You got it, or you dont got it - Vision, inseperation and mo

[DoubleIT]

When did you all realize that you had 'it' ? That thing inside you, the incredible creative talent and vision that allows you to create like no one else in the world. Only a small group of people have it, but I have to imagine a lot of you here do.

I can not precisely pin point when I discovered it, but it's been in the making my entire life, perhaps you are born with it. I made my first short film at age 6, which included a mock city that was set ablaze (I was going through a pyrotechnic stage). At an even younger age my dad and I would watch 'good' films like Kurosawa's Dreams, Metropolsis, Eraserhead,etc. Only recently have I fully realized that I have something special. I can feel it, twisting and turning inside; thoughts, ideas and creative juices just waiting to burst out. I love it.

What about all of you?

[Writing Again]

I am really not trying to be insulting, and not to you personally: I realize this is a common idea:

Only a small group of people have it,

But I do not know how to say this gently.

I find the whole concept of "God given talent possessed by only the elite few" to be a load of crap.

Over and over again I have seen examples where determination, intelligence, application, and mastery of craft have far surpassed protege style talent that was wasted by people who failed to master the forms.

No amount of "native talent" will make up for laziness or lack of mastery in any field, be it painting, singing, dancing, or writing.

Chuck Norris in an interview admitted, "I'm not actor" then went on to say, "The studio and I worked together to develop a character I could portray and basically this is the character I continue to play."

You gotta love honesty like that. And look how many actors, seemly born with superior talent, have not gone the distance because they failed to master their potential niche in the world.

Jimmy Stewart was a consummate actor who could portray any character yet -- "All the public ever seems to want is me being myself," he once said -- And instead of getting into a huff he just smiled and portrayed himself in movie after movie. Potentially greater actors but lessor human beings would have railed against such an "undignified fate."

I remember a romance writer who said in an interview, "I'm certainly not Shakespeare, but a lot of people love to read what I write and I love to write it."

To me that sums it up. Don't worry about the amount of talent you have; Concentrate instead on mastering every detail of the craft; Apply yourself: The results will take care of themselves.

Whatever your talent, no matter how meager, you can surpass those who do not spend the time and energy to develop their skills, no matter how talented they at first appear.

[Optimus Maximus]

If you don't have the talent with which to master something, then you're going nowhere.

I could go out in my driveway right now and practice 10 hours a day, every day, for the next 10 years and I'm not ever going to make it to the NBA.

Ever.

Why? Because I don't have the natural, God-given talent to succeed at basketball.

It's not a question of either/or. Having the talent but not working to develop it is a waste of your talent.

Working to develop a talent you don't have is a waste of your time.

[Writing Again]

I could go out in my driveway right now and practice 10 hours a day, every day, for the next 10 years and I'm not ever going to make it to the NBA.

The NBA is not the only place to be.

My town alone, with a meager 12,000 plus population has at least a dozen basketball teams sponsored by churches, businesses, etc. One person -- I am convinced of this -- was hired in the office because he would be such an asset to the baseball team. Though I'm no expert on either basketball or baseball I'm sure there are many a skilled player between the best player in my town and the NBA. I'm equally sure many are happy having made the most of the talent they have while people with the potential to play in the NBA did not pursue it.

I personally do not need to be the next Steven Spielberg of movies, the next Stephen King of novelists; I would be quite content to be a low mid-list writer earning a modest living doing what I enjoy. Many writers of all levels of potential skill have merely supplemented their income with prose, even those who had the maximum talent. If that is my future, then I will still be happy with the success I have achieved.

Having the talent but not working to develop it is a waste of your talent.

I said something similar to a friend of mine who could easily earn a few hundred thousand a year as an artist. His reply was "I'd rather waste my talent than waste my time selling my artistic soul to commercial interests so I can achieve a passable level of mediocrity." He also advised me, "You should quit while you're ahead or you'll wind up a mediocre hack writer churning out slush for the next week's check."

Fact is I'd rather be a mediocre hack writer than no writer at all. My only regret in life is that I gave up writing for any length of time for any reason no matter how noble others might think that reason was.

And I have already achieved more than many with greater initial talent but less dedication to the mastery of craft have achieved.

I've done pretty good for an uneducated no talent half breed bum from the wrong side of the tracks -- And I hope to reenter the field and do better in the future.

[kojled]

doubleit

sorry, but a lot of the people here do not have 'it'. just isn't the case. not here, not anywhere - including hollywood. i am, however, naturally endowed with inseperation and i use it all the time


zilla

[DoubleIT]

I agree with you on both points - you can make it without having it, and you can fail even if you do. Nevertheless, if you know how to use this 'power', and understand the industry and buisness you are leaps and bounds ahead of most of the other people.

Personally I do not want to be a mid level writer. Im going all the way or will die trying.

[Writing Again]

I wish you the best of luck DoubleIT and I hope you go all the way to the top and beyond.

I only ask that you do not denigrate those of us who know we are not the best, accept that we will never be the best, yet are determined to do the best we can with what we have.

And some of us have gone a long long ways. I remember when I was hanging around a college (I may not be college material but I recognize a good source of information when I see one) a professor made the comment that Arthur C. Clarke was a mediocre writer with consummate technical skill.

You know what? I kind of hope that is true. If it is it means having "consummate technical skill" can take you a long ways past the place where I would be happy.

[Writing Again]

I'm so endowed with inseperation I'm almost a split personality -- Does that count?

[SimonSays]

Actually very, very few writers without talent ever make it as professional screenwriters or pubished novelists.

Actors without talent can sometimes get by on their charisma or sex appeal, writers do not have that luxury. But even though they can, very few do. Chuck Norris and Pam Anderson are the exceptions not the rule - most actors who achieve success are talented actors. And often those without talent, who receive a certain amount of success in a role or two, are unable to parlay it into a sustained career - because they don't have the talent to do so.

As writers, we are judge by our writing. Writers without talent rarely have something on the page that will interest an agent or producer. Writers without talent, generally write bad scripts.

In the cases where it does happen, it is either because the idea itself is so high concept that it over-rides the lack of talent or because someone with clout (be it producer, director or actor) champions the project.

I agree that talent is not enough, you also need to master the craft. But I do belive in, as WA put it "God given talent". We all have special gifts, very few of us have a gift for screenwriting or storytelling.

I like Opti's NBA analogy. While anyone can shoot hoops in their own yard, or are good enough to join some sort of intramural league. Very few are talented enough to make it as professionals in the NBA.

Hollywood is the NBA. And most with dreams of playing, will have to settle for sitting in the stands and watching the action instead.

[Writing Again]

I like Opti's NBA analogy. While anyone can shoot hoops in their own yard, or are good enough to join some sort of intramural league. Very few are talented enough to make it as professionals in the NBA.

Hollywood is the NBA. And most with dreams of playing, will have to settle for sitting in the stands and watching the action instead.

True Hollywood may not deliberately make grade B movies for profit any more, but as I understand it they still exist. I'm told there are indie filmmakers out there who deliberately aim for low budget films designed to make a profit on a modest success. There is even, I am told, a "direct to video store" trade that are not meant to be Hollywood blockbusters -- They are merely meant for an evening's enjoyment.

I can't help but think that a lot of these people are happy with their work and proud of what they do in the world.

I can't help but think that those who you see as "having to settle for sitting on the sidelines" are people who, if they had the initiative to get up and apply themselves, could find a place for themselves that suits them perfectly.

I think the cult of "If you ain't the winner you ain't @#%$" attitude in our society is a sickness. People would be better trying to find their true place in the world rather than trying to win a top position that, were they to win it, they might not be happy in.

Of course I have to admit I'm writing this from a fairly safe position. My only commitment to screenwriting at the minute is mastery of the form ... Assuming I am able to master it. If I commit to actually becoming a screenwriter I may not choose to aim for Hollywood, I may choose to go off Hollywood. I can even perceive of myself being happy in the direct to video store market.

I can always go back to writing novels which I've had published before and have a reasonable expectation of having published again.

But if I never sell anything again the rest of my life I will still never go hungry, never go without a comfortable place to live, and never be without a big loving family to fight with, and I will always have a lot of fun doing what I do.

[JustinoXV]

There are plenty of people who know the craft of screenwriting well. They may not be the at creating new material, but if you look at Hollywood movies these days, so many movies are adaptations of tv shows, books, comic books, etc.

A lot of these people were determined people who made family connections, or where born into them.

Even some ugly actors are not talented. Beatrice Author, in all her shows, always plays the same character. The intelligent, modern woman who can't stand nonsense. I've read where the Bea author was a friend of the person who cast her as Maude, and the character was made to fit Bea's actual character.

A lot of times people get roles, particularly consistently because of the the actor looks (either pretty or ugly). A really ugly person might get a lot of villain or monster roles because of the way he or she looks. An ugly looks means they don't have to put much makeup on to make you a monster.

Arnold Scwarchnegger, the terminator, made lots of money because he had the body for roles like Conan the Barbarian, and other hero roles. He did a good job, but a short person, no matter how talented, would not have stood a snow ball's chance in hell.

A person who goes into acting, does some gigs here and there and kind of bums out may still end working in the industry as an agent, a producer, a manager, a studio exec (yes, it's happened), etc.

I basically agree with Writing Again.

[SimonSays]

WA:

Even indie producers are looking for good scripts. Although I admit, sometimes they settle for crap. Quality of writing has nothing to do with size of budget or even necessarily box office returns.

Being happy with your work and proud of what you do is important. But just because you are happy and proud, does not mean your work is of a professional calibre. Passion and determination do not equal ability. And your chances of succeeding as a screenwriter if you do not have talent, are virtually non-existnet.

You should always write first and foremost because you love it. And if in the end you are proud of what you have accomplished, then you have succeeded on the most important level.

[JustinoXV]

I might also add that a role or two for an actor, on a long lasting television series is in and of itself, a career! Bea Arthur is known for her roles as Maude and the Golden Girls (which is replayed constantly on Lifetime). She's still more famous than a lot of truly talented actors.

And Simon, I'm still waiting to here from you on those writers who merely adapt existing stories to the silver screen. (Comic books, tv shows, books). How much "talent" is required?

These people can build long lasting careers of doing adaptations, and many have. They know the CRAFT well.

[JustinoXV]

It might also help, Simon, if you were able to define what talent is.

Anyone can study the craft of screenwriting, and master it. So clearly being a master at the craft, in your book, is not talented.

Is it creativity? But as I've said, creativity is not required. Bewitched, the movie, is coming out next year. How much creativity is required when basically just updating and formating a 60s tv series to the 21st century?

I think you, Simon, really have the need to feel like you're a part of an elite that most people can't achieve. I also think it's your subtle way of insulting everyone else on this forum. After all, if most people can't make it as screenwriters, then that means that most people on this board can't make it as screenwriters. And don't try to hide behind "I'm not judging anyone's capabilities on this board." You already have.

But for now, define "talent" and also address the fact screenwriters are making careers of adapting comic books or whatever to the screen.

[SimonSays]

Justino -

Not sure how to define talent, it's a "you know it when you see it" type of thing. But basically it has to do with an innate ability to write, to create, to tell a story. It is something that cannot be taught, if it could, all novelists would write like Hemingway or Steven King.

Whether creating an original work, or adapting a work - there is still a fundemental talent involved.

No mastering the craft is not enough. Mastering the scales is not enough to make one Pavorotti, mastering a curve ball is not enough to make someone Nolan Ryan, mastering a golf swing is not enough to make someone Tiger Woods. They were all born with rare gifts, and they took the time to master the craft to fully realize those gifts. But they were born with an innate ability.

I do not feel like I am as you put it "part of an elite". I've never claimed to have talent at all. And I have never judged anyone's abilities on this board - all I've done is applied statistics to come to a general conclusion. For all I know this board could be some sort of anomoly and every single solitary person on it could be blessed with a gift.

The bottom line is - whether you like it or not - or whether it's fair or not - far more people have a dream to succeed than an ability to do so. This applies to any art, craft or intellectual endeavor.

[Optimus Maximus]

If you have to define "talent" to be able to know what it is, then you don't have it.

[cleoauthor]

I'm such a dolt I don't even know what "inseperation" is. Nor does my dictionary. Obviously, I'm not one of the chosen talents. I do, however, manage to make my living writing. And fortunately it's what I love to do. Go figure.

Cleo

[DoubleIT]

bla bla bla, one miss spelling... i am on a 36 hour study binge for this film theory class, I dont really care that much about spelling on a message board post.

[DoubleIT]

"The bottom line is - whether you like it or not - or whether it's fair or not - far more people have a dream to succeed than an ability to do so"

Exactly. It is not a fair world. And as you said, talent is innate but must be developed to fully realize its potential. I dont see how or why some are arguing this.

[JustinoXV]

Opty, neither you nor Simon seem to be able to say what talent is.

Is talent, as you two define it, just a figure of your imagination?


"1 a : any of several ancient units of weight b : a unit of value equal to the value of a talent of gold or silver
2 archaic : a characteristic feature, aptitude, or disposition of a person or animal
3 : the natural endowments of a person
4 a : a special often creative or artistic aptitude b : general intelligence or mental power : ABILITY
5 : a person of talent or a group of persons of talent in a field or activity"

Simon seems to define talent as creative aptitude. But he still doesn't address how many screenwriters make millions off just adapting the works of previous writers to the film. No special creative talent is needed to format an X-Men, Elektraa, or Fantastic Four story to the screen. No special talent is necessary to format a book to the screen. Only knowledge of the craft. Simon refuses to address this because he knows he is WRONG.

A well connected person with knowledge of the craft and good business sense may very well have a good career as a screenwriter. While a "talented" and artistic genius may never get anywhere.

I also note that Simon refuses to get into the fact that a lot of stars had industry parents. Kate Hudson's mother is Goldie Hawn. Tom Cruise's mother is a casting director. Look at the Wayans family. if you've got parents who can get you into the best acting (or screenwriting programs), you are SET.

Hudson and Cruise were also helped by their good looks.

[DoubleIT]

Justino - Do you understand at all how a screen play is created? Turning a book into a screen play DOES require talent. Why are you resisting and questioning 'talent' so much? It is not possible to define that magical force inside that allows this creative expression to occur. If you could clearly define it, you could easily immate it. It cant not be expressed with language.

[DoubleIT]

I do agree that not all great writers are successful, but that has already been discussed. I also agree that if a not so good writer has connections they may become successful. There are always exceptions to the rule. But for us 'normal' people, not born into the industry, you GENERALLY need good luck, good talent and good business skills. You can also have all of them and still not make it.

[SimonSays]

Justino -

Obviously - my definition of talent would be
4 a : a special often creative or artistic aptitude b : general intelligence or mental power : ABILITY

The key word there is SPECIAL as in:

Surpassing what is common or usual; exceptional.

As for adaptations - have you ever done one? They do in fact require a talent to find a way to make it work as a film. And adaptations often require original scenes, original dialgoue, etc. Knowing what to leave out and leave in (because in most cases with adaptations the source material is too lengthy and/or detailed to include it in a film). Believe it or not, Justino adaptation is not just transcribing and reformatting so prose is now description and dialogue.

A well-connected screenwriter - will get read, if there idea is good they might get sold - but connections alone, will not make someone a successful screenwriter. And since the vast majority of aspiring writers do not have the connections you mention, it really is a moot point for most.

I acknowledged that actors can rely on charisma and looks and sometimes succeed without talent. Although career longevity usually requires some acting ability. Writers do not have that luxury. Looking like Tom Cruise is not going to help you sell your script.

Nepotism can help get you started, but it will not guarantee a career. Kate Hudson may have got her first rolls because she's Goldie Hawn's daughter - but her performance in Almost Famous is what put her on the map.

Obviously you do not believe in the concept of talent and therefore I assume you believe that anyone has the ability to excel at the maximum possible level of anything as long as they study and/or practice enough.

Each and everytime you see Shaq or A-Rod sitting next to a third-stringer who practices just as hard and wants to be stars just as much, you are proven wrong.

[Optimus Maximus]

You mean a "figment," Justino.

[maestrowork]

I do agree with Stephe King when he said most people are bad writers... they've got no talent and they'll never become good, no matter how much they study and learn and practice. Then a very good number of people are competent writers. Then a smaller number of people are good writers. Then only a handful of people are geniuses like Shakespeare or Dickens.

You cannot teach a bad writer to become a competent or good writer.

You cannot make a good writer to become a genius. Geniuses are born.

But you can make a competent writer to become a good writer. That is with lots of studying, hardwork, and practice.

[Ron239]

I think the Brian Overland interview is really instructive with respect to this talent vs. hard work debate -- you have to be extremely talented AND extremely lucky to have a career as a screenwriter.
More and more I see luck as a HUGE FACTOR in all of this. Yes, you must have talent; yes, you must work hard to develop your craft. But you must also be EXTREMELY LUCKY.
I don't believe that you should let the "extremely lucky" part poison your determination to pursue your writing, but at the end of the day if you're talented and you work hard and you're getting nowhere, then there is the matter of that missing ingredient -- good old dumb luck.

[JustinoXV]

"Nepotism can help get you started, but it will not guarantee a career. Kate Hudson may have got her first rolls because she's Goldie Hawn's daughter - but her performance in Almost Famous is what put her on the map."

Yes. I didn't say that she wasn't talented. Only that nepotism got her foot in that door. If you are the most talented person in the world but have not come up with a way to get your foot in the door, then you still have no career.

"Obviously you do not believe in the concept of talent and therefore I assume you believe that anyone has the ability to excel at the maximum possible level of anything as long as they study and/or practice enough."

I don't believe this at all. Different people have different strengths, and that includes writing, acting, etc.

I do think that being the most successful screenwriter or actor does not mean you are the most talented one. Ditto for any field in that arts.

That's mostly what I was saying. Plenty of other factors come into the mix, including plain dumb luck.

After I first decided I wanted to be a writer, I bumped into a theatre producer while walking down the street. He chatted up with me and gave me his business card. I ended up getting a production assistant job. That was plain dumb luck that got me that theatre gig. After liking it, I did another theatre gig, and at the advice of a friend, rewrote my stageplays into screenplays.

So while do need the "talent" and the knowledge of a craft, let's just say being attractive helps at networking.:) This is even true for writers.

A talented person at storytelling who is not in the writing environments and who doesn't have a support system isn't likely to do anything. Perhaps a creative genius is born to some illiterate parents and doesn't learn how to read. He had done so, he might have been the next Steven King.

[JustinoXV]

I do want to say that I've known people who were very talented and got nowhere. Why? Many of them didn't have the support systems and connections that a lot of stars had in the beginning. Others had poor social skills and didn't know how to work it in networking environments.

Many artistic geniuses never get anywhere, for a variety of social and psychological reasons.

[SimonSays]

Justino -

Your latest posts SO don't jive with your previous ones. It sounds now like you are acknowledging, that there is such a thing as talent. That all writers are not created equal. Yet earlier you repeatedly challenged me to define talent and then you accused me of considering myself "part of an elite that most people can't achieve". Because it is my position that most writers without talent have no real shot of succeeding.

It seems now you are focused on the concept that talent is not enough - that you need connections, luck, etc. But that was never the issue to begin with. The issue was whether talent was necessary to have a career.

I have now pointed out what talent is required to do adaptations - I noticed that you didn't touch that with a 10-foot pole once I posted - and yet prior to that you repeatedly taunted me to explain how that jived with my concept of talent, since in your eyes, none is required to adapt. Actually the writer's I know who do adaptations, say it can be more difficult than writing an original screenplay.

You also now seem to be focusing on the idea that those with the most talent are not necessarily the most successful - but again that was never the issue.

The issue was, is and will always be - that unless you have a talent to write, you will not find success as a writer.

Saying so does not make me an 'elitist' it makes me a realist.

[Writing Again]

From this conversation it would seem Hemingway was right to commit suicide: He was never going to become the next Shakespeare no matter what he did. Might as well get it over with and put himself out of his misery.

Those old duffers Jack Nicklaus and Arnold Palmer might as well join him, they will never equal Tiger Woods talent.

Somehow this discussion of talent has devolved into something that sounds like "Ten reasons not to become a gunslinger."

"Thar is only room for one at the top, boy, and you gots to kill a lotta folk iffen you wanna make your mark. Chances are you die fore you make it. They kill you and not even blink. You just one more fool trying to be the best. Iffen you do make it then all them younguns will be looking for you, boy. They gonna wanna be the best and they gotta kill you to do it. Someday you git old and your finger slip and you die in the street like a dog, boy, like a dog. That kid, he gonna walk away with your title and it gonna start all over agin, boy, just like you right now."

Hey, that sounds like a rewrite of Macbeth. Maybe I do got talent after all.

Maybe there are people who can never learn, but I see a lot of people who can learn but won't ever learn. There is a big difference. I see a lot of people who simply refuse to try to understand what makes a good story. I see even more who refuse to consider that what they wrote the first time might be improved upon. They will not rewrite one single scene after it has hit the page. Some won't rewrite a single word.

Even indie producers are looking for good scripts. Although I admit, sometimes they settle for crap. Quality of writing has nothing to do with size of budget or even necessarily box office returns.

Agreed, but if all the people with real talent are in Hollywood making all the big bucks then there must be room here for second stringers who would enjoy a second string pay check.

And in my case everything I've learned about screen writing has, or will, help me write novels. Well, except the format itself, that won't help me.

I refuse to see myself as a loser simply because I can't write as well as [Redacted--JDM] and his partner. Come to think of it [Redacted--JDM] could not always write as well as [Redacted--JDM] .

[Writing Again]

Let me try this as no one else has taken the leap...

What is talent? I personally think talent is inspiration. Most people lock their inspiration away behind doors. Many keep the doors to inspiration locked by refusing to master the forms, refusing to put in the work and the thought that is needed. Others keep the doors locked by slavishly following rules so strict that creative inspiration could not break out if it had an atomic bomb locked in with it. When it does escape most people do not welcome their inspiration, but instead kick it until it runs away from them like a cur dog that has been whipped once too often.

Some people are inspired more often than others, but there is a way to encourage inspiration to come to you. A simple way. First look for it. Second recognize it when you see it. Third welcome it and be happy it is there whether it helps you or not. Fourth when it does help you get up and do a happy dance of joy.

Pretty soon it will learn to like your company and will hang around with you every where you go. Eventually it will follow you into restaurants and swipe table scraps from off your plate.

Maybe this is why some people lock their inspiration away behind so many doors. They don't want it to embarrass them.

[SimonSays]

WA -

I think you are misunderstanding me.

I'm certainly not saying that unless you have talent you shouldn't write. I think anyone who wants to write should do so. But writing because you love it and writing well enough to support yourself doing so are two different things. And unless you have talent, chances are you will not support yourself. Even if you do have talent, the odds are against you. But without talent they are truly insurmountable.

98% of all novels submitted never get published, never even get agented and that's because the vast majority of those 98% are not good enough to get published. The same percentages extend to play writing, screenwriting, etc. It's a depressing statistic, but it's true. Which is why you should write because you want to tell your story, not because you want to sell your story.

Also, I'm not saying if you aren't Shakespeare, you aren't talented or you have no shot. Martin Scorcese is brilliant at what he does. So are the Farelley brothers. They both have talent, just a different type of talent. I wish I could write like Charlie Kaufman, but my mind just doesn't work that way.

Jack Nicklaus and Arnold Palmer had a hell of a lot of talent - most golfers on your average golf course - do not. No matter how much they practice, they could never make the cut to get into a PGA event. Even the third-stringers on pro sports teams have far, far, far, more talent than the best of the rest of us.

Some people refuse to try to understand what makes a good story. But the vast majority, even if they do grasp it, just do not have the ability to implement it. That's where talent comes into play - the innate ability to implement.

[Optimus Maximus]

Agreed, but if all the people with real talent are in Hollywood making all the big bucks then there must be room here for second stringers who would enjoy a second string pay check.
You and Justino have warped this entire discussion into something insanely illogical and totally unrelated to the original argument.

The issue at hand was whether or not one needed talent to be successful at writing.

My answer was "yes." Simon's was "yes."

Never was there an implication that a person needs talent and ONLY talent to succeed.

Never was there a suggestion that one doesn't need to work hard and hone his/her skills to succeed.

Your argument, originally until you and Justino red-herringed it into whatever jumbled mess you two have now made it into, was that a person doesn't need talent AT ALL or that he/she should be ashamed that he/she is not the MOST talented or that not being as talented as the "best" is grounds for giving up or being ashamed.

Never did I ever imply that every talented person either WILL or SHOULD be at the top of his/her profession. That's not even pertinent to the issue.

However, to be successful in Hollywood, which is the only place to which I was referring, you must have talent.

You must also work hard to develop the skills necessary to properly exploit and utilize that talent to its fullest potential.

However, that doesn't mean that a person with talent who works hard will ever be William Goldman.

Sure, a very small minority might be able to squeak by or even gain a moderate amount of pseudo-success without even an inkling of discernible talent. But, that is a very rare exception, and not very realistic.

Trying to argue a point about a universal concept by citing rare anomalies as examples is a weak way to build and even weaker argument.

I used the NBA as Hollywood analogy because it completely applies. Not everyone in the NBA is as talented as Michael Jordan, nor will everyone in the NBA ever be as successful as he.

Yet, EVERYONE in the NBA has talent. Even that guy sitting at the end of the bench who only gets to play 5 minutes a year and nobody even knows his name, is talented (and much luckier than the best guy who never made it). They have also worked very hard to get there. Just like any working, successful screenwriter in Hollywood. The Goldman's and the Shane Black's are at the top. However, there are many, many others who are riding the bench. They don't get the praise nor the glory of the creme de la creme of the screenwriting world, but they're still there.

And they still get to play.

And they wouldn't if they didn't possess God-given talent.

And they are still more successful than all those aspirant bored divorced housewives and out-of-shape, middle-aged IT techs who sit in front of their computers typing out horrible scripts, trying to "make it," without having the "talent" to do so.

There are plenty of jokers out there who spend thousands of dollars a year to attend writing seminars, enroll in screenwriting classes, and go to pitchfests only to never make it anywhere.

Because they have no talent for this craft.

The difference is not JUST that the working Hollywood writers have talent. And it is not JUST that they have worked hard at developing their craft.

They are successful because they have BOTH talent AND have worked/practiced hard.

You won't be successful in Hollywood with JUST talent just like you won't be successful with JUST hard work.

You have to have both.

However, certain people in this thread are confusing the issue of this debate and have red-herringed it by now trying to make it into an argument of "Okay, you have to have talent, but Jack Nicklaus will never be as talented as Tiger Woods!"

Who cares? And, who ever said anything about that?

The debate was that you can be successful without any talent, and that's just not true.

As far as Jack and Tiger go, who's better than whom really doesn't matter nor does it even apply to the original debate. They are BOTH talented and have BOTH worked hard.

But, neither would be where he is without talent.

[JustinoXV]

"It seems now you are focused on the concept that talent is not enough - that you need connections, luck, etc. But that was never the issue to begin with. The issue was whether talent was necessary to have a career."

Yes, talent is necessary to have a career. Very necessary.

I just thought a lot of focus was on solely the talent that is needed, as oppose to the other things that have to be done. That was my bone of contention with Simon.

And of at least some of the 98% of the writers who were talented. Some may not have mastered the craft. Others may have had the talent and the craft and simply didn't submit to the write people.

Arguably, marketing and networking is a talent as well (You mentioned this as one of Madonna's talents), and if a creative person isn't good at knowing how to put his/her atwork out there, you could be the best artist in the world and you aren't likely to get anywhere.

I think that's a big reason why most writers never make it, not necessarily just poor writing/storytelling ability, but poor business sense. I've know quite a few writers and artists in this category (their greatest weakness is their apparent inability to understand business)

[maestrowork]

I guess we can settle this...

Talent, hard work, and luck.

They're all essential ingredients. Now, exactly what the mix is depends on the person. Obviously, the more talent, hard work, and luck you have, the more successful you will become.

[SimonSays]

Justino NOW says:

"Yes, talent is necessary to have a career. Very necessary."

Simon asks:

If that is the case, then why did you say:

"I think you, Simon, really have the need to feel like you're a part of an elite that most people can't achieve."

When I expressed that very thing?

Why did you press me on the definition of talent?

You seem to be developing a nasty habit of slamming me, by making it appear that you are defending others against slams against them that I never made. Then backtracking off your original stance, but never backtracking off your slams against me. I suggest that you stop doing so. I will call you on it every time and in the end, you are the one that will come off looking like a fool.

[Writing Again]

Optimus Maximus,

Come on, man, take a deep breath, OK?

I think you are letting your dislike of Justino spill over onto me. I understand why you dislike him; And while I will not defend his actions that caused that dislike I will not take up arms against him either. I will disagree or agree with him on any particular topic as it arises. I will also agree or disagree with you on any particular topic as it arises.

While I have many faults I admit, I prefer to be dealt with according to my own faults, not the faults of others. You and I have dealt with each other with respect and dignity in the past and I would wish to continue doing so.

First off I am the one who started this debate because of my firm belief that hard work and attention to craft and form will invariably defeat superior talent that is not honed by hard work.

To quote myself:

Over and over again I have seen examples where determination, intelligence, application, and mastery of craft have far surpassed protege style talent that was wasted by people who failed to master the forms.

No amount of "native talent" will make up for laziness or lack of mastery in any field, be it painting, singing, dancing, or writing.

I also believe that a lot more people have talent than express it. I did not state this, even indirectly until later, when I attempted to define my concept of what talent is. However it is implicit in everything I say and knowing this may help you to understand (though not necessarily agree with) my point of view. I believe talent consists primarily of the ability to unlock, recognize, and utilize inspiration.

A third thing I believe is that being at the top, or being the best, at anything is tantamount to entering a war zone. No one should feel they have to be at the top to be happy. I see the prevalent attitude that "it only matters if you are the best of the best" to be a sickness of our society that creates a lot of unhappiness in those people who would otherwise be content with their own, less exalted position. I did not say, nor did I mean to imply, that you represent this attitude.

I have never contended that talent is not a factor.

To state this another way, I believe Opitmus Maximus is a better screen writer than I am and he may be better than I will ever be: I refuse to see myself as a loser simply because this is so or might be so. In fact I will, where I can, learn from you as I have in the past. I have, you will recall, thanked you for information that was helpful to my understanding of the craft, even when it was not directed to me.

Now I do not ask you to agree with me, nor do I ask you to agree with the way I present all things at all times. I am sometimes wrong and I take a lot of convincing once my mind is made up. Nor do I always present things well. But I do ask that you treat me as the person I am, not as a reflection of those who may or may not agree with me either in whole or in part.

I hope this post finds you in a more relaxed mood and that we can continue our future relationship, if not in friendship, then with the mutual respect of two men of good will and honorable intent, both with strong opinions, who sometimes agree and sometimes disagree with each other.

Yours truly, Jason Dowls, aka Writing Again.

[Optimus Maximus]

I see your point, and I apologize for lumping you into any category with Justino.

That is probably indirectly insulting on myriad levels and being similar to Justino in any way is something I wouldn't want to wish on my worst enemy.

Digressing...

In regards to talent and inspiration, may I offer my opposing view.

I believe that talent comes first, not inspiration.

Inspiration, IMO, is the vehicle by which talent is brought to the creative foreground.

To be inspired (by a song, by a book, by seeing a young couple in love) simply gets the wheels turning. It takes creative talent to be able to work from that inspiration in order to spawn something great.

Metaphorically speaking, "talent and creativity" is the water in the bottom of the well. Inspiration is the bucket with which you draw it out.

[Writing Again]

Thank you for seeing me as my own person and your willingness to put this behind us.

As for your opposing view.

I'm not honestly sure if it is opposing to my view or if it is simply at a tangent to it. It is not an opinion I can directly argue for or against at the minute.

What you have done is given me something to think about.

For that I thank you.

Given time I will form an opinion of my own.

[Optimus Maximus]

To state this another way, I believe Opitmus Maximus is a better screen writer than I am and he may be better than I will ever be: I refuse to see myself as a loser simply because this is so or might be so.
Please, I hope you were joking.

I am many things, but a good screenwriter is NOT one of them.

:D

[JustinoXV]

Simon, I'm not slamming you personally. I took issues with you on your figures and one things you said.

You said that 98% of would be writers are rejected because they are poor writers. That only 2% of writers have the talent to make it in the industry.

I countered that there many additional factors at work than just the talent of the writers. For example, it's so difficult to get read that many talented writers aren't even getting read.

I feel that the statistics you post are utterly meaningless.

A company may reject more than 99% of the material sent it's way. That doesn't mean that those other writers were somehow lacking in creative aptitude. It may have meant that they didn't send in projects that the company felt that they could make money off of.

I neither like nor dislike anyone here. If anyone says something I agree with, then I will agree with that on that particular issue. If anyone here says something I disagree with, then I will disagree with.

I think if I showed your claims on the statistics to most industry people, you would be the one coming off like a fool. Anyone who claims that nepotism, looks, timing, etc aren't factors in the industry is delusional.

You only admitted these factors were major factors when I challenged you directly. Had I not done so, you would have entirely ignored what I said about them, because those factors throw off your original claims that 2% of those who make it are blessed with this inborn talent.

Another thing I'll leave you with, look at how many actresses and singers who have made it were married to managers, producers, entertainment executives, etc. Many of these women certainly had the looks and the talent. However, they apparently advanced their careers by sleeping on the casting couch. Why would these ladies have felt they need to do so?>

There are plenty of beautiful and talented people. Because of all the possible competitors, one need's aggression to arise above the rivals.

Nicole Kidman had the talent, but she was still an unknown Australian actress until she married Tom Cruise.

I stand by my original point of the artistic talent by itself not being the determining factor of who gets into the industry, and who maintains a career in it.

Of course, the "bedroom" talents of some actors and actresses doesn't hurt at all.:)

[JustinoXV]

I wonder if there have been studies on how many screenwriters or actors are related to other industry people.

Details of screenwriters aren't known as well as people don't follow them, but I can think of a screenwriter related to a famous actress. Katherine Fugate is the niece of Barbara Eden. While I've liked the stuff she wrote, having an aunt for a famous actress does help in getting into the business. Fugate even had some acting gigs before she decided to be a full time screenwriter.

[Optimus Maximus]

You said that 98% of would be writers are rejected because they are poor writers. That only 2% of writers have the talent to make it in the industry.

I countered that there many additional factors at work than just the talent of the writers. For example, it's so difficult to get read that many talented writers aren't even getting read.
That's great, but really doesn't have anything to do with his point.

From his numbers, 98% of would-be writers are rejected because they are poor writers. That implies that the other 2% who are rejected are rejected for other reasons (poor concepts, poor timing, etc.)

His numbers are somewhat flawed (by the way you have them listed) but only in the way in which they are worded. He is, in essence, presenting two different points in the same paragraph:

1) That out of every 100 writers who are rejected, 98 are rejected because they can't write well. The other 2 are rejected for other reasons unrelated to their writing.

And,

2) Out of every 100 would-be writers (in general), only 2 of them have the talent to make it.

That doesn't imply that they will make it. Only that they are the few who possess such talent.

The first statistic/point has nothing to do with the second, and vice versa.

He never goes into the many other reasons as to why a company may reject someone's script, as that was not his point. That was your own little invention. Your "counters" aren't really counters at all, as they don't actually address the issue they are trying to "counter." I think that YOU believe that you have some sort of applicable point when you babble on like this, but you share that opinion with no one.

He also never mentions how many talented writers "never even get read," because that had nothing to do with the discussion at hand nor his point.
I think if I showed your claims on the statistics to most industry people, you would be the one coming off like a fool. Anyone who claims that nepotism, looks, timing, etc aren't factors in the industry is delusional.
Again, besides your first statement being ridiculously naive and hilariously erroneous, the entire paragraph has absolutely nothing to do with anything that has been discussed in this thread so far.

Despite your many, many shortcomings, Justino, you do seem adept at one thing: when you try to argue some illogical point, you do build some of the most beautiful straw men I've ever seen.

Maybe one day, you'll get so good that you'll build one that will dance with you.

Or, maybe even represent you.

[SimonSays]

No, Justino

I'm not going to let you get away with your revisionist history.

You accused me of being an elitist who was insulting eveyone on the board after my 2nd post on this thread. I didn't bring up the percentages until my 6th post. And in my first or second post I said that knowledge of the craft was also another factor needed for success. I also mentioned the helpfulness of connections, nepotism, etc. before I ever mentioned the percentages. So how could you have taken issue with my figures hours before I ever posted them? Are you psychic?

And incidentally - those percentages are quite accurate - although they are the rejection rates in the publishing industry. Only 2% of all novels submitted for representation or publication get either. In some cases it is a question of commerical viability, but in the vast majority of cases it's because of a lack of talent. If you talk to anyone who has read through a publishing house's unagented slush pile - they will tell you that almost all of it is truly awful.

So if such a small %age of aspiring novelists have the talent to succeed, I don't think it's a stretch to assume that %ages for talented screenwriters or playwrites are in a similar range.

But that is neither here nor there since your slam came well before I mentioned percentages at all. Your entire post explaining why you were not slamming me is ridiculous considering the fact that you claim you were responding to percentages that weren't given at the time.

You also act like I was claiming that nothing but talent mattered. Never anywhere did I say that. Never was that discussed. But reading your "explanation" one would think I was in some deep state of denial that anything else came into play other than the issue of talent. And you had to force me into accepting the truth.

So now that I have pointed out that your explanation is total BS - please do try again to dig yourself out of the hole you have dug yourself into.

[DoubleIT]

Just FYI - The REAL question in this thread was when you GOT it, or when you finally realized it... What a train wreck!

[JustinoXV]

I've not dug myself into hole because again, I think your claims on this matter are ludricious.

If a publisher rejects 98% of all the projects sent their way, does that mean the publisher thought all the manuscripts they rejected were bad?

No.

If a producer rejects 98% of all the scripts sent it, does that mean the producer thought they were all horrible writers?

No.

I've known producers to reject scripts of writers because the story was something they couldn't sell. The producer actually liked the screenwriter's story, but felt it wouldn't do well at the box office. Or other screenplays maybe rejected due to budgetary purposes. Or simply due to high volume, you will have a bunch of screenplays that are going to be rejected, even if they are good.

That's not counting the fact that many writers aren't able to get read.


You have no proof of what percentages of people are capable of writing commercially viable screenplays. None whatsover. Rejection rates prove absolutely nothing.

There's also the fact that at any one point, most people in the world have not submitted a screenplay. How many of these people could produce good work if they wanted to give it a shot?

In short, your stastical claims may as well have been pulled out of you know where. (an orifice where waste is eliminated from)

[JustinoXV]

An example of why your stastical claims are full of crap. I'd written a few freelance articles here and there. My very first submissions where rejected. So I kept submitting. I continued, until I finally got acceptances, and my articles published.

You've submitted no statistics, almighty Simon, on how many of those people who get rejected keep coming back until they find the proper home for their work.

I've been railing against you, Simon, because I think claims like yours maybe damaging to some of the newbies here. For a total beginner who's just been rejected, your comments could be read like you might as well give it up because 98% of writers never get anywhere.

You'll follow this up with, "well, if you can't take my attitude, how can you survive Hollywood?"

Well, the fact that Hollywood has a$$holes is no excuse for you being an a$$hole.

[JustinoXV]

I've got one more thing to say about this. Writing and the arts in general are like other professions in many ways. When programmers apply to big companies like IBM and Motorola, very high percentanges will be rejected. Doesn't mean that all of these people were failures as programmers. It means that there are so many slots open.

Some of these programmers will give up. Others will apply to other companies, or reapply to IBM and Motorola.

The rejection rate of the Ivy League Universities is pretty high. However, one who is rejected at Harvard may get into Cornell. One who doesn't get into an Ivy League school may get into a good state or non Ivy private university.

I've also known people who got rejected by Ivy Leagues as undergraduates, but who got into good graduate programs at Ivy League universities. Being rejected doesn't mean that a potential writer or student won't succeed. But you, in your obessesion on the 98% failure rate and the talent issue, are basically trying to tell people that if they've been rejected, why bother because it is obvious they didn't have talent.

Your so called statistics on the rejection rate mean nothing in terms of talent, and you know it. You just have the need to be King of the Hill lording over everyone else.

[dpaterso]

So much conflicting advice. So many arguments. I just don't know who to believe any more. I'm completely hornswoggled.

-Derek
-----------------------My Web Page - naked women, bestial sex, and whopping big lies. (http://hometown.aol.co.uk/DPaterson57)

[NikeeGoddess]

that's your problem, dp - you don't know how to filter out the nonsense and crap that isn't relevant to you and your project. if you need help....there's some tommyboy at script secrets who can help ;)

babble on!

[Writing Again]

Derek you can look at it this way.

First concentrate on those aspects you can control.

You have control over the goals you choose to aim for. For instance I currently choose to learn screen writing. I have not chosen to become a screenwriter or to in any way involve myself in Hollywood. Once I have accomplished this one goal I will consider future options. Choose a goal you will be happy with. Choose your goal at least as carefully as you would a spouse, you will be married to it for a long time.

You have control over your willingness to master the craft of story telling. These are those elements that apply to any well told story. Whether it be sitting around a camp fire, or a play or a novel, or a movie. The three act structure, plot, character, events, conflict, dialog, description, narrative, suspense, etc. To do this you might find yourself reading and learning far outside the craft of screenplays. In my personal library I even have books on how to write songs.

You have control over your willingness to master those elements specific to screenwriting. This includes everything from how to properly format a script to understanding an audience's reaction. You also have to understand timeliness. You have to write a script today that the audience will relate to three years from now when they see it.

You have control over certain aspects of yourself. You can set aside time to write or you can wait for "inspiration." You can free your imagination or you can chain it up in the basement of your soul. You can invite inspiration by not being shocked when it comes up with something from left field.

Take a good look at everything that is within your control and then control each element to your own benefit.

If anything is totally out of your control then evaluate its control over you. Let us say for the sake of argument that talent is fixed and can never be increased or decreased. If this is true then the following example applies.

It is safer to assume you have less talent and that you need to apply more effort to mastery of the craft to make up for this assumed lack of talent than it is to assume you have so much talent that you never need to study the art itself. If you believe you have so little talent that no amount of effort or study can possibly make up for the lack, then perhaps you should find an area you are more talented in.

On the other hand let us say you have talent that is limited. Let us say you are a master of dialog and character but lousy at structure. This is good. Now what you need to do is find another screenwriter with complimenting talents. Great teams are often made of less than this.

So concentrate on those things you can control. If you find something you cannot control then search it for any aspect that is open to manipulation and then control that.

Does this help?

[dpaterso]

WA, I appreciate your trying to explain in simple terms but now I've passed beyond hornswoggled, I'm officially befuddled. Any chance of a 25-word logline instead? Not just you. Everyone. Arrive late, make your point, get out fast!

Nikee, you are so bad.

-Derek
-----------------------My Web Page - naked women, bestial sex, and whopping big lies. (http://hometown.aol.co.uk/DPaterson57)

[SimonSays]

Justino

Let’s try this again.

You called me an elitist at 2:05 p. m. 12/2.

I mentioned the stats @ 5:49 p.m. – 3 3/4 hours LATER.

Please ‘splain.

And incidentally of the 98% rejected by company A – only a small %age are picked by co. B C D etc. The rest never get bought. And most of them don’t get bought because they’re bad. And most of those are bad because of lack of talent. .

I am not being an a-hole or lording it over anyone by stating the truth. And the truth is that most people who want to be writers don't have the talent required to do it. Maybe my statistics are off a little - maybe the actual number who have talent is between 5-10% - but the bottom line remains the same. Most don't.

You are supposed to be digging yourself OUT of the whole, not digging yourself in deeper.

[Optimus Maximus]

Simon,

You're wasting your time arguing with Justino. He is more than likely in that 98% of no-talent, never-gonna-bes.

He speaks his "advice" from a place of non-experienced dilettantism. His pedantic views are based on fictitious anecdote and opinion gleaned from years of trolling messageboards.

If you've ever seen Cheers, he's the Cliff Claiven of screenwriting.

You can't convince an idiot that he's an idiot if he's too stupid to no what an idiot is.

Here's an article that describes people like Justino. Maybe it'll help you understand him better.

Inept people don't know they're inept (http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/science/health/011800hth-behavior-incompetents.html)

[Optimus Maximus]

Just FYI - The REAL question in this thread was when you GOT it, or when you finally realized it... What a train wreck!
Actually, if you'll read your original post, your original question was "when you realized you had it," NOT when you "got" it, which insinuates that people always have it, but some take longer to realize it that others.

[kojled]

you guys sure do have a lot of time on your hands

[bottomlesscup]

Kurt Vonnegut Jr. said something to the effect of: "You cannot be taught to write. It's something God either allows you to do, or denies you."

I'm inclined to agree with him. (Notwithstanding the facts that KV is an athiest and spent time teaching at the Iowa Writer's Workshop.)

I think you can learn to be a competent writer. You can learn the craft, structure, and style of lucid writing. Almost anyone of moderate intelligence could, with practice, write a well-formed essay or letter and probably a readable (if not likeable) short story.

However, competence will never be enough for the real stuff. The intangible factors that make a writer, or at least their work, great can't be taught or learned. The elusive magic that makes the world spend nine billion a year at the cinema, that makes kids stay up until midnight reading Harry Potter with a flashlight, that makes dreamers like us hunger to join in - that stuff isn't covered in any course or book anywhere.

I'm not sure you have to be born with it. Bukowski said he was in his fifties when he finally got a sentence to come out right. And I'm not sure you need it to be a professional writer. There's plenty of movies and books that are miles from greatness.

But whether it's innate or gleaned from life, whether you need it or not, you've either got it or you don't. Ain't no learnin' about it.

As for, "when I knew I had it," I don't know if I have it. I could spend the rest of my life writing and never get past "competent."

And nothing in the whole world scares me as much as that thought.

[DoubleIT]

BottomLessCup - Very well said and really what I was looking to see from this thread. I stopped reading my own thread after the flame war started, and I was happy to see your reply.

[Vigorish9]

i was hanging out, minding my own business and i come by this magnificent post by bottle, you're so cool.

so, for my first post i will shout that i'm what they call a gifted writer, a talent in which i was born with.

now my gift is in storytelling, which thankfully spills out into the finer nuances of the art of screenwriting - and with any art, there is a certain amount of intrinisc apptitude to the artist donated by god.

however, in no uncertain terms am i a gifted writer.

i am merely gifted at something screenwriting holds at a premium, the ability to assimilate information and process it within a structure.

i think screenwriting is the easiest of the writing disciplines and takes the least amount of talent.

vig

[Writing Again]

I'm glad you are talented, Vig, and I hope you become one of the greatest screenwriters of all time.

As for me...

When I was a kid in school the coaches ran some trials to determine who had enough talent at playing football to bother wasting the schools precious time and finances training in this glorious sport.

I was one of the ones who was determined to have no talent. The school felt that seen as God had not bothered wasting his precious resources donating talent to me they would not waste theirs by allowing me on the team.

Sometime later it was discovered that I could outrun everyone: Cops, teachers, gangs, the coach, and everyone on the football team.

Now they wanted me to join.

My reply was simple: "You said God hated me and because he hated me I wasn't worth your time. Well now I hate all of you and you are not worth my time."

To this day I neither play nor watch football.

Writing is a team of one. I personally have the temerity to believe that this no talent bum will outrun many who have the talent but not enough perseverance.

[Writing Again]

I am many things, but a good screenwriter is NOT one of them.

You have helped me progress on my path of learning -- If you are not a better screenwriter than I then at least you understand the field better than I -- You are well ahead of me on the trail.

[Artsychic]

I guess when people kept asking me to tell them a story or write them one. I was always being ask to entertain in some way or other.

[Writing Again]

Optimus Maximus,

Metaphorically speaking, "talent and creativity" is the water in the bottom of the well. Inspiration is the bucket with which you draw it out.

I've decided I agree with this wholeheartedly.

I can't say that what I find when I dip down to the bottom of my well is talent though. It is creativity, lunacy, and random connections.

To be inspired (by a song, by a book, by seeing a young couple in love) simply gets the wheels turning. It takes creative talent to be able to work from that inspiration in order to spawn something great.

I realize I have been using the word "inspiration" in a broader sense. The initial inspiration, what gets me started on a screenplay, novel, song, poem, etc. is usually a random connection that gets me started working a puzzle. It might be a "what if" puzzle or a "how would" puzzle, or a "what kind of person or circumstance would make" puzzle.

Writing may or may flow easily at first. Sooner or later I have to start planning -- Working the puzzle. This may be plot, character, whatever.

At some point I hit a problem that is not easily solved. I will work on this problem until I find I am chasing my tail in circles and can no longer go anywhere with it. Then I put it away, only thinking about it occasionally. Sometimes I will come up with a new angle and I will worry and chew on the problem until I have either solved it or once again am chasing my tail.

Sooner or later, an hour, a day, a week, a month, a year, I hit on a random connection and see the solution to the problem. It may be while working on the problem, or even when I've given up and have put it away indefinitely.

This sudden grasping of the solution is what I think of as inspiration. You might say I've been lowering my bucket down in the bottom of the well for seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, or years, but I finally managed to grab that pinch of creativity I needed.

Perhaps with greater talent and more intelligence I would not have to work so hard for the same solution, or perhaps I would discover a better solution -- But I'm still proud of it. I worked for it, I earned it, and it is mine.

Those little pieces of inspiration are what I live for: They never fail to make me happy.

[Boobsie Malone]

The pro writers I've met have all seemed somewhat surprised they're in their position -- getting paid for their writing. As if the idea that they have talent is foreign to them. It's those people, from where I sit, that will probably always believe they have something to learn about writing. Sort of egoless writers.

The non-pro writers, who have egos the size of the Eiffel Tower, the ones who think they have nothing left to learn. They're the ones who fizzle out.

Does there have to be talent? I assume so. But what is talent? Is it some mythical gift bestowed on some of us, but not on the rest of us? Is it learned? Genetic?

The following is merely my opinion on "talent."

Talent is perseverence:

I've always wanted to write. Even before I read The Outsiders at age 14 and found out the SE Hinton wrote it as a teenager. So, I tried my hand at a novel. I wrote maybe 2 pages of my opus.

13 years later I tried again with slightly more success. The difference being, this time I put my nose to the grindstone, didn't have the hubris to think I'd be a genius straight out of the gate. And I've spent the past three years doing nothing but writing, going to seminars about writing, taking courses about writing, reading scripts, getting feedback from all walks of life.

Talent is learning:

I'd heard that the first script was usually a tosser. Meaning, I'd look back at it in a few year's time and realize it was dreck. So, I went in knowing it was kind of a practice script (I still have a soft spot in my heart for it, though). What I didn't know is that all scripts are kind of practice scripts. You learn something new on each one of them.

I'm a TV writer. And I end up watching a lot of TV. Since starting out 3 years ago, I find it's harder and harder to be surprised by TV shows. You know, the water cooler "Did you see that last night?" surprises.

But, on occasion, there are shows that truly surprise me, and I get that flip in my stomach, cuz it's just so fuckin' cool. And then I store the info away: "Okay, X surprised me, how could I do that?"

Talent is luck:

Being in the right place at the right time. You're at a party, sipping slowly at a Martini, because you've not eaten all day. The caterer comes around, there's one last crudité. You see another guy eyeing it, he's a few feet away, though. The waiter tells you he'll be bringing out more. And for some reason, even with your stomach growling, you let the other guy have the hors d'ouevre.

The guy's grateful. You start talking to him. Turns out he's a huge exec at paramountsonydisney. You've heard his name a million times, you've read his name in the Variety you steal from your neighbor (and put back before he has a chance to miss it). You tell him you're a writer. Turns out he's looking for X, and you just happen to have X. Or he knows someone who's looking for X. Or something. He gives you his card, and tells you to set up a meeting with his assistant.

I know this seems unlikely, but, I'm telling you, crazy things happen out here. I met a chick at Banana Republic, only reason we started talking is because we had on the same necklace. Turns out she was a huge exec at a studio. Also turns out she had an odd name that was coincidentally the same name of title character of a feature I wrote (er, am writing). She gave me her home number and office number. And email. I swear she was about to give me her SSN.

This is a very longwinded way of saying talent is a melee of many things. So, I don't think it's a matter of "You have it, or you don't." That's just something for people who've had mild successes (First Runner Up in the Poughkeepsie First Annual Screenwriting Competition) to lord their "talent" over others. I believe you can learn how to write. How to tell a story in an interesting manner. How to enter late and leave early.

But only if you have: Perserverence, willingness to learn, and a little bit of luck.

[JustinoXV]

While crazy things do indeed happen in LA, how many of those cases of people trying to slip people their cards, etc are just people trying to get lucky in a casting couch sense?

Also, some people have overinflated egos and would just like to have a bunch of people calling them. Then if it's at a party, some people maybe spouting off because they're drunk and/or hi.

Maybe this woman exec was just interested in your Boobs, Boobsie.:)

[Vigorish9]

if you're not gifted, and don't have talent it's not happening for 99.7% of the non talented people.

that's just how it is. all the other things are virtues of the talented. be persistant. get lucky. mingle.

vig

[JustinoXV]

So are saying, Vig, that only 1% of screenwriters are somehow genetically superior to everyone else. or that they were somehow magically gifted?

I've met people who worked in development here in Los Angeles who have told me that rejected plenty of very good scripts, not because the writers were talented, but to things like the sellability of the script, the budget, the timing, etc.

You might want to back off figures like 99% because you've no way of proving what percentage of the population can function as working screenwriters if they desired to and if they had the right circumstances.

With that said, I read the screenplays of my roommate here in LA. Half of his scripts he wrote about copyrighted materials he has no rights to (Bewitched). The other half are all gay themed and based on his life. None of it sellable. That is, I'm afraid to say, a lack of talent. (talent is defined as a sort of creative intelligence/genius).

But after actually working catering gigs all over Los Angeles Dec., including ones in the westside near Boobsie, I'd say I've met my share of screenwriters who were talented. It's extremely difficult to even get read in Los Angeles. And as for networking, a lot of people are full of @#%$ (pardon my expression)and just want to make themselves look big. Others like to get people on the casting couch. My point is that there are likely a lot of creative geniuses who may very well be struggling here in LA because they haven't yet gotten the right people to read their work. (plenty of people here in LA that will never be able to do anything with your work will ask you to give them a copy of your script)

[Vigorish9]

I don't even know what the hell you're saying, i know you think you're making some point, but the point is just silly.

manipulating people to enjoy something you write is next to impossible. having that skill and an inner voice worth listening to is three exits, in the wrong direction, past feasible.

being a pro writer puts you into an elite category now a days. if you can make your living off writing you are no doubt gifted. writing is not one of the jobs that welcome in the un-taleted, but superbely judicious. just doesn't work that way.

they are called producers, and executive producers or silent partners or deal makers or whatever it is they do cause they don't have the talent.

and anothe thing, one may say and supremely seem that he is not aware of his gift, but the other 99% of the time the guy knows his gift, his talent and begins to measure it against the market place.

vig

[JustinoXV]

"I don't even know what the hell you're saying, i know you think you're making some point, but the point is just silly."

That your stats are numbers you simply pulled out of your ass. You've absolutely nothing to back them up.

"manipulating people to enjoy something you write is next to impossible. having that skill and an inner voice worth listening to is three exits, in the wrong direction, past feasible."

Whoever said that manipulating people to enjoy something was possible, feasible, or a goal of some sorts?

"being a pro writer puts you into an elite category now a days. if you can make your living off writing you are no doubt gifted. writing is not one of the jobs that welcome in the un-taleted, but superbely judicious. just doesn't work that way."

Those professional screenwriters were not born pro writers. Many of them struggled for years. You can't just show up in LA, say you're talented, and expect to instantly take the town by storm. Even the best and most famous writers are more than a few rejections before they ever got anywhere.

"they are called producers, and executive producers or silent partners or deal makers or whatever it is they do cause they don't have the talent."

I think you've been drinking too much alcohol.

"and anothe thing, one may say and supremely seem that he is not aware of his gift, but the other 99% of the time the guy knows his gift, his talent and begins to measure it against the market place."


And what are your gifts, Vig? And are you a produced screenwriter? If so is it anything we've seen on the screen?

Have you even worked in the industry? if so, in what capacity?
vig

[Vigorish9]

"Even the best and most famous writers are more than a few rejections before they ever got anywhere." justino

obviously. next you're going to tell me the worlds round. that goes without saying. micheal jordan didn't make his highschool basketball team, but he was talented.

talent is what separates the working, from the never has a chance. talent is cultivated. nutured and played out with diligence.

you can write to the cows come home and if you ain't got it, you ain't ever getting it.

"Whoever said that manipulating people to enjoy something was possible, feasible." justino

writing is manipulating. if you don't know that then keep delivering the pizza, or whatever it is you do. the people without the talent are the ones grasping for straws hoping beyond hope that their cliche, drivel, exposition crap fest will get by the reader to the next level.

toiling at the craft for years is part of the process talented writers go through.

toiling at your craft for years is what the un-talented writer goes through.

as the saying goes you can have a field of ripe corn that will spoil in an unwatered field. the water is the talent.

talent sticks out like three eyes.

vig

[Boobsie Malone]

I disagree totally. I don't think I had a talent for story-telling when I first started out. I've read my first few scripts. They suck, just as much as the next guy's.

I went to classes, I read a ton [read: hundreds] of scripts, got feedback (and incorporated it, or at least thought about what the person was addressing, rather than ignoring it as a lot of people seem to do), and was just generally open to advice (going to seminars, etc).

You'd be surprised at how many people I've met who just keep writing and writing and writing without doing any of the other stuff. It's like running in a circle.

I'm not entirely sure I have talent now, but I'm a hell of a lot better than I was, and I'm definitely getting a better response to my writing.

So, yeah, I think talent can be learned. Or, at least, that's what I'm going to keep telling myself.

Also, I don't live on the westside. Unless you mean the west side of the country. Then, yes. I do.

[Vigorish9]

do not mistake hard work and personal sacrifice as the antidote to the talent question.

talentcan lay dormant in those that failure to realize that with great sacrifice comes great rewards.

it is inside us, or it isn't. talent can be as easily explained as an aptitude. and don't let me get started on the various levels of talent. some can do more than others folks.

just think of the inverse of talent - handicapped

vig

[JustinoXV]

"talent is what separates the working, from the never has a chance. talent is cultivated. nutured and played out with diligence."

When you put it like that, I agree with you.

"it is inside us, or it isn't. talent can be as easily explained as an aptitude. and don't let me get started on the various levels of talent. some can do more than others folks.

just think of the inverse of talent - handicapped"

As a dancer, I dance as bad as Whitney Houston (horrible). I don't have any gifts when it comes to dance, and I'd be a crappy actor.

So yes, some people are better at certain things than others. My major point of contention with you and Simon was over the percentages, because rejections are something that even the best writers deal with.

And unfortunately for my roommate, I think he maybe one of those that fall in the category of not standing a chance. All those scripts on copyrighted materials and the remaining ones are all gay (based on him) doesn't display any potential. I've known other would be writers in that category.

Still, a person whose lacking in talent but wants to study the craft maybe be able to teach screenwriting, get some sort of editorial job (in publishing if they learn enough about novels) or they may be better at some other kind of writing.

[joecalabre]

Talent, perseverance and such only goes so far in this business.

Screenwriting, like being a musician or fine artist, is a gamble career.

There are crappy writers who get stuff sold all the time and there are fantastic writers who never get a paycheck, regardless of how many queries they sent out.

Sure, you need talent to deliver a quality product, but just enough so that someone enjoyed what you have done and that is someone with money I might add.

Having a marketable concept or plot, getting the right reader and a lot of luck is in many cases more important than talent.

I don't want to sound like a pessimist, but chances are one out of twenty-five people on this board (Simon and other pros excluded) will sell a spec screenplay in the next five years (or ever).

[Vigorish9]

1-25.

let's talk numbers much more realistic -- how about 1 out of the next 1000 who log on here.

even within this group of people who are actively trying to articulate their goal through learning the craft, there is close to no chance of selling a script, and even less getting it put on screen. those are the cold hard facts.

now i'm off to put my main character in an absolutely nutty situation and have him talk his way out of it -- good day

vig

[bottomlesscup]

Boobsie wrote:

I don't think I had a talent for story-telling when I first started out.

I think you're being a bit modest here, Boobs.

Sure, you're first script probably sucked, but that doesn't mean you don't have talent. Van Gogh's first painting was probably crap, too.

You've begun to find success much, much faster than the average writer. (For those who don't know, Boobsie just earned a Disney Fellowship.) Three years of hard work requires perseverance, to be sure, but it's pretty close to overnight success in this biz.

You've been around DD long enough to know that many people have entered multiple scripts into those contests for years without even being a semifinalist. Some people work as hard as you have and never find success - however you measure it.

Discipline and hard work are undoubtedly vital to success in this or any business. However, a look at the numbers involved proves that discipline and hard work aren't enough. Some people are still writing garbage on their fiftieth script.

There's an intangible factor which let's some people succeed and write beautiful scripts where other people toil in mediocrity. Maybe it's genetic, maybe it's luck. But "talent" is as good a word as any.

[Writing Again]

Lets take a look for a second at those people who will never make it no matter what: The question being, "Is lack of talent what stops them?"

Most people are lazy.

Most people do not enjoy learning, nor do they enjoy learning the craft; it is work for them; they would rather ask simple questions on boards than hit the sites, buy the books, do the study, practice the writing that is needed. Unless they are as talented as Mozart their laziness will defeat them.

Most people want to slack on the writing itself. They won't write the same scene more than once or twice, they won't write throwaway scenes. They won't go over every detail of every scene until it is as perfect as they can make it. Once again laziness, not lack of talent, will defeat them.

Most people are hard headed.

They want to do it their way. True, James Joyce did it his way, but Ulysses was not his first novel. He worked his way up to an understanding of what he wanted to achieve and how he wanted to achieve it.

People who enjoy writing Star Trek fan fic who also want to break into major markets often refuse to see that they need to write something new, original, and different. We know they must make a choice, fan fic or screen writer, but they refuse to accept it.

Look how many people want to start their Hollywood career with the artsy flick. They stubbornly refuse to start at the bottom. I think every potential screenwriter, myself included, has an artsy flick they think might be a blockbuster -- But those of us who are being realistic know that is like leading with the left in boxing and we don't try to make it our starting script.

When you add impatience to laziness and bull headedness you have the average person -- And the average wannabe screenwriter -- A losing combination that will defeat almost any degree of natural talent.

Let us say someone out there possesses such an overwhelming lack of talent that it will defeat perseverance, study, willingness to learn, open minded ability to adapt -- Let us say it would even defeat good luck and perfect timing, the two things no one has control over -- And I still believe that more people defeat their talent than are defeated by the lack of it.

[joecalabre]

I was trying to be kind.

[JustinoXV]

Sticking to the actual definition of talent (unique or creative intelligence), coming up with marketable concepts are plots is indeed talent, Joe.

As for Writing Again's comments.......
"They want to do it their way. True, James Joyce did it his way, but Ulysses was not his first novel. He worked his way up to an understanding of what he wanted to achieve and how he wanted to achieve it.

People who enjoy writing Star Trek fan fic who also want to break into major markets often refuse to see that they need to write something new, original, and different. We know they must make a choice, fan fic or screen writer, but they refuse to accept it."

If they cannot come up with anything beyond fan fic, that does imply an actual lack of talent. Some people have very little imagination and simply may not be able to think up new stuff.

I do think that a bunch of writers do seem to be hard headed/block headed. Of course, banging one's head up against the wall only gets you so far. Then said writer quits and gives up.

And Writing Again is right when he says that a lot of people are to lazy to do research or invest in books. A lot of never going to make it screenwriters are very interested in getting their friends to review their materials, but will never seek out the services of a qualified script consultant (maybe necessary if you keep getting rejections)

[Vigorish9]

"And I still believe that more people defeat their talent than are defeated by the lack of it." writing again

if that could actually be quantified i'd say your wrong by a 98 to 1 margin. my reality is that there are far to many un-talented hacks then gifted writers.

vig

[Writing Again]

The eleven year old looking over my shoulder, who dubs herself "The Smart One" has pointed out that in an odd way I'm arguing against my own logic.

When people tell me that I'm wasting my time learning screenwriting because 50,000 scripts a year are submitted and only three hundred are purchased: Thus making the odds astronomical; I reply their figures are incorrect.

Of those 50,000 scripts 90 % of them are written by writers who have no concept of what makes a good story.

Of the five thousand left 90 % of them are written by writers who do not understand how to make their writing dramatic.

All of which leaves me with a real competition of 500 well written, well planned, well executed scripts. The question is will I be able to compete with them, not whether I can compete with the other 49,500.

Yet I do not feel I'm starting with any special talent; I merely recognize the real competition and am starting with preparation.

If the other 99 % of the writers applied themselves to their fullest (I guess I should be grateful they do not) I doubt I would stand a chance because then it would be 50,000 to one every year.

[Vigorish9]

jesus, you don't get it. you are competing against PROS. people with talent, skill, connections, diligence.

the other people are just part of ocean of water you are in with. the whales are the ones you're in competition with.

the whales.

when you aspire to be in the nba, are you competing against the ymca groups - intramural? on the basic level you are, but who your competition is, is the people who have already separated themselves.
vig

[bottomlesscup]

I saw a quote from a studio exec once, where she said, "Hollywood only makes three hudred films a year because they only get three hundred scripts worth filming."

You're only competing with yourself.

[Vigorish9]

bottle, i can understand, vaguely your last statement on a purely man vs. himself way. but it's not about pushing yourself to your limits.

you must be able to have limits that exceed everybody else.

vig

[bottomlesscup]

Unless you're talking about contests, I don't think competition is really an issue.

Studios aren't looking for a set number of scripts each year. They're not going to buy the best 25 scripts they read. They're going to buy every script that they believe will make a viable film.

If your script is great enough and fits their needs, they'll buy it. Even if they have a full slate.

Tens of thousands of spec scripts will be written this year, but the only ones you have to worry about are the ones you write. It does you no good to even consider the other writers working out there as competition. They have nothing to do with you or your spec.

All you have to do is a write a spec script that's good enough. When you sit down at the computer, it's all about writing the best script you possibly can. Not about writing a script that's better than any other given script.

Ergo, your only competition is yourself.

[Vigorish9]

la is a market place, like any instituition, they solicit certain material gauged against other material, that has already set the market value. not entirely, but mostly.

studios would disagree with you and so will I. you are in competition with other scripts.

this is just a drop in the bucket example. let's say a producers says, i got a hold of three scripts, i'm making one of them, and yours is in the running.

that happens everyday in la, and you only have to read tao's post on donedeal to recogonize that you are in competition with all those factors slamming into one another at different, and varying degrees. it may be romantic to think it's me, this computer, my lamp and the hum of my own mind, but it ain't.

vig

[JustinoXV]

Studios are ultimately interested in what sells. Person Z's best may not be good enough for the studio. Or it maybe good, but the timing is not right. etc. A whole host of factors come into play.

But yes, you are in competition with other writers. Don't get me wrong, write to the best of your ability. But your script must be good enough to get producers to chose you over other people. That in itself is competition. You also have to convince people, by pitches or queries, why they should even read your work.

[Writing Again]

jesus, you don't get it. you are competing against PROS. people with talent, skill, connections, diligence.

I was basically told that by teachers when, as a kid, I started writing short stories. When I finally sold short stories I was told by the same people that what I wrote was "no talent hack garbage" fit only for pulp magazines selling to people with no literary taste.

I was told basically that and more when I started writing novels. "Only intelligent people with an educations can write a novel" and when they sold of course I was told that "Mystery stories and westerns aren't 'real' writing" they are the field of talentless hacks."

I therefore contend that it is possible for this talentless hack to someday hack out a selling screenplay.

But that is getting ahead of myself. So far I've only started the journey of learning to write a screenplay; I have not entered the field yet and it is possible I will decide not too.

In the mean time I'm having a lot of fun learning and I don't see any reason to be defeated simply because I don't have what it takes to be great.

After all the pros had to come from someplace: They started out messing their diapers just like everybody else.

[Vigorish9]

just because people told you 'a', doesn't mean 'd' is this way.

you may be finding yourself, as many do as they begin to push the boundaries of what they thought they could do. an element of man vs. himself.

going into my fifth year of writing i'm discovering more and more about what my thresholds are and what i can actually accomplish.

how many really push themselves to discover that they are just ordinary? it takes a bold person to try to succeed and prove that you are something. whatever that something is.

unfortunately, the world is a cruel place that begins making us unique at birth, are you a boy or girl.

then they give us aptitude test measured against other children and that never stops.

we grow up either fearing what we can't accomplish or fearing that what we will accomplish, wont' be enough.

we are our own wicked paradigm
vig

[JustinoXV]

Teachers are among the WORST people to talk to about any kind of professional writing, unless said teacher teaches that king of writing. A high school English teacher (or a primary school English teacher) won't know anything more than the average person about writing.

[Writing Again]

All you have to do is a write a spec script that's good enough. When you sit down at the computer, it's all about writing the best script you possibly can. Not about writing a script that's better than any other given script.

Ergo, your only competition is yourself.

I also understand what you are saying, but that mind set only works if you are competing to make the next script better than the last script: It also only works if you have an accurate measure of what is better than what you have done in the past: That measure is the pros who are writing the best scripts.

You need to try to write a script that is better than what is currently out there in the theater.

Saying a new screenwriter is in competition against other screenwriters is only half of it: You are in competition for the audience's attention.

Mastery of how to capture and maintain the audience's attention can be concentrated on without ever considering other screenwriters because that, after all, is the goal.

What you focus on, whether it is competition with yourself and what you have done in the past, competition against other writers, or competition for the audience's attention one thing is a necessity -- Your skill must keep improving until you have accomplished your goal. Once you quit improving you are lost.

[Vigorish9]

once you quit, you might be liberated. if you are writing and trying to sell your quality of life can't be what it used to be.

i mean, if you were living a nice life, the time writing cuts into it is alarming.

vig

[Writing Again]

once you quit, you might be liberated. if you are writing and trying to sell your quality of life can't be what it used to be.

i mean, if you were living a nice life, the time writing cuts into it is alarming.

vig

I use to write novels, short stories, articles. People told me, in the vernacular of the time "God, get a life." I sold a few, enough to support me from six to eight months out of the year. People said, "Get a real paying job so you don't live like a bum."

One day I got married, raised a family, had a great wife and a great life. My writing went down hill until it disappeared into the sunset, but I was happy living my life and although I often missed writing terribly I felt that what I had was "more important" and "More meaningful."

Now my family is grown and gone, wonderful people all, but they have their own lives; I'm a widower; The memories of that great life bring me nothing but sadness; and all I have left is the wish that I had never quit writing -- At least I would have something to show for all those years of "Having a wonderful life."

[Vigorish9]

then tell a story of the things you lost.

vig

[JustinoXV]

I'm in Los Angeles right now. The thing is, unless you are at the point where your writing sells enough for you to write full time, at some point you're going to have to get a real paying job, till writing becomes your real paying job.

LA has a massive homeless population, and NYC has more than a few. A lot of writers and actors end up as a part of this population.

In NYC, a friend of mine was a songwriter with a part time job. Her job cut back her hours to one day. Her roommates icked her out and her boyfriend dumped her. She tried staying with a friend of mine, but that friend gave her about a week to find a job and a new place and then she kicked her out. So then this songwriter tried staying with someone else, who kicked her out.

It takes money to be able to pay your rent, to eat with, etc. No sane person would want to get locked into long term homelessness.

Also, at some point, if you get that crappy day job, it may provide you with inspiration to write. The day job might not even be that crappy.

Writing Again, if you have children that you love, then be happy that things happened the way they did. Perhaps that was just meant to be. You can't change the past, but you are free to write whatever you want to write now.

In the past couple of years, I took many months off at a time to wholly devoted to writing screenplays, learning how to write them, and rewrites. Now my scripts are as good a they need to be (as far as I'm concerned), and I've been sending them out. At this point I won't do more major work to them unless I'm truly convinced (by a long line of rejections or comments) that they need them.

What Vig said about how time consuming and expensive writing can be is why I've always questioned people who felt the need to be on indefinite rewrite. I assume some people like writing for writing's sake, but if you want to be a professional writer it isn't a good idea to spend too much time on one project.

[Vigorish9]

justino, listen bro, you can post 4 pages on this site and i can tell you in no uncertain terms if you can write.

from what i have already gathered from you, you are clueless about how the system works. you are, by definition, what the term 'a little bit of knowledge can be a very bad thing,' means.

i can live in a kitchen, and not know how to cook. which means i probably know how to eat.

so, you can live in la, and not know how to write, but you sure do have the bullshit down.

you got to be what 22, about as cultured about what it takes to be a screenwriter as spot the dog.

vig

[JustinoXV]

Vig, darling, if I want opinions on the quality of my work, I will pay, yes PAY, a credited script consultant to review my work. I'm not interested in the opinions of nameless, faceless imbeciles online who can claim to be experts. As they say, opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one:)

[JustinoXV]

And you, Vig, still haven't proved to me who are you. For all I know you could be some skid row crackhead posting from the pcs at the downtown Los Angeles Public Library.

Who are you (full real name please), what have you done in the industry, etc?

I require all this before anyone comes near my work. I'm waiting.

[Vigorish9]

jesus pal, are you disturbed?

I'm batman

[JustinoXV]

Batman is not qualified to come near any writer's work.

My motto is trust, but verify. I don't deal with people unless I can verify certain information to my satisfaction. Batman has a secret identity, and I don't deal with secret identities. Not when it comes down to serious business.:)

[Vigorish9]

justino, it just dawned on me who you are, and i gotta say you're ludicrous speed.

vig

[JustinoXV]

I think you know more about speed (the drug) than I do.:)

[Boobsie Malone]

Bottomless,

I get where you're coming from. But, I stand by my assertion that talent is a mixture of perserverence, willingness to learn, and luck.

Personally, I've had a lot of the latter of recent. But I firmly believe I wouldn't have had any success without the two formers.

And though my success may seem quick, I am fortunate to have a husband that is able to support us. So, what takes the normal working person 6 years, I was able to do in three.

However, I've also recently been proven wrong about all of this. A friend recently went to a party and met a guy who'd won a major contest with his first script which he wrote on a lark. This guy had a lot of luck. But there's a danger in these "overnight successes." These people, who've not studied scripts, or learned to take notes, or... there might be a rude awakening the deeper they go into their careers.

So, I suppose there are those who have an innate gift. But, I definitely am not one of those people.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, there is hope for all the hopefuls. Those people who don't have the innate gift may have to work harder, but they can still get there.

The destination remains the same, but there's no Thomas Guide for Scripts to get us there. You just have to make your own way.

[JustinoXV]

"The destination remains the same, but there's no Thomas Guide for Scripts to get us there. You just have to make your own way."

Agreed.

[Vigorish9]

"So, I suppose there are those who have an innate gift. But, I definitely am not one of those people. " boobsie

to think that all your hardwork stemmed from something you have no control over is a shock to your sensibilities.

if you come into my car little girl i have candy.

vig

[SimonSays]

Yes you need perserverance, a willingness to learn and luck to succeed as a writer - but talent is none of these things nor a combination of these things. Talent is a separate entity entirely.

Talent is an innate, unique gift. We all have unique gifts - but we don't all have them for writing. And those who don't have talent have almost no shot at success no matter how much they learn or how hard the persevere or how lucky they are.

[dpaterso]

Seeing the future giants of screenwriting posting in this thread reminds me of the closing line of TROY: "Let them say, I lived in the time of Achilles." I am humbled to be in such illustrious company.

-Derek
-----------------------My Web Page - naked women, bestial sex, and whopping big lies. (http://hometown.aol.co.uk/DPaterson57)

[Writing Again]

You may be humbled, but I was happy before as a third rate hack and I'm sure I'll be happy being a third rate hack in the future.

I figure it is better to be a third rate hack than no hack at all.

[dpaterso]

WA, you've neatly summed up my entire writing strategy. Better to have hacked and lost than never hacked at all. We can't all be Achilles but sometimes the soldier right at the back of the army can shoot a lucky arrow that hits the target.

-Derek
-----------------------My Web Page - naked women, bestial sex, and whopping big lies. (http://hometown.aol.co.uk/DPaterson57)

[JustinoXV]

Two meanings of talent:

"3 : the natural endowments of a person
4 a : a special often creative or artistic aptitude b : general intelligence or mental power :

Using these definitions, obviously one must be talented. However, in order to be a working screenwriter, one must still master the craft and also be able to strategize ways of getting one's work out there (marketing in and of itself is a talent, not every gifted artist is able to do it effectively).

I do agree with Writing Again that a lot of people are lazy and unwilling to learn new things or take responsibility for them.

[joecalabre]

Being a screenwriter is very like being a musician.

It takes talent to play well (or write well) but that doesn't guarantee you'll sell out at Madison Square Garden (or get a three picture deal at Universal). Not everyone is a rock star. Most musicians (and writers) have day jobs and play small clubs (or write whatever comes their way).

The same is true for screenwriters. Very few are at the Mamet level.

Many people think that if you sell a script, you become that rock star, but in reality most writers who make a living at it struggle day by day.

I know many writers who option once or twice a year but sell much, much less. One friend, Bruce Sakow, wrote Friday the 13th part 4 and that was his last big gig. He still makes a living by optioning, getting rewrites for hire, selling small projects and teaching writing (and selling real estate sometimes too).

Unless you sell that six against seven, you will teach, write articles, maybe even work a day job.

You guys should focus more on the day to day task. Keep writing, get a library of stuff to show and as a cute, forgetful fish once said: "Just keep swimming..."

[Vigorish9]

joe, i'm with you man. writing forces you to be realistic. you want to know why writers are cynical -- try being at something for years, somehthing that literally pours from your guts on a day to day basis, a part of every fiber and synapse you have for five, six, seven and on years.

the stark reality, to write is to slowly drain yourself of everything you are... everything you feel... being in touch with every little part that normal people keep tuck away to stay sane.

I've done some hard work in my life, from casino construction 50 floors up, to a very short stint with a mandatory dress code and a boss, to front line construction and self employment, and writing is as annoying, fullfilling an edeavor you can have and as GRUELING.

you learn to respect it when it's kicking your asss every single day of your life as you try to learn the craft as diligently as possible, sapping all the things from all the people who say things you know you need to listen too.

then it comes time, the fourth year, that fifth or sixth script that the ideas and themes and storytelling angles and subtext starts to come more naturally as you build it from the begining.

you're getting out early and in late almost as if it's second nature. you are learning who should say what and when, and what kind of pattern you need to write for different genres.

write on boys, cause it's hell IN high water - you're gonna boil

vig

[Writing Again]

I enjoy writing. The problem I have with the day job is that it takes away from my time writing.

I enjoy learning to write. I enjoy these forums because in spite of everything I gain a lot from them: Information, knowledge, understanding, and I also get interesting ideas. I also read books, articles, interviews, and what ever else I can get my hands on.

I enjoy creating a story, putting it together, making it better, then improving it; I even enjoy editing and rewriting.

Writing takes nothing from me: It gives me what golfing gives doctors, what bar hopping gives to drunks, what Monday night football gives to armchair quarterbacks. It is what I do when I'm not doing something else.

[JustinoXV]

The day job provides money for postage,ink, paper, the electricity your computer needs, and other writer related costs. Books, magazines, script consultants, etc. are also not for free.

If and when you do get industry meetings, you want to show up nice and clean (laundery is a part of your basic living costs).

I agree with Joe, unless you get 6 to 7 figure deals just concentrate on making a living with your day job (whatever that is, even if it's teaching).

Some writers do get industry day jobs. If you real like show business that can be a good environment for you.