# Talent vs Technique



## Gavrushka (Sep 13, 2013)

In two weeks, it will be three years since I started writing, and in that time I've written three stories totalling 480,000 words, and rewritten one of those using the technical skills I'd gained in the interim...

...But what happens when you've reached the furthest reaches of technique? There must be a point where we're about as competent technically as we can ever hope to be, and we can only focus on the other aspect of writing, and that is the innate talent that we possess. Can a lack of talent be mitigated by perfect execution of a piece technically? I am minded to think not. And is it possible to confuse the two? The technically adept may produce a flawless story, with everything precisely as it should be, but will it ultimately be sterile if their natural talent is just not of a standard?

And surely talent cannot be learned, merely exploited as best it can be.

I feel I can create a story, and I've learned enough technical skills to tell it in a benign fashion, but I think I am just coming to terms with the fact that I doubt I will ever be good enough to tell a story in a fashion where it could be published on merit... It's not a feeling of insecurity, or self doubt, but perversely it seems to have come about through my growing confidence as an amateur writer.

Before I came to this site, I imagined 'the average writer' who has yet to be published on merit suffered from insecurities, and over-compensated through self-promotion. - I think I feel differently now, but I'd love to know what others feel as to what they can realistically hope to achieve, and how their writing goals have shifted over the years.

I'll tell you now, the first year I started writing, I thought I was going to eclipse J K Rowling in sales figures! LOL


----------



## OurJud (Sep 15, 2013)

You pose a good question.

I think few here will argue - given my constant barrage of threads - that I am certainly guilty of trying to find my 'voice' before I've learned the craft. I don't even know how to construct a novel, and yet I constantly beat myself up over my style. I'm going about it back to front.

I wouldn't worry yourself about the talent side of things. I'm sure that for any writer truly passionate about the art, their voice and talent will shine through eventually. Unlike me, you sound like you might be at the stage where you can begin concentrating on that aspect of your writing. Read authors whose style you admire. Copy them, and through practice, you might find something similar begins to emerge of its own accord.


----------



## Morkonan (Sep 15, 2013)

Gavrushka said:


> ......But what happens when you've reached the furthest reaches of technique? There must be a point where we're about as competent technically as we can ever hope to be, and we can only focus on the other aspect of writing, and that is the innate talent that we possess. Can a lack of talent be mitigated by perfect execution of a piece technically? I am minded to think not. And is it possible to confuse the two? The technically adept may produce a flawless story, with everything precisely as it should be, but will it ultimately be sterile if their natural talent is just not of a standard?
> 
> And surely talent cannot be learned, merely exploited as best it can be....



You're acting as if Talent and Technique are two separate things. Remember, you're not using either of these in a vacuum. They come together to write a book! It's that book that is the finished product and your success or failure hinges on whether or not you did a good job producing it! 

Whether or not you need Talent in order to correctly apply Technique or if Technique helps you discover this beast called "Talent", the _end result_ is what counts.

I believe that the thing you call "Talent" can be taught. You are not born knowing how to write. You're not even born with the knowledge necessary to tell a story. There is a small bit you're born with that helps with plotting (cause and effect), but it's almost purely applied to the physical world. While you have the capability for language, that capability atrophies if you don't learn a language by early in your adolescence. In short - There's no such identifiable animal as natural talent when it comes down to writing. If there is one, it's so rare that we haven't yet had a way to quantify or observe it.

Technique is easy. It's pretty much a paint-by-numbers game. Sure, you need to apply it appropriately, but it's not anywhere as ephemeral as the thing called "talent."

You can learn how to write a good story. You can learn the techniques necessary in order to tell it. You can even learn how to write a great story. But, how much effort are you willing to put into learning how? Successful writers, the ones most likely to be identified as having "Talent", have paid enormous costs in order to learn the skills necessary and to hone them to a sharp edge. I know what you're trying to say, but think of it like this - Isn't it a bit disingenuous to tell a blockbuster writer that it wasn't their hard work that finally helped develop their skills, but it was, instead, that they were just born with enough talent to do the job?


----------



## Kevin (Sep 15, 2013)

> But what happens when you've reached the furthest reaches of technique?


- When is that? Is it when you can put all the dots and dashes in the right spots? Is it when the effects of age or alcohol begin degrading your learned abilities?  



> There must be a point where we're about as competent technically as , and we can ever hope to be


- Do we ever stop learning?




> and we can only focus on the other aspect of writing, and that is the innate talent that we possess


- I see writers evolving throughout their careers. Is there a point where 'innate language' is fully accessed? And how about our conceptions about ideas, don't they continuously evolve? 

 JSTs. 
Cheers, K


----------



## OurJud (Sep 15, 2013)

Morkonan said:


> I believe that the thing you call "Talent" can be taught.
> 
> You can learn how to write a good story. You can learn the techniques necessary in order to tell it. You can even learn how to write a great story. But, how much effort are you willing to put into learning how?



I don't believe talent _is_ something that can be taught. The expression 'Born to [whatever]' didn't come about for no reason.


----------



## Sam (Sep 15, 2013)

Talent and technique aren't the same thing. Talent is innate ability that must be nurtured and honed to reach its fruition. Technique is the execution of said talent, and exceptional execution only comes with years of practice and trade-craft. There is no such thing as a 'flawless' story or 'flawless' technique. 

Can talent be taught? By its very definition, talent is something that already exists within you. You aren't born with the ability to write, no, but you are born with the vivid imagination required to see things differently than others; to imagine stories from nothing more than a half-torn cheque lying on the floor of a bank, for instance. But even the most talented person needs to work on their technique, and there's only one way I know to do that: repetition. 

And, no, there is no plateau for technique. A person may lose their speed, strength, and several other accolades through life, but technique is not one of them. Becoming a master of something takes decades of commitment, and even masters learn something new every day.


----------



## Jeko (Sep 15, 2013)

I use the terms 'creativity' and 'craftsmanship', and view them as the two legs a writer uses when running the race of their novel.

Neither can be left to lag behind. A writer must train both; else they will end up hopping.


----------



## shadowwalker (Sep 15, 2013)

I don't believe talent can be taught. Some story tellers do it better than others, even though they may be at the same level technically - that's the talent showing through. Writers can be taught how to use whatever talent they have to the best advantage - but that doesn't mean that anyone who is taught will be the next Stephen King or Isaac Asimov. It also doesn't mean that someone with exceptional talent will ever amount to anything. Being successful means a combination of talent, technical knowledge, and determination - having only one or even two will not do it, and a lesser amount of any will affect _how _successful one is.


----------



## Jon M (Sep 15, 2013)

OP said:
			
		

> Can a lack of talent be mitigated by perfect execution of a piece technically?


In this instance, maybe the talent is in knowing that perfect execution is not necessarily a good solution, or even desirable.


----------



## Gavrushka (Sep 16, 2013)

I think as writing is shiny and new for me, I look at it with wide eyes and remember the trail I walked to where I am now, quite clearly. 

I've never considered talent and technique the same thing, but I did realise that it was essential to learn how to do things 'properly' before I could gauge if I had also done it well... And again, I recognise that technique will still give additional returns, but in due course the impact of improved technique will diminish and make little more than a marginal difference.

Morkonan and Shadowwalker's post added something that I never mentioned, but is perhaps the most important of the three ingredients - determination. I think that is not just the desire to be the best we can, but the focus to sift back through our vomit, and recover the chunks that still have merit. - The lowest point I had whilst writing was the realisation that the first story I wrote (and the two that followed) were so poorly executed as to make them impossible to read. - Well, the lowest point was actually the moment I realised it would take a year to rewrite the first of these three books from scratch. - Perversely, the highest point was starting that rewrite.

After reading Jon M's post, something came back to me that has been bothering me about some of the things I've read, and I've written too... - Sometimes, I see a writer display a little of their work, and the words are well worked, with a well-thought simile or the like thrown in too... But then the nagging thought jumps into my head, as to what it all added, and did a simple sentence just got assaulted by a couple of unnecessary clauses? What I am saying is, should we have the confidence to rely a little more on our talent, and not, perhaps, overwork our words? Can the simplistic beauty of a story be hidden behind pompous prose?

There is a very specific reason hidden behind this thread, and my posts... I have a feeling that after rewriting the 170,000 word first story I'd written, I've gone from no technique to overwrought words. It is something that appears to be born out by the contrasting comments made on a simple short story I wrote over the last few days. - Surely a writer is foremost a storyteller, and if a reader has to ponder the meaning of a sentence, or perhaps even have it elude them completely, the writer is at fault?


----------



## qwertyman (Sep 16, 2013)

Gavrushka said:


> - Surely a writer is foremost a storyteller, and if a reader has to ponder the meaning of a sentence, or perhaps even have it elude them completely, the writer is at fault?



Without doubt, a writer is foremost a storyteller and storytellers are born not made. If you don't have a captivating tale to tell, you are not going to find readers.

It should follow that one would rather be gifted with creative ability than writing skills.

Ironically, there are alternatives for those who lack inventiveness.  Write what you know. If you were there, if you lived through an experience and have the capacity to write convincing characters (people you know, perhaps?) you will be in good company. Hemingway was a journalist he wrote what he saw and his writing was based on his own experience. Evelyn Waugh was another, Bukowski another.

You don't have to be a storyteller, but you must be a communicator.


----------



## Myers (Sep 16, 2013)

Hemingway didn’t write down his experiences word-for-word. They served as inspiration. Experience provides fodder for story ideas, settings and knowledge of subject matter. But then you have to add a whole lot of imagination and creativity. That’s what he did, and that’s what made him a good storyteller. The idea that he lacked "inventiveness" is pretty far-fetched.


----------



## qwertyman (Sep 16, 2013)

Myers said:


> Hemingway didn’t write down his experiences word-for-word.



No, of course not. He was a short story writer of immense talent and ability. But, in truth, that's what he was. He wrote 'incidents', some witnessed some experienced some told by others. _A Farewell to Arms_, was essentially personal experience. _'Fiesta'_ (_The Sun Also Rises_) as far as inventiveness goes, is really reportage about real people and actual events. _Death in The Afternoon_, is pure reportage. _The Old Man and The Sea_, _The Snows of Kilimanjaro_, are personal experience and anyway they're short stories.

_Islands in the Stream_, is the only major work I have read which has basically no plot at all.

_To Have and Have Not_, is two short stories coupled together. Hemingway had a great struggle managing it.  The stories were already written all he had to do was use his creativity to mould them into one.  After weeks of trying he had to leave Key West and move to Wyoming to complete the task. His comment to Howard Hawkes, who directed the film, was something like, 'Here it is , it's all yours...a pile of junk.'

And there he is, one of the great 20th Century novelists. Because he is a fantastic communicator.

My point being you don't have to have a talent for _creative_ storytelling to be a great writer.

PS, Yeah, I know there's an elephant in the room that I haven't mentioned.

However....I know which I would choose.


----------



## Myers (Sep 16, 2013)

^ Storytelling is a form of communication. Good storytelling takes creativity, regardless of where the inspiration comes from. I don't see that there's much point in trying to carve it all up into separate elements.


----------



## Deleted member 49710 (Sep 16, 2013)

> - Surely a writer is foremost a storyteller,


Not necessarily. There are many novels in which "storytelling" is much less important than "writing," or in which the story being told is less interesting than the way it's told. The Modernists come immediately to mind--Woolf, Joyce, etc. More contemporary writers like McCarthy or Pynchon. 

But at the most basic level, if all writers did was "tell stories" surely we wouldn't need a whole novel-length to do it. Short stories would do the trick. Fairy tales, summaries. Talking around a campfire.



> and if a reader has to  ponder the meaning of a sentence, or perhaps even have it elude them  completely, the writer is at fault?


Assuming that the sentence is constructed thoughtfully and well, why is difficulty necessarily a fault? Thinking never hurt anyone. Or if it did they need to practice more.


----------



## Gavrushka (Sep 16, 2013)

lasm said:


> ...Assuming that the sentence is constructed thoughtfully and well, why is difficulty necessarily a fault? Thinking never hurt anyone. Or if it did they need to practice more.



The context of my comment was in consideration of what I considered my own overworked prose (and that of others). I'd never suggest 'dumbing down' prose unless the writer considered his/her target audience is of a category that would merit that. 

A thought-provoking sentence, I'd thoroughly approve of, whereas I'd be less than delighted by pompous self-indulgent prose.


----------



## Iggi (Sep 16, 2013)

Gavrushka said:


> In two weeks, it will be three years since I started writing, and in that time I've written three stories totalling 480,000 words, and rewritten one of those using the technical skills I'd gained in the interim...
> 
> ...But what happens when you've reached the furthest reaches of technique? There must be a point where we're about as competent technically as we can ever hope to be, and we can only focus on the other aspect of writing, and that is the innate talent that we possess. Can a lack of talent be mitigated by perfect execution of a piece technically? I am minded to think not. And is it possible to confuse the two? The technically adept may produce a flawless story, with everything precisely as it should be, but will it ultimately be sterile if their natural talent is just not of a standard?
> 
> ...



You cannot separate one from the other. It is the definition of the craft of writing. Even though  you say you are coming to terms with your seeming inability to produce you a thing of beauty as you would have it you are actually in a vortex of self doubt. There are many writers who no one cared about when alive and now they are recognized as masters of their craft. I suggest you continue to write daily and the beauty inside will emerge. You just need to find your sea legs.


----------



## Kyle R (Sep 16, 2013)

I try not to concern myself with the notion of "innate ability", at least with writing.

Whether or not I have an innate creative ability, or whether or not it even exists at all, is irrelevant to me. I will continue to work hard, to strive to improve, to learn and grow as a writer, and when I become successful, it will not be because of my talent or lack thereof, it will be because of all the hard work I put into it.

To that end, I'll say: yes, talent may exist. I'll also say: no, it doesn't make a difference. If I'm talented, great. If I'm not talented, great. I'll make it either way. :encouragement:


----------



## qwertyman (Sep 16, 2013)

Myers said:


> ^ Storytelling is a form of communication. Good storytelling takes creativity, regardless of where the inspiration comes from.



It's the way you tell it. If you can't tell it well, however good the story is, you will lose the reader. You don't need to be both but you definitely need to be able to communicate it.

Were you were around when the Backward Ox was alive and kicking on this forum? He was a hopeless storyteller, but a magnificent communicator.  Every thread he started sucked everybody in, but his stories never got past a few lines.




> I don't see that there's much point in trying to carve it all up into separate elements.



Probably not, but I think it's an interesting subject to kick around. Like most discussions we are unlikely to reach a common consensus.


----------



## blazeofglory (Sep 19, 2013)

Talent and technique are supplimenting ideas and they come together. Genus is however a different idea. When you hone your skills your talency will grow and both need spruning but genus comes one in a million. We have many talents in this world but genuses are a rare species. When you labor hard and evolve intellectially you become talented with growth in your skills.


----------



## BeastlyBeast (Jan 5, 2014)

I believe that talent is a bit of a fake thing, or a superstition. Talent is based off of the assumption that people can be born with a personal ability to do something specific much better than the average person. That simply is not true. While, later in life, that 'talented person' may learn a specific thing faster, it simply means an average person would take a bit longer to learn and execute what they did. No one is born knowing how to write a good book. I cringe when I hear news stories like, '5 year old boy excels at writing.' If kids excelled at writing, kids would be best selling authors... The ability to write a good book is learned not implanted inside you as an infant. Some may learn it faster than others, but anyone can do it if they put their mind to it.


----------



## Gavrushka (Jan 5, 2014)

BeastlyBeast said:


> I believe that talent is a bit of a fake thing, or a superstition. Talent is based off of the assumption that people can be born with a personal ability to do something specific much better than the average person. That simply is not true. While, later in life, that 'talented person' may learn a specific thing faster, it simply means an average person would take a bit longer to learn and execute what they did. No one is born knowing how to write a good book. I cringe when I hear news stories like, '5 year old boy excels at writing.' If kids excelled at writing, kids would be best selling authors... The ability to write a good book is learned not implanted inside you as an infant. Some may learn it faster than others, but anyone can do it if they put their mind to it.



Are you suggesting that if two people of similar intellect put the same amount of effort into learning the craft of writing, they will be equally good? I'd think that would be a comfortable thought for many of us, but I would struggle to accept that anyone is capable of producing a marketable novel if they do no more than graft hard enough.


----------



## midnightpoet (Jan 5, 2014)

I got the idea for my first novel from a piece of graffiti on a building as I rode the bus to work.  I wrote the novel, but it didn't sell.  I had the talent and creativity to write a novel, but not the technique required to write one that was publishable.  You need both talent and technique, they are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## Gavrushka (Jan 5, 2014)

midnightpoet said:


> I got the idea for my first novel from a piece of graffiti on a building as I rode the bus to work.  I wrote the novel, but it didn't sell.  I had the talent and creativity to write a novel, but not the technique required to write one that was publishable.  You need both talent and technique, they are not mutually exclusive.



I'm hoping when I've moved as far as technique will reasonably allow, I'd produce something worthy of publication. - If not, then I'd conclude that it was my talent that was lacking, but I'd keep on trying all the same. 

- I cannot accept that anyone with a reasonable degree of intellect has the innate ability to produce a literary work that is of a standard for commercial publication. Oh by God do I want to, because I write every damned day and strive to improve my technique constantly. I don't think pure effort will be enough to carry me through, however. I have to have 'it' in me in the first place. (I DO accept that 'it' is more common than the statistics would suggest, and that is because some people will be unable / unwilling to put in the effort required.)


----------



## Sam (Jan 5, 2014)

BeastlyBeast said:


> I believe that talent is a bit of a fake thing, or a superstition. Talent is based off of the assumption that people can be born with a personal ability to do something specific much better than the average person. That simply is not true. While, later in life, that 'talented person' may learn a specific thing faster, it simply means an average person would take a bit longer to learn and execute what they did. No one is born knowing how to write a good book. I cringe when I hear news stories like, '5 year old boy excels at writing.' If kids excelled at writing, kids would be best selling authors... The ability to write a good book is learned not implanted inside you as an infant. Some may learn it faster than others, but anyone can do it if they put their mind to it.



Let me put it like this: You have two different people doing a degree in the same subject. One of them puts weeks of work into an assignment and can only manage a low 2-1. The other person does the essay the night before and comes out with a first. What's the difference? Talent. Saying there's no such thing as talent is like saying that anyone can be Michael Jordan. Sorry, doesn't happen. Can anyone learn to write well? Of course they can. Writing is just tinkering with sentences until they sound good. Can anyone write a book worth reading? No. That's the difference, and that's where talent plays a huge role. You don't see child authors because talent will only get you so far. The rest of it takes graft.


----------



## Jeko (Jan 5, 2014)

I would say that talent is the summation of everything the person was born with and has experienced in their life.


----------



## Kyle R (Jan 5, 2014)

Gavrushka said:


> Are you suggesting that if two people of similar intellect put the same amount of effort into learning the craft of writing, they will be equally good? I'd think that would be a comfortable thought for many of us, but I would struggle to accept that anyone is capable of producing a marketable novel if they do no more than graft hard enough.



I agree with you, Gav, that it's a reach to say that "anyone" is capable of producing a marketable novel.

There is, however, merit to hard work. The majority of published writers got to where they are today because they simply worked harder, and more persistently, than those who didn't.

There are exceptions as always, but hard work is the key, in my opinion. Talented or not. :encouragement:


----------



## tabasco5 (Jan 6, 2014)

Talent and technique go hand in hand to create the whole.  One without the other is useless in itself.  

Jimi Hendrix had immense talent, but first had to learn the technical aspects of playing guitar in order to apply the talent.  Once he reached a certain level of technical ability the talent was allowed to take over uninhibited.  Then you take a guitar player like Van Halen, who has incredible technique but little talent, and you get a phenomenally proficient professional guitar player that sounds awful.


----------



## jayelle_cochran (Jan 9, 2014)

I believe that there are no innate talents.  We all have skills which we are predisposed towards.  At some point, a person realizes what it is that they are naturally good at.  Often, this is referred to as "natural talent".  It's a matter, in part, of the sort of intelligence a person has.  There are 11 the last time I researched intelligence, but I think someone told me there are more listed now.  IQ only measures one of these, a person's ability to absorb and retain knowledge.  However, Creativity is another form of intelligence.  You know how people talk about street smarts?  Well, being able to apply social situations and being able to tell how you should act around others is a form of social intelligence and is where that comes from.  A person's ability with spacial awareness and who is able to apply what they learn physically have a form of physical intelligence (hey, jocks are smart at something )  There is an intelligence for logic and math, for music, etc.  The list goes on.

My point is that while the areas you are most intelligent in may differ from that of another, I believe you can gain talent and skill through practice.  If you were so inept that you couldn't write something well, then you wouldn't have been able to learn the technical skills you've acquired. Plus, your post wouldn't have been well written and understandable either. Putting those skills to use in a way that creates a story worth reading requires that you have an imagination (creative intelligence).  I can't imagine a person with no imagination even wanting to be a writer (as it is, I have trouble imagining what it would be like without an imagination....but that's another topic all together).

Why not try some exercises to get a feel for your unique style.  Put aside the technical aspects you've learned, and focus on the creative intelligence you already have.  Sit down, either with a notepad or to a blank word document on your computer, and just write.  Don't think about the rules that you've learned.  You're not writing for anything in particular.  You're just writing for the joy of it.  It's OK if it sounds off, that can be worked on later if you decide to keep it.  Then, read it and see what you think.  Where could you improve on how you told the story?  Are the issues mainly technical?  Or do they have to do with some measure of talent?  Honestly, this can help you to see where you need work.  If the issues are technical, well then you have the skills needed to fix that when you edit.  If they are more about talent, then you at least know what areas you need work on, and then you can practice.  Use what you wrote, and the problem areas you've discovered (along with the areas you are proud of), to guide you.

I hope this helps!  It's just my opinion...

*hugs*
Jayelle


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Jan 10, 2014)

Gavrushka said:


> ...But what happens when you've reached the furthest reaches of technique? There must be a point where we're about as competent technically as we can ever hope to be, and we can only focus on the other aspect of writing, and that is the innate talent that we possess. Can a lack of talent be mitigated by perfect execution of a piece technically? I am minded to think not. And is it possible to confuse the two? The technically adept may produce a flawless story, with everything precisely as it should be, but will it ultimately be sterile if their natural talent is just not of a standard?



I'm lucky in that I haven't hit my limit yet.  I've been blessed with a decent degree of natural talent, so I haven't had to concern myself with technique.  The words just flow, and when I'm on, I'm on.  That said, there are PLENTY of times that I'm not "on."  I expect more experience and more study would reduce those instances, but I just don't have the drive to pursue that sort of improvement.

I agree with you that perfect technical execution doesn't make for a perfect story.  In fact there's a name for people with great technical execution: technical writers.  You know what they write? Manuals and other documentation.  The soul of the story comes from the talent of the writer; writing technique just determines how thick the barrier is before the reader is willing to connect with your story on your terms.



jayelle_cochran said:


> I believe that there are no innate talents.  We all have skills which we are predisposed towards.



My understanding was that when people use the term "talent," they're referring to skills one is predisposed toward.  Otherwise, how would you define it?


----------



## J Anfinson (Jan 10, 2014)

When I think of talent in fiction, what comes to mind is that some writers seem as if they have a natural talent for certain things. Dialogue, for example. Some excel at writing believable dialogue, like the characters came to life at their fingertips. On the other hand, some write less than stellar dialogue but they make up for it with incredible descriptions or a plot that won't let me put the book down. So I agree that different writers can have different strengths.


----------



## Gavrushka (Jan 11, 2014)

J Anfinson said:


> When I think of talent in fiction, what comes to mind is that some writers seem as if they have a natural talent for certain things. Dialogue, for example. Some excel at writing believable dialogue, like the characters came to life at their fingertips. On the other hand, some write less than stellar dialogue but they make up for it with incredible descriptions or a plot that won't let me put the book down. So I agree that different writers can have different strengths.



We're all decathletes, aren't we? - What I feel can be a worry is when we concentrate on our strengths to such an extent that other talents become atrophied.

My talents (least weak areas) are humour and dialogue.

My weaknesses are the passage of time, and internal descriptions.

H.P.Lovecraft, as I remember, had huge issues with dialogue.

E L James had huge issues with keeping her characters clothes on.

J K Rowling had huge problems with Harry getting his wand out in polite company.


----------



## Darkhorse (Jan 13, 2014)

Gavrushka said:


> I feel I can create a story, and I've learned enough technical skills to tell it in a benign fashion, but I think I am just coming to terms with the fact that I doubt I will ever be good enough to tell a story in a fashion where it could be published on merit... It's not a feeling of insecurity, or self doubt, but perversely it seems to have come about through my growing confidence as an amateur writer.
> 
> Before I came to this site, I imagined 'the average writer' who has yet to be published on merit suffered from insecurities, and over-compensated through self-promotion. - I think I feel differently now, but I'd love to know what others feel as to what they can realistically hope to achieve, and how their writing goals have shifted over the years.
> 
> I'll tell you now, the first year I started writing, I thought I was going to eclipse J K Rowling in sales figures! LOL



I feel the same way at times. The more I learn, the more I realise how difficult it is to write to the standard I aspire.

I started to write because I believed I could write a great book and I was determined to give it a go - complete something as such. But, while I may not be able to write a great book - only in the short term hopefully - I find that I don't mind because I am enjoying the act of writing more and more these days, so the hell with it if I don't quite make it.

Although, there are other times when I am not trying and my brain is relaxed that I stumble upon something I could almost call genius. But, as soon I get excited I lose the tread and poof! My natural inspiration is gone like that and suddenly I am forcing it again. With hard work these moments may be prolonged - I imagine the same thing happens with a lot of people.


----------



## Morkonan (Jan 13, 2014)

Gavrushka said:


> ...I'll tell you now, the first year I started writing, I thought I was going to eclipse J K Rowling in sales figures! LOL



And, you just might do that.

I wanted to revist your statement, above. J.K. Rowling, despite being the richest woman in the U.K. due to her booksales and accompanying gimcrackery, is not some sort of literary genius. She did a few things right and, fortunately for her, she hit the market at a time when the Y.A. market had yet to be defined and desperately needed a flagship to sail on.

I, like many bitter writers , will bash on Rowling and others with glee, but I want to mention where her "skill" lies and to demonstrate that it's not something that can't be taught, it's just something we all have to remember.

When Rowling needed a plot for her fantasy story, what sort of plot did she choose? Why, the "Child with Secret Powers" plot! It's a staple in fantasy and is as well-worn as Lindsey Lohan's mattress. So, it took no particular skill to come up with it and little skill to come up with a reason for the Prophecy and to build up a shadowy Antagonist. How many Chinese Kung-Fu movies start off with "You killed my teacher/father/sister/brother/village, now you must die!" or whatever. (My apologies to Inigo Montoya.)

But, where was Rowling's achievement? Why were her books so wildly popular, even with such an expectant market? That part is easy to answer - Everything in her books is "Fantasy." They're almost pure Fantasy. Whenever Rowling needed something, she invented a magical and fantastical element to add to the story and she paid attention to those elements as she created them. She needed a fantasy school for her characters, she invented Hogwarts and made it almost impossibly fantastical. When she needed a school sport or activity, she invented that weird game with brooms and little whizzing balls. When she needed a place for these people to shop, she invented a magical street. When she needed these people to have a mail system, she had owls do it. When she needed a way to transport people around, she added a magical bus or train. When she needed some sort of oversight or political system, she invented councils and some sort of weird governing office. When she needed a prison, she invented.. blah blah blah.. In short, whenever she needed a story element, she almost invariably chose a "fantastic" one. If she needed motivation for a character, she pulled from her fantasy elements. If she needed a plot twist, she, again, pulled from fantasy elements. 

I would call this "Low Fantasy", but with a few light "High Fantasy" themes thrown in. The key is that she stuck to her formula of pushing fantasy elements into her story whenever she had an opportunity to do so. That's what won "the game." It wasn't because of her great writing or tired plots that her books were a success. It was because she consistently drew on a one-trick pony that _worked_. It worked in that it was entertaining, fairly consistent and, importantly, allowed for itself to be as complex or as simple _as needed_, _when it was needed_. He success wasn't because she was some sort of a literary genius. Her level of success is obtainable by any competent writer.

What happens if you hit the market with competent writing and a one-trick pony? Not much, right? What happens if you hit the market at the right time with competent writing, even though you're using a one-trick pony? Boom - Superstardom.


----------



## Terry D (Jan 13, 2014)

What Rowling did was far more than just a 'one trick pony' accomplishment. Yes she used lots and lots of fantasy elements stacked on top of one another--just as do all fantasy writers--but she had the guts to do it to an extent most writers do not. And most importantly of all, she did it exceptionally well. Lots of magic isn't the secret to Harry Potter's success, the intricacy of the fabric into which it is woven is. It is a masterful piece of story telling.


----------



## Gavrushka (Jan 13, 2014)

I must admit that J K Rowling seems able to appeal to a very wide reader base. I'd always imagined that was a sign of plain good writing rather than anything else.

Although I remain enthusiastic and hopeful about the future, I also know that anything I write will be for a far smaller potential reader base. - But you never know... a post-apocalyptic scifi thriller, where the last vestiges of mankind are saved by an all female and chauvinistic lizard species, may just have universal appeal.


----------

