Most of us have heard of The X Factor, if not the show then at least the phrase. It describes that elusive 'special something' that somebody can have, a certain charisma that is seemingly hard to put into words. 'Pzazz' I heard somebody call it once. What, in your opinion, is The X Factor in writing? When a writers just 'seems to have it'. What is it about their writing which is so special? Is it their choice of words, the subjects they write about, underlying issues that they explore, or are they able to just mix words in a magical way? Which writers do you think have it? Why do they have it? Have they always had it - were their earlier works as stunning as their latter? Or have they lost it, where their work loses some of it's 'Pzazz'? Is it something we are born with or without, or is it something that is worked hard for? xxx
If a writer has 'The X Factor', they can put anything into words. When I say that, I don't mean 'The Bird sat on a Tree.' I mean 'The Red breasted Robin puffed out his chest as he settled onto a snow covered branch of a lone Sycamore Tree.' or something along those lines. They can put emotion into their writing and make it believable. Making the type of worlds we dream of as children into words that recreate those long lost dreams.
For me, it's how well they show the emotion of both the characters and the story, and the idea they explore. For example, I LOVE (no overstatement) the work of H.P. Lovecraft and Thomas Pynchon, though they are both very different, and in very different styles, they both do the same thing with their narratives: they make you believe it, despite what they are telling you is silly, or even impossible to the logical mind. An example from both is - with Lovecraft: The Call of Cthuhlu is the coldest, most cosmic-in-scope story I've ever read, and the writing, and the use of words, reflects a narrator fighting between the knowledge he is discovering that we are a small, unimportant species in a tiny corner of space, and his (as well as our own, as a species) delusion of our own self-importance. With Pynchon: take The Crying of Lot 49. Anyone who has (like I have) experimented with hallucinogenic drugs such as LSD and Cannabis can relate to the silliness, fast pace and paranoia we feel when reading the novel. Pynchon takes us through what may, and most likely is, a paranoid delusion of secrets and hidden societies and knowledge, and yet, despite it being rather silly, it is wonderfully believable somehow. This is also why I love the band R.E.M., aside from the fact I've been listening to them my entire life, they really make you feel the song, both the soul and the passion in it.
With the programme, it's the popularity of the singer. With writing, it's the popularity and the relevance of the ideas.
If we're referencing real talent, not just popularity aka Twilight writer who's name I don't care to remember, then the X factor they have is the ability to reach people with their writing. To move them. I find this works with me if the characters are dynamic, the setting is described originally and beautifully, the dialogue is rich and whole story is one that gets to me. It's the kind of book I cannot put down because I must know what happens next. I don't think I've ever known of a writer who's been so good that they always produce class X factor works. They usually have a book or two that's stellar and then they fall off the magic wagon and end up subpar. Nevertheless I have enjoyed and thought Chris Prierson as having that factor at least with his Kingpriest trilogy. The development of the lead characters is just so very multi-dimensional. Richard Knaak who wrote Legend of Human also had a very moving story. While I believe a certain amount of storytelling is innate I believe that most of it comes from years and years of hard work.
In my opinion, the "it" factor varies greatly for each successful writer in direct relationship to their ability to write for their audience. My wife likes certain authors that I find boring and vice versa. There is no writer who is universally appreciated by all audiences.
For me it's the language. Great language allows the writer to convey emotions, characterization, etc. much more effectively. The subject matter doesn't matter so much. Writers aren't born with the ability to write great works. Like all things, writing must be practiced. Most writers' great works came after tons of practice. Therefore, their earlier works are not as good as their later works (assuming they published at an early age). I'll use McCarthy as an example since he's one of my favorite authors. His earlier works were mediocre compared to what he wrote later in life. It was only when he was in his 40s and 50s that his books began gaining critical acclaim. This was also the time when he wrote some of his best books.
there's no single answer to any of your questions... it varies from writer to writer, so if there is one-fits-all-answer, it's 'all of the above'...
^ that's right, the answer to this question is subjective. That said, remember, some people find Dan Brown to be the best writer who ever lived.
It's all about style. Style is the writing X factor. Anyone can have ideas, anyone can learn grammar, anyone can read a dictionary and learn pretty words. But unless they can put all those things together in a unique, original and engaging way (in other words, with great style) then it won't fly.
^ I almost tried to try that point by referring to August Derlieth. But I remembered he didn't really have his own style, he just copied other's styles as well as other's stories.
Imagination. You can learn everything by practice. Grammar, styles, story structure, dramatic flow, etc... Those are all just tools of a trade. The one thing you can't acquire if you don't have it, is imagination. That's the X Factor. Without imagination all of the above-mentioned tools are perfectly meaningless. Like an architect who can draw perfect straight lines and perfect circles is useless if he cannot imagine his building in all its grandeur. He will end up being the tool of some other architect who does have imagination.
The best writer would be able to tell an epic novel in one sentence or describe a flower in a million words, and keep us clinging on to each equally keenly.
Any writer than can describe a flower for more than a page and still be interesting deserves all the pleasures of this world.
Recently i asked a question and the answer i got back from a few individuals was "you either have "it" or you don't". Ok so i know there is this thing called the "it" factor. I know some people have "it" and some people don't. Do i have "it"? i have no idea. but it really scares me when people say you either have "it" or you don't becuase what if i don't have it? are they saying that because i wasn't born with this particular talent (something i had no control over) that i can never write what i want to write? And not just writing for my own pleasure. So becuase i wasn't born a comedian i can't write a comedy? or romance or horror etc...? . Is there a way ( that understandably would include alot of hard work, effort, research, observation, etc...) that those of us with out "it" could possible learn? And i mean come on! don't tell me that every successful writer didn't work hard to get there stories the way they are. That they didn't work and rework there jokes or dialouge or what ever they supposedly have "it" for. They don't just sit at a desk and spew genius all over a page! I'll agree that they are successful for a reason. That they have found a combination of something or a character or a technique or just whatever. they found something that works. But does it mean the rest of us will never find "it". What do you guys think?
It's incredibly easy to look at a writer who is fairly young and who writes brilliantly and exclaim: "He's naturally gifted!" Yet, we say those sorts of things out of ignorance. We have no idea how much time or effort that person put into his writing. Simply assuming that somebody is naturally gifted, no matter their hobby, should be treated as an insult to the hard work that person has put into perfecting themselves. In the end, however, are there some people better than others? Yes, because they worked for it. Language is not an ability earned upon birth, but rather you learn it as you grow and, dare I say, you never stop learning. The same can be said for writing. I find it foolish to assume our ability to write is strictly natural and that the hours of work I've put into my writing means nothing simply because I am naturally predisposed to create. If other people want to let others, the hierarchy of literature, decide whether or not they're worthy, fine. I write because I'm a writer, not because Stephen King said I could be.
I think you can be good at anything with enough practice. Even the "geniuses" we have had throughout history are a product of hard work and perseverance. For example, Mozart's earliest compositions were nothing spectacular. There were mere copies of other composers' works. Some of today's child musicians/composers are much better than he was as a child.
I don't feel the "it" factor is to be taken literally. It has been proven that everyone's brain does work a bit differently. I feel this is where that natural gift comes in. With hard work anyone can just be, but some have a brain that is to boot more suited to process particular information. Why? If I knew that I probably wouldn't be here. However, don't take it literally. The key part of what I just said is that "with hard work anyone can just be" as in if you truly and genuinely desire to do something, you will. You will write. Plus we have to remind ourselves that even those that seem to have a knack for things still have to pour blood sweat and tears into it otherwise just like anything else when neglected, you lose it. Caleb
I think there is some truth to this. For instance, I cannot hold a tune. Even with lessons and vocal training, I'm no Aretha Franklin or Susan Boyle or whatever does it for ya. I know this so I don't sing. Writing is one of those things that like any talent can't be taught in the way that makes it unique or special. Yes, any literate person can write. But not every educated, literate person can write well. Maybe for some it's a lack of imagination or just not having a way with words, who knows, but to some extent --yes, you either have it or you don't. And "it" is purely subjective.
This argument is moot. A voice is an instrument and can be tuned, but, take it from a bassist, some instruments are just not as well made as others. Not everyone can sing because not everyone has a perfect instrument. In regards to writing, we all have an imagination, most of us have the ability to write, and most of us have read a book. At the very least an intelligent man can look at the success of others and copy them. Does this make them a good writer? Well, define what a good writer is. If a good writer is somebody who is successful than the authors who copy others and get away with it fits the profile. If, however, we are judging writers on a case by case scenario then no one is a good writer since we all have opinions and we often find conflict when we differ even in the slightest fashion.
Someone once said to me "You can't write what you don't know". This assumes that you can't write a comedy unless you're funny. You can't write a horror unless you've been in a horrific situation. You can't write about sex unless you've had it. All i'm saying is, sure, a lot of people have a certain amount of "it", as in, they "naturally have a gift of pulling words out of their ears that just simply "go", BUT at the same time, with hard work, dedication and research, i'm sure a LOT of people can write a decent novel. Just go for it, have fun and who knows, you might have "it" and don't even know it!
I think the "it factor" as you call it, is a combination of several things; the ability to entertain people, an active imagination, honed in skills of the craft of writing, and at least a partial understanding of human psychology. The whole "write what you know" has so many different meanings and can be much like a fortune cookie, taken as a generic message that can be applied to a large amount of people. If "write what you know" were a real thing we wouldn't have Star Wars, or any space opera types of books. We wouldn't have books like 1984. We wouldn't have some of the monster horror books we have and the majority of romance/vampire/werewolf/ect wouldn't be written. These types of writers don't write what they know, cause they've never experienced these things. They write "what if" and use their imagination as to how it might be to experience these things, which is why an imagination is an important asset to the writer. Most writing skills can be learned and have to be learned. It's part of learning the language of English, just like it would be to learn to write in a foreign language, you'd have to learn the language first before you could write in it. These are skills and the person with enough motivation to learn them will learn to write a proper sell-able story. But, writing pretty prose is only part of the "it factor" that the writer must have. Imagination, inquisition, adaptability, and observational skills are all part of what make great writers great. So if you don't know if you have the "it factor" and are afraid you don't, examine yourself and find out if you have some of these qualities or if you can expand on the qualities you already possess. Everyone has an imagination, but like most muscles, if you don't use it, you lose it. Everyone can learn the habits of being observational, it's just a matter of training yourself to notice things. Everyone has the ability to adapt new ideas into their world view, it's just a matter of being flexible. Everyone can ask questions and wonder "what if" they just have to do it. So can anyone be a writer? In theory, yes. But not many people are willing to put in the effort to become a good published writer. So do you have the motivation? IF you do, then you have the "it factor."
to write much better than most does take inborn talent, as well as learned/acquired skills... with only the latter, it's possible for anyone to get what they write published/produced, of course, since so many passable/mediocre/bad writers do... but without that gifted spark of genius/talent, none can attain the 'great' status that lasts long after one has 'gone on'... though, sad to say, some will be so successful at selling their less than great stuff that the money and fame they gain will = 'great' to the undiscerning who see monetary success alone as a mark of genius...
“It” just means talent. I’m not sure where people got the strange idea of talent, but I’ll speculate. In some ways it is a safeguard for people’s self esteem. “I fail because I don’t possess the inborn talent to become a successful writer.” It is a way to shuck responsibility. It comes from ignorance. If one sees a person performing a feat that seems almost impossible, one may attribute it to some inborn gift, a sort of magic. It may come from superstition and or religious belief. The Creator gave certain people abilities (perhaps so, I’m not going to try to refute that claim if someone has it). With regard to superstition, I see a similarity: bad luck can follow one around, and so can good luck. “You were born lucky.” Lastly, bad science. When science began, scientists had all kinds of false notions about the brain. They continue to this day in the form of myths.
I don't think that being good at something just comes to you. I think that you can try something, like piano, and naturally enjoy it. And because you enjoy it you'll practice it, and in turn do better at it.
