i have to say 'no, no way at all'... while skills can certainly be learned and acquired, i firmly believe pure talent is either there in a person from the get-go, or it's not... and can't be 'gotten' by any method short of a brain transplant... i believe there's ample scientific proof of that, as well...
Birds apparently are born with the knowledge of how to build a nest. What's the difference? My Lab, there in my avatar, points at every thing that moves in the grass. He's never been taught that. So, you can save words like "silly" and "ridiculous." I never insulted you, and using ad hominem attacks simply means ones argument is out of ammo. Interesting point. I'm not sure it even has to do with the brain (I've never really believed the mind originates in the brain.). Rather, perhaps it has to do with the reason we were created. Certainly God would endow us with the talent to accomplish the reason He created us. My apologies to those who don't believe in God, but it's just how I come to my opinion on this topic. I think what's really hard for people to accept is that some were created to leaf-blow and weed eat until the day they die, and some were created to have their ideas read and worshiped while they write for a living from a second-floor study in a New England house. When it comes to learning the craft, it's a mirage. Writer's Digest articles, creative writing programs, books ad nauseum on writing fiction will all tell you never to use cliche's, never to head hop, never to write incomplete sentences, never use adverbs or alliterations. And yet, all of those things form the spice of great writing--sometimes! The fact is writing fiction can't be learned. The basic elements, yes: Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pail of water. Jack fell down and broke his crown, and Jill came tumbling after. Characters, setting, plot, climax, denouement. But that's not what we're talking about, is it? God gives some people a riding lawnmower, some a word processor. The suffering comes when the lawn mower wants to be the writer. But I mow the lawn twice a month? And I'm pretty efficient. So how do I know what I'm to become in life?
e(g), first off, although I disagree with you, I think this is an important topic and one that plagues many aspiring writers whether or not they care to admit it and I'm glad you brought it up. In my opinion, what you see is the result of a failure of education. Formal and informal creative writing guides did not exist until fairly recently. Before the last half-century or so, most fiction writers learned by emulating their idols. Certainly there are programs that churn out huge number of what we might consider "good" writers, but these are programs like the Iowa writers' workshop where education is personalized and students are exposed to some of the greatest authors of our day. They have time, money, and solitude and these are the best friends of the creative writer and luxuries that most of us will never have. The sad truth is that there is so much bad information for the would-be-writer and so little opportunity to really nurture one's desire to write. But writing is not innate. We are not born knowing any language at all. Diction does not come from instinct. I still stand by the argument that a perfect combination of events is necessary and that nearly anyone with determination and opportunity can become a good writer. However, I am not denying that there are no great writers who are just born with the ability and who can succeed regardless of their education, just that this population is so rare that they make up only a fraction of the respected published work out there. Considering these people as the only "good writers" out there hardly makes sense. Also, you're forgetting that the fleeting opinion of the public also colors what we think of as "great" writing- the whole issue is just so much more complicated. And I should know, I live on a third floor in New England.* *Ok so it's a one bedroom and I don't own the house. Also I don't earn any money through publishing novels. Nor have I ever published a novel in any case... or a short story... but, you know, I like to think I'm living the dream. Now excuse me, I have to go cry for a little bit and eat frozen vegetables out of a bag, just like Steinbeck.
Writing great fiction really comes down to having a sensitivity -- to life, language, your own thoughts, etc. That's pretty much all it requires. A person can develop their fiction by simply being more attentive to life, being more observant, more aware of his own perceptions, and simply being honest. Then it's just a matter of putting the words together, and using the techniques of the craft to their fullest potential. Talent is a lot like magic. I put it in the same category as God, souls, the muse, and inspiration. They're nothing but psychological toys -- creations that make us feel good about ourselves in some way. It is a dangerous belief to have -- talent. At its core is a rotten kind of defeatism. The person who suspects he might not be talented is essentially saying he will never be as good as the kid who is talented, and nothing good can come from that kind of thinking.
When digital photography blasted onto the scene, photographers didn't know what do to with themselves. All of a sudden there are cameras that take all the technical aspects of making a photo (exposure, white balance, aperture, DOF, ect...) and handle them inside the camera so that any Joe from the street can take a sharp, well exposed, good looking shot. Now everybody and their dog is a photographer. The perpetual "sunset shot" is getting oooh's and aaahhhh's from everybody. Photographers all over the place sat in their darkrooms with their arms crossed and their brows thunder-y. But when you look at a photograph by Joe Shmoe compared to one from a real master photographer...both are exposed right, both are sharp...but there is SOMETHING about one of the photos. A vision, a life, a creative awareness that cannot be faked by a machine or by someone who doesn't have what photographers call the "eye." A photographer thinks differently. They see the world through a lens even when a camera isn't attached to their face. Anyone can learn the mechanics of writing. Anyone can learn about words and where they go and when to use them. The results will be all over the scale from effective communication to heart rending verse but there will always be the person who has an innate ability to turn a phrase, to command words, to make a character come to life and crawl inside your mind. It's because they think just a little differently. Their mind has a natural bent in that direction. They will pick up things that Joe Schmoe didn't notice. And if you take Joe Schmoe and the naturally gifted writer and they both work their butts off with equal love and enthusiasm, in the end, the person with a natural talent will out write Joe every day of the week.
Good point. LOL! Well, one thing good can come from it. The person who realizes they have no talent for something may quit and go on to work at that which they do have a talent for. Psychological toys? Puh-leez. But let's say you're right. No God, no soul, no talent: Why bother doing anything then? Why bother trying to be better at something? If it's all just a chaotic dust swirl anyway--who gives a rat's ass about Shakespeare or Hemingway? In fact, if it's all just chaotic clumps of energy floating around a dead universe, why not just sit on a couch, play World of Warcraft (or whatever it's called), drink beer, smoke weed, grow fat and talk negative about any issue anyone ever brings up? Far from, "Why write a novel?" one might have to give serious thought to, "Why wash my underwear?" If it's all just dust to dust and ashes to ashes, that is. But if talent exists on loan from God (as Rush Limbaugh would say about himself), then maybe realizing we don't have a talent for writing will lead us to discover a hidden talent we really can put to good use. My only question is how one would know if they had talent that justified the really hard work and persistence it takes to be successful.
I could have never put it so well. Kudos. How would one know? Could they know from the beginning, before anything they wrote ever got published, if in fact they had a talent for writing?
I think it's quite the opposite. If I see someone who's amazingly talented, that encourages me to work harder on my own pursuits. Reading the best literature has done the same, for me. Otherwise I might as well cast aside Shakespeare and Orwell, and only read me some woman's weekly.. I'm not sure they always do. But then there have been plenty of child protegies.. so. I look at it this way, if someone has an interest and ease with writing/books from an early age, it's more likely they'll take pen to paper. And from there on end, it's obviously a case of having the determination to learn, to get better etc.
Calling your argument silly isn't ad hominem. You have no evidence to say things like "Fiction writing can't be learned". You're making claims about reality based on statistically insignificant personal experience. How are you defining "talent"? What does it mean to be "successful" in writing? Could it be that you're basing your judgment on a biased sample of authors who got published for reasons other than their talent? How are you judging writing ability? Your argument is silly because it lacks definition and evidence, and that's not a personal attack. Animal instincts are a far cry away from story telling. Birds may (or may not, I don't know) be born with a working knowledge of nest building, but they do have to learn their songs. Dogs can point, but without humans, they don't learn how to open doors or sniff out cocaine. The difference is that while you make general assumptions about the innate knowledge of dogs and birds, you make specific exceptions for certain human beings. If one breed of dog has a better sense of smell than another, we know why - more sensitive noses. But when one person writes better than another, how can you immediately draw the conclusion that it's because of some innate disposition and not better training or more practice?
This is what I'm talking about. Have you compared a "gifted" writer with a "Joe Schmoe" enough times to know that there is just something special about that special writer? What have you seen in life to make you think that this is true? Maybe the "gifted" writer just practices more or better while Joe Schmoe never had a good teacher?
I was thinking something along these lines... We do have limits on what each of us can achieve, mostly because we have choice. If we chose to prioritise one thing above all else, at the detriment of some aspects of life, we could raise those glass ceilings, couldn't we? Not saying we should, I'm all for the balanced person approach Back to the point, if we truly believe we need some gift to be able to push boundaries in our chosen field we can reason success and failure (or less extremes). Saying that, I am a believer in talent but anyone could have more talent than they realise and sometimes it takes odd circumstances to tap into it - a new opportunity perhaps. Many people find their talent in hard times of their lives, when they need to be more resourceful than ever. Also, how many people would label themselves talented? How do we measure talent?
Well, in my opinion, nothing cheapens life more than the idea that it will be eternally abundant. The reason I continue to try -- since I can't speak for anyone else -- is the satisfaction of personal achievement. Knowing that life is fleeting, I do my best to reach for what is within my grasp, and, maybe, to help another along, too. Art doesn't need to be justified, and neither does the time invested or the skills obtained, so long as it gives the person a sense of fulfillment. Success is so ambiguous a term, so dependent on things other than money, that it is really not a standard worth measuring any creative enterprise against.
Personally, I'm torn over God and a life hereafter. I believe in God and His absolute providence in the universe, but unlike most religious people, I do not wish for a life hereafter. I cannot imagine any way in which an eternal life lived as the person I am could result in anything but hell. Granted, God could transform me, He could perfect me so that eternal life might be something good, but then that wouldn't be me and thus the end result would still be that I do not exist after I die. The reason I want to succeed in my talents is that God intended me to succeed in my talents, and that's why He imbued me with them. In other words: If I am supposed to be a writer, then I want to be a successful writer while I am alive. If I do that then my life had meaning--I will have been, in effect, an artwork of God's. My life will have become a painting that hangs on His wall, or a book in His bookshelf.
