# Can Writing Be Taught?



## felix (Dec 15, 2011)

I'm curious as to what education people have in respect to English or Composition, or literary workshops or something of that order. I've always been of the opinion that writing can't be taught, and that most English teachers are wasting their sweet time after their students are old enough to not need spelling tests, but a lot of my friends insist that it made them the writers that they are. 
I've got a very good friend studying for an English and Creative Writing BA at the moment and she says it's the best experience of her life so far. She loves it not for its content, but for the people that she gets to meet and the freedom that she has to write whatever tripe takes her fancy and not have to feel that she should tidy it up or hide it away. 


I, myself, have zip. I've got an English GCSE like everybody else in England, but that's it. (Which may be painfully obvious to some of you, and you just haven't told me yet. Ha!) 
I've considered taking a fiction workshop every now and then, but the thought of meeting other aspiring writers makes me feel even more of a novice, not because of my arrogance (mostly) but because I've met, like everybody else, so many people who tell me that they're planning on writing a novel and are 'going to take a class or whatever'.  
But I hear good things about those workshops, and I'm trying to keep my mind open. 

What about you? Education? Taken a workshop, or a PhD? Can writing really be taught at all, or is it something that only you can teach yourself?


----------



## Kyle R (Dec 15, 2011)

Hey Felix,

I've taken a handful of Creative Writing classes, and also a few workshops. I found them helpful at first, but then I began to see diminishing returns. As far as workshops go, I think this site is the best I've come across (and the most affordable, as well!), in terms of quality of feedback, and sense of community.

In regards to your discussion topic, I think good writing can be taught, but I don't think_ being taught_ is required to be a good writer. That is to say, I think one can become a good writer with or without lessons.

I feel the distinguishing features of a good writer are: a unique perspective, and a unique voice. And I think we all have this, naturally, as a result of living our own lives. The rest just comes down to a matter of technique.

I feel I've learned the most from the various books on writing I've read. I remember a thread on here earlier where it was debated whether or not "how to" books on writing were beneficial.. I think they definately are. If you want some recommendations I will gladly throw them your way.

As for workshops, I don't think you should worry about being a novice. My experiences were always positive. I find it hard to imagine a workshop where members would discourage someone for being (or feeling) new to the process. Likely the opposite.


----------



## Jon M (Dec 15, 2011)

No formal training aside from the fundamentals during grade school. Everything I learned about fiction writing I learned from various books on the craft, and by browsing websites such as this, and critiquing. When I discover a story or a simple passage of writing I like, I study it and try to figure out why I like it. That last bit is important. You can read tons of books and write alot, but if you never do any self-reflection you're probably not getting the most out of the experience.

Personally, I don't put much stock in talent. I think writers of all skill levels, even the runaway brilliant ones, are made.


----------



## Bloggsworth (Dec 15, 2011)

You can teach the craft but you can't teach the imagination. Learning the craft properly means that the imagination can let rip without you having to worry about which way to turn the nut to tighten it on the bolt. Anybody who tells you that you don't need to know how to spell and punctuate, to parse a sentence so that it makes sense to the reader is lying. For natural writers and talkers, parsing a sentence is second nature, but if you don't have the building blocks...

Learning the craft of writing is analagous to learning to oil paint, if you don't know how to prepare the canvas, how to mix the pains and use the brushes you will waste time and effort trying to learn these things at the expense of the vision in the process of painting - Far better to unconsciously know the how and let the spirit run free. What Peter Alliss describes as conscious and unconscious competence.


----------



## garza (Dec 15, 2011)

Of course writing can be taught, but probably not in a classroom. 

My writing education began at the dinner table where my grandfather asked for stories and poems to be composed on the spot. The stories' grammar had to be correct. The poems' syllable count, rhyme, and rhythm had to meet strict specifications. In everything the images had to be clear. Limericks were a favourite teaching tool. A subject would be announced as the potatoes were passed, and before the end of the meal a properly constructed Limerick with opening, body, and conclusion had to be presented. Consider the Limerick as a five line, rhymed short story, or a five line rhymed essay, built on a rigid rhythmic framework.

Thus my grandfather laid the foundation. He taught me the basics of writing, of putting one word after another in a fashion that informed, or challenged, or entertained. Later in high school I began writing for the local newspapers. The editors continued my education in the craft of writing. They taught me the more advanced skills I needed, and guided me so that I could continue to sharpen those skills. Thus I was taught writing in a practical way as a means of making a living. My teachers were not in a lecture hall, but they were teachers all the same. 

Later in university I majored in English and History. The English courses strengthened my understanding of the language and the history courses provided the background needed for much of my later writing. 

I've never taken a creative writing class and I've never read a book on 'how to write'. The only writing workshops I've attended are the ones I've led.

Writing needs to be learned in the real world, the one we live in. Writing can be taught, but probably not in a classroom.


----------



## Loulou (Dec 15, 2011)

Hello felix,

Bloggsworth says it well when he says you can teach the craft but you can’t teach the imagination.  I believe a writer is born.  We can write (as in create/imagine/put things together) or we can’t.  But we have to learn to be dedicated, learn to be self-critical, learn to edit, learn the grammar, the basics.  

Like the wonderful johnMG, I have no training, only a basic school education.  But I’ve written since I physically could, from about seven or eight.  I can remember being three, in the back of the car, and making stories up before I even knew my ABC, pretending the trees were people.

Everything inspires me.  Everything I witness or experience, I want to write about.

On this alone, mixed with teaching myself grammar and posting work to be critiqued here, I’ve won a few writing competitions and been published in a handful of UK magazines.  I wrote a newspaper column for ten years, just because I sent some work to the editor and was a bit ballsy.

Unlike johnMG, I believe in talent.  You have it or you don’t.  Like, I can’t sing and it doesn’t matter what you do with me, show me, teach me… I just can’t sing.


----------



## ProcrastinationStation (Dec 15, 2011)

I'm currently in my 3rd year of studying English and Classical Studies, at the end of the next semester I'll have my degree and hopefully I'll be going on to do an MA in Creative Writing. 

I'm severely dyslexic (or at least, I was, I don't really know how to qualify it now because it doesn't really effect my life that much) and couldn't read/write until I was around 10 or so. My parents were told that I would be doing amazingly well if I could read 3 letter words by the time I was 12. A year after this I was reading at a level that surpassed my classmates by several years and havn't stopped reading since.

I always loved stories, hearing or telling them. I had story tapes that I would demand be played in the car, I had bedtime stories read to me every night and I had an amazing memory for stories. My teacher would read a short story to the class, then we would have to read it back to her in order to learn how to read. In the single reading I had memorised the short story and was able to pick up where it was left off if I was asked ot read next, so for everyone else it sounded like I was reading what was on the paper, rather than just repeating what had been told to me.

My parents put a lot of effort into getting me the help I needed, for a year, I had nightclasses, a tutor 3 times a week as well as regular school and special education classes at the school. If they hadn't I don't know where I would be right now. One of my relations is also dyslexic and they left school as soon as they were legally able, they despised school and reading/writing and if I hadn't gotten the help I had, I may have been the same. I wouldn't be a writer, I might have been a story teller, but not a writer. 

I was always very imaginative and would tell stories so I wouldn't have to work, I would tell my tutor about how the dog stole my mothers gold necklace and we had to chase it down the road, despite the fact we didn't have a dog at that time, nor do I know remeber if my mum even wore jewellery. The reason I know of this story is because on the way out, my tutor specifically asked my mum if it happened, despite being 90% sure we didn't have a dog.

So in my case, yes, writing was taught to me, at least the mechanical features of it, if I hadn't been taught how to read & write and gone through intense schoolilng, I don't know if I would be able to write creatively. I think writing can be taught, but people just don't bother to continue. Whether that is lack of imagination of just plain disinterest with it. I think what sets writers apart is that they don't talk about writing a story or novel they actually sit down and write. 

Some people of course might do it and hate it, but continue because they think they can make a quick buck and once they realise they can't they stop. I know people who have been praised for their short story skills, but they don't write creatively because they can't really be bothered, it doesn't interest them at all and they only wrote the short stories because they were required to for school.


----------



## Baron (Dec 15, 2011)

I believe in talent but I also believe in education.  Compare Sylvia Plath, whose love of writing was pursued through extensive education, with many of those who regard their work as art, regardless of the fact that they've put no effort into studying their craft.  Even Ginsberg, Kerouac and Bukowski took time for education in their chosen field.


----------



## Loulou (Dec 15, 2011)

Baron said:


> I believe in talent but I also believe in education.  Compare Sylvia Plath, whose love of writing was pursued through extensive education, with many of those who regard their work as art, regardless of the fact that they've put no effort into studying their craft.  Even Ginsberg, Kerouac and Bukowski took time for education in their chosen field.



I have a great respect for education, and sometimes envy those who were able to enjoy one, but studying our craft doesn't depend on a university/college.  Nothing teaches quite like life.  Experience.  Travel.  Relationships.  Survival.  We can learn the language required to write by practice.  But no university on earth can teach you to think a certain way.  To look at the world a certain way.  And if it can, well, that would be a lot of people thinking the same way.


----------



## shadowwalker (Dec 15, 2011)

I think writing has to be learned - either through school or self-taught. But yes, the 'imagination' part - that's something else. I would add that knowing how to tell a story isn't necessarily something that can be learned, either. Yes, one can learn the parts of a story and where they should appear - but that particular turn of phrase, or the ability to bring a character to life - people have varying levels of talent for that, and it takes a lot of work to get to an 'acceptable' stage. Above and beyond that, however, is something within the writer themselves. It's what makes the difference between a good (or even a very good) writer and a great writer. JMO


----------



## JosephB (Dec 15, 2011)

felix said:


> Can writing really be taught at all, or is it something that only you can teach yourself?



The idea that you can teach craft and not imagination comes close to summing things up – although I think there is an artistry to the application of craft that can’t really be taught either.

Other than for the sake of conversation, there’s not a whole lot that can be gained by looking at what other people have done. I may have taken a creative writing class, but maybe it was a bust. You’ll have to look into it and decide for yourself whether or not something like that will be of benefit -- and then it all depends on the class or the workshop or whatever it is you decide to do. Or you may decide to learn it all on your own. Whatever. Anyone with any amount of writing talent and the desire to write will figure this all out on his own. You’ll probably end up doing what everyone else does -- you’ll work it out through trial and error -- and it may or may not lead to any kind of success. 

So, I’ll answer your questions two ways: It depends. And who knows?


----------



## Terry D (Dec 15, 2011)

Working with words could be likened to working with stone.  A stone-mason with the right tools, the right education, and the right vision can create a sturdy, functional, comfortable house.  He has learned his craft and knows how to apply it to achieve his goal.  A writer can learn the tools and techniques of her craft just as well, and can produce fully functional, sell-able stories, articles, screen plays, scripts, etc.

On the other hand a sculptor can use those same tools and many of the same techniques to produce timeless art, just as another writer can use the same language and the same techniques to produce Great Expectations, Atlas Shrugged, or Hamlet.

Craft can be learned, but the success to which that craft will ascend is determined by many factors; talent, education, imagination, drive, etc.


----------



## felix (Dec 15, 2011)

Loulou said:


> But no university on earth can teach you to think a certain way.  To look at the world a certain way.



I agreed with a lot of your arguments in the thread, but teaching you to look at the world and think a certain way is _exactly_ what all universities endeavour to do. 

Perhaps its's unfair to take it out of context and I apologise if I misunderstood, but I think that education can absolutely change your view of the world. However, as so many have already said, it cannot imbue you with an imaginative drive.


----------



## Loulou (Dec 15, 2011)

felix said:


> I agreed with a lot of your arguments in the thread, but teaching you to look at the world and think a certain way is _exactly_ what all universities endeavour to do.
> 
> Perhaps its's unfair to take it out of context and I apologise if I misunderstood, but I think that education can absolutely change your view of the world. However, as so many have already said, it cannot imbue you with an imaginative drive.



Hi Felix,

I didn't explain very well, no apology needed at all. I meant that no university, school or college can teach you to think if you can't already.  Does that make sense?  And I am in no way discrediting education.  It would have been great to further my education.  I'm only saying it isn't necessary for writing well and successfully.


----------



## Baron (Dec 15, 2011)

felix said:


> I agreed with a lot of your arguments in the thread, but teaching you to look at the world and think a certain way is _exactly_ what all universities endeavour to do.
> 
> Perhaps its's unfair to take it out of context and I apologise if I misunderstood, but I think that education can absolutely change your view of the world. However, as so many have already said, it cannot imbue you with an imaginative drive.


Education can help to focus imagination in new ways, that's certain.  When it comes to literature, I'd far rather read something by somebody who has learned how to properly structure their writing than read something by someone who has lots of imagination but little idea of how to put that across in a way that flows well.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Dec 15, 2011)

I would agree with Lulu regarding what Bloggsworth said, but I think the "Not thinking which way to turn a nut" comment is probably the most valuable one there. When one first picks up a spanner one thinks 'clockwise to close' every time, after a while that is simply how you do it, and if you meet a gas fitting where it goes the other way there is a considerable mental strain. Physical practice aids learning, and good practice becomes a good habit, when you come across something it is well worth while making a point of using it, even if the result is not exactly what you were looking for at the time.
I was always praised for my writing at primary school, secondary school was mainly a washout for me, the only thing I actually enjoyed was Shakespeare, however I read and read and I was lucky enough to have a parent who was an English teacher and pointed out what was good, so I became discriminating and realised that clear, simple, writing can express complicated ideas. Later in life when I found books with information that I wanted that were badly written or used specialist vocabulary I used to pretend I was explaining the ideas to someone I had worked with in a manual job, the sort of person who has reasonable intelligence but a poor education and vocabulary, that was a good exercise.
I read books about writing quite regularly, some are mere pot boilers, others contain useful tips, and others again are misleading rubbish. I had Maths teachers who couldn't teach me Maths, doesn't mean it can't be taught, and I have learned a lot of Maths since when I have needed it. My approach is to read the book, pick out the useful and relevant stuff, and then write it up in my own words as an article for garza to use in the newsletter; that's reading, going over for understanding, and then reiterating; then I find I am doing the nuts up the right way most of the time.


----------



## Loulou (Dec 15, 2011)

Baron said:


> Education can help to focus imagination in new ways, that's certain.  When it comes to literature, I'd far rather read something by somebody who has learned how to properly structure their writing than read something by someone who has lots of imagination but little idea of how to put that across in a way that flows well.




Totally agree with you Baron about wanting to read something that is put across well.  But you don't have to be educated via an official body like a university to learn this.


----------



## Baron (Dec 15, 2011)

Loulou said:


> Totally agree with you Baron about wanting to read something that is put across well.  But you don't have to be educated via an official body like a university to learn this.



I think we're agreed that natural talent can't be taught but that education, formal or otherwise, can help it find its true expression.


----------



## Sam (Dec 15, 2011)

If Facebook is anything to go by, the majority of schooled (in reference to secondary education and no higher) people cannot spell, never mind construct a grammatically correct sentence. So, on that basis, I would have to argue no. 

However, creative writing and advanced literature classes often aren't taught in high schools. At least not in this country. University courses and degrees require copious reading. When you read enough, your writing improves. We all know that. So I don't think it's a matter of being taught how to write good, but instead learning it through the constant reading and writing that is asked of students. 

That being said, there is a yawning chasm of difference between academic and creative writing. You can get away with having almost zero originality when you write an academic paper for a English degree course. In fact, it's almost demanded of you. You're not allowed to insert your own opinion, and you must find sources to back up what you're stating. So if you ask an English student -- who isn't an author or an avid reader of fiction -- to create a fictional story from scratch, they might have a problem with it. The reason being that, while good writing can be taught, a good imagination is something you're born with.

Yes, good writing can be taught. It's simply a matter of good syntax and grammar. Anyone can write a story. The hard part, in my opinion, is writing one which a reader becomes immersed in and can't stop reading. That's where imagination comes in.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Dec 15, 2011)

I think writing is more about how observant you are than how well you've been taught.  For my own part, I've never had any formal training beyond the required classes in high school and college.  However, because of a solid understanding of grammar and an innate awareness of pacing, voice, plotting, and character design, I manage to do alright.  My last two submissions to the Literary Maneuvers competitions are literally the only things I've written besides the novel I'm working on, and they scored alright.

I've never had my work edited or reviewed by anyone, and the people who read my story for the sake of reading it have never shown any concerns about my grammar or pacing or character design.  To the best of my knowledge, my writing is just naturally solid.  It may not be world-class, but it definitely gets the job done.

It just seems to me that the things that make a story good boil down to a healthy dose of common sense.  Does it make sense for the plot to develop this way? Is it fair for a character to react a particular way or say a particular thing? If so, I put it in.  Are the characters talking quickly? Then I won't bother with descriptive text, and I'll use shorter sentences.  Are there speeches and long pauses? I'll do just the opposite.

Writing is very simple to do right, if you're observant and can apply that observation to your story.  Perhaps that's considered innate talent; if so, I fully believe in it.  Classes can help, but at the end of the day you're either a writer or you're not.


----------



## felix (Dec 15, 2011)

Actually, you find that people who can't write have no sense of their inability, which is what makes writing so dicey to begin with. A lot of people only find out that they can't write once they've given up their day job and have set off into the depths of their 'great novel'. 

In that sense, writing is fraught with pitfalls and curveballs, which is why writers are never done; they're never all that they can, they're always learning. They do that because there's no way to see what you're missing until you have it, until you've gained that little insight.


----------



## Rob (Dec 15, 2011)

felix said:


> I've always been of the opinion that writing can't be taught


Why not?



felix said:


> I've considered taking a fiction workshop every now and then


Why, if you think it can't be taught?


----------



## felix (Dec 15, 2011)

As most posts in the thread state, a popular opinion among writers, it seems, is that instruction is no match for an innate imaginative drive.

And therefore I've never been to a workshop, because I don't think that it would do me much good. But friends of mine swear by it, so I was willing to give it a try. 

Additionally, seeing as I can already write to some degree, in my own feeble way, a workshop would be only a crutch to bolster my talents.


----------



## JosephB (Dec 15, 2011)

It takes a combination of talent and learning – in varying amounts, depending on the individual. We all know what the different kinds of learning are – right?  What more can you say about it that isn’t some rehash of the obvious?


----------



## KarlR (Dec 15, 2011)

There is such a thing as natural talent.  There is such a thing as inclination or 'bent.'  You can probably come up with as many examples as I:  Think sports or academics or sales--it lends itself to virtually every facet of our lives.

There is also the ability to turn dogged determination into success.  Einstein himself had to learn a number of difficult mathematics in order to finish his theories.

Not every one of us is Einstein.  (Are you surprised?)  Neither are all of us naturals.  As almost every respondent has said, there is a balance of talent and applied effort that creates the final product we're looking to achieve.  Those of us who are not naturals have had to find a different way to learn how to express ourselves.  One of the most difficult of lessons is the 'simplicity' one.  Rather than repeating everything Mr. Buckle has already said, I'll just thank him for his willingness to pass along his wisdom.

I'm sure you are failiar with the phrase 'make it look easy.'  That's what simplicity is and that's what simplicity does.  Naturals 'make it look easy' because, to them, it is easy.  The trick for those of us who are less gifted is to emulate their manner of expression.  If it looks easy for the writer, it becomes easy for the reader. And, although we may deny this privately, we all write to be read.  We all want others to comprehend our words in the way we intended them to be read.  If we are not doing that, if we have to follow up our stories with an author's note to suggest 'this is what I was trying to get at,' then we have more to learn as writers.

If you'll permit me, I'll share one story from my past.  I was once a flight instructor at the US Air Force Academy.  The kids I saw were all highly motivated and top-tier academically--they all had been chosen via some complicated tests to be pilot candidates.  In their minds, they were already pilots (it is my great hope that you are seeing a parallel developing in your mind).  The world changed drastically when we put them in the airplane.  A very, very small number of them turned out to be natural pilots.  The vast majority had the raw talent and simply had to learn by brute-force study.  Lastly, there were a very, very small number of those who could never fly airplanes because they simply didn't 'get it.'

That's us, here on the Forums.  There are a very few naturals.  There are a great number of us who have had to work at learning the craft, and we continue in the hope that, one day, _we_ can make it look easy.  

I'll close with a word of thanks to the Baron for providing us all with a sandbox in which we can test, try, and evaluate our ideas and each other.


----------



## Rob (Dec 15, 2011)

felix said:


> As most posts in the thread state, a popular opinion among writers, it seems, is that instruction is no match for an innate imaginative drive.
> 
> And therefore I've never been to a workshop, because I don't think that it would do me much good. But friends of mine swear by it, so I was willing to give it a try.
> 
> Additionally, seeing as I can already write to some degree, in my own feeble way, a workshop would be only a crutch to bolster my talents.


None of that explains why you think it can't be taught. You said you'd always thought it can't be. I'm asking you why you think it can't.


----------



## Rustgold (Dec 15, 2011)

We all learn to become better writers (afterall, we don't write like 3 year olds - well most of us anyway).  Can anybody become a top quality professional writer? well that's another question.

Anybody can be taught to run.  I'd guarantee that anybody here could be taught to run 20% faster.  But not everybody can reach 100m in 10sec.  Intellectual pursuits are no different.  Anybody can be taught, but everybody also has a natural limit.


----------



## Kyle R (Dec 15, 2011)

felix said:


> As most posts in the thread state, a popular opinion among writers, it seems, is that instruction is no match for an innate imaginative drive.
> 
> And therefore I've never been to a workshop, because I don't think that it would do me much good. But friends of mine swear by it, so I was willing to give it a try.
> 
> Additionally, seeing as I can already write to some degree, in my own feeble way, a workshop would be only a crutch to bolster my talents.



A workshop is mainly about getting peer feedback, encouragement, and ideas. The ones I've attended generally followed the same structure:

You bring a short piece of yours, along with copies to distribute to the other workshop members. You read your piece aloud while they read and follow along. Afterwards, everyone discusses your piece, and writes down their own thoughts about it on their copy. The copies are returned to you, and the process repeats with the next person.

Sometimes the workshop begins with a brief lecture, anecdote, or discussion topic by the man or woman organizing the event (could be a published author, or a teacher).

Your workshops might be entirely different, but the ones I've attended have all worked very similarly to that. So I wouldn't lump workshops into the "teaching" category, but more into the "honing your abilities with the help of other writers" category.

For the teaching part I'd say a Creative Writing class would be more appropriate.... I'm just making sure you know there's a distinction between "Workshops" and "Classes".

And there there are also writing Seminars, where an author simply talks and lectures for the majority of the time, and you listen and take notes, and at the end you can ask questions. I haven't been to one of those but you can find many of them on youtube. There's an Hour-Long seminar by Ray Bradbury uploaded there, in which he mentions what he believes writers should only need: To read, read, read.. And to write, write, write.


----------



## felix (Dec 15, 2011)

Rob said:


> None of that explains why you think it can't be taught. You said you'd always thought it can't be. I'm asking you why you think it can't.



If you assume that literature is an art form, and you observe and agree with what Mr. Wilde said (that all art is useless) then it can be said that all fiction is utterly useless in all aspects, which it quite obviously is without such convoluted arguments. However, teaching somebody to write fiction is quite literally attempting to teach somebody to create something, from nothing, which in literal terms means nothing, and only has meaning when observed by others. 
That right there, is a fool's errand. 
Fiction exists because of something within the writer. A spark. Something which cannot be forced upon somebody, in the same way that an appreciation for Shakespeare or Mozart cannot be forced upon somebody. Nobody can teach you to like Hamlet, you have to find it for yourself, see something in it that nobody else sees, know it in a way that only you can. That's what makes art what it is, and that's why so many people spend so much of their lives honing their art, despite the fact that it has no purpose whatsoever.  
If somebody plops Hamlet down in front of you and says, "This is excellent, I shall now explain its excellence," then any possibility of you truly knowing of its excellence is dispelled. 
The same goes for writing. You can be taught to format, spell and parse, but anything beyond that is nothing but emulation.

Ain't nothing wrong with emulation, but in my opinion, anything written under those conditions lessens its ultimate goal; to express oneself.

EDIT: Thanks for the tip Kyle, I had no idea about workshops being like that. In that case, what I meant to say was that I had an interest in taking _clases_. To be quite honest, the idea of reading in front of an audience makes my intestines shrivel.


----------



## Sam (Dec 15, 2011)

Most writers start off by emulating the voice of the favourite author(s). Then they establish their own voice. I'm not sure exactly how you come to the conclusion that all writing is emulation. That's a rather sweeping statement. I'm not emulating Chaucer, for example, because writing was completely different when he wrote. All language evolves; all writing evolves. And it has, most certainly, a purpose. If it didn't, we wouldn't have saved the works of authors from time immemorial.


----------



## Rob (Dec 15, 2011)

felix said:


> If you assume that literature is an art form, and you observe and agree with what Mr. Wilde said (that all art is useless) then it can be said that all fiction is utterly useless in all aspects, which it quite obviously is without such convoluted arguments. However, teaching somebody to write fiction is quite literally attempting to teach somebody to create something, from nothing, which in literal terms means nothing, and only has meaning when observed by others.
> That right there, is a fool's errand.
> Fiction exists because of something within the writer. A spark. Something which cannot be forced upon somebody, in the same way that an appreciation for Shakespeare or Mozart cannot be forced upon somebody. Nobody can teach you to like Hamlet, you have to find it for yourself, see something in it that nobody else sees, know it in a way that only you can. That's what makes art what it is, and that's why so many people spend so much of their lives honing their art, despite the fact that it has no purpose whatsoever.
> If somebody plops Hamlet down in front of you and says, "This is excellent, I shall now explain its excellence," then any possibility of you truly knowing of its excellence is dispelled.
> ...


What a load of utter tosh.


----------



## felix (Dec 15, 2011)

I'm sure that you have a very compelling argument, and I'd like to hear it, but for the record; rudeness is never called for. 

And for Sam, I didn't explain myself properly. What I meant to say was that being taught to write in higher education is more or less emulating the styles of established authors, and cannot inspire you to be original in any sense. 
Although, I admit that of course real originality is more or less an illusion, but all the same, being taught to write is too mechanical for my taste.


----------



## JosephB (Dec 15, 2011)

felix said:


> And for Sam, I didn't explain myself properly. What I meant to say was that being taught to write in higher education is more or less emulating the styles of established authors, and cannot inspire you to be original in any sense.



That depends entirely on the class and the teacher. I've taken a creative class -- and the instructor went out of her way to stress the importance of having your own voice -- everything was geared to that. It had nothing to do with emulation.


----------



## felix (Dec 15, 2011)

I understand that, yes, I wasn't saying that anybody who takes a class in Creative Writing would inevitably end up only being able to emulate established writers, but only that nobody can give you your own voice.


----------



## Kyle R (Dec 15, 2011)

felix said:


> What I meant to say was that being taught to write in higher education is more or less emulating the styles of established authors, and cannot inspire you to be original in any sense.
> Although, I admit that of course real originality is more or less an illusion, but all the same, being taught to write is too mechanical for my taste.



I haven't encountered any teachers that promote imitation. Usually the focus is on study..

I can tell you don't know what goes on in a Creative Writing class so I'll do my best to summarize from my own personal experiences.. since I feel like you might be arguing the wrong points in this thread, simply because you haven't experienced a writing class to know how writing is "taught". (I use "taught" in quotations because I agree that it is still debatable whether or not writing can be learned)

So here's a brief introduction to how a Creative Writing class operates:

You're given a packet of assigned reading. Some teachers assign books, articles, or sections from various works. One teacher I had actually created a binder for every student in which he had xeroxed all the assigned readings for the course (mostly short-stories and poems).

The teacher goes over a lesson. It could be a technique, like "comparisons" (similes and metaphors), or a concept, like "subtext" (what's being communicated beneath the surface layer).. etc...

You read the assigned piece, and then, you write your thoughts about the author's use of the technique or concept, and you turn that in to the teacher so he/she can evaluate your learning. This was something I didn't exactly enjoy, the analytical writing aspect, but not all teachers do it. One teacher I had simply had us all gather our chairs in a circle to discuss the assigned piece openly.

Periodically you're given assignments to write, creatively, using the techniques and concepts you've learned.

and.. the process repeats until the course is done, often culminating with you writing a piece about whatever you want, as your final paper.

Classes could be wayyy different than that, but, at the least, you get an idea of what the ones that I took were like.

At your level of exposure, from these forums alone, you might already be somewhat too advanced for a beginner's creative writing class. But then again, you might not. *shrug*. I do know they get more advanced and specialized, such as "creative writing: short story and novel", in which specific things are analyzed and discussed, such as storyline and characters.


----------



## felix (Dec 15, 2011)

You're right in saying that I'm ignorant of how they're taught, yes, but what you've listed is actually what I meant. Studying metaphors and subtext or minor characters, setting, whatever, isn't how Creative Writing should be approached, in my opinion. 

Good writing contains all of those things, but not because the writer was aware of them - often they aren't - but because that's what emerges when writing is approached from a purely creative standpoint. 

I feel that I may be alone in this, and I very well may be wrong, being the young, inexperienced and inept writer that I am, but I still argue that it can't be taught beyond a certain degree.


NOTE: I feel that I should just mention that I think that we may have wandered off topic a tad, and that the thread's original intention was to gauge member's education. I never intended to start a debate. If the debate continues then perhaps the thread could be moved to the 'Debates' forum.


----------



## Kyle R (Dec 15, 2011)

I agree that knowing how to nail boards together and stack bricks won't automatically make you a good architect.. but having a good foundation of the fundamentals can, as someone in this thread said, free you up to explore the higher levels (expression and creativity) more freely.



			
				felix said:
			
		

> Good writing contains all of those things, but not because the writer was aware of them - often they aren't - but because that's what emerges when writing is approached from a purely creative standpoint.



This sounds profound. Could you elaborate?

Would you agree (or disagree) that someone who has studied writing techniques would be able to execute them at higher levels than someone who has not? (example: successful writers with degrees in Fine Arts and Literature)

Or, would you say that creativity and self-expression, when genuine and robust, naturally results in writing at a high level? (example: successful writers who were self-taught)

I'm not sure which way I lean, but I think both routes are possible.

Do you think the act of structured learning hinders creativity?


----------



## felix (Dec 15, 2011)

As you said, teaching somebody to stack bricks isn't teaching them to be an architect. If a writer who's attended some very informative classes sits down to finally write their novel and sets to it, and considers what they've learned, then what will influence them will be a flood of variables which they have to consider. How many subplots do I need? Is that relationship strong enough to lessen the tension of the primary character's depression? Does the thunderstorm provide adequate pathetic fallacy to foreshadow the coming bloodshed? 
And instead of expressing their ideas as their own, they express them via a skewed series of filters and formulas, which themselves were derived by studying the works of existing literature (which is what I meant by emulation). It's a framework, yes, and a good one at that, but it can't replace an innate talent for constructing a piece of writing.
However, if a writer approaches a novel ignorant, then in all likelihood, they'll fail. It'll be rubbish, it won't have any metaphors or similes or what-have-you, and if it does then they'll be long and drawn out. The characters will be wooden and apathetic, one dimensional. It'll be tripe. But perhaps one piece of writing will have been constructed in such a way that it has all of the elements that a good story must have, but merely because of the scope of the writer's imagination and motivation, rather than a conscious process. 

Is that better, maybe? Perhaps my debating skills are woefully inadequate. Saying that is really shooting myself in the foot, seeing as I'm arguing that education is unnecessary, but there it is.


----------



## Kyle R (Dec 15, 2011)

Oh, I didn't think we were debating. I was just interested in your thoughts.

But I do agree with some of the points you've made. And I even found it true myself.. I've struggled many times, trying to fit creativity into the rigid boxes, and "formulas" as you correctly labeled them, that I had learned of.

I think both routes (educated, and uneducated) have their own challenges for an improving writer. I haven't thought far enough into it yet to decide if both routes are _equal_, though.

Your position seems to be that no amount of education can create an "innate talent" for writing. I guess I would agree. But I think education can help foster the development of such talent. And I think the pitfalls of being over-analytical with one's own writing can be avoided by good instruction, and also, some healthy instrospection.

Though maybe my position is biased, in that I'm defending education because I'm hoping that the time I spent with it wasn't just a waste. : P


----------



## felix (Dec 15, 2011)

Ha, well having read your work, you certainly didn't waste your time. I agree that talent can be guided by a foundation of principles and a wealth of resource material to fall back on, but, yes, I think that talent itself can't be dredged from the depths of ineptitude if there's nothing there in the first place.


----------



## Kyle R (Dec 15, 2011)

Thanks for the complement.

But then your last sentence ("_I think that talent itself can't be dredged from the depths of ineptitude if there's nothing there in the first place"_) is one I have to disagree with.

I don't view talent as a precious mineral to be mined, but rather, as a byproduct of perseverance and hard work.

I will admit, though, some writers seem to just "have it" naturally (those lucky bastards ), but I think they are more of an exception than a rule.


----------



## shadowwalker (Dec 15, 2011)

KyleColorado said:


> But then your last sentence ("_I think that talent itself can't be dredged from the depths of ineptitude if there's nothing there in the first place"_) is one I have to disagree with.
> 
> I don't view talent as a precious mineral to be mined, but rather, as a byproduct of perseverance and hard work.



I think talent is very much a 'precious mineral'. Being able to tell a story is like singing. Anyone can be taught scales - but if a person can't carry a tune in a bucket, those scales are always going to sound hellish. Anyone can be taught to play the piano - but no matter how much one practices, without talent it will still sound mechanical.

Talent is what adds the spark.


----------



## JosephB (Dec 15, 2011)

Well, so far from this thread we know that writing is like painting, sculpting, mining, singing and playing the piano. 

Did I miss anything? How about cooking? Is it anything like cooking?


----------



## Baron (Dec 15, 2011)

JosephB said:


> Well, so far from this thread we know that writing is like painting, sculpting, mining, singing and playing the piano.
> 
> Did I miss anything? How about cooking? Is it anything like cooking?


Perhaps there's a secret recipe...


----------



## Kyle R (Dec 15, 2011)

shadowwalker said:


> I think talent is very much a 'precious mineral'. Being able to tell a story is like singing. Anyone can be taught scales - but if a person can't carry a tune in a bucket, those scales are always going to sound hellish. Anyone can be taught to play the piano - but no matter how much one practices, without talent it will still sound mechanical.
> 
> Talent is what adds the spark.



I like the musical motif. : )

But where does this mysterious talent come from?

Genetics?

God?

Environmental factors?


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Dec 16, 2011)

KyleColorado said:


> I don't view talent as a precious mineral to be mined, but rather, as a byproduct of perseverance and hard work.



Perseverance and hard work are what are needed to make up for a lack of talent.  As for where talent comes from, I suppose it's a mix of genetics and environmental factors (and God too if you believe he blesses you with those two things).  I said earlier that a good writer is observant.  However, it takes a decent level of intelligence to not only be aware of the things that make writing great, but also to apply them.  The reason people take classes is to follow a formula others used that they couldn't figure out on their own.  People with natural talent would find such classes redundant.


----------



## Loulou (Dec 16, 2011)

JosephB said:


> Well, so far from this thread we know that writing is like painting, sculpting, mining, singing and playing the piano.
> 
> Did I miss anything? How about cooking? Is it anything like cooking?



I swear when I cook.  And I burn stuff.  And I chuck it on the plate and tell my family they'll have to make do.  So I'd say yes.  Exactly like cooking.


----------



## ppsage (Dec 16, 2011)

Here's a list I've hastily compiled, of Pulitzer Fiction Prize winners and finalists from 2000, with brief extracts of their educational history. This information is all taken from the most comprehensive and most widely disseminated encyclopedia in the history of the world, so be a little wary. Obviously the detail is not always fine enough to pinpoint exposure to writing teaching specifically. I'm not making any claims for either the necessity or sufficiency of education in this arena, nor am I claiming Pulitzer selection as an exclusive measure of professional achievement. I would conclude, however, that an MFA in creative writing is not necessarily a bar to success and, given youth and means and educatibility, bears consideration as a career enhancing option. 

(This research can be easily replicated and extended by going here and clicking on the author links.)

2000: Interpreter of Maladies by Jhumpa Lahiri: Lahiri then received multiple degrees from Boston University: an M.A. in English, M.F.A. in Creative Writing, M.A. in Comparative Literature, and a Ph.D. in Renaissance Studies 

Close Range: Wyoming Stories by Annie Proulx: studying at the University of Vermont from 1966 to 1969, and graduated cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa with a Bachelor of Arts in History in 1969. She got her Master of Arts from Sir George Williams University (now Concordia University) in Montreal, Quebec

Waiting by Ha Jin: he entered Heilongjiang University and earned a bachelor's degree in English studies. This was followed by a master's degree in Anglo-American literature at Shandong University

2001: The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay by Michael Chabon: Chabon attended Carnegie Mellon University for a year before transferring to the University of Pittsburgh, where he received a Bachelor of Arts in 1984.[8] He then went to graduate school at the University of California, Irvine, where he received a Master of Fine Arts in creative writing 

Blonde by Joyce Carol Oates: Oates graduated Syracuse as valedictorian in 1960, and received her M.A. from the University of Wisconsin–Madison in 1961

The Quick and the Dead by Joy Williams: She received a BA from Marietta College and a MFA from the University of Iowa

2002: Empire Falls by Richard Russo: He earned a Bachelor's degree, a Master of Fine Arts degree, and a Doctor of Philosophy degree from the University of Arizona, which he attended from 1967 through 1979 

The Corrections by Jonathan Franzen: He also studied on a Fulbright Scholarship at Freie Universität Berlin in Berlin in 1981-82.[11] From these experiences, he speaks fluent German.

John Henry Days by Colson Whitehead: Whitehead graduated from Harvard College in 1991.

2003: Middlesex by Jeffrey Eugenides: undergraduate degree at Brown University, graduating in 1983. He later earned an M.A. in Creative Writing from Stanford University.

Servants of the Map: Stories by Andrea Barrett: B.A. in biology from Union College and briefly attended a Ph.D. program in zoology

You Are Not a Stranger Here by Adam Haslett: He is a graduate of Swarthmore College (B.A., 1992), the University of Iowa (M.F.A., 1999), and Yale Law School (J.D., 2003

2004: The Known World by Edward P. Jones: and educated at both the College of the Holy Cross and the University of Virginia 

American Woman by Susan Choi: Choi earned a B.A. in Literature from Yale University (1990) and an M.F.A. from Cornell University.

Evidence of Things Unseen by Marianne Wiggins: She and Salman Rushdie wed in January 1988

2005: Gilead by Marilynne Robinson: the former women's college at Brown University, receiving her B.A., magna cum laude in 1966, where she was elected to Phi Beta Kappa. She received her Ph.D. in English from the University of Washington in 1977 

An Unfinished Season by Ward Just: He briefly attended Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut. He started his career as a print journalist for the Waukegan (Illinois) News-Sun. He was also a correspondent for Newsweek and The Washington Post from 1959 to 1969, after which he left journalism to write fiction

War Trash by Ha Jin: entered Heilongjiang University and earned a bachelor's degree in English studies. This was followed by a master's degree in Anglo-American literature at Shandong University.

2006: March by Geraldine Brooks 

The Bright Forever by Lee Martin: Bethlehem College and the University of Sydney. Following graduation, she was a rookie reporter for The Sydney Morning Herald and, after winning a Greg Shackleton Memorial Scholarship, moved to the United States, completing a Master's degree in journalism 

The March by E. L. Doctorow: Doctorow attended Kenyon College in Ohio, where he studied with the poet and New Critic John Crowe Ransom

2007: The Road by Cormac McCarthy: McCarthy attended the University of Tennessee from 1951–52 and 1957–59 but never graduated. While at UT he published two stories in The Phoenix and was awarded the Ingram-Merrill Award for creative writing in 1959 and 1960 

After This by Alice McDermott: the State University of New York at Oswego, receiving her BA in 1975, and later received her MA from the University of New Hampshire in 1978

The Echo Maker by Richard Powers: During his first semester, he switched his major to English literature. In 1978 he received his undergraduate degree. He continued his education at Illinois, and in 1980 received his MA in literature.

2008: The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao by Junot Díaz: He attended Kean College in Union, New Jersey for one year before transferring and ultimately completing his BA at Rutgers College in 1992, majoring in English; there he was involved in Demarest Hall, a creative-writing, living-learning, residence hall, and in various student organizations. 

Shakespeare's Kitchen by Lore Segal: but Segal was nonetheless able to attend Bedford College, the women's division of the University of London, where she received a degree in English literature with honors

Tree of Smoke by Denis Johnson: He holds an MFA degree from the Iowa Writers' Workshop at the University of Iowa

2009: Olive Kitteridge by Elizabeth Strout: Law degree, MFA teacher now. 

All Souls by Christine Schutt: Schutt received her BA and MA from the University of Wisconsin–Madison and her MFA from Columbia University

The Plague of Doves by Louise Erdrich: Erdrich earned a Master of Arts degree in creative writing at Johns Hopkins University in 1979.

2010: Tinkers by Paul Harding: Harding has a B.A. in English from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst[4] and an MFA from the Iowa Writers' Workshop and has taught writing at Harvard University and the University of Iowa.[1]

In Other Rooms, Other Wonders by Daniyal Mueenuddin: He enrolled in the MFA program (writing) at the University of Arizona at Tucson, where he earned a degree in 2004.[3

Love in Infant Monkeys by Lydia Millet: She holds a BA in Creative Writing with honors from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a master's degree from Duke University

2011: A Visit From the Goon Squad by Jennifer Egan: Egan majored in English literature at the University of Pennsylvania, followed by a two-year fellowship at St John's College, Cambridge.

The Privileges by Jonathan Dee: He received a B.A. in American Studies from Yale University, where he studied fiction writing with John Hersey. 

The Surrendered by Chang-rae Lee: He graduated from Yale University with a degree in English and from the University of Oregon with a MFA in writing.


----------



## Loulou (Dec 16, 2011)

It's not remotely in the league as your great list my dear Mr Sage, but when I won the Aesthetica Creative Works competition in 2009, a competition that was international, and anyone could enter, and where 19,000 did, I won it.  Almost all the runners up had MAs and BAs and MFAs.  I only post this to give hope to those who, like me, had neither the money or opportunity to study at university.  With work, talent, dedication, balls, self-belief, practice, I think you can achieve anything.

Link to competition interview... http://aestheticamagazine.blogspot.com/2010/08/q-with-last-years-winner-for-fiction-in.html


----------



## Olly Buckle (Dec 16, 2011)

A formal education does provide one with the means of ordering the thoughts, or should. There is also, as has been pointed out, the element of 'imagination'. It has always struck me that many of the more effective unconventional users of English did not have it as their only language. Historically that meant people like Yeats, Burns, or Thomas who also spoke an unrelated Celtic language. Kipling's initial education was by Indian servants who taught him Hindi, and there are a number of modern authors who also speak Oriental languages now the world has gone global, I feel this gives a depth of perception. The same sort of thing seems to apply to books like 'The Glass Bead Game' where the author was raised in China by missionary parents, experiencing two cultures.
At the same time I would point to people like Alan Bennett, admittedly a Cambridge graduate, but one who started life as a grammar school boy from an ordinary family, and some of his best writing, such as the 'talking heads' series reflects that background. To me it seems the trick is to find aspects of oneself and exploit them. T he difficulty most people have is in seeing their life and themselves as unique. When one lives in a two up two down terrace house in a London suburb it is hard to imagine how exotic that may appear from some other place, when you can do that you can write a book like 'Novel on Yellow Paper', that was an eye opener for me, I grew up in Palmers Green and my father's sister was definitely a 'Lion Aunt', suddenly I saw the magic in the everyday.


----------



## ppsage (Dec 16, 2011)

To be fair, here's the current week's NYTimes Fiction Bestsellers. Still a lot of higher education but way more diversity in areas of study. Two lawyers, a doctor and a high-powered biologist. Several started writing fiction after considerable other employments. Not, I think, a Pulitzer in the lot.

1.THE DROP, by Michael Connelly: Connelly went home and read all of Chandler's works, featuring Philip Marlowe, a detective in Los Angeles during the 1940s and ‘50s, and decided to switch majors to journalism with a minor in creative writing.

2.11/22/63, by Stephen King: From 1966, King studied English at the University of Maine, graduating in 1970 with a Bachelor of Arts in English.

3.EXPLOSIVE EIGHTEEN, by Janet Evanovich: She became the first in her family to attend college when she enrolled at Douglass College, part of Rutgers University, to study art....To learn the art of writing dialog, Evanovich took lessons in improv acting

4.THE LITIGATORS, by John Grisham: He went to the Northwest Mississippi Community College in Senatobia, Mississippi and later attended Delta State University in Cleveland.[2] Grisham drifted so much during his time at the college that he changed colleges three times before completing a degree.[1] He graduated from Mississippi State University in 1977, receiving a BS degree in accounting. He later enrolled in the University of Mississippi School of Law to become a tax lawyer, but his interest shifted to general civil litigation. He graduated in 1983 with a JD degree specializing in criminal law.

5.KILL ALEX CROSS, by James Patterson: After Patterson retired from advertising in 1985, he devoted his time to writing.... Patterson received a bachelor's degree from Manhattan College and a master's degree from Vanderbilt University.

6. THE HELP, by Kathryn Stockett: After graduating from the University of Alabama with a degree in English and Creative Writing, she moved to New York City where she worked in magazine publishing and marketing for nine years.

7. THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO, by Stieg Larsson: Larsson lived and worked much of his life in Stockholm, in the field of journalism and as an independent researcher of right-wing extremism.... He attended the village school in Önnesmark and used cross-country skis to get to and from school every day.

8. THE SCOTTISH PRISONER, by Diana Gabaldon: Dr. Gabaldon holds three degrees in science: Zoology, Marine Biology, and Quantitative Behavioral Ecology, (plus an honorary degree as Doctor of Humane Letters, which entitles her to be “Diana Gabaldon, Ph.D., D.H.L.” She supposes this is better than “Diana Gabaldon, Phd.X,”) and spent a dozen years as a university professor with an expertise in scientific computation before beginning to write fiction.

9. V IS FOR VENGEANCE, by Sue Grafton: She attended both the University of Louisville (freshman year) and Western Kentucky State Teachers College (sophomore and junior years)[2] before graduating from the University of Louisville in 1961 with a bachelor's degree in English Literature and minors in humanities and fine arts.

10. THE BEST OF ME, by Nicholas Sparks: He lived in Fair Oaks through high school, graduated valedictorian in 1984, and received a full track scholarship to the University of Notre Dame.

After breaking the Notre Dame school record as part of a relay team in 1985 as a freshman (a record which still stands), he was injured and spent the summer recovering. During that summer, he wrote his first novel, though it was never published. He majored in Business Finance and graduated with high honors in 1988.

11. ZERO DAY, by David Baldacci: Baldacci received a B.A. from Virginia Commonwealth University and a law degree from the University of Virginia. As a student, Baldacci wrote short stories in his spare time, and later practiced law for nine years near Washington, D.C.. While living in Alexandria, Virginia, Baldacci wrote short stories and screenplays without much success. He turned to novel writing, taking three years to write Absolute Power.

12. THE NEXT ALWAYS, by Nora Roberts: Nora Roberts was born in Silver Spring, Maryland, the youngest of five children. After a school career that included some time in Catholic school and the discipline of nuns, she married young and settled in Keedysville, Maryland.

13. THE ART OF RACING IN THE RAIN, by Garth Stein: Stein earned a B.A. in 1987 from Columbia College of Columbia University and later received a Master of Fine Arts degree in film from the University's School of the Arts.

14. MICRO, by Michael Crichton: Crichton graduated summa cum laude from Harvard College, received his MD from Harvard Medical School, and was a postdoctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, researching public policy with Jacob Bronowski. He taught courses in anthropology at Cambridge University and writing at MIT.

15. SMOKIN' SEVENTEEN, by Janet Evanovich: See #3


----------



## Kyle R (Dec 16, 2011)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> Perseverance and hard work are what are needed to make up for a lack of talent.  As for where talent comes from, I suppose it's a mix of genetics and environmental factors (and God too if you believe he blesses you with those two things).  I said earlier that a good writer is observant.  However, *it takes a decent level of intelligence *to not only *be aware *of the things that make writing great, but *also to apply *them.  The reason people take classes is to follow a formula others used that *they couldn't figure out on their own*.  People with natural talent would find such classes redundant.



So, you're saying that talent is just another word for "intelligence"?

That smart people are naturally inclined to be good writers, and dumb people take classes to learn to write better, because their IQ's are too low?


----------



## shadowwalker (Dec 16, 2011)

Personally, I don't think dumb people would aspire to be writers to begin with - although having beta'd some new ones, I may be changing that opinion. I do think that writing classes can be helpful for some people, in making them realize they don't have to follow the formulas. That's the best case scenario. The worst case scenario is just the opposite - it makes them feel they should. It all depends on the program. But I would still maintain that you can't teach talent. You can teach the tools, and the discipline, and you can help people realize it's okay to think "outside the box" (an expression I truly hate but it's useful), but otherwise, everything else lies within the individual. It's like _every other thing_ in life - some people will be good, some people will be great, and some people don't stand a chance.


----------



## felix (Dec 16, 2011)

Woah, now, saying that 'dumb' people don't have the mental capacity to write is a tad strong. Intelligence can't be classified that simply. 

Some people might say that intelligence is logical or mathematical prowess, and others might say that it's an ability to pick up a foreign idea and run with it, and the generic definition seems to be, more or less, an all round aptitude for most thing intellectual.

By your argument, somebody who's clueless about mathematics or logical argument couldn't possibly produce quality writing. 

What did you mean by 'dumb'?


----------



## Terry D (Dec 16, 2011)

So, what we are saying is -- Writers are, in general, people who, like college students, desperately try to avoid working for a living?layful:


----------



## felix (Dec 16, 2011)

Terry D said:


> So, what we are saying is -- Writers are, in general, people who, like college students, desperately try to avoid working for a living?layful:



*Emphatic nodding* I would never say that. 


I'd like to think of it as more of a perk. But some writers think of it as work, so it's down to the individual.


----------



## shadowwalker (Dec 16, 2011)

felix said:


> Woah, now, saying that 'dumb' people don't have the mental capacity to write is a tad strong. Intelligence can't be classified that simply.
> 
> Some people might say that intelligence is logical or mathematical prowess, and others might say that it's an ability to pick up a foreign idea and run with it, and the generic definition seems to be, more or less, an all round aptitude for most thing intellectual.
> 
> ...



Re-read my post. I didn't say what you're saying. I said dumb people most likely wouldn't aspire to be writers. I did not say someone smart in math couldn't write, did I? I said dumb people. Like it or not, they exist and no, they don't write books.


----------



## Terry D (Dec 16, 2011)

'Dumb' is an imprecise word.  If you mean illiterate, or unskilled in the use of language, then, by definition, those people aren't writing for publication.  But if you mean people who have poorly considered ideas, or are illogical, there are many books published each year by that sort of 'dumb' person.


----------



## shadowwalker (Dec 16, 2011)

Terry D said:


> 'Dumb' is an imprecise word.  If you mean illiterate, or unskilled in the use of language, then, by definition, those people aren't writing for publication.  But if you mean people who have poorly considered ideas, or are illogical, there are many books published each year by that sort of 'dumb' person.



I'm not sure they do get published, unless of course we move into the realm of subjectivity. Then what you or I consider 'dumb' may differ dramatically, and most likely from what other people consider 'dumb'.


----------



## Terry D (Dec 16, 2011)

That's what I meant by 'dumb' being imprecise.  It is a very subjective term.  What do you mean by "dumb people"?


----------



## shadowwalker (Dec 16, 2011)

lacking intelligence; stupid; dull-witted

Seriously. We all know what dumb means in this context.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Dec 16, 2011)

KyleColorado said:


> So, you're saying that talent is just another word for "intelligence"?
> 
> That smart people are naturally inclined to be good writers, and dumb people take classes to learn to write better, because their IQ's are too low?



I'm saying that intelligence is one variety of natural talent, just like having good balance will make you better at gymnastics and having an ear for music will make you better at learning to play an instrument.  Of course, there are different sorts of intelligence; being able to mentally calculate prime factors, for example, won't make you a better writer.

So yes, the people who don't have the natural talent to observe and consider their world in the context of writing need to take classes to make up for it.  I wouldn't say that means they have a low IQ, though.


----------



## Terry D (Dec 16, 2011)

I really wasn't trying to be argumentative.  I think a lot of "dumb" people publish books, stories, and articles every year, and even more are motivated to try.


----------



## JosephB (Dec 16, 2011)

Loulou said:


> So I'd say yes.  Exactly like cooking.



With you in the kitchen, I'd say the results are always pretty tasty.


----------



## felix (Dec 16, 2011)

shadowwalker said:


> Re-read my post. I didn't say what you're saying. I said dumb people most likely wouldn't aspire to be writers. I did not say someone smart in math couldn't write, did I? I said dumb people. Like it or not, they exist and no, they don't write books.



I think that perhaps you should re-read my post as well. I didn't say that somebody versed in mathematics couldn't write, I said that 'dumb' is a very loose term, and asked what you meant by it.


----------



## Loulou (Dec 16, 2011)

JosephB said:


> With you in the kitchen, I'd say the results are always pretty tasty.



Come over. I can do spice too.


----------



## JosephB (Dec 17, 2011)

Loulou said:


> Come over. I can do spice too.



I don't know what that means exactly, but I like the sound of it.


----------



## Rusty Nail (Dec 17, 2011)

The best writers have an innate talent.   We can all probably learn to become good writers, but the ones with the innate talent go from good to great while learning their craft.  The great writers can choose the right words to ignite the imagination of the reader, or to crystallize a thought to perfection.  For me, the best teacher is experience; reading about writing is not enough - you have to actually write to become better.


----------



## Rob (Dec 18, 2011)

Rusty Nail said:


> The best writers have an innate talent.   We can all probably learn to become good writers, but the ones with the innate talent go from good to great while learning their craft.  The great writers can choose the right words to ignite the imagination of the reader, or to crystallize a thought to perfection.  For me, the best teacher is experience; reading about writing is not enough - you have to actually write to become better.


Who do you consider to be 'great' writers? What's your definition of great?


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Dec 18, 2011)

"The great writers can choose the right words to ignite the imagination of the reader, or to crystallize a thought to perfection."

I expect that's his definition of great.


----------



## Rusty Nail (Dec 18, 2011)

Great writers?  There's probably another thread devoted to that.  For me, they're the ones that capture the imagination.  I once heard Neil Bisoondath read a passage from one of his novels and in a few short words I was transported to that place and that time.  Margaret Attwood is sometimes dystopian, but always gripping.  Guy Gavriel Kay is another of my favourites, as is Robert Jordan, RIP, although he is (was) a bit formulaic and repetitive.  In the latter case though, the depth and complexity of the story is what makes the writing great.  So I suppose I'll have to modify what I think is great writing by adding that category.


----------



## The Backward OX (Dec 19, 2011)

You lot, instead of interminably sitting around TALKING ABOUT writing, why not DO some writing? If all the energy consumed in this thread was put into a book, it’d be a block-buster.


----------



## candid petunia (Dec 19, 2011)

The Backward OX said:


> You lot, instead of interminably sitting around TALKING ABOUT writing, why not DO some writing? If all the energy consumed in this thread was put into a book, it’d be a block-buster.


I'd been wondering where you were, glad to see you. :topsy_turvy:

So Ox is suggesting we _all _put our heads together to write a book? That'd be a total success maybe. I'm interested in the results, though. :distant:


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Dec 19, 2011)

The Backward OX said:


> You lot, instead of interminably sitting around TALKING ABOUT writing, why not DO some writing? If all the energy consumed in this thread was put into a book, it’d be a block-buster.



Yeah! And we might as well all boycott this forum, since clearly it's nothing but a hindrance.  Who needs distractions like that? Clearly, writing is all about word count per hour, and if you can churn out pages like a printing press, you're bound for success.

Yup.


----------



## JosephB (Dec 19, 2011)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> Yeah! And we might as well all boycott this forum, since clearly it's nothing but a hindrance.  Who needs distractions like that? Clearly, writing is all about word count per hour, and if you can churn out pages like a printing press, you're bound for success.
> 
> Yup.



Heh. I belong to all kinds of forums that have to do with a variety of  things – from guitars to marketing. Only on writing sites do you find  this kind of endless back and forth on such vague subjects, loaded with  generalizations and opinion. Everything that needs to be said is usually  covered in the first few posts – yet they go on and on and on. Of  course, posting work for critique or addressing specific writing issues  is something else entirely. Otherwise, I'd like you to point out one  thing in this thread that has any practical application whatsoever --  something you could really use that would make a lick of difference as  far as your writing is concerned. Of course, it's your time -- so  whatever.


----------



## Baron (Dec 19, 2011)

JosephB said:


> Heh. I belong to all kinds of forums that have to do with a variety of  things – from guitars to marketing. Only on writing sites do you find  this kind of endless back and forth on such vague subjects, loaded with  generalizations and opinion. Everything that needs to be said is usually  covered in the first few posts – yet they go on and on and on. Of  course, posting work for critique or addressing specific writing issues  is something else entirely. Otherwise, I'd like you to point out one  thing in this thread that has any practical application whatsoever --  something you could really use that would make a lick of difference as  far as your writing is concerned. Of course, it's your time -- so  whatever.



Have you noticed what forum this thread is posted on - and the description of the forum?

*Yankee accent*  "Just sayin'."


----------



## JosephB (Dec 19, 2011)

You mean that it's supposed be "off topic?" Well, it's about writing, so that just means it's in the wrong place to begin with.

"Just sayin'."

BTW, your Yankee accent needs work.


----------



## felix (Dec 19, 2011)

Actually, the thread was originally intended to gauge people's literary education. 


Just sayin'.


----------



## JosephB (Dec 19, 2011)

You also asked this: "Can writing really be taught at all, or is it something that only you can teach yourself?"

So it was more than just asking people about their education. No?


----------



## felix (Dec 19, 2011)

It was intended as a finishing statement to start things off, I didn't intend for that to become the topic.

But after six pages, who cares? I think the topic's been settled anyway, again and...again.


----------



## caelum (Dec 19, 2011)

Even though you're basically repeating one of Joey's earlier posts, I bet he'll still find a way to twist an issue out of it.


----------



## JosephB (Dec 19, 2011)

I’ve looked at it from all angles, and I think he covered it. Thanks, buddy.


----------



## The Backward OX (Dec 19, 2011)

JosephB said:


> I belong to all kinds of forums that have to do with a variety of things – from guitars to marketing. *Only on writing sites *do you find this kind of endless back and forth on such vague subjects, loaded with generalizations and opinion.


Oh? If, under the heading marketing, you include the more low-brow term selling, then I must disagree. Any serious student of the art of salesmanship will know that all buyers are liars, which is simply an abbreviated (and poetic) way of saying the salesman never knows which way his prospect will jump. These variations in prospect behaviour are brought about by individual conditioning. And any thread on this topic, in any forum, will have every opinion under the sun posted on how to deal with these recalcitrant and muddle-headed buyers.


----------



## JosephB (Dec 19, 2011)

That has more to do with sales. I'm talking about the development and implementation of a promotional strategies.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Dec 20, 2011)

JosephB said:


> That has more to do with sales. I'm talking about the development and implementation of a promotional strategies.


That sounds like pure spin to me, what is the difference between "development and implementation of a promotional strategies" and getting the goods out and selling them? Apart from the scale of fee charged.


----------



## JosephB (Dec 20, 2011)

Olly Buckle said:


> That sounds like pure spin to me, what is the difference between "development and implementation of a promotional strategies" and getting the goods out and selling them? Apart from the scale of fee charged.



Promotional strategies have to do with identifying a target market and developing the appropriate promotion mix -- sales promotions, advertising etc. -- that can best influence that audience.

It all may sound like “pure spin” if you’re not in the industry and you don’t know anything about it. But those are the common terms people who work in marketing and advertising use -- on both the client and consulting side. There’s no benefit to referring to things in a oversimplified, folksy manner -- especially if it isn't accurate.

And believe it or not, people don’t charge more just to sound like they know what they’re talking about. Every industry has it's own terminology or jargon. Most often, it's used so that people who know about it can communicate more precisely -- not so they can bamboozle the ignorant.


----------



## InsanityStrickenWriter (Dec 20, 2011)

> And believe it or not, people don’t charge more just to sound like they know what they’re talking about. Every industry has it's own terminology or jargon. Most often, it's used so that people who know about it can communicate more precisely -- not so they can bamboozle the ignorant.


_

Fine_, I'll buy the bloody table. Gosh.


----------



## The Backward OX (Dec 20, 2011)

JosephB said:


> Promotional strategies have to do with identifying a target market and developing the appropriate promotion mix -- sales promotions, advertising etc. -- that can *best influence* *that audience.* *(OX) In other words, part them from their money.*


Given that it takes two to tango, your comment still fails to effectively deal with the observation that all buyers are liars, that the marketer/salesman/snake oil merchant never really knows which way the customer/buyer/prospect will jump.


----------



## JosephB (Dec 20, 2011)

I didn’t try to “deal” with it. That’s not part of the sales cycle I can really influence with what I do. I realize that buyers very often feign interest and drag sales people along for no good reason – unfortunately, I can’t do anything about that. I’ve been involved in projects that help qualify sales leads – but otherwise,  that’s the sales person's problem.


----------



## bazz cargo (Dec 21, 2011)

whew!
As I sit here dribbling into my soggy tissue, I wonder why I bother to try and gain enough of an education to enable myself to write something someone else would enjoy reading. My own schooling was sadly lacking in spag, math and most of anything useful, my shyness, my dyslexia and my lack of communication skills marked me down as too dumb to bother with. 

Since I have taken to rattling round this forum I have leaned much. Not enough yet. 

I would love to write, but all I can claim to do is entertain. I can admire the skills of others, and I have learned that to write, one must write and write and write.
Honest (but carefully written) critique is what has helped me, that and Collins book of grammar (I'm only part way through, it is not easy).

There are some brilliant writers on this forum. Not only do they write well, they are willing to help and encourage others. I feel like giving them a round of applause.

Can someone learn to write? Dunno, but I'm going to give it a shot.


----------

