Advice for a First Time Author

Im pretty sure she just said the first and you put in the second part

 

Talent is just a coin phrase i believe we use in society for better genetics or lucky, most people i known who were "gifted with better genes or lucky" either trained twice as hard or failed 10.000 times before the first "lucky" attempt

 

Honestly, it looks to me like you see writing as a talent that you're either blessed with or not, and this seems to explain why I've seen you post some really discouraged things about yourself. Because it's not a helpful way to think about writing, for you or anyone else.

I don't like seeing people talk this way, so I wanted to say something when I saw you really taking a discussion about the perfection expected by publishers personally last week:

Sorry to drag this out, and I'm not trying to criticise you, I just want to offer a perspective that's helped me and a lot of other people, and give an example of what I'm talking about. It's natural for us to feel like that, and I think the problem is that you're convinced of two wrong things, A) that you're somehow incapable of improving beyond a certain point, and B) that you have to feel inferior for where you currently are.

(You're right about one thing, that the odds are just incredibly low for anyone to get picked up by a publisher, but that has nothing to do with you: that's just a fact about one commercial industry in this world, one aspect of writing that's not even strictly necessary either to writing or to being read.)

Some psychologists call this the "fixed mindset", the fatalistic idea that we are just fundamentally limited in some way, which in itself limits people.

Writing is not about being born with talent. It can involve talent. It helps if some things come naturally, but even a complete amateur with no apparent "natural talent" can become a fantastic writer. And it does a disservice to great writers to say "oh, they just have talent," and ignore the huge amount of work they put in to get where they are.

People are way too hung up on the idea of talent in general. It's hard work and the right attitude that pays off in the real world, in any field, including creative arts.

 

Right market at the right time, is pretty much what sums it up.. I believe that writing is a craft, but then i believe that the "dialogue" is an art form, but then i also know that the dialogue is something you can mimic to a simple craft.

The dialogue can show if your voice is just the pre-programmed version we all are, or not.

I consider all of us primates on a stage, given tools to express our own spirituality, its your dedication and the hours you put in to it that becomes the outcome, not the talent.

 

"If you ignore the dragon, it will eat you. If you try to confront the dragon it will overpower you. If you ride the dragon, you will take advantage of its might and power.” - Chinese Proverb

 

If it is true for me, doesn't make it true for another. What I said
only reflects my personal exp. not that of those around me. Not
everyone is going to like the reality. You may be 'perfect' enough,
but not everyone is. I still write despite my being not good enough
to be trad. published, so yes it is a talent of sorts.

Walk ten miles in a mans shoes, before you jump to conclusions based on
speculation.

Every day is a lesson for me to learn and get a little better. Not to take anything
for granted, and to work harder. I can't afford an editor, so yeah that puts
me beneath those who can. That only makes me strive to write better,
since I can't partake in such luxuries.

Hell make it 100 miles, I have walked more than ten in my life. I am harder on
myself, because my old man was hard on me. Every cruel thing he said, every
impact of his knuckles, belt, etc. only drove home one thing: fight for what you
want in life. Ten years I had that beaten into me almost daily, that I would be
nothing. Yet here I am still fighting for what I want, and it is all up hill.

If it was easy, then we would all be living the dream.

 

My current desktop BG is the work schedule of Henry Miller (no idea if its actually authentic or not) from 1932 to 1933. It has 11 commandments he allegedly wrote down.

My favorite is: Dont be nervous. Work calmy, joyously, recklessly, on whatever is at hand.

 

It's not about anyone being perfect or not being perfect. That comment seriously has me worried that you didn't understand my point at all.

The idea is that people aren't set to be perfect or imperfect, but when we think of ourselves and others as having a set nature like that, we limit ourselves, we limit others, or we put others on pedestals.

I'm not sure what you mean. You could become good enough to get traditionally published one day; there's no reason you shouldn't be able to improve so much that someone in the business could be impressed by it. The problem is that the market isn't big enough for every great writer to get that chance, so no one should be evaluating themselves according to the odds that they'll get published.

You're not "beneath" anyone who can afford an editor. You're capable of developing your writing as far as anyone else; all the wisdom in the world about writing is out there, explicitly on forums like this and to be discovered in books themselves. People who have editors have a particular advantage in a specific form of getting published, but hell, there's no reason that one day you can't be so good that you can attract an agent and get a deal with an editor. No reason that has anything to do with you, anyway, other than your own attitude. But the circumstances which are beyond your control need have no effect on how you feel about yourself.

I really didn't mean to presume anything, I just observed factually that you were shit-talking yourself, and shared some advice I've picked up that applies to those of us who shit-talk ourselves. I still do it, and I don't think there are many people who don't. (I spent years of my life believing I was basically human garbage, believing that my own awfulness was a fixed quality determined at birth. I've had my spirit broken by abuse, trauma, and the self-distrust that comes after briefly going insane. What allowed me to see myself as capable of becoming better, and preceded actual growth, was the hard realisation that I was the one limiting myself.)

I didn't mean to suggest anything was easy. I don't want you to feel attacked, but it sounds like you're answering back to things that I didn't say. I really just wanted to offer a way of thinking about things that's helped me.

I admire your perseverance, and just want to remind you that you don't ever have to feel like "shit" about where you're at.

My point was that, regardless of what's possible in the world outside of us (in terms of whether we can find the money to hire an editor, or whether a publishing company is looking for a manuscript), we can be too quick to tell ourselves what is impossible within us. To say that we can and can't do things because we did or did not receive "talent" at birth. What we really need to have is something we can make for ourselves.

You don't have to be born with talent to become a great writer, you just don't. That belief is a symptom of a very common but counter-productive attitude that I think we need to challenge when we see it.

 

Saw an interview with George R R Martin, and this is how he said he approached writing. This isn't an exact quote, but you'll get the idea.

The published novel is a mountain. You can't just get to the top. You have to take it step by step. With each step, ask yourself, is this life decision getting me closer or further from the mountain top?

Quentin Tarrentino said something along the lines of:

Get out of loserville. Don't be the big fish in the pond. So what if you are doing more than anyone else you know, you know the wrong people. You need to be the worst at what you do in your social network, so you push yourself harder to get noticed and learn from those around you.

 

You might be right, there are a ton of stories that are interchangeable.
That is not talent. It is just the remake of something over and over.

 

How are you defining "talent"?

 

6000 drachmae

 

Mason?

 

I think the discussion around talent is getting very this or that. It's this and that.

Clearly, there is such a thing as talent, and it helps you to be a better writer. It can exist in a number of forms, whether that's being a particulary funny person, having a very high boredom threshold during editing, having an excellent memory, or having a vivid and varied imagination.

At the same time, no amount of talent exists in the entire world that cannot be surpassed (and often utterly dwarfed) by practice and hard work. In a straight fight practice, experience and dedication will always win. Not just that, but even the very greatest talent is useless without an enormous amount of work on top, and many people have talents and never realise them because they never put in that work.

I, for example, am doubtless a brilliant composer of underwater flamingo dancing, yet my tardiness in not practicing means that I haven't quite realised that yet.

 

Based on familiarity and formula, it really isn't a talent for some. They just follow
the same formula and succeed because it works. That is not talent that is pattern
exploitation. It is a bit like being able to copy a famous piece of art, but making
minor changes so as not to be an exact copy each time they recreate it.

Look at Steve King. He follows a predictable formula, and uses familiar
places to keep it simple. It may not have started that way in his early
career, but it has fallen into it. So over time it is less talent, and more
just changing a few things and calling it something entirely different while
it is pretty close to being the original copy.

 

Writing is a way of expression, what you learned within 24 hours was that anyone can be a writer, but not everyone becomes a successful writer.. I write cause it's my way of spirituality, others paint, runs, cook, clean, garden work.. The pencil became my way and my tool, the chef has the knife, the runner his shoes..

Look deep down inside and ask " Why do I write?"

 

I'm not a fan of Stephen King but that's nonsense.

And you seem to be confusing genre conventions with formulas.

If somebody gave you and Stephen King a synopsis and asked you both to write the book outlined, do you really think the books you each produced would be "pretty close to being" each other's?

 

I write because I want to.
I don't write the same thing every time I sit down to write a new story though.
An artist does not always paint the same thing every time they paint.
Using all the same things over and over again with minor changes
does not fall into the talented category. If falls into a formula.

 

If I were you, amigo, I'd choose a different hill to die on.

 

That is a distinctly plausible scenario that would never happen.
Only one way to find out.

Thanks for that, I shouldn't have put as much time into my writing
as I have. But it is good to know that I should give up because you say so.
I don't have to explain my reasoning to you, it is my own, and yours is yours.
But I will just give up, because all the months I spent on my works were a waste.

Thanks for letting me know that for me it is pointless.

 

So are you defining "talent" as "originality"?

I mean, I still may not agree with your conclusions, but at least then I'd understand what you're arguing. As it is... I get that you're throwing shade at authors, but I don't really understand what the shade is based on...

 

In other words, you're doing what you always do in these arguments - put forward a controversial point of view to offend people, then change the argument and/or back off so you can watch the fall out.

I think we both know you and Stephen King wouldn't produce the same book. Writing, even when it IS formulaic, has an awful lot to do with talent and craft.