"Either you have it or you don't"...?

You can't be taught to write long thought out fiction, I don't think. But a five page college paper--yes. I think anyone can string a few sentences together, but hundreds of pages of entertaining literature is another matter all together.

A difficult question.

First, I think "writing fiction" is not a monolithic activity. For example, some people are natural story tellers, but have to learn how to formulate sentences. Doing what you're good at is fun (and you'll improve quicker, because you'll do it more). Doing what you're not good at isn't fun, but you can be motivated to do it so you get to do that other thing you're good at. So if you have jerky sentences, but your stories are gripping, you'll be motivated to learn how to improve your sentences, because you're stories will come across better.

Now, if you're neither good at story, nor at character, nor at language, nor... you could in theory still learn it all, but I have a hard time seeing where the motivation would come from.

For example, I'm quite aware that while I'm good with character and dialogue I'm... not so good with setting. Writing setting, for me, is slow and awkward, but I'm learning, and it's a revelation to see how the improved setting enhances the characters. If I were not good at character in the first place, I doubt I'd feel compelled to learn about setting.

So yes, I do think, that there are people who just haven't got "it"; i.e. people who have no writing-related strength. But I also think that these people rarely even try to write.

It's not something I find helpful to say at a writing site. I don't expect to find people who haven't got "it", there. Of course, there's evaluation to take into account. If your style tends more towards 19th Century telling, people may tell you you're hopeless. That's nonsense. You're style's just not currently in fashion. (Though there's surely a niche, even if your writing ends up for free on a web-page with about ten regular visitors.)

I tend to sit somewhere on the sidelines. I neither buy the hard-work ethics, nor do I believe in the "natural born writer". If you do what you enjoy, and do it often, you're going to get better (just hope you don't get stuck in a rut).

And that is that.

I think that students can (and should) be taught to express themselves clearly on the page, presenting an orderly string of sentences that put forward coherent ideas. Whether you can teach someone to be the next great novelist is another story.

I believe that even for people who don't want to follow writing as a profession, it's both useful and necessary. Anyone who's ever received a business letter that was unreadable understands this implicitly, as would anyone who's ever had to send a letter to get a point across and couldn't manage to. Writing is part of communication, and communication is one of the threads that holds societies together--or doesn't, if it's inadequate to the task.

A classmate of my son's (they're going into eighth grade) once said in my hearing, "Like, why is writing like, so important? Like, why should I know how to write?" I thought he answered his own question.

Writing is a skill. Talent just makes something easier. I think those are the two things you're talking about, skill vs. talent. Anyone can be a passable writer, piano player, what have you.

I think greatness just means that other people like one thing more than they like another.

Just like any achievement, talent and skill must work together. Raw talent without the willingness to learn the necessary skills can take you only so far. Likewise, learning the skills without any latent talent can only get you to a certain level. I think greatness in writing requires both.

I can paint a fence or a wall, but no one would even consider me a candidate for, say, the Sistine Chapel. Mechanics are teachable, imagination and creativity and talent maybe not. Then again, as my old granny used to say 'practice, practice, practice and you can do anything!!!' Hmmm.. maybe I should set my sights a bit higher!!

Writing

Writing can be taught in the same way that math can be taught; you can teach pretty much anyone to add, subtract, multiply, and divide. And you can teach pretty much anyone to write sentences, paragraphs, etc. After this, it gets tougher.

I don't care who the teacher is, or how long and hard they try, a great many people never can master higher math, and the same seems to be true for writing.

If it were possible to teach most people to write well, it seems to me advanced writing classes, creative writing programs, MFA programs, etc., would have classes chock full of people who can write well. But this simply isn't the case. If writing well can be taught, then I see no logical explanation for why it never is, for why even the great majority of those who go through many years of such programs never do learn to write well.

I don;t know whether it's a case of you either have it or you don't, but I do know there's nothing special about writing. It's just like math, quantum physics, chemistry, or any other discipline that requires a certain type of mind in order to do it as well as the best in the business.

I suspect the notion is out there that anyone can learn to write because we all learn to write sentences and paragraphs in grade school, and we all, after a fashion, can tell stories with words. But just like American Idol shows, anyone can sing a song, but darned few can sing well enough make the trip to Hollywood, let alone well enough to win any prizes.

I think it's possible to be every bit as tone deaf toward writing as toward singing.

I was always good at writing in school. Always got top marks for my writing; always got picked to read my stories out to the class. Everyone told me I was a great writer. Therefore, I believed I was a great writer. And I think, in terms of secondary school essays and creative writing, I was. But I thought that was all I needed. Now, many years later, I know that's not enough. Yes I can write a bit. Yes I'm naturally good at grammar, punctuation, spelling, etc. But no, it's not enough. I used to think that having a bit of talent would enable me to be this great, hugely successful, world-renowned writer. But it won't. I need more. Now I know that. I need to learn more, or I'll be writing schoolgirl stuff forever.

dkglenning said:

Well, I'm sure you've all heard language students protests about writing in school, "Not everyone can write, so we shouldn't have to". Many people have said that writing can't be taught. That tequnique can, but not 'good' writing. I don't know. I've always wondered about the "Either you have it, or you don't". Is it really that simple? I've always been writing and enjoyed it, so I can't protest either way. furthermore, I've never tried to explain to anyone how to write, outside of revising, and grammer, and that sort of thing. What does everyone else think? Can it be taught, or is it as simple as either you have it or you don't? Or is it just an excuse people use when they don't want to write?

Click to expand...

You can teach people the craft of writing grammatically, clearly, and functionally You can't teach the the art of writing great literature.

I don't think there's any such thing as natural talent. I was always a good writer in school, but that's because my whole life I would read books during recess, read books at home, write for fun, etc. I suspect lots of people here were the same way. That creates the illusion of destiny, or of some kind of natural talent, but the truth is, I just had more practice than most people. Looking back on my stuff from four years ago, I can say without the slightest reservation that I have no natural talent for writing fiction. But, I've written a lot in those four years, and I've improved. Practice makes perfect. Unfortunately, it takes a lifetime of practice. So, those people who are willing to write for years on end, try to improve themselves, and continue to write even when they're dejected, depressed, or feeling like they will never make it, are the ones who will end up seeming "talented."

Yeah, well, what happened to the dicipline required to write 400 pages, and do it over and over again until the damn things sells? There are so many other elements to this biz, you can't just clarify a few and say that makes a writer and he's "got it." A writer who "doesn't have it" or who is a good (but not great) story teller might go through ten novels before he sells one. Where the great writer who "has it" might poop out after two books and break all of his/her pencils and quit.

I think there has to be something said about longevity here.

tri

Selimthegrim said:

I don't think there's any such thing as natural talent. I was always a good writer in school, but that's because my whole life I would read books during recess, read books at home, write for fun, etc. I suspect lots of people here were the same way. That creates the illusion of destiny, or of some kind of natural talent, but the truth is, I just had more practice than most people. Looking back on my stuff from four years ago, I can say without the slightest reservation that I have no natural talent for writing fiction. But, I've written a lot in those four years, and I've improved. Practice makes perfect. Unfortunately, it takes a lifetime of practice. So, those people who are willing to write for years on end, try to improve themselves, and continue to write even when they're dejected, depressed, or feeling like they will never make it, are the ones who will end up seeming "talented."

Click to expand...

Of course there's such a thing as natural talent. This isn't debatable. You may have had more practice than some people, but a great many writers have succeeded dramatically with essentially no practice at all. Others have practiced continually for decades and never show enough improvement to matter.

And no amount of practice ever makes anyone perfect. Many practice for a lifetime, and still can't do whatever it is they're practicing nearly as well as someone else does right from the start. Practice will usually make anyone better, but no amount of practice can make most people much above mediocre.

Some people simply learn faster than others. Sometimes a lot faster. Some people have talent that others lack. I practiced painting for years, and never did reach the point where I was anything remotely close to good. Yet I knew others who simply picked up a pencil or a paint brush for the first time and drew or painted like masters within weeks.

And with no practice at all, none, I wrote and sold three short stories within a few weeks, and then wrote a novel in three weeks that sold immediately. But I've known many wannabe writers who have, literally practiced for decades, who have been taught by several pro writers, who have taken class after class, and I mean high end, good classes, who have written hundreds of short stories or a dozen novels, and who still can't write fiction that even their mothers would want to read.

The trouble with writing is that. just like singing, darned few have a clue whether they're good or lousy. Most can look back after a few years practice and see they're better than they were, but they can't see how bad they still are.

If practice could replace natural talent, it would, but it doesn't. There are hundreds of thousands of wannabe writer who have decades of intense practice, who have had the best teacher out there, and who still can't write as well as many other do right from the start.

There are exceptions to everything, but from my experience most who have talent do not take long years of practice before they start selling. It usually happens pretty darned fast. The writer may not land on the bestseller list, but he starts selling early and often. And those who lack natural talent can practice daily until they're old and gray, and they still won't be any good.

Skills can get you pretty far -- become competent or even good. If you practice playing the piano for 20 years, you're bound to become rather good even if you have no talent at all. But if you look at all the "greats" in history, talent plays a significant part. If you've seen the movie Amadeus, you will know what it means. Some notable quotes (paraphrase) that addressed this issue:

You can make a bad writer competent, and you can make a competent writer good, but you can't make any good writer "great." -- Stephen King

You need three things to succeed in writing: discipline, luck, and talent. All we can do is to work on our discipline and hope we have the other two. -- Michael Chabon.

I happen to agree with them. While writing is a skill, "creative writing," like other artistic endeavors, does require talent. With training, everyone can learn to sing or act or play a musical instrument adequately, but we'll be fooling ourselves to think that anyone can be great.

But do note that, as Michael Chabon said, "talent" doesn't have much to do with success. Just because you have talent doesn't mean you will be successful as a writer, and just because you're successful doesn't mean you have talent.

Sure, you need talent, and rare talent, to become great. And that usually shows pretty early in life.

You even need talent to become “good.” But that’s where it gets a bit trickier. And that’s where hard work and practice will pay off.

I have a friend who showed some talent as a painter early on. But not any more than many others–she applied for and was turned down for scholarships by a couple of prestigious fine arts programs. She spent ten years working on her art, and just got a one person show at a major New York gallery. (Sort of like being published by Random House)

Maybe her work will never be “great,” but she’s really, really good..

Another friend, again with some talent, worked his butt off to become a jazz musician. As a youngster, many others showed more promise. Again, he’ll never be a “great” musician, but he is a full time professional now, well respected, really good, and with more work than he can handle.

So, if you’re not one of the lucky few who can dash off a book at nineteen and immediately see it published, don’t despair. If you have at least some talent, and work hard, you can certainly make it.

reigningcatsndogs said:

I can paint a fence or a wall, but no one would even consider me a candidate for, say, the Sistine Chapel. Mechanics are teachable, imagination and creativity and talent maybe not. Then again, as my old granny used to say 'practice, practice, practice and you can do anything!!!' Hmmm.. maybe I should set my sights a bit higher!!

Click to expand...

I've always used the carpentry analogy. I can be taught how to build things with wood. How to use a hammer or a saw. The things I'd build would be functional and sturdy. You'll recognize it as a bookshelf or a table, but if I'm not naturally talented and creative, I'm not going to be making fine pieces of furniture that are as much art as useful.

The same is true of writing. It may look like a novel, quack like a novel, but without natural talent and creativity, it's not going to be published like a novel.

dkglenning said:

Well, I'm sure you've all heard language students protests about writing in school, "Not everyone can write, so we shouldn't have to". Many people have said that writing can't be taught. That tequnique can, but not 'good' writing. I don't know. I've always wondered about the "Either you have it, or you don't". Is it really that simple? I've always been writing and enjoyed it, so I can't protest either way. furthermore, I've never tried to explain to anyone how to write, outside of revising, and grammer, and that sort of thing. What does everyone else think? Can it be taught, or is it as simple as either you have it or you don't? Or is it just an excuse people use when they don't want to write?

Click to expand...

I know one or two people on these boards who say they hate writing. Published writers, mind you. If they're good enough to get published, and they hate the job, they nevertheless have learned their task well and are good craftspeople.

My viewpoint right now is that a Craft, like the Writing Craft, is a learned thing. The statement 'you either have it or you don't', I believe, is more accurate when it comes to talent. Skill, on the other hand, is learned.

A person might not have a talent to write, but they can still learn to write well, even if they frankly cannot stand doing it. If a person applies themselves to learning any Craft, they can be a Master Craftsman whether they have a talent for it or not.

So, wanting to write can help in your incentive to learn, but I don't believe writing is something certain people cannot do well. What matters, like I always say, is a dedication to the Craft, and taking the written word seriously. Love can play a part, but I don't think it's absolutely necessary to be a good writer.

Sean D. Schaffer said:

I
A person might not have a talent to write, but they can still learn to write well, even if they frankly cannot stand doing it. If a person applies themselves to learning any Craft, they can be a Master Craftsman whether they have a talent for it or not.

Click to expand...

I totally disagree. Without the natural talent one will never become a master craftsman. I've read stuff by people who have taken classes and applied themselves to learn the craft but have no natural gift. The writing is invariably stiff and lifeless. Granted it's well-written from a technical viewpoint, but its lacking in soul.

Just as the above analogies about painting or woodwork. You can learn the technical skills, but without the natural talent the painting is lifeless, the woodworking has no soul.

I think a person can learn to be a good writer, by observing other people and going inside herself,learning about what motivates people to do the things they do etc. I think some people are born with this ability but other people can certainly learn it.

I think I've always had a knack for writing, but I've had to work damn hard to make it something worth reading.

I believe firmly in talent. I don't think you can coast on it, but people who are wickedly good at what they do have some sort of little gear or elf that tells them how to proceed. For example, I'm a good writer but a terrible artist. Will I get better if I practise my drawing every day? Of course, but it would be a horribly painful endevour. One artist friend of mine told me about how she used to watch films like Star Wars and then rush home to draw X-Wings and TIE fighters.

I never did anything like that, but I do remember having a fascination for words and speech at a very young age. I liked to observe people having conversations and I took note of the words they chose and the gestures they used. I adored the lyrical curses of my Irish grandparents.

I'm observational, but in a different way from my artist husband. When we look at a picture, he automatically notes details and colours I wouldn't even think to look at otherwise. I see a whole picture and a story within that picture.

Overall though, I'd say writing is 10% talent and 90% hard work.

After you have the mechanics of writing down, and you're familiar with certain techniques, the words "good," and "great" are completely subjective. One editor's unreadable trash is another editor's favorite read in 23 years.

Classes and seminars are of highly limited use when it comes to learning to write better. The best way to improve your writing, after you think you've hit a wall, is to go read a lot of an author whose style you admire.

Some polished rocks are diamonds and some are just pretty spiffy-looking rocks. Practicing anything will make you better at it than you were the month before but hard work + talent will always excel over either alone.

aka eraser said:

Some polished rocks are diamonds and some are just pretty spiffy-looking rocks. Practicing anything will make you better at it than you were the month before but hard work + talent will always excel over either alone.

Click to expand...

How does he get so wise? A lot of polishing, I bet.