Robert Anson Heinlein said a number of times, in differing words, and I certainly agree,
"Creative writing can't be taught. But the creative can be taught to write."

An example from "Time enough For Love."
“And, Clyde-what was it you used to teach?”
“‘Teach’? I taught ‘Creative Writing.’ I told you I had a good education.”
“So you did. ..."
... and Lazarus immediately changes the subject. You need to read it in context to get the full flavor of it.

Holly

I am in a conciliatory mood. Anxious to maintain sweetness, light, and general harmony wher'er I go.

So...... I shall comment on the comments individually after clarifying my own approach.

I have nothing against rules or books of rules or the reading of books of rules. Even less am I against guide lines. I don't even hate readers. I wish them well. Long life and prosperity.

I am not really a writer. Just someone who thought of a story line and decided to run with it to see if I could. As it happened I enjoyed the experience immensely and would wish others to come to the same pleasure.

I am by definition an amateur and have no wish nor ambition to be other. I am thus in the very privileged position of having written solely for my own pleasure. The plaudits of the crowd is a naturally a source of gratification, as I am not without vanity, but it is as nothing compared with my own satisfaction at seeing what I have wrought. My writing has brought me friends here and friends are beyond value, but that is apart from the writing itself. That is mine and for me.

Now I imagine there must be others like me. Motivated as I am. It would be very depressing for me to think otherwise. We do however seem to be in a minority judging for all the attempts to improve us. Make our work, if work indeed it be, more palatable to others.

It saddens me that some people, new writers, feel they cannot post without being first scrutinised, counselled, and educated in the requirements of the literary world.

I think this is bollocks. And it is to encourage such people to post and be damned, to soar, however modestly, like Aardvark's hawk.

Aardvark you take my tapestry and add an elaborate fringe, not to mention a few intricate tassels, to it allowing your own imagination free rein to achieve dramatic effect. I never said that their fingers were yellow!

Otherwise much of what you say is measured and true. But you are coming at the subject from the same old direction. You are concerned with making your readers happy.

There is no insult in being told one sometimes follows some of the rules. There seem to be so many of them that such is almost inevitable. And I don't equate readers with rules. I do however believe that if you attempt to please your readers too much you can indeed water down your own integrity as an amateur.

I am pleased that Laika picked up this last, and made the point more clearly than I. I wonder if she has read Gould's Book of Fish by Richard Flanagan? And I agree that guidelines aren't a commandment from God. But wonder why they are treated as such by some.

I blush with shame before Holly. For I fear I have never read anything by Robert Heinlein. I hope though she will forgive me and we can still be friends. Actually I don't think I will read him now. The quotation “But the creative can be taught to write”, sounds just a mite patronising to my ears. Not to mention being of dubious validity.

Generally I rejoice at Jan's comment. Although for me the pleasure is a little diluted by his sentiment that one has to justify one's actions to the reader. As an amateur I need neither to justify nor reward.

I have to be careful with Randa because she flatters me and I would hate to lose that. I know people don't mean to intimidate, only want to help etc., when they write improving works. I am not blaming them; they are only earning a crust.

I just think that a study of such works should not be regarded as an essential prerequisite to posting on this or any other amateur site. And I know that if challenged I would be hard put to give concrete examples of this, but nevertheless there is sometimes an insidious undertow dragging one towards such a conclusion.

Nor am I against people observing the basic rules of grammar. I have been known to do so myself. And I try to present in short paragraphs, rather than great big towering sky-scraper blocks of prose. But presumably people were taught this by the age of ten together with 'How to Address an Envelope'?

I don't think the Picasso analogy is waterproof either. Poetry is conceivably akin to painting. Writing stories isn't though. I could elaborate on the differences more or less indefinitely. I will content myself with sailing on the other tack and pointing out that Guernica was a result of breaking with convention. A result of passion overriding accepted art shibboleths. Picasso didn't need to know the rules and then decide which ones he was going to ignore. He just painted to express what he felt.

I am beginning to weaken about not writing any more though. I have been toying with something over the last fortnight. It has nothing to do with DofC though. It is more a meandering excursion. A literary doodle. Far too rambling in structure. The point of it is deliberately obscured. Many readers will have some difficulty in following it and some will find bits of it quite incomprehensible. I am having tremendous fun with it though I don't know whether I will ever post it. Strangely enough it features a reference to one of Randa's character names in 'No Obligation', but this is not of my doing. It is an inescapable dictate of the tale.

Hugs,

Fleurie