Even if you believe in gods and divine inspiration, it strikes me as both belittling and excuse-making to credit other authors with being "gifted" in some supernatural fashion. It implies they couldn't possibly be that talented on their own, and that you can never be that talented because God just didn't "choose" you.
This is easily the best answer possible for this question, and that's coming from a very staunch atheist.
When you claim that you can't comprehend how a novel can be so good without some kind of divine inspiration, you're inadvertently flipping a giant middle finger at the deep, complex craft that writing is. You're not creating a discussion, you're halting it by not even letting it stay on the table. Hope this doesn't across as too harsh, since I've in fact been guilty of this same kind of line of thought in the past, but it can be a little infuriating when people are willfully ignorant in assuming the unknown is unknowable, rather than at least making the effort to strive to find the answer (even if it ends up being a futile exercise).
... agreed.
It is in a way it is dismissive.
But only to an extent.
Evaluating a writer or artist or musician as
divinely inspired is for me the highest praise
I can give. It results from genuine awe and
an appreciation of the sheer greatness of a
novel or work of art that leaves me speechless.
I'm not sure it halts discussion as that
greatness or inspiration is an extra.
There's the work that fully remains up
for discussion and then there's that extra
which elevates the work and makes it into
something grand and far more than the sum of
its parts and perhaps more than its author as well.
Wondering whether the authors I admire
were inspired doesn't stop me from also
admiring the effort they put into their craft.
After reading bios on several I am also in
awe of their productivity and dedication, which
was almost inhuman as well, at least from my own
perspective, which remains my perspective and nothing more.