, she had a simple but terrific quote about being a writer: "Even if I didn't sell anymore, I'd still be writing. It's just part of who I am....When I'm in the casket, put in a split of wine, some notepads and some pens and I'll be perfectly happy."
Posted by: Gail Farrelly | July 1, 2009 11:37 AM
Interesting analogy ~ comparing relationship between lead and follow with that of the one between writer and reader. Never thought of it that way before, but it's true. A good follow has to go with the lead and the reader has to stay with the writer or they just won't dance anymore. Everything between them will be too discordant to sustain the temporary relationships of dance and reading.
Posted by: Pikesville reader | July 1, 2009 12:22 PM
Gail Farrelly's post (above) contains an excellent quote from Mary Higgins Clark, who says she'd write even if no one bought her stuff. The quote reminded me of the time in my mid-30s, three decades ago, when it occurred to me that no one but me could keep me from being an unpublished novelist. I developed a plan -- type five pages a day for 50 days. Not to brag, but I've been an unpublished novelist ever since. One character, named Oval Bloomingwell, was described as "a symphony of circles, a rhapsody of roundness." God, who loved to sketch and entered mail-order drawing contests, used a protractor to create her. The rest of the novel is forgotten, even by the author, but there have been published novels with fewer memorable lines. Hurray for writing! Hurray for reading! Hurray for Read Street!
Posted by: patrick lackey | July 1, 2009 1:51 PM
Patrick, if Gail's idea of a book seems too far off for you, how about a blog?
Posted by: Biblibio | July 3, 2009 3:00 AM