"Either you have it or you don't"...? [Archive]

Dawnstorm

07-08-2007, 02:03 AM

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.

Novelhistorian

07-08-2007, 02:12 AM

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.

BlueTexas

07-08-2007, 02:16 AM

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.

Soccer Mom

07-08-2007, 02:23 AM

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.

reigningcatsndogs

07-08-2007, 04:19 AM

Jamesaritchie

07-08-2007, 04:45 AM

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.

Mandy-Jane

07-08-2007, 05:05 AM

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.

BestWriter07

07-08-2007, 05:06 AM

Tish Davidson

07-08-2007, 09:32 AM

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

Selimthegrim

07-08-2007, 12:27 PM

triceretops

07-08-2007, 12:55 PM

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

Jamesaritchie

07-08-2007, 05:53 PM

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."

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.

maestrowork

07-08-2007, 07:07 PM

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.

rugcat

07-08-2007, 07:41 PM

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.

Cassiopeia

07-09-2007, 07:04 AM

My mother and I were told by my 6th grade teacher that at the age of 11, I was a gifted writer and a prodigy.

I wrote throughout my youth and then stopped. I got busy with life. My "talent" fell by the way side and I starting over. Am I naturally talented? Well heck, anyone would like to think they were, but the fact of the matter is, if you have the will and the determination to quote my Grandfather, "You can do anything you want in this life and do it well."

Anyone with enough study and determination can write a story and do it well if they are lucky to be in the right place at the right time get it published quickly. They are the lucky ones. The Gods have smiled on them. The question remains can they do it again and again and again. Or were they a flash in the pan? This is the dilemma we all face as writers, published or unpublished.

My uncle wrote for the Sturgis, South Dakota Newspaper, was the Chief Editor, a Journalist his entire life and an accomplished published writer and is being honoured by the Lakota Souix for his books and diligence on their behalf. He had this to say about writing:

"Kim, as long as you are writing every day and write about what matters most to you, improve on your skill, you will succeed."

Writing takes more than natural talent. It takes passion and a lot of it. It is among the hardest professions one can undertake.

Can anyone write? Let me rephrase that question? Can anyone learn to write? Sure they can barring any handicaps they might have. Like most things, if it is worth having, it is worth working and fighting for.

Shadow_Ferret

07-09-2007, 07:20 AM

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!!
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.

Sean D. Schaffer

07-09-2007, 10:30 AM

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?

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.

Shadow_Ferret

07-09-2007, 04:27 PM

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.

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.

janetbellinger

07-09-2007, 06:26 PM

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.

BlueBadger

07-09-2007, 06:30 PM

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. ;)

Bartholomew

07-09-2007, 07:07 PM

aka eraser

07-09-2007, 07:24 PM

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.

maestrowork

07-09-2007, 07:25 PM

Sean D. Schaffer

07-09-2007, 09:31 PM

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.

Examples? Why don't you name a few?

Because frankly, Ferret, the writing business is a subjective one. You can think a work is bad, while others think it's good. And just like someone might hate Dan Brown's writing or Christopher Paolini's writing, so you will find as many writers and readers who think these people are the best thing since sliced bread.

You are no more right than I am. We can disagree, but that makes neither one of us right or wrong. What we speak here is merely opinion. To say "So-and-so writer is not good at what s/he does" is not a fact, but rather an opinion.

Cassiopeia

07-09-2007, 09:38 PM

Who wouldn't want to have a natural talent. But talents can be acquired, developed, and natural talent must be expanded and improved upon as well.

It isn't like natural talent is a free ride or something. If left unattended it is of no use.

Reading the thread over again it would be quite easy to take some of our comments to mean that if you haven't natural talent you won't make it in the writing world. That is simply not the truth. That is a delusional and elitist way of thinking.

Like I said before, if you have the desire and determination you can make anything happen. If it is worth having, it is worth the fight.

Sean D. Schaffer

07-09-2007, 09:47 PM

Who wouldn't want to have a natural talent. But talents can be acquired, developed, and natural talent must be expanded and improved upon as well.

It isn't like natural talent is a free ride or something. If left unattended it is of no use.

...Snipped.

I know you said a lot more, but I wanted to focus on that part about natural talent being a free ride.

You're right. I have other talents besides writing, and I don't use them. I have a talent for artwork and for music, but I don't use either one. Needless to say, both my artwork and my music -- and even my desire to do those things -- have suffered tremendously.

It's just like the old saying, "If you don't use it you lose it".

As far as your other statement, the one I snipped out, I would point out that a few hundred years ago, people didn't have a choice as to their life's career. Whether they had a talent or not, they did what their birth and surname demanded of them.

In my case, 'Schaffer' is a word for 'Shepherd'. Whether I wanted to be a writer or not, there was a time I would have been a shepherd, and that's it. No amount of talent on my part would have allowed me the option of being a writer.

And if I didn't have a talent for herding sheep, if I wanted to continue living, I would learn pretty darned quick.

maestrowork

07-09-2007, 09:47 PM

It isn't like natural talent is a free ride or something. If left unattended it is of no use.

I think we all agreed -- I don't think anyone has said you can just coast on talent alone.

But I really do think it's silly to disregard "talent." You ABSOLUTELY need talent in anything creative. I think it's silly to think that anyone, with the proper training, can sing or act or draw or play professional golf. If that's the case, then we wouldn't have marveled at talents (and call them such) such as Tiger Wood or Meryl Streep. We wouldn't say to a child singer "You've got talent" if that wasn't true.

If you watch American Idol, you would pick out who really have talent and who don't.

Having talent doesn't mean you don't have to work hard. It's not mutually exclusive. But I think it's silly to say, "no, you don't need talent to be a good fiction writer."

Anyone can learn to write well and competently. "Workman-like" we call it. You can paint or write by the book and come up with something mechanically "good." But creative writing - poetry, fiction, etc. requires talent if you want to make it art. I don't mean everyone must have talents such as Mozarts, but I really find it odd that we should disregard natural talent at all.

Sean D. Schaffer

07-09-2007, 10:05 PM

Snipped...

Anyone can learn to write well and competently. "Workman-like" we call it. You can paint or write by the book and come up with something mechanically "good." But creative writing - poetry, fiction, etc. requires talent if you want to make it art. I don't mean everyone must have talents such as Mozarts, but I really find it odd that we should disregard natural talent at all.

Emphasis Mine.

I'm sorry, Maestro, but I refuse to believe this. To say that someone who loves the work and does their damndest at the work, will have inferior work ONLY because they don't have natural talent, is like Casi pointed out, delusional and elitist thinking.

I've always contended that what matters is dedication to the Craft. Talent is good, but to be a master craftsman, like with any Craft, requires not talent, but work. Hard work and dedication will pay off regardless of what others think.

But like I pointed out before, this business is subjective. What you think is talented writing, I could think should not even be published. Talent has more to do with people's opinions than fact, I am beginning to think. In my own experience, I've had editors praise my work for being well-written, while a critter on a particular website blasted my work as the worst thing they've ever read.

A grand example of how talent had little to do with a person's Master Craftsman status, was the legendary film director, Cecil B. De Mille. Critics hated a lot of his films, but movie goers couldn't get enough of his films. Bob Hope once said of Mr. De Mille, that he "Truly is 'Mr. Motion Picture'. He brings new things to the theaters, things you don't see every day. They call them 'customers'."

Many critics didn't like his works, but that didn't matter to the throngs who saw his films. The same is true for a Master Craftsman in the writing field. People might think you have no talent, but people's opinions vary drastically. The real issue of 'talent', IMO, is not 'you either have it or you don't', but rather, 'are you willing to work the abilities you do have to make your work shine?'.

rugcat

07-09-2007, 10:09 PM

Anyone can learn to write well and competently. "Workman-like" we call it. You can paint or write by the book and come up with something mechanically "good." But creative writing - poetry, fiction, etc. requires talent if you want to make it art. I don't mean everyone must have talents such as Mozarts, but I really find it odd that we should disregard natural talent at all.I totally agree.

It's almost like an equation that needs to be balanced. You don't need to be a creative genius--a minor talent and a lot of hard work will equal a major talent and not much work at all. But the less natural talent you have, the harder you have to work. If you have an immense talent, you can basically skate by on almost no work at all.

If you have a hugely major talent and a tremendous work ethic, you become Charles Dickens or Michael Jordan.

But if you have absolutely no talent at all in a particular field, all the hard work in the world won't lift you up success.

To use Sean's Master Craftsman analogy, I've tried my hand at carpentry. There aren't enough years in the universe to turn me into a master craftsman. Making a fine piece of furniture is beyond my abilities--not only do I not have the skill, I have no talent for it. The best I could ever hope for with a lot of work would be to make a table that doesn't wobble. With enough desire and work I might some day achieve competence, but moving beyond that-- I don't think so.

maestrowork

07-09-2007, 10:22 PM

Emphasis Mine.

I'm sorry, Maestro, but I refuse to believe this. To say that someone who loves the work and does their damndest at the work, will have inferior work ONLY because they don't have natural talent, is like Casi pointed out, delusional and elitist thinking.

It's not elitist. I'm sorry if you feel that way. Why is it elitist? Am I being elitist to say that Tiger Wood or Michael Jordan has talent as an athlete but I don't? Am I being elitist to say Carrie Underwood is a talented singer and no matter how hard William Hung tries, he can't sing? No, I think I'm just being realistic.

Not everyone IS created equal. Some have the talent for something, and some for something else. I am perfectly fine to acknowledge that I don't have any talent in inventing things or gardening/landscaping. Nothing to be ashamed of. I really don't have any talent in those areas.

But let me ask you -- do you think you have the talent to write? Or do you think you have no talent at all, but with hard work you can be as successful in producing literary masterpieces much like anyone else?

Just curious how you really feel about "natural talent."

Having worked with actors, artists, musicians, and writers, I really have to say I believe not everyone has the talent, no matter how much they try and work hard on the craft. I appreciate the hard work -- I do. But I also appreciate people who really do have the natural talent. They are what make them "wonderful" in what they do.

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

maestrowork

07-09-2007, 10:31 PM

But like I pointed out before, this business is subjective. What you think is talented writing, I could think should not even be published. Talent has more to do with people's opinions than fact, I am beginning to think. In my own experience, I've had editors praise my work for being well-written, while a critter on a particular website blasted my work as the worst thing they've ever read.

It's not as subjective as you think. No one is going to call Dan Brown "talented" no matter how many millions he makes. He is a craftsman. He writes like he would construct a piece of furniture, and that piece of furniture becomes very popular. He writes by the book. He knows his grammar. He does his research. He studies his pacing and structure. He knows what a thriller looks and smells like -- he repeats.

"Well-written" doesn't mean it is not "workmanlike" as I already described. Anyone can learn to do just that, without talent, by working REALLY, REALLY hard. Even William Hung can, with the help of studio technology, sing on pitch. And he's relatively "successful" in selling his records.

And I already said that success doesn't equal "talent" or vice versa. But you have to argue that even Dan Brown has some kind of talent -- maybe a talent for using cliffhangers? A talent for research and coming up with a killer premise? A talent for stringing along the readers? William Hung makes millions a year -- I don't. He makes "products" -- I will not call it art, though.

Again, do you consider yourself having at least some talent? If so, then I don't know what your point is. If you consider yourself having absolutely no talent in writing at all, then I can see where your argument might be...

rugcat

07-09-2007, 10:32 PM

It's not elitist. I'm sorry if you feel that way. Why is it elitist? Am I being elitist to say that Tiger Wood has talent as an athlete but I don't? Am I being elitist to say Carrie Underwood is a talented singer and no matter how hard William Hung tries, he can't sing? No, I think I'm just being realistic.Not to gang up on you, Sean, but isn't your view just as "elitist" in its own way? If talent is irrelevant, than it seems that you're saying anyone who doesn't succeed simply didn't work hard enough. It's their own fault. Those who accomplish their goals deserve it, because they worked harder, and those who don't can be viewed as nothing more than slackers.

Cassiopeia

07-10-2007, 12:33 AM

Whoa! Hold the phone here you guys, let's not twist words and get all defensive.

The point I am making is:

As in my case, yes, I have been told I have a natural talent. I left that talent behind and you know what, my mind and efforts have been on other things and expanding talents in other areas of my life. I find after 20 years of letting my writing ability slide, it is hard to pick it up again.

But I WANT to pick it up again. Ever heard the expression, "that is just a waste of talent"? How many times do we see talented people just give up and walk away from something.

One thing we need to be careful of here on the board is being misunderstood as this medium of communication is flawed. I have had three people I recommended this site to walk away saying to me, "what a bunch of snobs."

So please understand where I am coming from. I don't find people on this forum to be snobs, but in reading our posts we CAN and have come off as elitist. That is why I used the term.

Let's face it, writers are human beings with human insecurities. If someone steps on to our site and see someone saying you have to have natural talent to succeed in writing, and they feel insecure and don't know if they do, they might just throw their hands up and not even try.

Maestro, there is a big difference between natural creativity and writing talent. I do agree that creativity is a difficult talent to acquire. But it can be learned and though it perhaps won't be as "creative" as someone with natural talent, perhaps it will be close enough to win the day. As to your reference of American Idol, well what you might consider a talent in singing, I won't so "natural talent" is now subjective.

So to be clear let me emphasize where *I* am coming from. I have three friends who found our group to be elitist. I was very disappointed and while I didn't agree with them it has made me take a good look at how I say things.

It can be easily misconstrued by someone feeling insecure as to if they have what it takes to make it in the writing world that this thread insinuates that if you don't have natural talent you won't make it. We all know that is not what the truth of it is.

One can have all the talent in the world, not use it and not get published. Someone can have talent, work hard and not get published if not in the right place at the right time or hopefully, as we all dream, they will be. Someone can learn the art of story weaving and though not as creative as the natural talent still be published. And then there are those who we all know about, those we feel are HACKS and they are famous writers and have tons of books littering our book store and library shelves. Sometimes you have to be in the right place at the right time as well, talented or not.

I have a very interesting professor for film production last fall semester. She is one of those PHD people who I grew to greatly admire. So I asked her on behalf of my daughter who loves ballet and dance, if it was too late for her because my daughter gave up on dance when she was young and picked up at 15 again. As much as I love and admire my daughter for her perseverance I was under the impression unless you start young and are gifted, there is no hope. My professor had this to say:

"Your daughter is definitely at a disadvantage. She should have stuck with it in her younger childhood years and while she might not fit the typical ballerina tell her not to give up. Hard work is equally important if not more so than gifted talent. Too often natural talent is wasted on the unmotivated, potentially ungrateful and lazy person. If you want something bad enough and are willing to work for it, you can have it and be good at it."

So, if you all think I am trying to call you elitist, perhaps think about why that pricks at you. I know I felt pricked when my friends said it to me.

Toothpaste

07-10-2007, 12:50 AM

I think there is a serious agree to disagree thing here. Some people think that yes you can learn talent, some people don't. And I don't think there will be any real way to rectify the situation.

My turn! I come from a family of teachers, so I have always believed in the power of education. I have also always believed I could do anything so long as I put my mind to it. That said I can't help but side with there is a certain level of talent that can only be achieved if you are born with it. I am talking genius level here. I am not saying someone who works really hard at something won't become quite good at it, but brilliance? No.

Not much point in adding this to the argument, but I like to say my piece.

(oh and your friends who think the people here are snobs is really interesting to me. What I really like about the people here is that they are super supportive, really nice, and rather funny. BUT they also tell it like it is, and aside from the rejection forum there isn't a lot of hand holding. And there are actual experts here, not people feigning to be, and while sometimes what they say may be a bit absolute, 9 times out of 10, they are right. And the other time, oh you bet someone's going to call them on it!)

Cassiopeia

07-10-2007, 12:56 AM

Sean D. Schaffer

07-10-2007, 01:09 AM

It's not elitist. I'm sorry if you feel that way. Why is it elitist? Am I being elitist to say that Tiger Wood or Michael Jordan has talent as an athlete but I don't? Am I being elitist to say Carrie Underwood is a talented singer and no matter how hard William Hung tries, he can't sing? No, I think I'm just being realistic.

Not everyone IS created equal. Some have the talent for something, and some for something else. I am perfectly fine to acknowledge that I don't have any talent in inventing things or gardening/landscaping. Nothing to be ashamed of. I really don't have any talent in those areas.

But let me ask you -- do you think you have the talent to write? Or do you think you have no talent at all, but with hard work you can be as successful in producing literary masterpieces much like anyone else?

Just curious how you really feel about "natural talent."

Having worked with actors, artists, musicians, and writers, I really have to say I believe not everyone has the talent, no matter how much they try and work hard on the craft. I appreciate the hard work -- I do. But I also appreciate people who really do have the natural talent. They are what make them "wonderful" in what they do.

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

It's not as subjective as you think. No one is going to call Dan Brown "talented" no matter how many millions he makes. He is a craftsman. He writes like he would construct a piece of furniture, and that piece of furniture becomes very popular. He writes by the book. He knows his grammar. He does his research. He studies his pacing and structure. He knows what a thriller looks and smells like -- he repeats.

"Well-written" doesn't mean it is not "workmanlike" as I already described. Anyone can learn to do just that, without talent, by working REALLY, REALLY hard. Even William Hung can, with the help of studio technology, sing on pitch. And he's relatively "successful" in selling his records.

And I already said that success doesn't equal "talent" or vice versa. But you have to argue that even Dan Brown has some kind of talent -- maybe a talent for using cliffhangers? A talent for research and coming up with a killer premise? A talent for stringing along the readers? William Hung makes millions a year -- I don't. He makes "products" -- I will not call it art, though.

Again, do you consider yourself having at least some talent? If so, then I don't know what your point is. If you consider yourself having absolutely no talent in writing at all, then I can see where your argument might be...

Sorry to be so blunt about this, Maestro, but I detect just a tad bit of arrogance in your posts. "Look at me! Look at what I personally have done, and that makes me an authority over what is and is not good writing." This is arrogance talking, Maestro, not common sense.

As for whether I have talent or not, I frankly don't care whether you think I have talent or not. My destiny is not in your hands, and you are not qualified to judge whether I'm a worthy writer or not. That, my friend, is the job of readers and editors.

Although I will say I do believe I have talent. That I believe this is not based on my own accomplishments, but what people who are in the business and know what they're talking about have said about my own work.

Finally, whether or not you see the point in my argument, is irrelevant to this discussion. I have a belief, and you have a belief, and neither one is authoritative truth. You're no more an authority on this than I am.

rugcat

07-10-2007, 01:15 AM

I think there is a serious agree to disagree thing here. Some people think that yes you can learn talent, some people don't. And I don't think there will be any real way to rectify the situation.I've had this same basic disagreement with an artist friend of mine on and off for fifteen years. I doubt that it's resolvable.
(oh and your friends who think the people here are snobs is really interesting to me. What I really like about the people here is that they are super supportive, really nice, and rather funny. BUT they also tell it like it is, and aside from the rejection forum there isn't a lot of hand holding. I think this board is anything but elitist. People often put forth their opinions forcefully, and are challenged just as forcefully, that's all.

But if they're the kind of people who think we're elitists here, well, what do we care? We' re obviously better off without those low-class types.

Cassiopeia

07-10-2007, 01:26 AM

I've had this same basic disagreement with an artist friend of mine on and off for fifteen years. I doubt that it's resolvable.
I think this board is anything but elitist. People often put forth their opinions forcefully, and are challenged just as forcefully, that's all.

But if they're the kind of people who think we're elitists here, well, what do we care? We' re obviously better off without those low-class types.That was tongue in cheek right? ;)

Toothpaste

07-10-2007, 01:27 AM

Sorry to be so blunt about this, Maestro, but I detect just a tad bit of arrogance in your posts. "Look at me! Look at what I personally have done, and that makes me an authority over what is and is not good writing." This is arrogance talking, Maestro, not common sense.

As for whether I have talent or not, I frankly don't care whether you think I have talent or not. My destiny is not in your hands, and you are not qualified to judge whether I'm a worthy writer or not. That, my friend, is the job of readers and editors.

Although I will say I do believe I have talent. That I believe this is not based on my own accomplishments, but what people who are in the business and know what they're talking about have said about my own work.

Finally, whether or not you see the point in my argument, is irrelevant to this discussion. I have a belief, and you have a belief, and neither one is authoritative truth. You're no more an authority on this than I am.

Okay! I think I am seeing maybe where the miscommunication is taking place. I may be wrong, but I really don't think Maestro was either saying "Look at me! Look at what I personally have done, and that makes me an authority over what is and is not good writing" or claiming that you were a bad writer.

He is stating his opinion (his strange taste in country music for example ;) ), and arguing about a point that was raised by someone else, no even him. You two are arguing two sides of a friggin age old debate: nature vs nurture, and it is unlikely to be resolved today. But in no way have I read any personal attacks, and I think it may be you feeling sensitive about the subject as it relates to you personally (and I say this as someone who ALWAYS takes things personally, trust me, I totally get that).

So what is going on are two debates, the issue at hand, and then some people are feeling personally attacked because they are categorising themselves in one group or the other. Maestro (and others, including myself) believe there is some sort of innate talent that separates genius from not. You (and others) believe it can be learned. I don't think either group is saying that they are in one category or the other, and if they are implicitly, well this has little to do with the argument at hand.

rugcat

07-10-2007, 01:43 AM

That was tongue in cheek right? ;)I make it a point of honor to never use emoticons. One should be able to convey tongue-in-cheek without them. If you have to ask if it was, then I've failed as a writer. Perhaps I lack a certain natural talent that is inborn in others.

Cassiopeia

07-10-2007, 02:08 AM

I make it a point of honor to never use emoticons. One should be able to convey tongue-in-cheek without them. If you have to ask if it was, then I've failed as a writer. Perhaps I lack a certain natural talent that is inborn in others.Tsk, tsk, such bitterness. ;)

(one who loves emoticons) :tongue

ChunkyC

07-10-2007, 02:27 AM

I think it's possible to be every bit as tone deaf toward writing as toward singing.
This is a good analogy. One could craft beautiful sentences, yet not have a clue how to tell an engaging story and never be able to figure out how to write something a reader would find compelling.

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.
There's always going to be 'big fish in a little pond' happening when you start out. In endeavours like sports, for example, a player will be the best on his team all through childhood into adolescence, then he/she gets a chance at the big leagues and all of a sudden they're ordinary when compared to the elite. (not that you are ordinary :) )

I think I've always had a knack for writing, but I've had to work damn hard to make it something worth reading. *snip*
Me too. :)

As for natural talent ... of course it exists. I have near-perfect pitch -- that is a natural talent. My ability to distinguish one note from another is something innate, I didn't need to learn how. BUT -- it needs to be exercised, cultivated, otherwise it won't do you any good.

Within four years of picking up a guitar for the first time I was in a band with a demo tape in the hands of A&M records (any chance for a deal disappeared when the band fell apart). But I was a lazy musician in those early years, to be honest, and never practiced enough because it all had come relatively easy up to that point. And so after a rapid rise, things started to stagnate for me. I watched as other, less naturally-gifted musicians passed me by. People from my home town I could play rings around technically got recording deals while I continued to bang away in the bars going nowhere.

It took me an awfully long time to realize that raw talent is not nearly enough. It needs to be refined. You must have a willingness to work constantly to improve your skills.

rugcat

07-10-2007, 02:27 AM

Tsk, tsk, such bitterness. ;)

(one who loves emoticons) :tongueNo, that was also tongue in cheek. Wait, was your reply tongue in cheek? What are you trying to say? There was an emoticon, but I never understand them, anyway.

Never mind.

maestrowork

07-10-2007, 04:21 AM

Sorry to be so blunt about this, Maestro, but I detect just a tad bit of arrogance in your posts. "Look at me! Look at what I personally have done, and that makes me an authority over what is and is not good writing." This is arrogance talking, Maestro, not common sense.

Huh?

I believe it was you who said those of use who think there's such thing as "talent" and that you need "talent" to be brilliant in creative endeavors are "elitist."

Please point to me where exactly did I say "look at me, I'm so brilliant and you're not?" At which point did I say "Sean, you have no talent and I have tons?"

As for whether I have talent or not, I frankly don't care whether you think I have talent or not. My destiny is not in your hands, and you are not qualified to judge whether I'm a worthy writer or not. That, my friend, is the job of readers and editors.

Where did that come from? Have I ever said "Sean, I think you are a no talent and you are a crappy writer?" Please, if I have offended you that way, let me know. But I honestly don't see that I have said or even implied any such thing.

What I do wonder is, you keep saying "talent" can be learned or at least not required -- I am just curious, then, do you think you have talent, or do you think you actually learned it? Because I don't know how you can argue with that point without giving me some proof. And if you want my proofs of people who really do have talent to spare, I'd be happy to oblige.

Look, a friend of mine is a well-known actress and she said the same thing about talent/hard work, and she's the first to admit that they go hand in hand. I won't even argue that if I study acting for 20 years I still won't be as naturally wonderful as she is. And she works HARD, too. So am I arrogant, now, to say that she's a wonderful actress with talent and I'm just a wannabe? It's just a reality to me.

maestrowork

07-10-2007, 04:26 AM

He is stating his opinion (his strange taste in country music for example ;) )

Take it back!

ChunkyC

07-10-2007, 05:38 AM

Sean, buddy. Step away from this thread if you like, but please don't turn your back on all of AW just because you're upset with how this particular discussion has gone. You have a lot of friends here who would be sorry to see you go, myself included.

--Charlie

rugcat

07-10-2007, 06:26 AM

I thought this was basically a philosophical argument about the role talent plays, or doesn't play, in creative endeavors.

Sean, I don't think Ray, or anyone else for that matter, had any intention to dis you. I hope you'll reconsider and stay with us.

Toothpaste

07-10-2007, 06:26 AM

That was really sad. And strange. And Sean if you are reading this, maybe come back in a few days and re read what Maestro said and see how he did not one time attack you personally, or hold up his writing as any sort of gold standard. In fact he doesn't refer to himself at all except to say he isn't as good an actor as his friend.

And like Chunky said, even if your feelings hold true, don't leave all of AW, you've been here for so long now, become a part of the community.

Anyway . . . sorry things ended how they did.

Ol' Fashioned Girl

07-10-2007, 06:31 AM

Or 'WHOA!'.

I'm not sure which.

Q.Rious

07-10-2007, 07:04 AM

In response to the original question...a friend of mine said it well: You can teach someone to draw or paint or write, but can you teach them how to think interesting thoughts?

It's true - and a lot has to do with willingness to think in nonlinear ways, to think creatively, to have a sense of humor about oneself and the world. I think it is a skill one can practice, but the primary skill in writing is a facile ability to transmit those "interesting thoughts" from one mind to another, to know what to leave out and what to put in, and willingness to change the original to better transmit those thoughts.

Perhaps when people are done spatting over this issue, we could turn to the VERY VERY FUN topic of "The Role of Intelligence in Writing." I'll love to watch that one.

poetinahat

07-10-2007, 07:11 AM

BlueTexas

07-10-2007, 07:15 AM

There's a difference between Art and Craft, and I wonder whether this difference is at the heart of the disagreement. There's certainly ample room for both in the world, and especially in our shared field of interest.

Sad thing is sometimes it's so hard to separate art from craft, that it's hard for everyone to tell where one begins and the other ends.

Like someone said upthread, nature vs. nurture, and a question that really has no definite answer.

rugcat

07-10-2007, 07:21 AM

There's a difference between Art and Craft, and I wonder whether this difference is at the heart of the disagreement. There's certainly ample room for both in the world, and especially in our shared field of interest.Very true. As a writer, I consider myself a craftsman and I'm in awe of those I see as artists.

But as in so many other things, the line is blurred, not bright. How exactly would you classify an 18th century Italian carved malachite table of surpassing craftsmenship and beauty. Or intricate Chinese reed baskets that are a marvel to behold?

johnrobison

07-10-2007, 07:25 AM

When I read arguments of this sort I realize what different views we have regarding what constitutes talent, craftsmanship, etc.

Some of you look at a guy like Dan Brown and say "he's a hack" for a variety of reasons. And yet, most of you are here to write for an audience, just like Dan. And somehow, Dan's writing has found a larger audience than most will ever see.

Why should that be, if he's a hack?

I guess the answer is, one man's hack is another's load of fun.

I would not presume to say this person is a hack and that one isn't. I really don't know how to tell. I know I like some writing and not other writing, but do I like what you think is "good?" Who knows if we like the same things?

If your creative writing professor says a story I loved is junk, should I revise my opinion and forget I read it?

In the end, most of us think we have talent - at least to some degree - and it's up to the market to vote with their wallets if we want to choose winners. Winners aside, we just plod along, writing away with whatever talent or lack therof that we have.

aka eraser

07-10-2007, 07:54 AM

I think Poet and John have nutshelled things nicely.

Sean, take a break if you must but we'll leave the de-flouncing door ajar. ;)

Cassiopeia

07-10-2007, 08:03 AM

You know what would be great, if we, as writers could learn not to even worry if we have it or not. To just do what we do. Be objective, if we aren't getting results, figure out how to improve and eventually make a calm decision on what is the best course of action.

Yeah I know, easier said than done. :tongue

elisabeth

07-10-2007, 08:06 AM

Ooo...let's discuss religion or politics now!

I've been thinking about this topic a lot since I first read it. I'm afraid I don't have anything definitive to say. I think there's something to be said for talent and something to be said for dedication. As far as elitism goes, the title of this thread does seem kind of snobbish. Creativity is nothing without drive. So, not sure what this contributes to the discussion....

Off topic, this forum has really revived my fiction writing. I love writing non fiction, not on my blog yet, just for fun, but I haven't written fiction for about two years. So, excellent.

maestrowork

07-10-2007, 08:10 AM

You know what would be great, if we, as writers could learn not to even worry if we have it or not. To just do what we do.

That's why I quoted Michael Chabon up-thread, and I swear by his words. ;)

Cassiopeia

07-10-2007, 08:50 AM

That's why I quoted Michael Chabon up-thread.;) Oh yeah huh? ;)

poetinahat

07-10-2007, 11:19 AM

I think Poet and John have nutshelled things nicely.

Sean, take a break if you must but we'll leave the de-flouncing door ajar. ;)

Thanks. Tish also did this back on the first page, a little more categorically:

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

And yeah - please come back, Sean, when you feel like it.

Shadow_Ferret

07-10-2007, 04:36 PM

Examples? Why don't you name a few?

Because frankly, Ferret, the writing business is a subjective one. You can think a work is bad, while others think it's good. And just like someone might hate Dan Brown's writing or Christopher Paolini's writing, so you will find as many writers and readers who think these people are the best thing since sliced bread.

You are no more right than I am. We can disagree, but that makes neither one of us right or wrong. What we speak here is merely opinion. To say "So-and-so writer is not good at what s/he does" is not a fact, but rather an opinion.
There are no examples. If someone is a bad writer they don't make it into print. Or they self-publish. I think that's my point.

They may have the mechanics, but if they don't have the heart and soul, no agent in the world is going to take them on.

Christine N.

07-10-2007, 05:51 PM

Well, now I think both sides have good points. I think it is possible, of course, to teach the technical aspects of writing and story, and that anyone can learn it. Just as anyone can learn to read music and learn the notes and the cadence.

I cannot play the piano. I can plunk out the notes or play chords with one hand, but I don't have the coordination to make my hands do two different things at the same time. I never have. My mother, my grandmother, and my sister could play anything. I've taken lessons on several different instruments, and I was never anything more than mediocre. In fact, I suck.

Why is this so hard to understand?? Everyone can learn the rules of football, but not everyone can play in the NFL. That's not to say that those who don't aren't good football players, but they just aren't in the same league as the pros.

You can teach someone the technical aspects of painting, and there are those who will churn out a technically correct painting - light and shadow, well-proportioned, good shading and perspective.

But it won't hang in the Louvre. That doesn't make the other painting bad.

There is a large range of 'talent' in writing, from the technically perfect to the masterpiece. Where you fall on the range is partly due to a natural gift. And, if you don't hone the natural gift, you'll never realize your full potential. It goes hand in hand.

No matter how hard I work, no matter how much I want it, I will never play the piano.

Sean D. Schaffer

07-10-2007, 09:04 PM

There are no examples. If someone is a bad writer they don't make it into print. Or they self-publish. I think that's my point.

They may have the mechanics, but if they don't have the heart and soul, no agent in the world is going to take them on.

I'm going to post again, in this thread, one last time. I've given my promise I won't post in opinion threads all that much, and the fact is, I intend to keep that promise.

But 'not much' doesn't mean 'never'.

So, if someone is a bad writer they never make it into print, or they self-publish. And of course, only those who are talented are going to be any good.

My viewpoint has been and always will be that talent is not the issue: love for your work is.

As for examples of what is bad writing, I gave some examples in my post that you quoted.

I'm also going to ask you a simple question, without trying to sound defensive or arrogant like I was last night:

What makes you, or I, or anyone, the judge of whether or not someone else has talent? Especially you or me, as neither of us is even published.

My point is, you're no judge over whether a writer is talented or no, and you're not an absolute judge over what is good or bad writing. You can't be; you're only one human being out of how many billions on this Earth? We all have differing opinions, and we'll hold to our opinions as true. But our opinions are nevertheless opinions. The fact is, what you think is bad writing, other readers don't. That's the point I've been trying to make in this and other opinion threads. Your opinion is no more absolute truth than my own.

ccarver30

07-10-2007, 09:18 PM

First of all, I am amused by the spelling errors that some ~writers~ make in their posts. :)
Secondly, I agree: I think you either have it or you don't -just like acting.

Toothpaste

07-10-2007, 09:27 PM

Sean - I am so glad you came back! (tentatively :) )

I see what you mean, and I just wanted to point out again that no one is claiming that they are the be all and end all of taste. This is a debate that will never be resolved. I also don't think anyone is saying that love of the work isn't vital to the production of a good book. If someone is just born brilliantly talented it won't matter at all if she doesn't apply herself. But the argument is if natural talent exists at all. It seems to me that you actually believe it does. The next question then was, if some people just have an aptitude for something and if they DO apply themselves, is what they produce better than someone who isn't born with said gifts and applies herself equally as hard? The answer sides with either nature or nurture, and that is a debate that will not be resolved today or anytime soon. It's an interesting debate to engage in, but like you said it is about differing opinions. It is obvious you feel very strongly about yours, well others on the other side feel the same about theirs. And I don't think either side at the same time thinks that the other is a bad writer, bad person or anything.

It's just an interesting debate. It really isn't meant to be personal.

Sean D. Schaffer

07-10-2007, 09:50 PM

Sean - I am so glad you came back! (tentatively :) )

Thanks. :)

I see what you mean, and I just wanted to point out again that no one is claiming that they are the be all and end all of taste. This is a debate that will never be resolved. I also don't think anyone is saying that love of the work isn't vital to the production of a good book. If someone is just born brilliantly talented it won't matter at all if she doesn't apply herself. But the argument is if natural talent exists at all. It seems to me that you actually believe it does. The next question then was, if some people just have an aptitude for something and if they DO apply themselves, is what they produce better than someone who isn't born with said gifts and applies herself equally as hard? The answer sides with either nature or nurture, and that is a debate that will not be resolved today or anytime soon. It's an interesting debate to engage in, but like you said it is about differing opinions. It is obvious you feel very strongly about yours, well others on the other side feel the same about theirs. And I don't think either side at the same time thinks that the other is a bad writer, bad person or anything.

It's just an interesting debate. It really isn't meant to be personal. My Emphasis.

First, I do believe there is such a thing as talent. I don't believe everyone has talent in certain areas, but I do tend to side more with nurture than nature. I mean, if you're good at what you do by nature, yeah, you'll have an easier time achieving certain goals. But I really am convinced within my own self that nature, though it can prove advantageous, is not necessary to be good at writing. Rather, I hold to the idea that nurture, and how one is encouraged to do more with their desires in life, is the real issue.

Of course, this is merely my opinion. But like I pointed out in the past, I have other talents besides writing, and I hardly ever use them. The reason is I was discouraged from using those talents either because people thought I wasn't good enough or because I used those talents in a way they personally did not think I should.

My other obvious talents are rhythm and drawing. My old avatar, which I plan on putting back up pretty soon, is an example of my own free-hand artwork. But sadly, I was told by some people that drawing dragons was demonic and therefore I should not do it. Well, that was the one thing I liked to draw more than anything else. Frankly, it still is one of my favorite things to draw.

But my artwork has suffered tremendously since the days I drew Mariatha. This has a lot to do with the very lack of nurturing I received for my artwork by people who were important to me at the time. I can still draw, and I might even be able to accomplish a good work of art. But the drive has been driven out of me, so to speak, by people who told me I should not focus on the one thing I loved to draw the most.

I think the same thing is true within writing. If a writer is encouraged, regardless of what others think their natural abilities might be, I hold to the idea that the said writer can accomplish great things. If they have natural talent, or if they don't, is irrelevant, IMO, to their ability to accomplish what they want to accomplish in life.

So my stance on this whole 'nature versus nurture' issue is 'nature is great, but nurture is what really matters.'

I'll plant my feet on the side of 'nurture'.

MathRules

07-10-2007, 10:38 PM

My two cents worth-

I din't read all the posts, just the first page (time constraints), but I saw the general trend of the conversation.

I teach gifted students. Many are very good in all aspects. I have students at MIT, Vanderbilt, and other prestigious schools, pursuing degrees in math, engineering, liberal arts, etc.

I've proofed these kids' papers from english, history, creative writing, etc. Some of them just can't get past the technical description of facts (real or imagined) no matter what they are taught. If you can't tell a joke, for God's sake, how will you entertain an audience with the printed word?

Anyone with sufficient intellect can do technical writing. For writing of fiction, you either have the gift of gab or not. I don't know yet if I have it, I hope I do. I am realistic enough to recognize that if it turns out that I'm not a natural storyteller, I will move on from there and find another pursuit to, ah, pursue (sort of painted myself in a corner there).

You have it or you don't, in my opinion.

Rich

07-10-2007, 10:44 PM

Within your cruel assessment, MathRules, I cruelly agree.

Toothpaste

07-10-2007, 10:50 PM

Very interesting Sean.

The one other thing I will point out is that you are talking about nurturing natural abilities. You speak, almost sadly, of your own experiences with people telling you to stop with the art (and I just hate it when people discourage others with obvious talent grr).

I think what a lot of people on the nature side of the debate are questioning is whether it is possible to nurture someone WITHOUT natural abilities to become a great author (artist, actor, musician).

Like what MathRules said (and I actually don't think it came across as cruel at all), I believe that some people, no matter how hard they try, just won't be able to do it. I do believe there is a range of talent and abilities. But I have met the truly tone deaf. I have worked very very hard with them. And in the end, there is a limit to how far they can improve.

BlueTexas

07-10-2007, 10:50 PM

My two cents worth-

I've proofed these kids' papers from english, history, creative writing, etc. Some of them just can't get past the technical description of facts (real or imagined) no matter what they are taught. If you can't tell a joke, for God's sake, how will you entertain an audience with the printed word?

Uh oh. I rarely tell a joke that anyone but me gets. I must be doomed.:tongue
But then, I'd never attempt to write humor. I know better!

III

07-10-2007, 10:55 PM

I think there are 4 basic categories of "artists" in any medium.

Those who lack mechanical ability but have great heart
Those who have great mechanical ability but lack heart
Those who have great mechanical ability and great heart
Those who have neither

Practice and studying can improve your mechanical ability and life experience can improve your heart.

Now buy my books!

Sean D. Schaffer

07-10-2007, 11:14 PM

I get what you're saying Toothpaste, but I think the big problem I have is natural ability versus love for the Craft.

For instance, people have told me that I'm a natural singer, with a great voice. But I hate singing in front of a crowd. Yet I took lessons because I felt forced. I sang, and I may have done it well, but I didn't want to do it and so I stopped.

Maybe our definitions of 'talent' differ somehow. I have been told all my life that talent is someone's internal ability to do something in particular. It very well may be, but I'm wondering if talent is less what I have been told all my life and possibly more a love issue. I have a talent to write, yes, but at the same time I love writing. That's one of the reasons I keep it up. Could it be that 'love for craft' is being replaced in this thread with the word 'talent'? I know people who have talent and don't use it, whereas I also know people who will be the first to tell you they don't have talent, but rather have a deep love for what they're doing. It is for the love, not the talent they possess, that they apply themselves and accomplish great things in their chosen Craft, whatever that Craft might be.

Like I've said before, talent is good, and can be highly advantageous. But without nurture, like I mentioned in my previous post; and without love, like I'm talking about in this post, talent won't do a thing in a person's life.

My point is, I believe a person without a natural ability to write can still accomplish what I'm capable of accomplishing. My talent to write makes my job easier, but the nurture I received, and the love I have for the Craft, is what makes my writing as good as it is. I believe a writer who does not possess a natural ability to tell a good story, if they love the Craft and are given encouragement to follow their desired course in life, can make something of themselves in their chosen field.

I'll be the first to admit about myself, that I am talented in telling stories, but not so talented in being clear. I work at it, though, because of a strong desire to be clear in my writing. I've improved immensely over the years. I'm not perfect, and being clear is extremely difficult for me sometimes, but I believe I can, if I apply myself to being clear and at the same time hold a deep love for that portion of my Craft, I can become as clear a writer as any other person.

I'm talentless in some ways, even in the Writing Craft. But my love for the Writing Craft and my dedication to being the best I can be within that Craft, is what I believe will decide what I accomplish as well as what I do not.

Dave.C.Robinson

07-10-2007, 11:29 PM

I've been reading this thread and have a few thoughts to add: especially when it comes to talent. I see talent as how well you are 'wired' to do certain things. How quickly and easily you 'get' the connections between good and bad writing (for example.) Everyone knows some people who just cannot do certain things. It doesn't matter how hard they try, they just can't get it. I see those people as having a negative or "anti-talent."

Anyone who lacks the "anti-talent" can learn the skills needed to write a publishable novel. It may not be very good, but it is something that can be learned. I don't think such a person could write a great novel, but they may well be able to write a good novel. Those with the "anti-talent" can't. It's no different than expecting a tone-deaf person to become a musician. They just aren't wired for it.

Skill and talent reinforce different aspects of writing. Talent gives an unconscious knowledge of what to do, where skill is more conscious and deals with how to do things. Both improve the more you exercise them. Certain aspects of writing are easier for the talented, other parts are easier for the skilled.

Great writers are skilled and talented, good writers may have more of one than the other. Regardless, it all comes down to hard work and butt in chair.

Lauri B

07-10-2007, 11:30 PM

I have read hundreds and hundreds of submissions, student essays, creative writing pieces, and short stories. I taught college English and writing classes for years. I used to believe that anyone can become a good writer if they just tried hard enough, revised their work enough, read and followed all the little red ink notes I left in the margins devotedly enough, but based on the work I've read over the years, I really do think people either have it or they don't. Which is fine--you can still be a dedicated writer and love to do it and write all day long if you want to. But some people have terrific natural writing talent ,and some people don't. It's just the way it is. People without innate writing talent still succeed in the industry every single day of the week, and people with amazing talent and incredible books fail every day, too. There is alot more at work to succeed as a writer than simply talent or the lack thereof.

Sean D. Schaffer

07-10-2007, 11:43 PM

Snipped...

Anyone who lacks the "anti-talent" can learn the skills needed to write a publishable novel. It may not be very good, but it is something that can be learned. I don't think such a person could write a great novel, but they may well be able to write a good novel. Those with the "anti-talent" can't. It's no different than expecting a tone-deaf person to become a musician. They just aren't wired for it.

...Snipped.

My Emphasis.

I just wanted to quickly comment on your 'tone-deaf' statement, if I may. I don't remember who it was (I'm thinking Mozart?) but there was a song writer who was quite deaf and yet is one of the most celebrated classical musicians of all time.

I just wish I remembered who it was. :(

Another interesting point is Thomas Edison, the man who invented, among other things, the Phonograph. I've heard that he was also very much lacking in his hearing ability. Yet to this day his technology is used to make sound recordings of some of the highest quality and definition in the world.

Just more of a thought than a definitive answer to every question. But I believe in the human ability to overcome our own lackings. It's an ability I don't think many other animals have within themselves, for whatever reasons they might have. I think it's what makes us unique in what we know of the universe. The fact we can think more with our brains than with our stomachs, is something that really, I think, needs to be considered in a discussion such as this.

Again, just my opinion.

Bubastes

07-10-2007, 11:45 PM

Cath

07-10-2007, 11:47 PM

Beethoven was deaf. Worth noting that the difference between being deaf (the inability to hear) and tone-deaf (the inability to distinguish different notes) is similar to the difference between being blind and colorblind.

Going back to the original discussion point, I think you can learn to be a good writer without natural ability - but I'm also sure that everyone here has at least some modicum of natural ability, whether they realize it or not.

III

07-10-2007, 11:51 PM

Beethoven was deaf.

Beethoven was a big dog with a string of reasonably successful movies. Who cares if he was deaf?

maestrowork

07-11-2007, 12:07 AM

Beethoven. But his deafness came later in life. I wouldn't exactly call him "tone deaf" using the meaning we usually assign to it, though.

Right. Beethoven wasn't born deaf, and he certainly was not tone deaf. In fact, his deafness heightened his other senses -- he could actually "feel" the music through his body. Beethoven was gifted that way despite his disability. However -- and this is important -- Beethoven WORKED VERY HARD to achieve what he did.

I have known very intelligent people -- PhDs and what not -- who couldn't write a comprehensible paper if their lives depend on it. And they know -- they have tremendous capabilities in science and math, structural and critical thinking, but they don't have the language skills. What did they do? They hired a technical writer to do the writing for them. They have no aspiration to become a writer, but they want their ideas to be understood by others.

I think those of us who have come so far, and who frequent this board, most likely already have some talent and the drive to become a writer. I think if you absolutely have NO talent at all, you would have known early on in your life, much like I know I have no talent in playing the piano (like Christine, I really can't play different notes and rhythms with my hands at once -- and I practiced the piano for three years before giving up -- otherwise, I am actually quite musical; I am pitch-perfect when it comes to singing, and I write songs). But that's not without trying first.

I would not, however, discourage anyone from pursuing anything if their hearts are set on it. It's not up to me to decide if they have what it takes, whatever it means. I didn't mean to dis anyone, but I truly believe William Hung is tone-deaf, but hey, he is making a great living doing what he loves to do, and people like him -- so kudos to him!

But let's stress this: HARD work is important. Of all things, that's the one that we have control over. Whether you have talent or not, or luck or not, that's not for you to say (but we certainly all have an opinion about that, especially when it concerns someone else). What you can do is to work hard. Having talent might make it easier for you, just as having an IQ of 140 would -- but that's no guarantee of success.

I'd like to believe I have talent, but gosh darn it, I KNOW I need to work hard no matter what, if that's what I really want to do.

Like Nomad said, many very talented people don't get published (or seen, or heard, etc.). I think that's something to think about.

BlueBadger

07-11-2007, 12:28 AM

First of all, I am amused by the spelling errors that some ~writers~ make in their posts.

It's an interesting phenomenon. Some of my favourite authors have responded to my fanmail in nothing but lower-case letters. My brother is a great writer with a zillion credentials, but to see the emails he writes to me you'd think he hates the period.

I will be the first to admit I can't spell for beans.

BlueTexas

07-11-2007, 12:33 AM

But let's stress this: HARD work is important. Of all things, that's the one that we have control over. Whether you have talent or not, or luck or not, that's not for you to say (but we certainly all have an opinion about that, especially when it concerns someone else). What you can do is to work hard. Having talent might make it easier for you, just as having an IQ of 140 would -- but that's no guarantee of success.

You're about to convince me to change my opinion about talent. I can't do some math. I spent two years trying to pass algebra, spending nearly every lunch period with the teacher, getting private tutoring from him. (He was a crappy teacher aside from me, but that's beside the point here.) I worked my tail off, and I recieved a pity-passing grade the second year just so the teacher could get me out of his class.

I passed Geometry the first time around with an A. But algebra - no amount of hard work got me there. My husband, who was tutoring college-level trig while he was taking the class for the first time, is totally unable to get me to understand algebra.

In that case, no amount of hard work was able to substitute for a lack of talent.

ccarver30

07-11-2007, 12:39 AM

It's an interesting phenomenon. Some of my favourite authors have responded to my fanmail in nothing but lower-case letters. My brother is a great writer with a zillion credentials, but to see the emails he writes to me you'd think he hates the period.

I will be the first to admit I can't spell for beans.

LOL

Side note: On my way back to the states after visiting Niagara-on-the-lake, I accidentally visited your city. Oops.

maestrowork

07-11-2007, 12:43 AM

There are some scientific studies about how the human brain works. We do assume that people have similar abilities, but the reality is that we don't. Some people simply have no language skills, and some no visual skills, or motor skills, or grasp of abstract ideas such as math, etc. For them, nurture is futile.

For most people, though, they have at least some talent/ability/whatever you want to call it. And the line becomes very blurry -- is it talent or is it hard work? Or a combination of both, but mileage might vary? If you can write a 5-page term paper, does it mean you can learn to write a 150,000-word novel?

I know I wasn't born with the skills to write a novel -- that's for sure. I spent all my life learning the English language. I went to school to study creative writing and novel writing. I still make mistakes. There's work involved, definitely.

It is an interesting topic.

Dave.C.Robinson

07-11-2007, 12:46 AM

My Emphasis.

I just wanted to quickly comment on your 'tone-deaf' statement, if I may. I don't remember who it was (I'm thinking Mozart?) but there was a song writer who was quite deaf and yet is one of the most celebrated classical musicians of all time.

I just wish I remembered who it was. :(

Another interesting point is Thomas Edison, the man who invented, among other things, the Phonograph. I've heard that he was also very much lacking in his hearing ability. Yet to this day his technology is used to make sound recordings of some of the highest quality and definition in the world.

Just more of a thought than a definitive answer to every question. But I believe in the human ability to overcome our own lackings. It's an ability I don't think many other animals have within themselves, for whatever reasons they might have. I think it's what makes us unique in what we know of the universe. The fact we can think more with our brains than with our stomachs, is something that really, I think, needs to be considered in a discussion such as this.

Again, just my opinion.

As others have said, it was Beethoven, and yes he did become deaf late in life.

The reason I don't consider him a counter-example is because even though he could no longer hear notes he knew and understood the difference between different notes. Yes humans do have a huge ability to overcome difficulties, but there are some lacks which cannot be overcome. Sometimes they can be sidestepped. Perhaps someone with the "anti-talent" can work with another person and together they can produce brilliant novels.

Sean D. Schaffer

07-11-2007, 12:48 AM

MacAllister

07-11-2007, 12:53 AM

Do let's all remember to be gentle with each other, eh?

This is a subject that hits awfully close to home for all of us, because it's so hard to judge whether or not one has talent.

Sean D. Schaffer

07-11-2007, 01:08 AM

Hi again, everyone,

Mac's post brings an interesting thought to my mind. I asked her if I should leave this thread. I've not received a response as I write this post, but I think in an effort to keep the civility going within this thread I really should step out of this particular discussion. After what happened between Maestro and myself last night, I really am afraid that, as volatile as this discussion can be, it might happen again.

So in the interests of maintaining a civil tone to others' posts, I'm going to back off from this discussion.

I'll see you all around the boards, and I hope you all have a great afternoon.

:)

Bubastes

07-11-2007, 01:16 AM

Jamesaritchie

07-11-2007, 01:21 AM

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.

No, not really. Good is subjective, bad isn't. Even with the mechanics down pat, and even when the writer knows certain techniques, all editors will still hate a majority of what they see. There's a LOT more to writing well than mechanics and technique.

rugcat

07-11-2007, 01:27 AM

It's been said many times before that for a writer, the three things you need to achieve success (usually defined as getting published) are talent, persistence (hard work) and luck. I personally believe that luck plays a far greater role than we would like to believe, but that’s open to debate.

What’s not debatable is that of the three, only one is under our control. So focusing on work is the only rational thing to do.

But it’s still fun (sometimes) to speculate about the role of the others.

Q.Rious

07-11-2007, 01:29 AM

This has been a fascinating thread to read and ponder, but forgive me if I ask a dumb question: why does anyone care about whether or not you need (or have) talent? I can only control the "work" side of the equation anyway, so worrying about whether or not I have talent (which is so subjective anyway) seems like a waste of energy that I really don't have to spare. I guess I'm of the do-your-best-and-let-the-chips-fall-where-they-may camp.

And why is it so hard for some people to believe that we are not all created equal? Maybe I'm missing something basic, but there it is.

I'm with ya, meowgirl. I think most of writing is about practice and interest and well, thinking interesting thoughts - all of which can be acquired and honed. I suppose some people just like to think they were gifted by God to write. That whole putting others down to pull yourself up sort of attitude.

Lauri B

07-11-2007, 01:42 AM

I'm with ya, meowgirl. I think most of writing is about practice and interest and well, thinking interesting thoughts - all of which can be acquired and honed. I suppose some people just like to think they were gifted by God to write. That whole putting others down to pull yourself up sort of attitude.

That's definitely not what I meant when I said some people have talent and some don't. You don't need only talent to be a successful writer; in fact, you don't really need talent at all. Rugcat is correct, I think; a lot of what happens in publishing is luck, the fickleness of the reading public, timing, whatever. I've seen amazing books absolutely tank the second they get out of the box: for example, The Interpretation of Murder was supposed to be last year's BIG BOOK. It wasn't. For whatever reason, the book just didn't take. It happens all the time with unbelievably talented writers. And other writers, who might not be as naturally talented, work hard and write books that sell millions. This discussion seems to be hitting very close to home for many people, but I'm not really sure why. it's a moot point if you have talent or not. I would suggest that one of the most important features a writer's work needs is marketability, if that writer is trying to make a living as an author. Talent, shmalent. I'm not a particularly talented writer; I'm pretty good, but no one is going to nominate me for the National Book Award. Do I care? Nah. Show me the money.

rugcat

07-11-2007, 01:45 AM

I suppose some people just like to think they were gifted by God to write. That whole putting others down to pull yourself up sort of attitude.I don't see it that way at all. If you are lucky enough to be blessed with some talent, you still have to work hard to achieve anything. If you’re talented and don’t do anything with it, you’re wasting a freely given gift and are a pathetic slacker.

Those who succeed and believe it’s entirely due to hard work and their own efforts, talent be damned, are essentially saying, “if you don’t succeed it’s only because you weren’t willing to put in the work like I did.”

Talk about putting others down to pull yourself up.

Jamesaritchie

07-11-2007, 01:47 AM

But the main question remains unanswered. If practice can make anyone a writer, if love of writing can make anyone a writer, then why doesn't it?

No one has answered how thousands of writers all over the country receive the best teaching from the best pros, but still, after many years of love, dedication, and endless practice, still can't write worth squat.

90% of all who try writing will never, ever, sell a single piece of their writing for a single penny, no matter how long and hard they practice, and no matter how much they love what they're doing.

If writing can be taught, if love and practice are the answer, then why on earth do the vast majority of those who love to write, who practice almost daily for years and years and years, who have the best teachers money can buy, never, ever learn to write anything that could be called good by anyone?

If writing well is something that can be learned by almost anyone, then someone needs to answer the question of why almost no one is learning to write well, despite having all the attributes mentioned in these posts.

If writing really can be taught, then we need to fire every writing professor and teacher in the country, because they are all failing the vast majority of their students. They can't even teach most of the students who are carefully selected in advance.

I don't know about God-given, but I do know this; we are not all the same. We do not all have the same natural talents, we do not all have the same IQs, we cannot all be anything we want to be, if we just love what we're doing, and practice hard enough. That's a nice notion, but in the real world it simply isn't true. In the real world, people are different. some are faster than others, some are stronger than others, some are taller than others, and like it or not, and like it or not, some are a heck of a lot smarted than others, and like it or not, some have far more talent than others. That's just how it is.

The fact that some, very few, pro writers claim to hate writing (And usually suffer in their careers because of it) still succeed is another sign that natural talent is required. It means some succeed even when they hate writing, while others who love it to death fail miserably.

The good news is that the only way anyone knows whether they have the necessary talent is if they do try long and hard. But thinking natural talent doesn't exist is having your head buried in the sand all the way to your waist. Natural talent, better minds, smarter people, are a part of everyday life.

I don't care whether it's math, philosophy, painting, singing, or writing, some people do have a natural talent for it, a better mind for it, than others. This is usually obvious in every field on earth except writing, and it's equally obvious in writing, except to many of those who wish to be writers.

maestrowork

07-11-2007, 01:48 AM

Emphasis Mine.

Links, please?

Google "brain research language skills."

maestrowork

07-11-2007, 01:51 AM

It's been said many times before that for a writer, the three things you need to achieve success (usually defined as getting published) are talent, persistence (hard work) and luck. I personally believe that luck plays a far greater role than we would like to believe, but that’s open to debate.

Some may argue luck doesn't exist, or it is an excuse for lazy people. :)

Christine N.

07-11-2007, 01:57 AM

I also think part of the 'IT' factor has quite a bit to do with public perception. Personally I think Dan Brown sold a lot of books because he had a storyline that was intriguing and fueled by controversy. I don't think he's got much writing ability - some of his paragraphs are painful to read. But he had 'it' because what he wrote caused such an uproar and such curiosity.

Christopher Paolini isn't, IMO terribly better than any writer on this board, and his plotline is derivative and rehashed, but because Carl Haissen's stepson loved it, Chris won the jackpot.

Having 'IT' has a lot to do with luck too.

But there is a, inarguably, an IT factor, something that no one can quite identify. Why was Katherine Hepburn such a great actress? What makes America follow Paris' every. stupid. move??

With books, I don't think it's anything you can really point to and say 'that writer's got 'it'.'

And obviously what one person says is 'it', doesn't necessarily agree with another person's view.

Personally I don't think anyone off the street can be a great writer. They can be a decent writer, and express their ideas in a coherent manner, but a great writer DOES have that certain...something.

I think we all agree it takes devotion to the written word, hard work, and a willingness to hear the word 'no'.

maestrowork

07-11-2007, 01:57 AM

I'm with ya, meowgirl. I think most of writing is about practice and interest and well, thinking interesting thoughts - all of which can be acquired and honed. I suppose some people just like to think they were gifted by God to write. That whole putting others down to pull yourself up sort of attitude.

I agree with Nomad in saying that just because we say some people have "this" and some people have "that" (intelligence, talent, a heightened sense of smell, a knack for math, the ability to juggle five balls, etc. etc.) doesn't mean we're putting down people who don't. I really must stress that. I know we can all become sensitive in that regard -- that pitch the haves against the have-nots, etc.

However, if we really look at all of this objectively, then we do know that there are differences between people, and all shades of grays. Some people are more intelligent and some not... but it has NOTHING to do with that person's worth, or that someone with more of X is dissing others. Otherwise, we can NEVER talk about anything without someone objecting about inequalities.

I hope we're clear on that.

III

07-11-2007, 01:58 AM

I don't care whether it's math, philosophy, painting, singing, or writing, some people do have a natural talent for it, a better mind for it, than others. This is usually obvious in every field on earth except writing, and it's equally obvious in writing, except to many of those who wish to be writers.

Sounds like a good idea for a literary spinoff of American Idol and So You Think You Can Dance. I can see some pimply-faced teen reading their horrid love poems, followed by a young Kurt Vonnegut. And I bet we could nominate some AW'ers to be the Paula, Randy, and Simon...

rugcat

07-11-2007, 02:00 AM

Some may argue luck doesn't exist, or it is an excuse for lazy people. :)I'm quite lazy, but fortunately I've had a lot of luck.

I have to agree with JAR's post. As always, blunt and opinionated. But the logic is impeccable, and I think he's absolutely correct. (But don't get mad at me; he's the one who posted it.)

maestrowork

07-11-2007, 02:01 AM

I did not ask for Google keywords. I asked for LINKS.

Sean, why are you so contentious?

Here is one article: http://www.schwablearning.org/articles.aspx?r=35

Here's another: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/253/5019/530?ck=nck

If you want more, I can dig up my stack of Science Magazine plus the shows I taped on learning disability and brain research on Discover Channel. It may take some time, though.

This type of information is readily available online plus in libraries.

Ciao.

apmom

07-11-2007, 02:02 AM

What’s not debatable is that of the three, only one is under our control. So focusing on work is the only rational thing to do.

But it’s still fun (sometimes) to speculate about the role of the others.

It is still fun, and interesting. Also interesting to read the various opinions of others on the board.

So, do I have talent? I think so, but I don't really know.

There's no "talent lobe" in the brain, but there's more that is not known than known in neurology. Maybe one day what seems mystical and indefinable (is that a word?), talent, will be a known, physical entity.

Sean: If you're still reading and curious there's a lot of interesting material out there about the brain, how it works, and which sections of the brain control the different functions and skills. Some skills and processes can be "rerouted" if there's damage, others can't. The User's Guide to The Brain (I forget the author) has a good overview of how this works, learning disabilities, etc. If you're really curious you can google the WADA test, which is totally fascinating (to me anyway, but I admit to being a nerd). :)

Twizzle

07-11-2007, 02:28 AM

I think of it not so much as talent, but as instinct.

I believe there's a deep instinctual component to great writing. Like poetry. The ability to feel the right word, know the exact right words, and how to weave them together. Great writers have it in abundance. The rest, we all have it to varying degrees. And can compensate. Or not. That is where skill and dedication come in. That's all.

MacAllister

07-11-2007, 02:28 AM

Time to let this one go, guys. Sean -- Ray really, truly isn't attacking you. You guys' opinions on this happen to be very different, and creating hard feelings over something this hypothetical just isn't worth it.

Thanks.

rugcat

07-11-2007, 02:48 AM

I’ve had an epiphany!

It’s simple. The way you tell if someone has talent is to read something they’ve written. If it’s good, they have talent.

Oh, wait a moment. People often disagree on what’s “good.” In fact, they even disagree if “good” is a valid concept at all.

Oops. My bad.

Dawnstorm

07-11-2007, 02:55 AM

A talent for archery? Simple. How much do you have to practise to hit the target?

A talent for writing? Um, what's the equivalent to the target? If there is a target at all, it's invisible to the writer, and the folks who see it disagree wether the writer has hit it or not. You may realise that if you hold the (metaphorical) bow in this way and crook your finger like that the people you care about will tell you that you've hit the target, but then you'll worry that you're really just a conceited marksman who selectively listens to people.

But once you ignore evaluation, once you don't compare yourself to others, but compare portions of text you've written to other portions of text you've written, you'll probably realise pretty quickly where your talents lie. Perhaps you're better at dialogue than at setting? You're good at plotting but can't string a sentence together?

This is, I think, where talent comes in. How do you approach "improving"?

Do you focus on your talent, improving that, and learn to be adequate at everything else? Do you put more effort into improving the parts you have little talent with, hoping to even out the field and trusting your talent to pull you through? Do you place equal emphasis on all aspects of writing, regardless of talent?

You have only so much time and energy to put into improving your writing. What do you do with it? I do think you're learning more effectively if you know where your talents lie.

Q.Rious

07-11-2007, 03:22 AM

. Some people are more intelligent and some not... but it has NOTHING to do with that person's worth, or that someone with more of X is dissing others. Otherwise, we can NEVER talk about anything without someone objecting about inequalities.

I hope we're clear on that.

How would you quantify "more intelligent?" It's such a culturally loaded term, and really impossible to quantify. (And don't talk about IQ without first reading Gould and the biases inherent)

Is someone with a good memory more intelligent? Someone who can spout off facts about DWG (dead white guys?) How about someone who can take disparate facts and make something new from them? How about the guy who can fix your car by diagnosing noise, but couldn't read an eighth grade textbook? There are many kinds of intelligence, and determing "who is more intelligent" is a futilely subjective pursuit.

Except I can say that those most taken with proving that there's a proven pecking order in either intelligence or writing skill seem to have a personal stake in the matter (MENSA membership, yada yada). I've read very little in writing books that gives long winded homage to innate talent, but plenty about dedication and willingness to learn.

Although it WOULD be so much simpler for those of us Touched By God if all those poseurs got out of the way, eh? Except they also think they were Touched By God, and... uh-oh...

maestrowork

07-11-2007, 03:34 AM

Interesting. I don't know how one can "quantify" intelligence if we disregard IQ tests, etc. It's not like height -- you can actually measure it objectively. And what is the definition of intelligence? With what criteria? Can education make a difference? I think that's a whole different thread. But interesting.

Still, I think it's just a matter of deduction. Since we can say that not everyone has the same mental capacity or what not as the next person, we can deduce that some people are "smarter" or "have a higher mental capacity."

Otherwise, we can only conclude that everyone is equally intelligent. Do you think so?

BTW, I think everyone is "touched by God" if you really want to go there. ;)

rugcat

07-11-2007, 03:42 AM

How would you quantify "more intelligent?" It's such a culturally loaded term, and really impossible to quantify.That’s a good point. There was a study I vaguely recall involving Australian aborigine children who exhibited not much skill in certain areas, but were able to remember objects and their positions in their environment with astounding recall. The white middle class children were morons in comparison.

Yet we still all know people who are really smart, as well as those who are thick as a brick. Insisting that’s there’s no difference in intelligence levels, and that everyone is exactly equal in brainpower is, I think, more wishful thinking than reality.
Although it WOULD be so much simpler for those of us Touched By God if all those poseurs got out of the way, eh? Except they also think they were Touched By God, and... uh-oh...Equating those of us who believe there is such a thing as natural talent with your mythical elitists who proclaim they are "Touched by God" isn't particularly helpful to the discussion.

yesandno

07-11-2007, 04:06 AM

How long should a writer practice at writing before deciding that s/he doesn't have "it?" And how would they know?

Dave.C.Robinson

07-11-2007, 04:25 AM

How long should a writer practice at writing before deciding that s/he doesn't have "it?" And how would they know?

Practice until the cows come home.

I don't know how one would know if they didn't have "it" but what might be a factor would be whether the notes they were getting on critiques or rejections showed any change or growth. If they didn't, that might be a red flag.

Still, I think it's a mix of talent and skill. Talent gets you started, shows what areas you begin strong in. Then all you need do is work on the rest.

Q.Rious

07-11-2007, 04:32 AM

Otherwise, we can only conclude that everyone is equally intelligent. Do you think so?

BTW, I think everyone is "touched by God" if you really want to go there. ;)

Nope. Why is the inverse of "some are intelligent" that "all are intelligent?" It's a straw man, and I don't date straw men. Often. Well, unless they're really cute.

I think everyone is intelligent in a different way. Some socially. Some verbally. Some mathematically. Some car-ifically. Some people are great at rebates, I don't know. And even within that "verbal intelligence" construct, one could say some folks are great with vocabulary, others know how to string a sentence, while still others can remember passages read from years ago. Some can write humor, and some can write mystery.

Some of those people called "dumb as a brick" might be damn fine at fixing things, or figuring out how to swindle people out of their money. It's a dangerous thing to write someone off as dumb...

maestrowork

07-11-2007, 05:12 AM

How long should a writer practice at writing before deciding that s/he doesn't have "it?" And how would they know?

Hmmm... I guess you don't, if writing is your life. Just keep writing.

maestrowork

07-11-2007, 05:14 AM

Some of those people called "dumb as a brick" might be damn fine at fixing things, or figuring out how to swindle people out of their money. It's a dangerous thing to write someone off as dumb...

That's not what I call intelligence, though. I guess you have a different definition than mine. But, okay, let's follow your definition. What about someone who is just not good at anything? Are they still as intelligent as you are?

BTW, what I said was not "straw man" if you would just note the word "equally." That's the key word. You were arguing about if someone can be more intelligent. I'm just saying, yes, by deduction someone is bound to be more intelligent because not every is equally intelligent.

I'm not sure if we're taking this "all men are created equal" too literally.

Thanks.

yesandno

07-11-2007, 05:32 AM

Coincidentally, I just read the following passage in Samuel Delany's collection, "About Writing."

"For the Romantics, Begeisterung was not just the initial idea or the talent one had to realize it. Begeisterung was both intellectual and bodily. A form of spirit, it was also a mode of will. to the Romantics, this enthusiasm/Begeisterung carried the artist through the work's creation. If there were things you didn't know that you needed in order to write your story, your novel, your play, with enough Begeisterung you could always go out and learn them..."

Patricia

07-11-2007, 06:25 AM

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

Patricia

07-11-2007, 06:36 AM

I'm lousy at grammar, and great at writing. Thank god for editors! And the acquisition editors who recognize great.:D

Love your hat Frank.:)

Medievalist

07-11-2007, 06:50 AM

Some random observations which are worth exactly what you've paid for them:

• Intelligence -- I think there's more than one kind of intelligence. I think, for instance, that there's something I'll call social intelligence, or emotional intelligence, that is, an inbuilt gift for dealing with, understanding, and getting along with other people. I know some people who have this kind of intelligence -- and it's more than a talent, since it's raw ability that can be enhanced by learning. I'm not alone in this belief; the concept is well-documented in psychology texts. I think there are other sorts of intelligence too.

• IQ tests are sorta bogus for indicating intelligence, and very good at indicating how well you take IQ tests. I say this, doubtlessly, in part, because I can't take IQ tests. My official IQ is 42; not only is that the answer to life, the universe, and everything, 42 is off the official scale, it's so low. It suggests, frankly, that I can't breathe on my own.

• Talent is a funny thing. I have a really good ear, musically. I started out as an undergrad as a music history major, but still had to pass recitals for two instruments. I loved playing, and practiced at least four hours a day. Unfortunately, I have no talent, at all, as in none, for performing. I suck, basically. I really really suck; painfully so.

I changed majors. You should all breathe a sigh of relief.

• It's quite possible to teach people to write, if they want to learn, and they're willing to work. This is not opinion; this is fact. I do this on a regular basis. So do thousands of other college composition and English instructors. Writing to communicate is a skill, or really, a set of skills, and they're generally teachable. Some people will learn more easily than others, and some will excel, but certainly pretty much anyone can reach a fairly high skill level, if they want to, and they work at it.

The secret is learning to revise. You heard it here first folks.

• Frankly, if I can learn to write, pretty much anyone can. This is not false modesty, by the way; this is a truth.

• Some people, though, even writing non-fiction, stand out. They have an ear for the melody of prose, for the subtleties of tone, and syntax, and word choice. I'm not one of them, but I know them when I see them, even when they're sorta lacking in some of the more basic skills.

• I can't teach someone to tell a story. I'm not sure anyone can, if the person doesn't have that kind of talent and desire, and compulsion. I've seen lots of people who actually write well, really well, even, not do well at fiction because, well, they don't have the skill set / talent for story. I've seen a fair number of books by them too, but it's usually just one or maybe two books, and they quit. That's because part of the thing about story is a compulsion to tell stories, verbally or written. People who get story are compelled to engage in story making; they can't not tell stories. Doesn't matter if they want to publish stories, it's the having and the knowing and the compulsion to tell them that's the key.

• I'm one of those people who can't do story. I'm hell on wheels as a reader, and OK as an editor, but I'm not a story teller. I'm just not. Fortunately, I have no desire to write fiction. I just wanna consume it.

• Rumors to the contrary, I can actually breathe on my own.

No really, I can!

Shadow_Ferret

07-11-2007, 08:28 AM

As for examples of what is bad writing, I gave some examples in my post that you quoted.

I'm also going to ask you a simple question, without trying to sound defensive or arrogant like I was last night:Bad in your opinion. Obviously someone likes their work. An agent liked it enough to make them a client. A publisher liked it enough to print it. Readers flocked to it. So because you think its bad doesn't make it bad or make them hacks. They're obviously doing something right even if you don't like them.

What makes you, or I, or anyone, the judge of whether or not someone else has talent? Especially you or me, as neither of us is even published.

My point is, you're no judge over whether a writer is talented or no, and you're not an absolute judge over what is good or bad writing. You can't be; you're only one human being out of how many billions on this Earth? We all have differing opinions, and we'll hold to our opinions as true. But our opinions are nevertheless opinions. The fact is, what you think is bad writing, other readers don't. That's the point I've been trying to make in this and other opinion threads. Your opinion is no more absolute truth than my own.
I'm not judging anyone. You seem to be. I'm pointing out something so obvious that you are missing it. Christine N already pointed it out. Some people are born with talent. Yes, you can learn the mechanics, but that doesn't mean you can write with heart and soul. Just as anyone can learn the notes on a musical instrument. I practice the guitar every night, but I'm not a musician. And I never will be. It's not in my soul.

As a child I practiced shooting hoops every single night, but I never became a basketball player because I just don't have the talent.

Hell, I'll probably never be a novelist. So far no agent has seen anything worthwhile in my writing. I have the mechanics of writing. It would appear I lack the soul.

I'm not sure why it's such a hard concept to accept. Some people just aren't cut out to be writers. They either have it, or they don't.

maestrowork

07-11-2007, 08:55 AM

A couple of thoughts -- not that I think I'm right... but just my thoughts and opinions.

I think part of reason why some of us have such contention:

- We want to believe that all people should have the same opportunities, and some don't want to believe that some people are "born" more superior than others. The whole "talent" thing seems to irk us because it implies that some people are born with "the good stuff" (as Q.Rious said: "Touched by God") while others aren't.

- We want to believe that "if you try hard at something and really believe in yourself, you will succeed" which is a fine, fine, fine thing. So if we say "you either have it or don't" it counters our beliefs that anyone can achieve greatness if only they apply themselves. It shatters that ideal that "we can all reach for the stars." Because we're saying: "No, for some people, it just ain't gonna happen." It is a very difficult thing to contemplate.

- Writing seems to be such a basic skill. We all go to school for it, so why do we say some people are naturally good at it and some not? If it's a basic skill then it seems like we should all excel in it if we apply ourselves. Like reading comprehension. I think there's a correlation between reading and writing -- so if we can learn to achieve a certain universal level of reading comprehension, then why not writing as well?

- Perhaps some of us have one time or another felt that a lot of "published" works just are not very good, and we can write better than "that," so perhaps anyone can really succeed if you work hard on your craft. I mean "if X can write and get published, so can anyone else" -- maybe there's some of that? I don't know...just thinking out loud, here.

- Some of us simply have very different views on talent vs. skill or nature vs. nurture. And like Toothpaste said, such difference probably won't be resolved within a thread or two on a writers' board. We will just have to agree to disagree.

- Keep writing -- that's what I would tell anyone who wants to be a writer. It's not up to us to decide if we have talent or not, but it's up to us to WRITE with our heart and soul. I think in the grand scheme, that is the most important thing. Do what you love and keep doing it.

Cassiopeia

07-11-2007, 09:16 AM

Over the past two days as I have contemplated and read all the posts on this thread, I have also had another thought concerning this thing we do called writing.

For me writing calls to me and no matter if I am being published or not, I will continue to work at it and do what I love most. I write because it is what I do and I find it fulfilling. Sometimes I get caught up in the pedantic measurements of what it takes to be published and then I pull back and remember that I started writing at 11 years old because I felt called to do it.

For me that is what matters. If I have happen to be published again one day, BONUS. :)

Anthony Ravenscroft

07-11-2007, 10:34 AM

I am not "elitist" for stating the firm belief that not everyone is capable of doing every goshdarned thing. I am So Freakin' Tired of that canard!!

It's a kind of bone-head pseudo-socialism -- & I speak as a fan (if not an actual socialist) -- to believe that everyone should be elevated to the same plane of ability... or, barring that, chopped down until all (perhaps excepting the true retardates) can manage.

I'm a sometime musician. There are bands that are spotless, yet they grate on my nerves & I won't go out of my way to catch a gig; there are bands who are half-assed, unable to hold a note & not so good at their instruments, who I enjoy as often as possible because they are sincere, because they throw a good party, because they are entertaining.

I mean, who's "better": the guitarist who hacks away before packed rooms, or the virtuoso who never plays in public? Choose one.

This can be drawn for writing as well. Is dense literary writing (selling a thousand copies to critical raves) better than semiliterate arm-waving that sells a million? Choose one.

Almost anyone can be taught to carve out a passable bit of prose, given time & paper enough. It's harder again (& again) to teach such a person how to spot a good story idea, how to tell it, how to make it engaging, how to have characters, how to craft dialogue... & in the long run devolves back to the drive & determination & time that the erstwhile writer is willing to put into it.

But some people, yes, will remain forever colorblind.

For all the effort some people will put into writing, only never to complete a single passable story or article, they might be better off painting landscapes, carving wooden ducks, or playing the piano.

blacbird

07-11-2007, 10:38 AM

I mean, who's "better": the guitarist who hacks away before packed rooms, or the virtuoso who never plays in public?

For choice No. 2, how do you know it's a virtuoso if he/she never plays before an audience? Tree falling in the forest, who hears it? etc. In the world of writing, it you never get anything published, who ever knows?

Although, considering that this site increasingly seems to exist for the benefit of the well-published, and the denigration of those who are not, perhaps the question is already answered.

caw

Medievalist

07-11-2007, 10:54 AM

Although, considering that this site increasingly seems to exist for the benefit of the well-published, and the denigration of those who are not, perhaps the question is already answered.

caw

If you wanna point to examples, I'm seriously interested. Gentle mockery is one thing, denigration is another and very much not cool.

Anthony Ravenscroft

07-11-2007, 10:58 AM

this site increasingly seems to exist for the benefit of the well-published, and the denigration of those who are not
Another set of possibilities there:

that statement is utter nonsense
that statement is merely a personal opinion
that statement has some verifiable basis in factThe "well-published" don't have a whole lot of reason to be on AWrite. It does little to further their careers, & nothing to improve their sales -- IMNSHO. I'd guess that it's far more fun to lord one's "well-published" status over a handful of live rubes than a few thousand virtual beings, & certainly more likely to be lucrative.

The fact is that some people can play a decent blues lick after a few hours of lessons, & some can't even reliably tune the instrument with a digital tuner after hundreds of hours of practice. I can't accept credit for the former or blame for the latter -- the results would be much the same with any other tutor.

And I think it's arrogant nonsense in this regard to suggest that writing is a whole lot different from musicianship.

BlueTexas

07-11-2007, 11:25 AM

Although, considering that this site increasingly seems to exist for the benefit of the well-published, and the denigration of those who are not, perhaps the question is already answered.

caw

Wow. I'm not well-published. I've never felt denigrated. More than that, the encouragement from AW members is what convinced me I could learn enough to improve to get published. I've seen several people here go from unpublished to having their books on shelves.

I'm really really surprised to hear someone feels the way you do.

MacAllister

07-11-2007, 12:25 PM

Hell, I'm not well-published either. So it's news to me.

But if you've been denigrated, Blacbird, I'm awfully interested in links, too. That's not okay.

Shadow_Ferret

07-11-2007, 04:15 PM

Although, considering that this site increasingly seems to exist for the benefit of the well-published, and the denigration of those who are not, perhaps the question is already answered.

caw
When you're struggling and seeing nothing but rejection after rejection, I understand how it can seem like that.

If you wanna point to examples, I'm seriously interested. Gentle mockery is one thing, denigration is another and very much not cool.One man's gentle mockery is another man's sharp, painful insult.

Wow. I'm not well-published. I've never felt denigrated. More than that, the encouragement from AW members is what convinced me I could learn enough to improve to get published. I've seen several people here go from unpublished to having their books on shelves.

I'm really really surprised to hear someone feels the way you do.I'm starting to feel denigrated. When I hear people insult and put down best selling authors as bad writers or even terrible hacks, well, where does that put me, the writer who hasn't even made it out of the gate? Who keeps getting rejections? I must be a complete pile of shit in comparison.

Dave.C.Robinson

07-11-2007, 04:20 PM

Although, considering that this site increasingly seems to exist for the benefit of the well-published, and the denigration of those who are not, perhaps the question is already answered.

caw

I don't see it that way. What I see is that this site is pushing writers towards choosing good publishers and agents and away from bad ones. I will say that it's more for the benefit of those who want to become well-published authors than for those who are looking for "Published Author, the Role-Playing Game." All the advice I've seen is saying go for a publisher who follows Yog's Law, not the waL s'goY. It's not about saying those who are not published are lesser human beings; it's about saying start at the top. Start at the top, and remember there are some publishers that are worse than no publisher.

Twizzle

07-11-2007, 05:58 PM

"retardates"

please. no.

I'm not one for political correctness. Usually. I'm not one to tell people what they can and cannot say. but I would ask politely that you not use this.

III

07-11-2007, 06:02 PM

For choice No. 2, how do you know it's a virtuoso if he/she never plays before an audience? Tree falling in the forest, who hears it? etc. In the world of writing, it you never get anything published, who ever knows?

Now we have YouTube where all the "closet virtuosos" post. There's tens of thousands of 'em and now the world is their stage. I know there are plenty of sites where you can post writing work, but it's not the same - reading even a short story takes more of an investment than just watching a 2 minute clip of someone playing guitar.

Maybe it's just as well. I already know there are a million guitarists better than me, but maybe I can still believe that only successful authors are better writers than me.

maestrowork

07-11-2007, 06:36 PM

I'm starting to feel denigrated. When I hear people insult and put down best selling authors as bad writers or even terrible hacks, well, where does that put me, the writer who hasn't even made it out of the gate? Who keeps getting rejections? I must be a complete pile of shit in comparison.

I can certainly understand that feeling, but I don't think it's necessary (before you say "easy for you to say" let me clarify: just because I have one book published doesn't mean I don't get rejections anymore -- every time I put something out there, I face rejections).

Everyone gets judged, whether you're published or not. Rejection is just another way to be judged. Yes, it's frustrating and I can understand how sensitive we are. But the thing is, published authors get judged by EVERYONE, all the time, because, well, their books are out there to be read and judged. And people are harsher judges when they have to pay for the darn thing. And someone like Dan Brown is an easy target. His works are in the public eye, and it sold millions. I'm sure there are people out there who've read my book saying "This book sucks." I have to focus on the positive.

For everyone who thinks Dan Brown is a hack, there are millions who think his books are great. And if someone writes like Dan Brown, I hope they don't feel like they have to change so that people people will not criticize their work. Because, the reality is, somewhere, someone is going to criticize.

I guess my point is that whether you're published or not, you need to find that nugget of truth about your writing and be confident about it. And focus on the work -- every rejection is more about the work itself (which may very well need improvements) than the writer.

I know it's more difficult to do, if someone keeps getting rejections because it seems like getting that one acceptance is the "validation" of how good our writing is, but most often than not, it's simply "right thing at the right place at the right time." If you think rejections are tough, wait until you see your first negative review or the first person sends you a piece of "hate" mail about your book or you sit at the store and no one is interested in buying the book or they say "the plot seems stupid." ;) Criticism is just a fact of life. It may make it feel a bit "better" if you're getting paid. We just need to let it slide off our backs. Smile and nod and move on.

The bottomline is, we all just need to keep writing and keep believing in ourselves, if writing is truly what you love to do.

III

07-11-2007, 06:40 PM

Man, Ray, that was a great post. Well put.

Bartholomew

07-11-2007, 07:01 PM

I can certainly understand that feeling, but I don't think it's necessary (before you say "easy for you to say" let me clarify: just because I have one book published doesn't mean I don't get rejections anymore -- every time I put something out there, I face rejections).

Everyone gets judged, whether you're published or not. Rejection is just another way to be judged. Yes, it's frustrating and I can understand how sensitive we are. But the thing is, published authors get judged by EVERYONE, all the time, because, well, their books are out there to be read and judged. And people are harsher judges when they have to pay for the darn thing. And someone like Dan Brown is an easy target. His works are in the public eye, and it sold millions. I'm sure there are people out there who've read my book saying "This book sucks." I have to focus on the positive.

For everyone who thinks Dan Brown is a hack, there are millions who think his books are great. And if someone writes like Dan Brown, I hope they don't feel like they have to change so that people people will not criticize their work. Because, the reality is, somewhere, someone is going to criticize.

I guess my point is that whether you're published or not, you need to find that nugget of truth about your writing and be confident about it. And focus on the work -- every rejection is more about the work itself (which may very well need improvements) than the writer.

I know it's more difficult to do, if someone keeps getting rejections because it seems like getting that one acceptance is the "validation" of how good our writing is, but most often than not, it's simply "right thing at the right place at the right time." If you think rejections are tough, wait until you see your first negative review or the first person sends you a piece of "hate" mail about your book or you sit at the store and no one is interested in buying the book or they say "the plot seems stupid." ;) Criticism is just a fact of life. It may make it feel a bit "better" if you're getting paid. We just need to let it slide off our backs. Smile and nod and move on.

I'm starting to feel denigrated. When I hear people insult and put down best selling authors as bad writers or even terrible hacks, well, where does that put me, the writer who hasn't even made it out of the gate? Who keeps getting rejections? I must be a complete pile of shit in comparison.

Shadow Ferret has an excellent point, though. There is a lot of author bashing on this forum, usually in the Novel Forum. It isn't criticism, it's insult. Not only does it reflect badly on the entire community, it makes everyone who hasn't been published, somewhere in the back of their mind, go, "Well, if they think that about Stephen King, I don't stand a chance."

I think that the "Respect your Fellow Writer" rule needs to extend to authors who are not a direct part of this community.

Willowmound

07-11-2007, 07:09 PM

Nonsense.

I'll bash the big if I want to. They're big. They can take it. Most likely, they don't care.

Huggy luvvy PC, not for me. Don't impose that kind of regime here. It would kill so much of our fun.

maestrowork

07-11-2007, 07:12 PM

I see. And I agree if you simply say "Stephen King is a no-talent hack and I hate him" that would be bad. But what if someone gives out reasons why they don't like their work: "too much info dump, the dialogue is stilted, the characters have no depth, the plot is predictable, etc." Would you think it's valid criticism, then? This is a writers' site, so I think it's okay for us to critique others' works, including well-known authors'. I think flat-out bashing is a bad thing because it lacks credibility and it's mean-spirited, but if someone has a valid reason to dislike something, I think it's acceptable on a writers' site to discuss the merits and flaws.

I still think "If they can think that about Stephen King, I don't stand a chance" is not necessary. Just because it's Stephen King doesn't make him God or the "golden standard" of what writing should be. Besides, people criticize God, too. ;) I've seen a lot of people who hate Hemingway's writing -- I happen to like it. I don't get personally offended -- it's really just "to each his own."

Willowmound

07-11-2007, 07:15 PM

(hrm, a better response than mine, grumbles..)

rugcat

07-11-2007, 07:36 PM

In every field, professionals (and those who aspire to be) pick out certain successful colleagues to bash. Writers are no different. Jealousy may be a factor, but I think the jealousy comes more from the fact that those who write have a certain understanding of the process, and it galls when a person lacking in the same skills they themselves have labored so hard to acquire becomes a best-selling author.

It’s not success that causes jealousy. It is undeserved (in some eyes) success. There is a reason that Dan Brown, hugely successful, comes in for a lot of bashing, whereas Steven King, even more successful, is a revered icon.

You want to talk the bashing of success? Listen to what professional jazz musicians scuffling to make a living have to say about Kenny G.

maestrowork

07-11-2007, 07:39 PM

Or singers talking about Britney Spears.

;)

Toothpaste

07-11-2007, 07:46 PM

Also when one says that they don't like another author it doesn't mean: "And since you are not published and he is that means you suck even more!" I don't know where that link comes from. It's a falacy. Sean started to get upset here because he thought he was being personally attacked when he wasn't.

And the last thing. Even if that is what I was saying, even if I was putting down another author on here (and I am actually rather insulted that people think that I would do that, gosh that says a lot about what people think of my character), who cares? My opinion is not the gold standard. No one else's opinion here is the gold standard. Heck Ray is going to have a heart attack now, I like Dan Brown! My taste must be awful to him, but I don't care.

Blackbird (and Shadowferret), I would still really like some examples though, because if it is really happening, it needs to be addressed (yes okay I'm not a mod or anything, but an idealist and I like people to get along).

apmom

07-11-2007, 08:03 PM

When you're struggling and seeing nothing but rejection after rejection, I understand how it can seem like that.

One man's gentle mockery is another man's sharp, painful insult.

I'm starting to feel denigrated. When I hear people insult and put down best selling authors as bad writers or even terrible hacks, well, where does that put me, the writer who hasn't even made it out of the gate? Who keeps getting rejections? I must be a complete pile of shit in comparison.

I read and respect the responses to this statement, and though they made sense to me, I have to say that Shadow Ferret's thoughts continue to resonate.

IMHO, part of it is back to the question of talent. I haven't seen anyone in the thread address the idea that there are different forms of talent within fiction. Is Dan Brown comparable to Virginia Woolf? No, because it would be comparing apples to oranges. I think Brown is a fine story teller, which is a talent. Woolf probed the human condition through beautiful prose, a different talent.

I write, I want to continue to write, I want to be published. If I didn't, I would give up writing stories and journal. To me, writing and reading are intertwined, and to write without caring about whether or not it gets read would feel incomplete.

Toothpaste

07-11-2007, 08:27 PM

But you are still not denying the talent.

We are going to two different debates again: Is there such a thing as natural talent, and is everyone born with it? as opposed to: Are there different kinds of talent, and who can truly quantify it? We are debating the former. We can debate the latter. But let's not confuse the issue. I think what got people's shackles raised was Maestro saying definitively that no one thinks Dan Brown has talent. Well obviously that is just his opinion, but people jumped on that as if he was representing himself as the be all and end all of taste. He has subsequentially explained that he isn't the be all and end all in much clearer posts and I don't think we should still be upset with him because he wrote a post not as articulately as he could have.

maestrowork

07-11-2007, 08:44 PM

I think what got people's shackles raised was Maestro saying definitively that no one thinks Dan Brown has talent.

Probably, and my bad. I think some writers consider Dan Brown a craftsman -- I also said that depending on how we define talent -- Dan Brown is very good at many things, such as creating suspense, doing cliffhangers, his research, etc. and perhaps those are his talents. I just happen to think he writes by the book and I don't like some of his techniques (such as his info dumps), and I don't care for his prose. But you're right, it's just my opinion. I happen to like Hemingway but I know people who think he's overrated. Some even call Hemingway a hack -- oh well.

I think I was trying to discuss the difference between "art" and "craft" and what to me is "workmanlike" and what is "brilliant" in the context of "what is talent" and "what is learned skill." It is my fault to use words such as "no one" or "never" or "everybody thinks." I can see how that can rile people up. I certainly don't mean to be high and mighty and say my literary taste is the be all and end all. If that's the case, someone please hire me as the senior editor at Random House. ;)

I happen to like Angels & Demons and I can just hear some people scream "how could you?" Well, I just do.

Dave.C.Robinson

07-11-2007, 08:49 PM

I agree with the multiple talents of writing theory. It's not monolithic, and if you have enough of one sub-talent you may be able to get away with fewer skills or less of the other sub-talents.

maestrowork

07-11-2007, 09:02 PM

I kind of wonder: How many writers have "everything"? Great prose, great story, originality, great structures, deep human condition and emotions, incredible characters, suspense, etc.? It is easy, sometimes, to pick at the flaws (his prose is not very good; his story is not that original...) rather than noting the good things.

ChunkyC

07-11-2007, 09:37 PM

Good points, Ray. As in any other field of endeavour, I believe there are a few who do appear to have everything, but even then, individual taste would dictate that some people won't like what they do. And there will also always be the 'king of the hill' or 'David and Goliath' tendency to want to root for the little guy and knock the big guy down a peg.

I said upthread that I believe there is such a thing as natural talent, then went on to cite a musical ability called perfect pitch as an example. Rumination leads me to qualify that a bit. Is an innate ability like that actually a 'talent?' I'm not so sure now if talent is the right word to describe a physical ability like that. Perhaps talent is better thought of as a mix of physical ability, work ethic, imagination, learned skills and so on.

maestrowork

07-11-2007, 09:53 PM

That prompts me to think, and maybe it's time for us to talk about:

What is talent? What is skill? What is neither?

I think there seems to be some disagreement on what is considered a talent or skill, or simply an ability.

We can maybe say "intelligence" and "work ethics" or "imagination," etc. are neither talent or skill, just attributes or abilities. Probably the same goes with tone-deafness or colorblindness, on the flip side.

But what really is talent? Especially in the context of writing, or any creative endeavor?

What if we say, having a pitch-perfect ear is an innate ability. You either have it or you don't. Knowing the different notes and their relationships is a skill, so is putting them together to make melodies or harmonies. So is breathing techniques and vocalization and phrasing (in singing). It can be learned and mastered. Those are skills.

Or are those talents? Some people just can't grasp musical concepts -- is it because they have no talent, of no ability to even learn?

Then what really is talent? Is it the "magical" ability to put heart and soul into something to transcend the ordinary? Things that make Frank Sinatra so good and unique (and without the same "talent" you cannot learn to sing like Frank Sinatra)?

And then there's taste. I'm sure some people will say Frank Sinatra was a lousy singer, too.

Part of the problem is, I believe, we have no clear definition of what "talent" means. Is it the ability to string sentences together to make them meaningful and emotional? Or how to structure a story to make them suspenseful? Or turn pictures into words and vice versa? Word choices? The way they phrase their prose like music to our ears? They way they make us "see and smell" things instead of just reading words?

To me, some of these can be learned and acquired, and some can't. That's just my opinion.

Dave.C.Robinson

07-11-2007, 10:32 PM

Throwing in my own two bits, talent is like having an "ear." Talent is about doing the right thing from the start, without having to learn why it's the right thing. It's a foundation on which skills can be built. It's more about knowing what to do even when you don't know how to do it.

III

07-11-2007, 10:37 PM

Fonzie - had it.
Potsie - didn't have it.
Ralph - still got it.

The Lady

07-12-2007, 03:30 AM

But what about "awakening" talent in somebody?

I read an article once about an acting coach. She said she used to despair for some students who just hadn't got it. But ever so often one of those, "just haven't got it" students, got it.

She said she took time to figure out what had changed about them and she reckoned that they had managed to awaken themselves, they developed presence, confidence, self awareness, a proper degree of self love. The most quality, she reckoned, in an actor was presence BTW, and some of the people who hadn't got it initially, were able to acquire it, and not by any thing she did. So were they born with it or not? Doesn't matter if they were, if they were too lacking in self worth to express it.

I have a friend who after extensive counselling sessions will only now even consider submitting work. Before that the possibility of rejection had been wrapped up into too many other issues (self worth, parental abuse, body image) that it became almost a life or death act and therefore could not be risked. Complicated. And by the way, you would so not have guessed any of that from a conversation with this person.

Anyway, I personally believe we are all capable of stumbling around in a kind of a semi sleeping state (for years, decades, all our lives sometimes) . Then, one day, if we're lucky, and working on it, we wake up and we get to steer our lives with a much defter hand. I know this is hazy stuff, but then so is the place where all the good writing comes from. :)

ChunkyC

07-12-2007, 04:12 AM

Now that is thought-provoking. :)

Dave.C.Robinson

07-12-2007, 04:24 AM

It is fascinating. I like the term "awakened," because I don't think it's so much taught or learned as found. Sometimes all it takes is a new way of looking at things.

Cassiopeia

07-12-2007, 04:27 AM

I think PERHAPS sometimes our environment or our own insecurities, lack of vision or hope, can actually cover up something. Yet when something or someone sparks our imagination we awaken.

Sarashay

07-12-2007, 05:01 AM

It's interesting that I should come across this thread as I'm grappling with many of the issues around these questions in my own life.

It's possible that one of the reasons some people are so touchy about 'talent' is that the notion of 'talent' feeds one of the most paralyzing fears that any aspiring artist has to face--the fear of not being good enough. The fear that the gap between where you are and where you dream of being will never, ever be bridged.

Sometimes that fear will cripple you from even doing the work. I know it's held me at bay for a painfully long time. It can be so much easier to dream about all the things you could write, then to sit down and watch those magical ideas turn clumsy and awkward when you try to put them into words.

I suppose, on some level, I should be grateful that I've at least risen above the 'incompetence threshold' so I am aware of the flaws in my own work. But it can be very discouraging to realize that it's entirely possible that no amount of effort will ever raise me to the levels I wish to reach. Which, frankly, makes it harder to make the effort in the first place.

On the other hand, I read somewhere that Michael Jordan was cut from the basketball team when he was in high school and told he wasn't good enough. So he practiced until he got better and now his name is practically synonymous with basketball, to the point that he's held up as an example of innate talent.

The moral of the story isn't necessarily that talent doesn't exist, but that you will never know how talented you really are until you put the work into it.

maestrowork

07-12-2007, 05:03 AM

I think PERHAPS sometimes our environment or our own insecurities, lack of vision or hope, can actually cover up something. Yet when something or someone sparks our imagination we awaken.

But all of that still means there has to be "something" hidden to be discovered.

So what is that "something"?

I kind of know this "awakening" thing. From age 7 on I was pretty much a brat. I was a C student and I got into a lot of fights. I was very aggressive. Then around age 11, something changed -- it was just like an awakening. I couldn't really explain it but my teacher noticed that. At age 12, I ended up going to one of the best schools in the city and one of my teachers was "very surprised." LOL.

A friend of mine had always been a below-average student through high school. Then when we were around 15 or 16, something changed. It was as if he suddenly became a genius. At the open exam, he became the #1 student in the whole city (with all A's in 7 subjects). It was incredible to witness his metamorphism. He went on getting his doctorate degree at Princeton.

The moral of the story isn't necessarily that talent doesn't exist, but that you will never know how talented you really are until you put the work into it.

That's a good quote, and exactly what some people have been saying all along. The flip side is: When do you really know you don't "have it"? Some people really don't discover their talents until late in life. We hear about 79yos writing and publishing their first books, or getting their first college degree, etc. and we go "Wow!"

Cassiopeia

07-12-2007, 05:25 AM

But all of that still means there has to be "something" hidden to be discovered.

So what is that "something"?

You know Ray, I have often wondered what that 6th grade teacher saw in me. What did she mean by gifted or Prodigy?

I don't want this to come off as one of those therapy moments but to be blunt, my mother discouraged me from day one. *her issues* So I was never given the opportunity to ask what my teacher meant.

I have had different people tell me different things. One person here on the forum mentioned that she wished she could build the emotions in her writing the way I do.

I haven't a clue so when someone figures this out, be sure to PM me. ;)

Btw, I loved Dan Brown's book Angels and Demons, Davinci code for me wasn't as good, hated his other books and I happened to very much like your book Ray. But then you know that. :tongue

maestrowork

07-12-2007, 05:41 AM

My teacher told me I had a gift for gab. LOL. That is, I couldn't keep my mouth shut. My parents put a lid on that promptly. :) I only rediscovered my "gift" years later and I'm putting it to good use on these forums. ;)

maestrowork

07-12-2007, 05:49 AM

Maybe, but we sure recognize it when we read it. :)

Hmmm... but which part is "skill" or "ability" and which part is "talent"? When we yell, "this writer is very talented" instead of "this writer is very skillful," what do we really mean? But I vaguely know what you mean; I just can't put that feeling into words.

Medievalist

07-12-2007, 05:59 AM

"retardates"

please. no.

I'm not one for political correctness. Usually. I'm not one to tell people what they can and cannot say. but I would ask politely that you not use this.

Thanks Twizzle; I missed that.

It's not a matter of being PC; it's a matter of writers using specific, meaningful language.

Then there's the personal factor: I've been called retarded a few times, and it's just not helpful, appropriate or meaningful. If you mean idiot, say idiot.

If you mean developmentally disabled, or any number of other potential neurological disorders, say what you mean.

Medievalist

07-12-2007, 06:00 AM

Cassiopeia

07-12-2007, 06:09 AM

I always wonder if it is wise to "study" other authors. To a point it might be helpful but how does one develop their own voice if they get too caught up in what a "popular" author does.

Medievalist

07-12-2007, 06:47 AM

I always wonder if it is wise to "study" other authors. To a point it might be helpful but how does one develop their own voice if they get too caught up in what a "popular" author does.

Studying an author's structure, that is the way the plot and story work, is extremely useful. It's akin to looking at how a car engine on a working car works before trying to build your own.

But there's also great value in closely studying an author's sentences and paragraphs. Looking very very closely at the way the sentences, and paragraphs, are built. One way to do that is to pick a paragraph and imitate it; if the paragraph uses a pronoun, you use one, if it uses an adjective you use an adjective, but a different adjective.

You learn a lot by doing that because you look at the words and sentences and paragraphs in ways we generally don't.

blacbird

07-12-2007, 07:46 AM

The good news is that the only way anyone knows whether they have the necessary talent is if they do try long and hard.

Crap. The only way anyone knows whether "they have the necessary talent" is when they succeed in getting something published. I got skewered earlier in this thread for expressing a related consideration about this site, and challenged to produce evidence of it.

The evidence is this: The oft-repeated view that "good writing will get published", and the implied corollary that writing that doesn't get published isn't good. You have repeatedly challenged people to cite examples of good writing that isn't published, which is one of the great circular arguments of all time. If it isn't published, in your view, it isn't good, ergo your argument is self-proved because no one can produce evidence of an unpublished work, because if someone proposes such, the counter-argument being that, if it was good, it would have been published.

So why do I postulate that unpublished writers sometimes get denigrated at this site?

caw

Sarashay

07-12-2007, 08:11 AM

Crap. The only way anyone knows whether "they have the necessary talent" is when they succeed in getting something published. I got skewered earlier in this thread for expressing a related consideration about this site, and challenged to produce evidence of it.

The evidence is this: The oft-repeated view that "good writing will get published", and the implied corollary that writing that doesn't get published isn't good. You have repeatedly challenged people to cite examples of good writing that isn't published, which is one of the great circular arguments of all time. If it isn't published, in your view, it isn't good, ergo your argument is self-proved because no one can produce evidence of an unpublished work, because if someone proposes such, the counter-argument being that, if it was good, it would have been published.

So why do I postulate that unpublished writers sometimes get denigrated at this site?

caw

Um, it's not as though manuscripts suddenly leap straight to the bookshelves the moment they're off the typewriter. Every single published work had to spend some portion of its existance as an unpublished work. So I'm not quite following your argument.

Medievalist

07-12-2007, 08:21 AM

So why do I postulate that unpublished writers sometimes get denigrated at this site?

caw
Because you don't really know what the word denigrated (http://www.bartleby.com/61/17/D0131700.html) means?

If the examples you've just cited are denigrating, then you've not submitted to any of the editors I've ever worked with.

Lord, blacbird, I'd have thought you got harsher critiques in grad school.

blacbird

07-12-2007, 09:13 AM

Because you don't really know what the word denigrated (http://www.bartleby.com/61/17/D0131700.html) means?

If the examples you've just cited are denigrating, then you've not submitted to any of the editors I've ever worked with.

Lord, blacbird, I'd have thought you got harsher critiques in grad school.

My critiques in grad school were always pretty good, even when they hated what I wrote. My early submissions got rejected, but with a fair number of clearly personal comments, fair and balanced, as Bill O' would say.

The past few years, what I submit tends mainly to disappear into intergalactic space. Clearly I write crap, by the standards expressed here.

caw

MathRules

07-12-2007, 09:22 AM

Medievalist

07-12-2007, 09:31 AM

Most everyone has a particular aptitude, but there are congenitally learning disabled people who can't master higher mathematics (for example).

Dude, you are so on dangerous turf there. Tread lightly please.

Medievalist

07-12-2007, 09:34 AM

My critiques in grad school were always pretty good, even when they hated what I wrote. My early submissions got rejected, but with a fair number of clearly personal comments, fair and balanced, as Bill O' would say.

The past few years, what I submit tends mainly to disappear into intergalactic space. Clearly I write crap, by the standards expressed here.

caw

Blacbird, that doesn't mean you write crap. It really doesn't.

That means the places you subbed didn't want to buy what you sent.

That's all it means. I very much doubt, given your posts here, that you'd write what a publication editor calls crap -- and I'm speaking from the editor's side of the desk.

Crap is of two basic sorts:

Stuff that's just not in standard English -- by which I mean it doesn't make sense.

Stuff that's just bizarre, or sort of textual wanking, with no effort to create meaning for anyone but the writer.

JPBookman

07-12-2007, 09:46 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by blacbird http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1467059#post1467059)
So why do I postulate that unpublished writers sometimes get denigrated at this site?

caw

--
Medievilist wrote:

Because you don't really know what the word denigrated (http://www.bartleby.com/61/17/D0131700.html) means?

If the examples you've just cited are denigrating, then you've not submitted to any of the editors I've ever worked with.

Lord, blacbird, I'd have thought you got harsher critiques in grad school.Actually, he does know what the word means and used it appropriately in the context of his message. It's true, btw.

aka eraser

07-12-2007, 09:47 AM

Blacbird, I've read some of your stuff and it ain't crap. Sometimes good stuff needs time and a bit of luck to find the right home.

Ask most any writer, of most any level of "success" what got them there, and I'll wager most of them will mention "persistence" in the top two and the rest of them are liars.

MelodyO

07-12-2007, 10:04 AM

Holy moly, this was a fascinating (if exhausting) thread.

Late to the party as usual, I just wanted to say that when I think about talent, this line springs to mind: He could play a guitar just like a-ringin' a bell. Really, all philosophical discussions should work Chuck Berry lyrics in somewhere.

Of course some writers have it and some writers don't...but the span between these two points is considerable. The way I see it, this isn't an all or nothing proposition. Some people can write a great book as easily as ringing a bell. I'm somewhere closer to "can write a great book as easily as assembling a bicycle from scratch". I believe I have the ability to do it, given enough time and tries. I'm certainly going to plow on as though I have "it", because what's the alternative? If you honestly think you're a talentless cog destined to cry bitter tears, maybe it's time to rethink the old life plan.

Medievalist

07-12-2007, 10:05 AM

Actually, he does know what the word means and used it appropriately in the context of his message. It's true, btw.

I want links then. That's not OK. It's just not. I want to be very very clear here.

I'm speaking both in propia persona, and as a Mod. Denigration is a form of abuse, and not ok. We need to make that very clear, if peeps aren't aware.

KingM

07-12-2007, 06:03 PM

I think the nuts and bolts are learnable by almost any intelligent, motivated person. There is a spark, a way of thinking, however, that is natural. If you've got those interesting ideas, hard work, study, and the simple passage of time will teach you the craft.

07-12-2007, 07:23 PM

Also late to the party...

I look at this from a different point of view. I was adopted soon after birth, and raised by people whose abilities differed from mine. Greatly. As a toddler, before I learnt the piano, I could play by ear. Before I could run, I danced. Before I could read, I composed stories. (I was never read to, or encouraged to read, but my mind always raced with stories and music.) And sketching was my favourite pastime. I was what teachers, family and friends of the family called multi-talented. I also had childhood epilepsy, limited vision in one eye and partial hearing, which dampened my enthusiasm for performing. I felt like a freak.

It wasn't until years later I found someone with similar talents. My birth mum. My three children also share my talents between them. I don't feel so freakish anymore. :)

I believe talent comes naturally, and can, in most cases, overcome many obstacles. My birth mum and I awakened latent talents in one another. They were in our nature, but hadn't been nurtured.

Do you need talent to write well? It helps. You also need the inclination to achieve, along with a thirst for knowledge, good imagination, and the ability to learn from your mistakes.

Maybe these are talents?

/babble

Willowmound

07-12-2007, 07:35 PM

Nice :)

maestrowork

07-12-2007, 07:36 PM

Blacbird, that doesn't mean you write crap. It really doesn't.

That means the places you subbed didn't want to buy what you sent.

Emphasis mine.

I had 65 rejections before I sold my ms. If that tells you something.

Publication means:
Luck, persistence, and aptitude/talent/skills/what have you. The right thing at the right time at the right place.

Cassiopeia

07-12-2007, 07:40 PM

Emphasis mine.

I had 65 rejections before I sold my ms. If that tells you something.65 rejections for The Pacific Between? And if so, did you do an rewrites in between?

maestrowork

07-12-2007, 07:46 PM

65 rejections for The Pacific Between? And if so, did you do an rewrites in between?

I cut 15,000 words from the top and rearranged the opening chapters (the alternating past/present chapters). Other than that, no rewrites. So it was mostly just structural changes and trimming a big chunk of fat.

So what I learned from those rejections is that it's OK to kill my babies. :) If it makes the book stronger and more marketable, without jeopardizing the integrity, of course.

rugcat

07-12-2007, 07:52 PM

I want links then. That's not OK. It's just not. I want to be very very clear here.

I'm speaking both in propia persona, and as a Mod. Denigration is a form of abuse, and not ok. We need to make that very clear, if peeps aren't aware.I don't think blacbird is talking about direct attacks.(What fun to assume you know what another person means.) I haven't seen any posts that specifically denigrate an unpublished writer, none that say, "You clearly don't know what you're talking about, since you don't have the talent and ability to get published; I, on the other hand, just sold my book and my opinions therefore mean something."

But there are occasionally posts where that subtext seems to be there, at least to my perception, although that's subjective.

Blacbird, I do think you're sometimes hyperaware though, and read more into posts than was intended.

BTW, I have never agreed with the proposition that "if it's good, it will get published." There are fine writers who never break through--although perhaps they get discouraged and give up too soon. There are other writers, average at best, who do get book contracts.

Maybe a better way to look at it is, "if you write something, good or bad, that some editor thinks will sell, you'll get published."

Cassiopeia

07-13-2007, 02:10 AM

I cut 15,000 words from the top and rearranged the opening chapters (the alternating past/present chapters). Other than that, no rewrites. So it was mostly just structural changes and trimming a big chunk of fat.

So what I learned from those rejections is that it's OK to kill my babies. :) If it makes the book stronger and more marketable, without jeopardizing the integrity, of course.
Thanks for sharing that with us, it is encouraging. :)

Cherade

07-13-2007, 02:46 AM

Anyone can learn the mechanics of writing, if they study hard enough. But that doesn't mean they'll be good at writing, and it doesn't make them a good storyteller. Hence, that doesn't make them a good writer (based on how the general public views "good" writers).

Natural talent is irreplaceable and a necessary element to being a good writer. Talent is a gift. Just as some people are gifted with numbers, artistic skills, singing abilities. Just because you learn the words of a song doesn't mean you can sing it like a pro.

I believe that the talented ones KNOW who they are. That doesn't mean that they don't hone their existing skills. Part of the gift is instinctively KNOWING how to tell a riveting story, how to pace it, how to make their characters shine. They're gifted with imagination that supercedes someone who is just learning the mechanics of writing.

By the way, I've met verbal storytellers who tell the most marvelous, breath-taking stories. But they couldn't write the same story if their life depended on it. and they'll admit that.

Azraelsbane

07-13-2007, 03:03 AM

Lord, blacbird, I'd have thought you got harsher critiques in grad school.

Not that I like to take sides or anything, but I have to admit that in all my years of writing (school and otherwise) I have never been given so harsh a "critique" as the first I received from someone on this forum. On the whole I love the camaraderie here, but it's impossible not to notice a few that like to prove they are better than others, and often trip over their own diction while doing it :) But imo, such is life. Utopian societies may not exist, but we shall overcome!

Wow, someone needs to stuff a sock in my mouth already.

BTW, writers are made, not born. <--- Look, I really came back to the topic!

rugcat

07-13-2007, 03:13 AM

Azraelsbane

07-13-2007, 03:50 AM

Okay, let me deconstruct this post...

That is not allowed ;)

Cassiopeia

07-13-2007, 04:46 AM

Not that I like to take sides or anything, but I have to admit that in all my years of writing (school and otherwise) I have never been given so harsh a "critique" as the first I received from someone on this forum. On the whole I love the camaraderie here, but it's impossible not to notice a few that like to prove they are better than others, and often trip over their own diction while doing it :) But imo, such is life. Utopian societies may not exist, but we shall overcome!

Wow, someone needs to stuff a sock in my mouth already.

BTW, writers are made, not born. <--- Look, I really came back to the topic!
*tries to remember if she was one who was harsh* ;)

Tish Davidson

07-13-2007, 04:55 AM

Let me throw out another idea here. This board sees a lot of famous published author bashing. I suggest that there are three kinds of books that get published. Successful books are books that publishers (usually correctly) expect will sell and make money. These books often have a fairly short shelf life and they won't be read much in 20 years or so. Good books are books that sell and continue to sell on a back list for many years. Great books are books that future generations will read and study because they have a universal resonance that transcends generations (think Shakespeare). We all want to write a great book, will settle for a good book, but in all honesty, most people who get published write successful books - books that sell and entertain, but that don't change the world. A lot of people seem to resent these authors simply because their books are successful without being good or great. I think that is silly. Very few people can write a great book or a good book. This is where extraordinary talent comes in. Many more people can write a successful book using craft with a smidgen of talent, a handful of luck, and really good timing. I think we need to quit bashing successful authors and accept them for what they are rather than taking the fox and the grapes attitude (you do know that fable, don't you?) and bashing them for not writing good or great books.

As for whether some people were born with a special ability to write, I think it is similar to learning a foreign language. Most adults can be taught to communicate functionally in a foreign language, but few become fully fluent. Those that do probably have a natural aptitude and good ear for languages, but they also practice and study to improve their language skills.

blacbird

07-13-2007, 08:31 AM

I think we need to quit bashing successful authors and accept them for what they are rather than taking the fox and the grapes attitude (you do know that fable, don't you?) and bashing them for not writing good or great books.

Does this go for James Frey, too?

caw

Tish Davidson

07-13-2007, 08:49 AM

James Frey was a liar. He presented a fictitious version of his life as nonfiction. I say you can bash him for his duplicity as much as you want. Although his first book was a financial success (for him, anyway, if not the publisher who had to refund money to many of the buyers of the book), I think he'll probably drop from sight now that his falsifications have been revealed. When I was writing about author bashing, I was thinking of fiction, where people tend to criticize the writing style, word choice, and pacing of some popular authors.

Medievalist

07-13-2007, 09:21 AM

It's all very circular and confusing.

If you have something to say, say it.

This is not something I take lightly, nor something I'm inclined to find amusing.

aruna

07-13-2007, 10:44 AM

Late to the party, as usual, I'd just like to add my 2c.

But I really do think it's silly to disregard "talent." You ABSOLUTELY need talent in anything creative. I think it's silly to think that anyone, with the proper training, can sing or act or draw or play professional golf. If that's the case, then we wouldn't have marveled at talents (and call them such) such as Tiger Wood or Meryl Streep. We wouldn't say to a child singer "You've got talent" if that wasn't true.

If you watch American Idol, you would pick out who really have talent and who don't.

I agree.
To tell you the truth, if I could choose an art to be talented in, it would be music, I would love to have a wonderful voice and sing like a lark, or pick up a violin and play on it to make your hair stand on end.
I would honestly gladly exchange writing talent for music talent, if I could. Music simply gets to me more intensely than reading.

But it could never happen. I have a voice like frog. The couple of times I tried learning an instrument as a child it was a disaster. I am clumsy with all things, and I am tone deaf or something like it. I could practice from here to eternity, but I would never be anything more than below average at music.

Somebody mentioned the movie Amadeus; I think this is an excellent example. If you haven't seen it,. please do. Now!

But I am a born storyteller. Even as a small child I used to just sit there and stories would enter my head unbidden. I didn't have to think them out, devise plots, or anything. Of course they were unformed and had no structure; but the dialogue was there, the adventures were there, and if I had worked hard at the craft from childhood I think I could have produced publishable stories at a much earlier age. (Which is not the same as getting published - that involves a bit more than producing good, even brilliant stories, but I won't get into that here.).

I hope this doesn't sound like a boast because it's not meant to be; it's just the way things were for me. I used to think this ability to go off into imaginary worlds was normal and that everybody did it. It took me a long, long time to discover that everybody doesn't, and only much later I discovered, in fact, that many people just don't understand where writers get their story ideas from. And I don't think any amount of hard work would make that ease possible for someone without the natural talent.

And on the other hand natural talent as others have said is no good without work. I was not only quite lazy, I also lacked confidence and ambition and so it wasn't till I was in my late 40s that I began to actually cultivate that talent and start putting my stories into writing and developing them for others. Up to that point my talent was useless and seemed almost eradicated since being an adult had thoroughly squelched it. And yet when I started to write I found it was still there, it just had to be rediscovered.

(And all this does not mean genius, of course, which is in a category of it's own.)

And now that I have written this I am anxious lest it DOES indeed sound as if I am being elitist. But I certainly don't feel that way. Like I said, I'd rather be a singer... now where's that frog choir???

Cassiopeia

07-13-2007, 11:30 AM

snip....
And now that I have written this I am anxious lest it DOES indeed sound as if I am being elitist. But I certainly don't feel that way. Like I said, I'd rather be a singer... now where's that frog choir???aruna darling, anyone who knows you would never dream of calling you elitist. It always has been and continues to be a pleasure to converse with you through AW. I expect that is not likely to change any time soon. :) :Hug2:

Bartholomew

07-13-2007, 11:36 AM

Boy, this thread took a life of its own suddenly.

I can't imagine a more perfect example of "he said, she said." I believe the ability to master a particular craft is an innate gift. Not a trade, although one could say that is as much aptitude as any other pursuit. I can differentiate implicitly in my head, and calculate non-perfect squares to three decimal places without paper. I have a fairly good memory, and am rather literate. Does that qualify me to become a great writer? NO, NOT REALLY.

I have seen a great deal of discussion on this thread that everyone is smart. GIVE ME A BREAK. Most everyone has a particular aptitude, but there are congenitally learning disabled people who can't master higher mathematics (for example). And, there are a lot of people a lot smarter than I who can't do what I do- of course, I can't do their stuff as well as them, either.

This is not by choice- I'd love to be a great painter, but I can't get a damn stick man straight. I'd love to write a great novel, but I can't get the damn POV and infodumping out of my writing. It is not a lack of intelligence, but of aptitude! How much less possible would it be for someone of average or below (and please don't give me that crap about tests measuring your ability to take tests- they actually do measure i.q. also, if it's a valid test) to perform a task for which they have no affinity.

Can a person with a lower than normal i.q. write a great novel? Sure, if the language skills are there. Can a person with an i.q. of 85, or of 185, write anything other than drivel if they have no aptitude for writing novels? Doubt it.

I've been diagnosed with Dyscalculia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyscalculia). It is often very tempting, in math classes, to fall on this as an excuse and request special attention. I don't. Instead, I panic during math homework and annoy Shweta, or my girlfriend, for help. I dropped out of nursing because I recognized very quickly that messing up a piece of math regarding someone's dosage could be fatal. As a CNA, I had already made goofy blunders in measuring patient output, blood pressure, temperature, etc.

I agree with MathRules, then, to a certain degree. I know I'm not cut out to be an engineer, a math teacher, or anything that relies heavily on the ability to do simply math quickly. But I also know that, with enough time, I can correctly work out a math problem. This is evinced by consistent B's in math classes. (I sweat blood and bullets for those B's, too.) Someone with little linguistic aptitude, or even a disability like Dyslexia, then, is perfectly capable of writing compellingly, given a bit more time than the rest of us.

In my opinion, it is not the writing itself that puts most authors down. It is the common inability to not recognize when to start submitting, when to step back and edit, and when to put time into a different project altogether.

#

There was a guy in a creative writing class I took, a while back, and he passed with an A. He shouldn't have, but the professor was giving A's to everyone. We all had to critique each other's stories--thus, I got to read everything this guy handed in. He was, in polite terms, slow, and convinced that he was going to write the next Great American novel. His documents looked like they'd been written by a 12 year old-- he used berry when he meant bury (is there a name for this type of error?), he had 200 word run-on sentences, misspelled words, and his story ended with the (sometimes) present tense (sometimes) first person narrator shooting himself in the head. And then he kept talking.

Seeing this guy pass with an A was frustrating, to say the least. But he had passages in his stories that, looking beyond all of the errors, were unique and potentially interesting. I honestly think that someone like this, with time and tutoring, could be made to write sell-able material.

"Would it be worth it?" then, is the real question.

rugcat

07-13-2007, 07:39 PM

To tell you the truth, if I could choose an art to be talented in, it would be music...

I would honestly gladly exchange writing talent for music talent, if I could. Music simply gets to me more intensely than reading.I’m with you on that, Aruna. Actually, I do have some minor musical ability–I’m a fair to middling guitarist and a good songwriter.

But I seem to have more natural ability as a writer. When I read good writers, I’m inspired and motivated to make my own writing better. When I hear really good jazz players, it makes me want to give up playing because what they’re doing is so far beyond me.

Now, I must say, I work harder on my writing than I do on my music. And I think the reason for that is simply this: a natural talent for something often is the motivating factor in how hard you work at it.

Flannery O’Conner once said, when asked why she wrote, “Because I’m good at it.” (I’ve cited this before) This may seem at first like a glib and amusing quip, but I think it’s actually very deep. I think the same answer could be given in response to the question, why do you spend all your time working on your writing?

When you have a certain amount of ability at something, it tends to motivate you to work even harder to get better. The kid who spends hours after school on the basketball court, practicing his or her shot is more often a very good player trying to get better than a struggling one. If I’d been a natural musician to start with I think I might have put in all those hours necessary to become a top rate one.

People often say, “I wish I could write a book,” but they never do anything about it because they have no natural aptitude for it and don’t know where to start. I think that if you’ve succeeded in writing a novel, for example, or short stories, no matter how good or bad, the very fact you’ve been able to do that shows a certain level of natural ability. And that ability will motivate you to keep on writing and learning. You may never become a “great” writer, but really, how many Michael Jordans are there? And there’s certainly room for a lot of other players.

ChunkyC

07-13-2007, 08:30 PM

Now, I must say, I work harder on my writing than I do on my music. And I think the reason for that is simply this: a natural talent for something often is the motivating factor in how hard you work at it.
That's a good point. I love sports and one year I joined the basketball team in high school because I like the game. Well, I royally sucked. Within short order, I quit because it was frustrating and embarrassing. I couldn't get the hang of things the other players did with ease, like hitting the basket. ;)

But when I tried out for soccer, I made it on the first try and became captain, scoring leader and mvp in my second year on the team. You wanna believe I put orders of magnitude more effort into my first year playing for the soccer team than I did in the one season I played basketball, and I know that's what led ultimately to me being as successful as I was in the following season. But I also know I was more suited physically to soccer, being relatively short and stocky, and so I didn't immediately feel out of place like I did on the basketball court.

So yeah, I do think an initial feeling of "hey, I can do this" is important in motivating someone to put in the necessary work to get good at it, no matter what "it" is.

Bubastes

07-13-2007, 09:04 PM

Now, I must say, I work harder on my writing than I do on my music. And I think the reason for that is simply this: a natural talent for something often is the motivating factor in how hard you work at it.

I think you're onto something here, and I think that natural talent helps determine the type of frustration you feel while practicing. I've been blessed with talent in music and writing in nearly equal parts, but I was asleep when they handed out the sports gene. When I practice my music or my writing, the frustration feels like "I can do better than this," which motivates me to keep plugging along. Despite the frustration, I still enjoy the learning process.

When I try to play any type of sport, however, the frustration feels like "This is BS! You want me to move how? What end of the field am I supposed to aim for again? Which leg is my left one?" I'm just not having any fun and I have no motivation to get better.

Soccer Mom

07-13-2007, 09:05 PM

But when I tried out for soccer, I made it on the first try and became captain, scoring leader and mvp in my second year on the team. You wanna believe I put orders of magnitude more effort into my first year playing for the soccer team than I did in the one season I played basketball, and I know that's what led ultimately to me being as successful as I was in the following season. But I also know I was more suited physically to soccer, being relatively short and stocky, and so I didn't immediately feel out of place like I did on the basketball court.

I knew I loved you for a reason! SOccer: refuge of the short and stocky. LOL!

maestrowork

07-13-2007, 09:14 PM

I’m with you on that, Aruna. Actually, I do have some minor musical ability–I’m a fair to middling guitarist and a good songwriter.

I think a lot of people have multiple talents or abilities, but somehow they decide to pursue certain things knowing that they're better at it, for whatever reasons. I can't play instruments because my brain doesn't work that way, but I am a good singer and songwriter. I've dabbled in everything, and through the years, trying to find what I really want to do. I find a lot of enjoyment in singing and songwriting but I don't want that "lifestyle" if I ever want to be successful in music. I made a choice not to pursue it -- but I still do it for my own enjoyment.

Early on I discovered that I had good math and technical skills, and I went into computer science -- especially in graphical software engineering and architecture -- because it also appeased my creative side. Plus I could make a lot of money doing so. I found that I could have it both ways, and use both halves of my brain. But as I aged, I realized I was less and less interested in the logical and technical side, and more interested in humanities and the arts.

In the last few years I rediscovered my interest and ability to write and tell stories (I was an avid storyteller when I was a kid -- my teachers couldn't even shut me up), and I like the "lifestyle" of being a writer. I like the hours. :) I like how I can express myself without having to constantly put myself out there and be judged (I grew tired of that when I tried my hands of being an actor). OK, I know we get judged, especially during the submission process... but that's all done in the comfort of my home. I didn't have to be publicly humiliated like I would as a singer or actor (mostly as an actor -- as I discovered later that I really didn't have much acting talent). Some people would probably call me lazy -- not trying hard enough, not meeting the challenges. I just know who I am.

So to me, it's always a balancing act of finding what I can do well and learn, and what I enjoy doing. Sometimes it's moment to moment, and sometimes it's a longer-term plan. Still, I don't think I'm wasting anything if I'm focused on writing instead of my music, or if I'm working on my music instead of my art, or if I'm not studying the latest computing technologies. I think life is an interesting journey, and I for one appreciate the unpredictability.

MathRules

07-14-2007, 07:19 PM

Dude, you are so on dangerous turf there. Tread lightly please.

Rats, just went back through this thread and saw this warning from Medievalist quoted above.

I in NO WAY want to demean those with special needs. I am fortunate enough to have two extremely gifted children; one of my in-laws, a doctor, has a child who is severly learning disabled. While I believe strongly that genetic selection plays a large part in results ( pretty cold way to designate kids, eh?) many other factors play a part.

Medievalist- I understand your warning. Thanks for the heads-up; I tend to be blunt, and expect everyone to understand that I mean no harm, just stating facts. It has been my opinion throughout my considerable years that sensitivity and political correctness are two different things. The first is common human decency; you don't say anything mean, but you don't sidle around the facts. The second is, however, ridiculous- "Verbally challenged?" Bull. If I stutter, say it.

The sort of learning challenges to which I was referring were medical facts preventing specific types of learning. Many of these kids have trouble in their math classes, but excel in language and history; much more often, kids have challenges that make reading and/or comprehending very difficult, but tear up mathematics.

This site is largely anonymous, so I could probably get away with saying what I darn well please, and the worst that would happen is it would get censored. It is not my intent, however, to ever say anything demeaning to or about another person, particularly unprovoked. That's just not very sporting.

So, apologies if I offended with the disabled thing. I hate being politically correct, and tiptoeing around realities of life, but I certainly don't want to offend in a public and voluntary forum such as this. Making fun of or insulting an individual, or a social, economic, ethnic... (and whatever I've left out there) group anonymously is the lowest form of cowardice!

writeroffthelake

07-23-2007, 08:24 AM

Oh, boy...might as well stick my foot into this discussion and hope I don't get all my toes chewed off.

Can writing be taught? I think the craft of grammar, sentence structure, and laying out a logical paragraph can be taught to those interested in learning it. I also think everyone interested in learning can be taught to float (if only for ten seconds), skate (if only while holding onto the rail), find middle C on the piano, or ride a horse. I do not think everyone can be taught to swim well enough to compete in the Olympics, skate in the Ice Follies, play in Carnegie Hall, or ride in Grand Prix Show Jumping classes.

Is it genetics? Since genetics has given me brown eyes, curly hair, hypothyroidism, a size 12 foot, as well as predispositions to diabetes, obesity, and hypertension, it seems logical that it could also intercede in the way my brain learns, how quickly it learns certain things and doesn't learn others, and what I have an interest in learning.

So, talent or craft? I vote both.

Shady Lane

07-23-2007, 08:30 AM

You have it or you fake it.

Either works fine.

writeroffthelake

07-23-2007, 08:52 AM

You have it or you fake it.

Faking it requires craft; otherwise, how would you know how to fake it?

Medievalist

07-23-2007, 09:13 AM

Rats, just went back through this thread and saw this warning from Medievalist quoted above.

I in NO WAY want to demean those with special needs.

I didn't think you were . . . but I also suspect, as a fairly new member, you don't really know a lot about the other 16K members.

This site is largely anonymous, so I could probably get away with saying what I darn well please, and the worst that would happen is it would get censored.

Umm, no, you won't get censored. We may, if you're really really offensive, and pretty much being a jerk, warn you, or ask you to edit, we might hide a post that's really offensive in terms of rank bigotry, for example, and, depending on the site owner's decision, ban you from posting or reading. It's not really common though.

And don't ever think you're anonymous on the net, unless you're a professional with pretty nifty toys and a fair amount of knowledge. Seriously, people think they are, and mostly, they aren't, not really.

It is not my intent, however, to ever say anything demeaning to or about another person, particularly unprovoked. That's just not very sporting.

So, apologies if I offended with the disabled thing. I hate being politically correct, and tiptoeing around realities of life, but I certainly don't want to offend in a public and voluntary forum such as this. Making fun of or insulting an individual, or a social, economic, ethnic... (and whatever I've left out there) group anonymously is the lowest form of cowardice!

It's not a matter of being politically correct; it's a matter of knowing your audience.

SpookyWriter

07-23-2007, 09:32 AM

Faking it requires craft; otherwise, how would you know how to fake it?Is this another trick question about orgasms or writing?

blacbird

07-23-2007, 10:23 AM

You have it or you fake it.

Either works fine.

"We are what we pretend to be. So we have to be careful about what we pretend to be."

-- Kurt Vonnegut

caw

SpookyWriter

07-23-2007, 10:56 AM

"We are what we pretend to be. So we have to be careful about what we pretend to be."

-- Kurt Vonnegut

caw
Let me think on this a moment and I'll get back with you.

http://bavatuesdays.com/wp-content/images/driggs.jpg

Inky

07-23-2007, 02:56 PM

If that's the case, then I'm the missing princess being searched for by a gorgeous sheik.

No..no..that's not right.

I'm the gorgeous babe that will capture the heart of yet an otherwise cold vampire...

No...no..that's not right either.

I'm the shadow that lurks after Spooky in hopes he'll reward me with his dashing suave debonair....um...I'll get back to you with the rest of this sentence...

rugcat

07-23-2007, 06:45 PM

And don't ever think you're anonymous on the net, unless you're a professional with pretty nifty toys and a fair amount of knowledge. Seriously, people think they are, and mostly, they aren't, not really. Not to mention how hard it is to remain anonymous whilst trying to promote one of your books.

SpiderGal

07-26-2007, 01:06 AM

Wow, that just sounds like my story!

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.

writeroffthelake

07-26-2007, 10:47 AM

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.

More than one great writer has commented that English teachers have ruined more writers than they have helped. English teachers go for the "correct" writing, but when writing fiction what may be "correct" could also be the worst way to write it.

writeroffthelake

07-26-2007, 10:50 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by writeroffthelake
Faking it requires craft; otherwise, how would you know how to fake it?

Is this another trick question about orgasms or writing?

Yes, I was talking about writing, but when I read back my post the first thought that jumped into my head was sex, also. That wasn't my intention....opps, bad writing on my part...or a Freuidian slip?

Medievalist

07-26-2007, 11:00 AM

More than one great writer has commented that English teachers have ruined more writers than they have helped. English teachers go for the "correct" writing, but when writing fiction what may be "correct" could also be the worst way to write it.

Oy! That's just the hopelessly clueless; they'd be just as clueless whether or not they taught English.

writeroffthelake

07-26-2007, 11:48 AM

That's just the hopelessly clueless; they'd be just as clueless whether or not they taught English

But the problem is how would the young student getting all these great grades from a clueless teacher realize that the teacher is clueless? Then the poor student gets out of school and is faced with learning that writing fiction takes a whole new set of skills that the clueless teacher tried to eliminate from the student's writing in order to make the student's writing "better".

Toothpaste

07-26-2007, 07:06 PM

writeroffthelake

07-27-2007, 03:30 AM

...can we not generalise about English teachers? First off I have had some amazing ones, but more importantly both my parents were high school english teachers, brilliant ones at that, and their students still thank them for changing their lives.

That's great; I can't even fathom anyone liking or respecting any of their teachers. I don't ever remember having a teacher I liked or respected. I wish home schooling had been the norm back in the '50's as my dad taught me more before I ever started kindergarten than I learned through 11 years of foolish, boring, quit-telling-me-what-I-already-know, schooling.

Eudaemonic

07-27-2007, 03:54 AM

Also had teacher parents, they taught me a love of books and stories.

I think you can learn how to write, especially non-fiction and short pieces. But to create great fiction does take talent - especially writing a long novel with a complex plot. That takes huge dedication, a long long time, empathy and a gift for storytelling and suspense.

But it's practice too, I'm convinced. The more you do, the better you will be. Also the more you do the less precious you'll be. You'll find it easier to be objective, to rewrite, to be critical.

Now I just have to take my own advice and someday I hope to become a mediocre but published writer. I know my limits. I just want to earn my living this way, but of course we all have that dream.

Daemon

MelodyO

07-27-2007, 05:23 AM

Okay I'm sorry but can we not generalise about English teachers? First off I have had some amazing ones, but more importantly both my parents were high school english teachers, brilliant ones at that, and their students still thank them for changing their lives.

My English teacher wasn't amazing because he taught me how to stop my participles from dangling - he was amazing because he taught me that my words have the power to change the world.

Some of the most important lessons aren't in text books. ::loves my English teacher to this day::

Medievalist

07-27-2007, 06:17 AM

But the problem is how would the young student getting all these great grades from a clueless teacher realize that the teacher is clueless? Then the poor student gets out of school and is faced with learning that writing fiction takes a whole new set of skills that the clueless teacher tried to eliminate from the student's writing in order to make the student's writing "better".

Here's the thing. When you're taking English classes in K-12, you're learning a set of very particular skills, largely skills that are still concerned with basic competencies.

When bright I-always-got-As-on-my-papers-in-Highschool kids come to college, they're essentially starting over because a lot of what they learned to do in highschool is no longer what's required.

It's very hard sometimes to get the highschool English teachers, and curriculum designers (which are often the real issue) to understand that we're teaching different kinds of skills and strategies in college, and that different skills and strategies are required in order to meet basic writing competencies in, say, a college history class, a sociology class, a chemistry class, and an English lit class.

maestrowork

07-27-2007, 06:57 AM

In many ways, English teacher in K-12 are not preparing kids to become novelists or journalists. Like Medievalist said, it's about basic competencies so you can function in society. If you go to a Gifted Student program, you may find different curricula, ones that actually prepare "talented" students toward a goal in creative writing, for example. I just talked to one teacher in a Gifted program who is interested in bringing me in to talk about fiction writing.

rugcat

07-27-2007, 06:57 AM

It's very hard sometimes to get the highschool English teachers, and curriculum designers (which are often the real issue) to understand that we're teaching different kinds of skills and strategies in college, and that different skills and strategies are required in order to meet basic writing competencies in, say, a college history class, a sociology class, a chemistry class, and an English lit class.I know this sounds like "In my day we walked ten miles through the snow to school," but the level of basic education in English has declined drastically in the last thirty years. When I reached college I was totally competent as a writer to handle any college course. (Of course, I did drop out.)

But friends of my age who only attended high school are still more literate and more able to write coherently, even if they're not writers, than 90% of today's college graduates. Not to mention possessing a basic grasp of history and cultural awareness totally lacking in many, if not most, recent grads. And I'm not talking about small community colleges, I'm talking about respected four year institutions.

Wow. I've become my dad.

blacbird

07-27-2007, 07:14 AM

Wow. I've become my dad.

You're not from West Virginia, are you?

caw

rugcat

07-27-2007, 07:21 AM

You're not from West Virginia, are you?Right now I'm in Utah. Imagine the possibilities.

Medievalist

07-27-2007, 07:26 AM

But friends of my age who only attended high school are still more literate and more able to write coherently, even if they're not writers, than 90% of today's college graduates. Not to mention possessing a basic grasp of history and cultural awareness totally lacking in many, if not most, recent grads. And I'm not talking about small community colleges, I'm talking about respected four year institutions.

I very much know what you mean, and part of me wants to agree . . . but here's the thing that stops me.

There's been a writing exam requirement in the University of California system called the Subject A exam. All incoming freshmen and transfer students must take the exam (it's an essay exam) unless they've got proof of an advanced placement class or a qualifying college composition class.

It's been required since 1890, and we have sample exams and scoring practices and stats on the exam since then.

Nothing's really changed, not the scores, the percentages, or the exam.

blacbird

07-27-2007, 07:51 AM

Right now I'm in Utah. Imagine the possibilities.

You just made my head hurt, real bad-like.

caw

rugcat

07-27-2007, 08:02 AM

There's been a writing exam requirement in the University of California system called the Subject A exam. All incoming freshmen and transfer students must take the exam (it's an essay exam) unless they've got proof of an advanced placement class or a qualifying college composition class...

Nothing's really changed, not the scores, the percentages, or the exam.You may be correct. My day job brings me into contact with a lot of recent grads, as well as those taking a year off from school. I'm basing my observations on personal experience, but that could well be skewed.

And now that I think about it, the kids I've seen in the last five years or so actually seem to be on the upswing.

Dave.C.Robinson

07-27-2007, 03:16 PM

I have two stepsons, one going into his senior year, the other into his junior year. Neither one of them can write a grammatical sentence to save his life.

Tiger

07-27-2007, 10:56 PM

I very much know what you mean, and part of me wants to agree . . . but here's the thing that stops me.

There's been a writing exam requirement in the University of California system called the Subject A exam. All incoming freshmen and transfer students must take the exam (it's an essay exam) unless they've got proof of an advanced placement class or a qualifying college composition class.

It's been required since 1890, and we have sample exams and scoring practices and stats on the exam since then.

Nothing's really changed, not the scores, the percentages, or the exam.

I was one of the few who passed Subject A. It wasn't difficult.

I also worked as a writing tutor for a few months when I was a senior. It was shocking to meet people who went through years of college with a command of writing that was worse than their speech.

MathRules

07-29-2007, 05:56 AM

That's great; I can't even fathom anyone liking or respecting any of their teachers. I don't ever remember having a teacher I liked or respected. I wish home schooling had been the norm back in the '50's as my dad taught me more before I ever started kindergarten than I learned through 11 years of foolish, boring, quit-telling-me-what-I-already-know, schooling.

Wow, that's a bit harsh. I'm a high school teacher, teaching college prep classes (AP Calculus, special topics in mathematics, precalculus) and I can tell you that students DO have a great deal of respect for those of us who leave a lot of money on the table to teach the next generation. Not all, or nearly all, of course, but more than you would expect.

You knew everything before you started formal schooling? Wow, that's damned impressive! My kids are exceptionally gifted, my rising tenth-grader is already being wooed by universities, and do you know they are still learning from their high school and middle school teachers? I spent eight years in college, degree in applied mathematics, most of a master's, and a master's in secondary education. I think there may be a bit that I can actually teach kids. And not only about math, but about life!

In general, home schooled children have very good manners, very wide but shallow knowledge, and no social skills. Most parents can't provide the depth kids need. Home-schooled through middle school kids who attend public or private high schools do tend to do very well academically, though usually not at the very top of their classes. I do agree with a later post that English doesn't really prepare students for what they need; I have my children in a gifted program for that (Wish like hell they'd had THAT when I was in school).

Sorry for the rant; just sort of torques my ass when I see someone so totally negative about education. I left a lot of money on the table when I decided to change careers and teach (not that we're paid as poorly as most teachers like to complain that we are). I haven't regretted it one instant, and I like to think my students haven't either.