Most things in life, including writing, work like this: Talent is something that you are just innately born with: you either have it or you don't. Sadly, there is nothing you can do about this. Life isn't fair. Technique is everything that you are not born with and pick up as you go along. While your talent will always stay the same, you can hone your technique through practice and by doing your homework. Time is usually key here. More experience tends to mean better technique. Skill is simply the word I chose to represent how good you are at something at a given time. Ok, so back to the formula. Let's say we have three hypothetical writers: Dick, Jane, and Joe. Dick has a whole lot of talent (talent=9), but he's just starting to take writing seriously, so his technique needs work (technique=1). Jane is neither gifted nor talentless (talent=5). She's been writing for a few years and has put some time and effort into learning the craft (technique=5). Joe is not a particularly talented writer (talent=2), but he has taken courses and read many books on the craft during his lifetime and has a wealth of experience (technique=10). So, using the formula, we could say: Dick has a skill rating of 9+1=10. Jane has a skill rating of 5+5=10. Joe has a skill rating of 2+10=12. So who's the best here? Joe! Even though he doesn't have much talent, he has made up for it with excellent technique sharpened by years of practice and study. Jane isn't far behind, and she still has room to grow. As for Dick: he just started and already he's as good as Jane, and once he raises his technique a little, he'll outshine Joe, too, despite all his experience. Hell, his talent will eventually take him places that Jane and Joe can only imagine, simply because he has more of it than they do. And that, my friends, is why most talented people are Dicks. Anyway, the take-away moral of the story is this: Hone your technique, because you can't do a damn thing about your lack of talent except try to compensate for it. And even then there will always be some Dick out there who's better than you.
writers are born, that's innate, the imagination and the flow of the ideas is within the person, that can not be obtained or trained what can be trained is technique, so an inborn writer is nothing without some kind of skill. that's my opinion
Both are equally important. A very talentless writer can never become as good as a very talented one, but no one becomes good at anything without a lot of practise and dedication.
@ HorusEye Being honest your example was about being tone-deaf rather than being deaf so your right that Beethoven has little to do with it. However, your tone deaf example pretty much shoots you in the foot as it demonstrates exactly what I was saying. By referring to someone who is tone-deaf, you are referring to someone with little or no natural musical ability and saying that while they could get to a certain point, they could never excel. I think that was pretty much my exact point (which you were contending with that example). Even with little or no natural talent a certain amount of capability is possible. However I must point out that the following: is fairly absurd and removed from real life. I stand by my assertion. Creativity is not confined to the creative arts. "Creatives" exist in every field. The majority of human activities (note I didn't say *all*) involve a balance of skills and imaginative creativity to some degree. I really don't think it is that controversial.
I like this post, don't sell yourself short. There is a good art quote that goes along with what King said above. I can't remember who says it(Chuck Jones?), but it probably applies to writing just as well. “Every artist has 10,000 bad drawings to make before they make 1 good one. The sooner you get through the bad drawings, the sooner you’re making good ones.” Yes you can.
I believe both. Some writers are born great and send their stories off to other people to edit and proof read. Others find themselves loving their subject matter so much that they read their way to success and perfect grammar.
Having read the early works of various great writers, I tend to think that they had no innate talent whatsoever.
First post in a while, been very busy writing But to answer i think you need both talent and toil. the first talent whether inbuilt or kept over from childhood, is the ability concoct any number of stories just in your head with out really trying and the second toil learning to turn those ideas and concepts into something people can understand using the english or any other language. And just to round it up that most important of things luck. As a lucky man who is crap writer will get published long before a genius with no luck.
It’s the Nature / nurture debate… There is genetically variation between individuals that affect their ability to perform specific tasks, inclusive of language usage. It is fashionable across a broad sweep of sociologists today to deny human difference and to claim ‘there is nothing supporting that talent exists.’ When such claims are made, it is usually by folk intent on linguist juggling to support the notion that everyone is inherently equal. There is no ‘racing car driver’ gene – so there can be nothing supporting a biological foundation for ‘racing car driver talents.’ Rubbish! Playing the piano, and being a great racing car driver are things appreciated by society, but they are not driving factors in human evolution. Therefore, it is trendy among many of today’s sociologist, to say piano playing talent is entirely a social construct with no biological foundation. That however is a denial of the biological characteristics and abilities of humans to cross-over, with varying levels of success, into an aptitude for activates invented by society, which were not originally selected for by evolution. Obviously it takes practise to become skilful. 10,000 hours of practice is often quoted as the time required to master a skill. That doesn’t mean two people who practice the piano for 10,000 hours will emerge with the same mastery, only that after 10,000 hours of practice, you will have realized your personal potential. And of course 10,000 hours in not a strict figure – merely a rough guide. Nurture is necessary to realize the potential of nature.
Without having read all the posts, I think you need to decide if you are asking this of yourself or in general, then define good. In order to suceed in anything you need time, patience, practice, backbone, perseverance, attitude, courage, strength and passion. I also don't think publication alone determines a writer's worth as I've read some pretty bad books as well as some fantastic unpublished pieces. If you want it enough and don't fool yourself, you can make it happen.
If you want it enough and don't fool yourself, you can make it happen. You have to be realistic – not fool yourself as you say – but to say don’t fool yourself and you can make it happen, is itself not a statement grounded in reality. It is possible to try and fail. Desire and effort and lack of foolishness do not guarantee success. The notion that everyone can archive whatever they want really is silly.
I don't think it's silly at all. "Don't fool yourself" means you have to be aware of your limitations and capabilities in the area of your aspiration. I know that I could never be a geologist, scientist, or even grow a hearty bed of roses, but if I *know* that I can write and put all I have into it, whatever I intend to gain from it is achievable. Good thing Einstein, Fulton, or the Wright brothers didn't listen to the others who called them fools.
Could never? Or lack the interest and motivation to learn those things? You could probably not become a geologist in a week, or even a year. But it is one thing to say you could never do it, and another to say it would take more time and work than is worthwhile for you. Few limitations are truly as absolute as they are believed to be.
Glad you clarified. I don't think it's silly at all. "Don't fool yourself" means you have to be aware of your limitations and capabilities in the area of your aspiration. But of course it’s silly not to be aware of most of those limitations! We're saying the same thing really, I think! By definition, limitations are limiting – even self imposed ones. I guess some limitations are abstract, others more tangible... A whole string of people tried to fly, and failed, before the Wright brothers, and those people were no less determined, an even no less cleaver than the brothers. Many factors come into play in order to achieve success. Some factors are out of our control. whatever I intend to gain from it is achievable. Sure, so long as what you attend to archive is grounded in reality, otherwise it is a foolish aspiration.
I think some people are born with more potential to become a good writer, than others. But it's up to themselves to develop their "talent" by reading, writing, studying etc. But I also think one can "study" themselves to write good. And then there's just some people who aren't made for writing at all...
One general and subjective definition of a good writer is one that is able to accomplish exactly what he set out to do with his writing: fascinate, entertain, horrify, inspire interest or concern, frustrate, sadden, effectively inform, teach a skill, elicit repentance or remorse, inspire to unwavering allegiance or vindictive anger, discourage, frighten, correct a fault, verbally chastise, etcetera. Conversely a bad or inefficient writer can be viewed as one who attempts but fails to accomplish what he set out to do via his writing after the writing has been read by his interested, target audience. BTW Some of the above might be redundant. As for talent or toil, both are important to all writers but not in equal proportions. Some writers need to toil harder than others to get the same results. It has to do with educational level and natural ability. Factors such as a strong tendency to frustrate quickly will prove detrimental. A predisposition for distraction can also be fatal to a writer's career as is bad health accompanied by pain. So there are many givens involved which come to bear on the talent vs toil issue.
This may seem like blatant fence standing, but both are true. All talent comes from a place inside ourselves that must be cultivated. No one can be great (or even good) at anything without both an innate understanding of their craft and a diligent nature. As great a player a Michael Jordan was he wouldn't have been a six time champion if he didn't put in the work in the gym when no one was watching. I wouldn't worry about whether I was 'born' with the skill, however. I'd just put in the work, whether anyone ever cared about it or not.
This certainly akin to the debate psychologists have had for as long as they've existed: Nature vs. Nurture. But considering there aren't many psychologists that still hold to the idea that only one of the two has any effect on a person's personality, I think its a safe assumption that both have an effect on a person's ability to write, or for that matter specialize in virtually anything. I won't say that a person can write without any practice, but there certainly is some talent that is either engraved at a very young age or born with. It may be that the talent is indeed formed from simply a passion that pushes a person beyond that of the average person's abilities, but I see this as almost insulting to a person. Take for example a sports athlete. This athlete has a great passion for the sport, takes pride in training, and pushes themselves to the limit of their capabilities. However, this person is never drafted into a professional league, is told that while his heart is true, he's just not cut out for the pros. Did he honestly just not train enough? Perhaps, but that's not always the case. And by telling him that you can do anything at any level if you try hard enough (as I see should be possible if there was no talent involved), you're insulting him. Of course, those that do go onto become professionals certainly couldn't expect to be anything extraordinary if they don't put in a great deal of effort. So while talent may open the door, you have to toil to be able to walk through it.
Even the writer who writes for fun will feel a need to write more expressively and clearly. He or she is not satisfied with their writing, especially when they read something they wrote monts or years ago. Every writer who is published or seeks publication began by writing for fun.
Probably most successful and professional writers started writing for fun, I know I did. But as the bug gets a deeper hold so your writing takes on a different impetus.
General rule of life (in my opinion): I think natural flair and talent is the most important aspect, but no amount of talent can substitute for the hard work required.
I always remember when training for competition Judo my coach say it would go like this: Enthusiasm Frustration Success I think that applies to anything to all purists
