# What is the impetus to a good storyline



## QDOS (Apr 6, 2012)

Hi,[/FONT] [FONT=&Verdana]I often hear this question asked - is the art of fiction writing down to a gifted talent, an outburst of passion, a life experience, or can imaginative constructions be engineered through a learning process. ](*,)
 
The greatest accolade to a writer’s skill and ability is in writing fiction that captures the imagination, challenges the expected perception, and changes a readers understanding of themselves and their environment. 
:champagne:
So what stimulates the thought processes to create such scenes and characterisations. I usually avoid answering by saying - where do you think imaginative thought comes from. A more candid view is these thought processes are moulded by life experience coupled with the books read and yes films viewed. As to mastering the reader’s attention, that can be a simple matter of timing and fortunate choice of subject matter.  [FONT=&Verdana]

  [/FONT] QDOS  :encouragement:


----------



## shadowwalker (Apr 6, 2012)

QDOS said:


> a gifted talent, an outburst of passion, a life experience, or can imaginative constructions be engineered through a learning process.



A sometimes unpopular opinion, but I do think that one has to have some talent or they cannot write anything of value (value meaning something someone other than family would want to read). And of course, one has to hone that talent and not just ride on its coattails.

Probably just as unpopular, I don't believe "passion" is enough. One can be passionate about any number of hobbies - that doesn't mean one is any good at them. It merely means they greatly enjoy doing it. And too often, with writers, losing that "passion" is blamed for not being able to write, when it is, in fact, the unwillingness to sweat a bit.

A life experience of some significance can be a catalyst; however, a good storyteller will find that almost any part of life contains enough fodder for a great story.

Can one learn to be a writer? Yes, one can learn the craft, and be very good technically. However, referring back to "talent", without that, their writing will never go beyond mediocre or possibly good. 

JMHO


----------



## JosephB (Apr 6, 2012)

shadowwalker said:


> However, referring back to "talent", without that, their writing will never go beyond mediocre or possibly good.



I’ve found that usually, the people who argue you don’t need talent are the ones who don’t have much of it.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Apr 6, 2012)

You don't NEED talent, but without it, you'll always be chasing the ideal, trying to imitate it instead of creating it.


----------



## Kyle R (Apr 6, 2012)

What _is_ "talent"?

How does one acquire it?


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Apr 6, 2012)

KyleColorado said:


> What _is_ "talent"?
> 
> How does one acquire it?



Talent is the amalgam of all the relevant intangibles a person has.  For example, if I have naturally good balance and a strong core, I'm going to be "talented" at gymnastics.  If I happen to have an innate understanding of character development and grammar, I'm going to be "talented" at writing.

Being talented doesn't mean you're instantly the best at something.  It just means you have a head start compared to the rest of the world.


----------



## shadowwalker (Apr 6, 2012)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> Being talented doesn't mean you're instantly the best at something.  It just means you have a head start compared to the rest of the world.



True. If one doesn't develop that talent, it might as well have never existed.


----------



## JosephB (Apr 6, 2012)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> You don't NEED talent, but without it, you'll always be chasing the ideal, trying to imitate it instead of creating it.



That is WHY you NEED it.


----------



## Terry D (Apr 6, 2012)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> Talent is the amalgam of all the relevant intangibles a person has.  For example, if I have naturally good balance and a strong core, I'm going to be "talented" at gymnastics.  If I happen to have an innate understanding of character development and grammar, I'm going to be "talented" at writing.
> 
> Being talented doesn't mean you're instantly the best at something.  It just means you have a head start compared to the rest of the world.



I don't mean to be argumentative here (I save that for the Debate forum :subdued, but I don't believe anyone has an innate understanding of character development or grammar.  Those are learned skills -- techniques -- and anyone sufficiently motivated can learn them.  I believe that the only innate 'talent' involved in writing is creativity.  You have to be wired a certain way to look at two unrelated concepts and see a connection between them which breeds a story.  Imagination can be developed, if it exists within a person, but it can not be taught.

To me, talent is that thing you can't explain.  It's just a part of you.


----------



## QDOS (Apr 6, 2012)

Hi, thanks for your views. [FONT=&Verdana]

My feeling is that talent alone, in being able to write in a fluent and dynamic way, is no assurance to being successful in fiction. Making the right sort of contacts and some good luck seem to carry as much weight in the scheme of things.[/FONT]    

QDOS


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Apr 6, 2012)

JosephB said:


> That is WHY you NEED it.



You can go far simply chasing an ideal.



Terry D said:


> I don't mean to be argumentative here (I save that for the Debate forum :subdued, but I don't believe anyone has an innate understanding of character development or grammar.  Those are learned skills -- techniques -- and anyone sufficiently motivated can learn them.



Let me put it this way.  I've taken absolutely no language and grammar classes beyond the bare essentials (that is, the required ones that everyone has to take), and I'm far and away better at written grammar than almost everyone I've ever met.  I don't think that's due to effort on my part, because I was a notoriously lazy student.  I think my brain is just wired to be better at grammar.


----------



## JosephB (Apr 6, 2012)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> Let me put it this way.  I've taken absolutely no language and grammar  classes beyond the bare essentials (that is, the required ones that  everyone has to take), and I'm far and away better at written grammar  than almost everyone I've ever met.  I don't think that's due to effort  on my part, because I was a notoriously lazy student.  I think my brain  is just wired to be better at grammar.



I haven't taken any additional classes either -- and you'd be hard pressed to find any grammatical errors in my writing. But my parents have good grammar -- and although it annoyed me at the time, they corrected us quite a bit. I'm sure I picked up a lot from reading as well. It's not something I was born with. Grammar is learned -- so you picked it up somewhere and it stuck with you.

Anyway, I’ve seen this conversation umpteen times. In the end, trying to  identify the ingredients and the measure of the things that make for  good writing is waste of time. Some amounts of talent and work go into  it -- and that can vary a great deal depending on the individual. More  of one can compensate for less of the other. In the end, the writing  speaks for itself – so what difference does it make?


----------



## Jon M (Apr 6, 2012)

I put talent on the same level as 'the muse', and 'magic', and 'writer's block', and 'the flying spaghetti monster' and any other silly psychological construct. And I think it is generally unwise to dwell on a concept such as talent, because it typically either leads a person to an inflated sense of self, or to a defeatist attitude, where the 'non-talented' person quits before he even starts.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Apr 6, 2012)

JosephB said:


> In the end, the writing speaks for itself – so what difference does it make?



Sometimes you don't like how the writing speaks, so you look for ways to improve its oration.


----------



## shadowwalker (Apr 6, 2012)

Jon M said:


> I put talent on the same level as 'the muse', and 'magic', and 'writer's block', and 'the flying spaghetti monster' and any other silly psychological construct. And I think it is generally unwise to dwell on a concept such as talent, because it typically either leads a person to an inflated sense of self, or to a defeatist attitude, where the 'non-talented' person quits before he even starts.



I would disagree with that whole-heartedly. Some people can tell great jokes; other people can try to tell the same one and never get it right. There is a talent factor in writing, just like everything else. It's that part of story-telling that cannot be taught. It just can't. There's no inflated sense of self about it - people are talented in various ways but not everyone has talent in everything or in the same things as others. I don't know why that's so hard to accept. But then again, I said it wasn't a popular opinion. Everyone thinks they can write the next Great American Novel, I guess.


----------



## JosephB (Apr 6, 2012)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> Sometimes you don't like how the writing speaks, so you look for ways to improve its oration.



People who want to improve will just work harder at it. I'm referring to the final outcome. When I read something great -- I'm not really concerned with any of this -- how much talent the author has or how he learned his grammar or what's innate or whatever. And I doubt many authors who have had any kind of success worry about it much either. That's what I mean when I say it doesn't make any difference.


----------



## Jon M (Apr 6, 2012)

shadowwalker said:


> Everyone thinks they can write the next Great American Novel, I guess.


Yes, heaven forbid people try for these things. Better, I suppose, to take comfort in the knowledge that you (general) are one of the great untalented ones, and never try. 

My attitude toward these matters is similar to what John Gardner said in his book, _On Becoming a Novelist_ (paraphrasing) ". . .and when it comes to art, insofar as matters of technique can be learned, the student only _catches on_."

And that _catching on_ has a whole lot to do with perceptive and quality self-study. It's figuring out your personal aesthetic -- what you like and dislike, what ideas resonate and so on.


----------



## shadowwalker (Apr 6, 2012)

Jon M said:


> Yes, heaven forbid people try for these things. Better, I suppose, to take comfort in the knowledge that you (general) are one of the great untalented ones, and never try.



I never said they shouldn't try - who knows? They _may _discover they do have the talent for it. But just as not everyone has a talent for singing, or playing an instrument, or playing football, or understanding science - not everyone has a talent for writing. And without that talent, they will either be failures or capable technicians at best. So then they move on to find that something in which they can excel.


----------



## Mutimir (Apr 6, 2012)

I have to suspect it is a combination of factors. What use is natural ability if you're not inspired to write?


----------



## Kyle R (Apr 7, 2012)

shadowwalker said:


> not everyone has a talent for writing. And without that talent, they will either be failures or capable technicians at best. So then they move on to find that something in which they can excel.



To me, talent is a word used to describe the competence of experienced individuals.

I believe talent can be earned. I don't consider talent to be something that only a DNA test can reveal whether you have it or not.

"Sorry! According to the lab results, you do not have the 'talented writer' genome."

"Darn!"

Humbug, I say! 

I believe a person can become a talented writer with enough practice and study. It make take years, but such is the case with most skill sets!


----------



## Fallow (Apr 7, 2012)

I don't think there's some magical, inborn talent that writers have.  I think that various qualities- a willingness to see multiple points of view, and active imagination, good reading ability, etc- all contribute to making a good writer.  Where those qualities come from beg the nature versus nurture debate, but I'd rather not get into that.  What I'll say is this; writing is a skill.  Some people may be predisposed to be better at it than others based on either their genetics or life experiences, but I think that practice is far more important than natural affinity.  Someone with a ton of inborn talent could easily be far worse than a horrible-born writer who practices a lot.  I used to be a terrible writer.  After years of practice, I've been told that, quote, "You write like an angel."  No one should think that writing is a gift that you either have or don't.


----------



## Fallow (Apr 7, 2012)

shadowwalker said:


> I never said they shouldn't try - who knows? They _may _discover they do have the talent for it. But just as not everyone has a talent for singing, or playing an instrument, or playing football, or understanding science - not everyone has a talent for writing. And without that talent, they will either be failures or capable technicians at best. So then they move on to find that something in which they can excel.



This is just wrong.  I'm sorry, it's just wrong.  Everyone I know who sings, or plays an instrument, or plays football, or understand science is good at what they do from years of practice.  Some people start out better at certain things, but the naturally skilled people can easily be overcome with determination on the part of the untalented.  I saw it happen all the time throughout school, and I've continued to see it outside of school, among my co-workers.


----------



## shadowwalker (Apr 7, 2012)

Fallow said:


> This is just wrong.  I'm sorry, it's just wrong.  Everyone I know who sings, or plays an instrument, or plays football, or understand science is good at what they do from years of practice.  Some people start out better at certain things, but the naturally skilled people can easily be overcome with determination on the part of the untalented.  I saw it happen all the time throughout school, and I've continued to see it outside of school, among my co-workers.



Sorry - but I've heard the untalented sing and no, there's no amount of practice that will give someone who's tone-deaf a magical voice. What you're talking about is people with some talent who practice and practice. The naturally skilled (ie talented) will only be overcome if they don't practice and ride on their laurels. And I agree - those without talent can learn to be skilled technicians. Never said they couldn't. There are many things in which I'm on the "skilled technician" level - singing being one of them. But I don't have the talent to be an opera singer or any kind of professional. It won't matter a bit how much I train - the voice just isn't there. But I'm okay with that because I know not everyone can be an opera singer. Not everyone can be a professional singer. Not everyone can be a writer. What's "just wrong" is claiming they can.


----------



## JosephB (Apr 7, 2012)

The thing is, most people will gravitate to something where they have some natural ability. Even if you can become really good at something by sheer hard work and practice, without any or little natural talent, most people aren’t going to put in the time and effort necessary to get there. It’s not laziness -- it’s just a question of return on the effort that would need to be expended -- especially if you are competing against people who have more natural ability.

Of course, people who are really good at something usually work hard at it. But I would contend that there is a component of natural ability -- or they likely wouldn’t pursue it in the first place. And there will always be people with lots of talent AND the drive to excel -- a hard combination to beat through sheer effort.


----------



## Kyle R (Apr 7, 2012)

shadowwalker said:
			
		

> Sorry - but I've heard the untalented sing and no, there's no amount of practice that will give someone who's tone-deaf a magical voice. It won't matter a bit how much I train - the voice just isn't there. But I'm okay with that because I know not everyone can be an opera singer. Not everyone can be a professional singer. Not everyone can be a writer.
> 
> those without talent can learn to be skilled technicians. Never said they couldn't.



I believe a "skilled technician" can be seen as "talented" by the end product of the writing, even if said person has no "natural ability" (if there is such a thing) to speak of.

Jennifer Egan is an example in my opinion. One of my favorite writers. Virtually every time she writes something people shower her with literary awards for it.

But she's not a talented "natural" writer. She is a result of extensive writing education. And her writing process involves, by her admission, dozens upon dozens of rewrites.

She writes, and then scribbles over it and changes it and rewrites it and tries, tries, tries again until finally she's created something she's happy with. That's, in my opinion, not the process of a naturally talented writer.. that's the process of hard work and perserverance.

But the end product is indistinguishable from that of a naturally gifted writer with a talented voice.



			
				Jennifer Egan said:
			
		

> ...my process involves writing very badly. My first drafts are filled with lurching, clichéd writing, outright flailing around. Writing that doesn’t have a good voice or any voice. But then there will be good moments.



and the end result:



			
				Jennifer Egan said:
			
		

> She had grown up. And so uncompromising was this adulthood, so unstinting its inventory of breasts and hips and gently indented waist, the expert flicking of her cigarette, that Ted experienced the change as instantaneous. A miracle. Her hair was not nearly as red as it had been. Her face was fragile and mischevious, pale enough to absorb hues from the world around her - purple, green, pink - like a face painted by Lucian Freud. She looked like a girl who a century ago would not have lived long, would have died in childbirth. A girl whose feathery bones did not quite heal.
> 
> And for an instant he would remember Naples: sitting with Sasha in her tiny room; the jolt of surprise and delight he'd felt when the sun finally dropped into the center of her window and was captured inside her circle of wire. Now he turned to her, grinning. Her hair and face were aflame with orange light. "See," Sasha muttered, eyeing the sun. "It's mine.”



Doesn't that look like a talented writer? Like an effortless voice that spilled out onto the page, barely able to contain itself? But the process of creation was likely the opposite. I picture her on her writing chair, dragging her prose through the mud and beating it with a stick, wrestling it to the ground until it finally begins to resemble something worth reading.

I might even go as far as considering _that_ to be a talent in itself; a talent anyone can have so long as they are willing to put in the effort.


----------



## JosephB (Apr 7, 2012)

And I’m betting there are people who could never achieve that end result, or anywhere near it, even if they rewrote it a gazillion times. Most of them just aren’t delusional -- and recognize at some point they’re never going to make it happen. So they quit and move on to something else -- knitting or building birdhouses or whatever. Of course, you could argue that they just didn’t TRY hard and long enough, I suppose.


----------



## Kyle R (Apr 7, 2012)

In his book _Outliers_, Malcom Gladwell proposes that it takes 10,000 hours of practice to acheive a mastery level of performance in something.

If you do the math that's, depending on how much time one puts in per day, several years (perhaps decades) of daily engagement.

I don't believe the number itself is set in stone, but I agree with the general viewpoint that it takes time, and practice, to get good at something.

I also believe self-study and/or being taught can accelerate the learning curve.

But for people who give up, concluding they may never make it, that's their choice of course. Whenever I get into that headspace, though, I remind myself by looking at the progress I've made and it encourages me to keep going.


----------



## JosephB (Apr 7, 2012)

I work in a field that is mostly about creative talent -- copywriters and designers, creative directors. I see people who work very, very hard -- because their livelihoods depend on it -- and even if they get the breaks, they just never rise above the level of mediocre. Some do OK because they’re good at other things related to the business -- but in the end, they’re held back by some lack of talent or whatever intangible it is that sparks ideas or makes things really look fantastic. I see this all the time -- so I don’t really buy this hard work can always overcome lack of natural talent stuff. It can get you somewhere -- but only so far.


----------



## Kyle R (Apr 7, 2012)

There was an American chess player in the 1800's by the name of Paul Morphy. He became famous when he took the chess world by storm for two years, travelling to different countries and defeating all the top players of the time. He was so far ahead of his rivals that he began giving himself handicaps (starting the games with one less piece) and often he still won. Bored with his dominance, he moved to studying law, and the chess world has been marvelling at his games ever since.

His secret? Some know, some don't: he had an eidetic (photographic) memory. He could visualize countless game continuations at a glance, because his brain operated with a memory that he could call upon at will. As a result he saw all possibilities with little effort, while his opponents grimaced and toiled with their conventional, normal thinking. He'd of course then win in spectacular, almost superhuman fashion.

I'd argue that Morphy's special brain puts him into the realm of talented.

But then there was a man named Mikhail Botvinnik. An educated scholar, whose primary interests were engineering and computers, Botvinnik approached chess by developing his own algorithms to mimic how he believed the "talented" chess players thought. He broke down things into step by step processes, and he approached the game like a person trying to arrange a jigsaw puzzle. He believed the best solutions were there as long as a person looked (and tried) hard enough to find them. He ended up being a three time world champion from his efforts, despite the obvious superior talent of his rivals. 

I believe Botvinnik is a great example of hard work and determination overcoming a lack of "natural ability".

Are there talented writers (and talented people in other fields)? I definately agree there are. But, personally, I don't believe talent is required to succeed. Your examples are compelling... perhaps some sort of talent _is_ required, and without it a "normal" person can only reach so far before they hit a ceiling.

I _want_ to believe otherwise. Perhaps, I _choose_ to believe otherwise.. Because what other option is there? To accept that talent is a pre-requisite for success, and to accept that one may not have it, would be, to me, akin to saying "I might as well give up now, since there's no point in trying."

Nay, I say! Botvinnik is a great literally because he _wasn't _great, but he perservered until he had broken into the world of the talented and stomped around and ate their potato chips and drank their wine.

I want to crash their party, too.


----------



## JosephB (Apr 7, 2012)

I don’t think your chess example is very good. I don’t know much about chess, but it does seem like something that can be broken down to algorithms or some kind of underlying formula. Isn’t there a computer that can beat chess champions --- Deep Blue or something? It works as far as illustrating that your guy wasn’t willing to accept his limitations, but I don’t think the same thing applies to creative endeavors.

Besides -- what’s the problem with acknowledging that you have natural talent? I’ve read your work -- and it seems like you have a knack for stringing words together and telling a story. Some people just don’t -- you can tell it when you’re a few sentences in -- that something’s missing. So you don’t have to convince yourself or “believe” it’s about hard work alone. I strongly suspect you know that already on some level -- or you wouldn’t be putting the effort into it. So your line of thinking sounds more like a lack of confidence than anything else. It's like you've created this "hard work" safety blanket to protect yourself from the idea you might not have any talent -- which doesn't appear to be true. I'm not saying you shouldn't keep up the hard work -- but why not just acknowledge that the effort is an essential ingredient of the mix -- along with natural ability?

I think I have a good amount of natural talent, or I wouldn’t be writing. And I’m not afraid to say it. Maybe why I don’t feel it’s necessary to deny it’s needed. There are other things I’m good at and enjoy -- so I’d just do something else if I thought I didn’t have what it takes. My work provides a good creative outlet – and that’s mostly what it’s about for me anyway. At this point in my life, writing success isn’t really the hill I want to die on -- so it remains to be seen whether I’ll make the effort required to succeed.


----------



## Kyle R (Apr 7, 2012)

I appreciate the compliment. Though, the reason I'm so adament is I don't agree with the message of "If a writer doesn't have natural talent, no amount of effort will enable that writer to succeed."

Some may have natural talent with writing, but I think it's unfair to propose that those who lack it are wasting their time. And I'm not attacking you personally, but the general idea itself of "talented" versus "talentless". I consider it a perspective that could be very discouraging to anyone who wishes to improve as a writer, leading them to ask, "Do I have talent? I'd like to be a writer, but first, how do I figure out if I have talent, so I can know whether or not to pursue my goals?"

I envision a classroom scenario where the instructor steps to the lecturn and says, "Out of one hundred people, only five are statistically labelled as having an elusive trait called "talent." Only five. There are twenty students seated before me. That means only one of you has talent. That one person will succeed with his or her future endeavors in fiction. The rest of you are wasting both your time, and money. But I will teach you, regardless, as it is my job. And perhaps those of you who lack talent will take the lessons learned from this class and apply them to something more useful to you in life."

What a bummer! I'd walk out of that class, simply because I'd disagree with the professor's view on talent. If an instructor is good, in my opinion, he or she can give students the skills needed to succeed, whether or not they have something called talent.

Talent, if it exists, may help a person excel in a fashion that is difficult for others to duplicate.

But a lack of "talent" should not be seen as a line in the sand which cannot be crossed, in my opinion. "If you don't have talent, you can only make it _this_ far." Says who?


----------



## JosephB (Apr 7, 2012)

KyleColorado said:


> And I'm not attacking you personally, but the general idea itself of "talented" versus "talentless".



It's not always a case of talented vs. talentless. I think it's more about some people having more talent than others.



KyleColorado said:


> I consider it a perspective that could be very discouraging to anyone who wishes to improve as a writer, leading them to ask, "Do I have talent? I'd like to be a writer, but first, how do I figure out if I have talent, so I can know whether or not to pursue my goals?"



If someone can't recognize whether or not he has any talent, that's not my problem. And why would anyone ask that FIRST -- before he started writing? That doesn't make a lot of sense. It becomes evident at some point after you've put some time into it. But it could be after someone has written his first story. Who knows? Otherwise, I guess it's better for some people to think it isn't really needed. Like they say -- whatever you have to believe.


----------



## shadowwalker (Apr 7, 2012)

I've never understood why there's such resistance to the idea of talent. Human makeup is not democratic, where everyone has a right to the same attributes as everyone else. Creativity is not an egalitarian concept. Not everyone can be a writer; not everyone can be a good writer; very few can be great writers. Knowing the technical aspects of writing will not make one a good writer. You have to be a good storyteller as well, and that takes talent.


----------



## QDOS (Apr 8, 2012)

Hi, thanks again for your views. [FONT=&Verdana]

Reviewing the replies to my question, talent is implied as a major factor or not depending on your viewpoint. [/FONT]:icon_cyclops_ani:
[FONT=&Verdana]
Having just completed my first major hike of the year, I’d like to say that maybe I have a talent for it, I’m a bipedal built for walking, running. However, that is not the whole picture, a few other factor are needed, commitment, a level of determination, stamina. Then to get good at it you need discipline and practice to tone the muscles. [/FONT]
:sylvestertweety:

I view writing skills in a similar way as developing a compatible set of attributes. If you have read the replies to this topic and comprehended half of what’s been said, then you’re well endowed with the basic skill set. So all said and done for those just about to venture into the idiosyncrasy of fiction writing get practicing and developing.  
[FONT=&Verdana]
Thanks All

QDOS[/FONT]:read:


----------



## GonneLights (Apr 8, 2012)

Milk.


----------



## shadowwalker (Apr 8, 2012)

QDOS said:


> Having just completed my first major hike of the year, I’d like to say that maybe I have a talent for it, I’m a bipedal built for walking, running. However, that is not the whole picture, a few other factor are needed, commitment, a level of determination, stamina. Then to get good at it you need discipline and practice to tone the muscles.
> 
> QDOS



Only if you consider something that is a natural ability for nearly every human being (ie, ability to walk) a talent. That's like saying the ability to grasp something with your fingers is a talent.


----------



## GonneLights (Apr 8, 2012)

shadowwalker said:


> Only if you consider something that is a natural ability for nearly every human being (ie, ability to walk) a talent. That's like saying the ability to grasp something with your fingers is a talent.



And why not? If talent is something innate, then alright, while it's fairly common, being able to grasp something with your fingers is indeed a talent. The dyspraxics aren't very innately talented in that area, right? I'm diabetic, thus, I can't hike without sitting down every now and again for a little snack to stop my sugars from going low. As such, I'm not a very talented hiker. I mean, you could get into determination and lah-de-dah, but that's sort of to miss the point, though hiking is different from walking. But, there could be measurable analogue between deficiency of... What would it be? Normal health? And talent. I mean, the dyslexics find it hard to spell, and thus won't be talented at spelling. 

I'd put to the argument that there are so many facets to writing, that talent may come in many areas, and not just be a talent for 'writing', but for, say, character development - that comes from observational powers and empathy, which is an innate thing; or, for constructing brilliant plot lines, that comes from imagination and ingenuity, which is innate, or environmental. Etc. So, it's possible that a talented writer is talented in just a few facets and skilled in all, and I expect few are talented in all and skilled in all.


----------



## shadowwalker (Apr 8, 2012)

KarKingJack said:


> And why not? If talent is something innate, then alright, while it's fairly common, being able to grasp something with your fingers is indeed a talent.



Okay. So everyone is talented in writing. Everyone can sit down and write a novel, because it's the same innate thing as being able to pick up a pen. Just monkeys and typewriters... :icon_shaking:


----------



## GonneLights (Apr 8, 2012)

shadowwalker said:


> Okay. So everyone is talented in writing. Everyone can sit down and write a novel, because it's the same innate thing as being able to pick up a pen. Just monkeys and typewriters... :icon_shaking:



That's putting words in my mouth


----------



## Kevin (Apr 8, 2012)

shadowwalker said:


> Okay. So everyone is talented in writing. Everyone can sit down and write a novel, ....Just monkeys and typewriters... :icon_shaking:


 Yep. Except for the ones that absolutely can't.


----------



## shadowwalker (Apr 8, 2012)

KarKingJack said:


> That's putting words in my mouth



Well, you understand my skepticism.  By saying that no talent is needed, or that talent doesn't exist other than the same natural abilities that everyone has, people are, in fact, saying that anyone who can learn the fundamentals of grammar and spelling can write a book, and that that book will be as good as anyone else's if they just practice enough. So the only reason some people get published and others don't, and why some people are bestsellers and others aren't, and why some people make scads of money and others don't, is because they practiced harder than others? Then why do we have debates about Stephenie Meyer or Dan Brown? Did they become bestsellers because they knew the technical skills so well - or because their _talent _for storytelling was great enough to overcome those deficiencies?

I just cannot fathom why people find this concept of talent so difficult to swallow, as though there were some kind of elitism involved. Yes, everyone is born with some talent. But not everyone is born with a talent for writing, and they will never be more than capable writers. What is so horrible about that?


----------



## Kyle R (Apr 8, 2012)

> By saying that no talent is needed, or that talent doesn't exist other than the same natural abilities that everyone has, people are, in fact, saying that anyone who can learn the fundamentals of grammar and spelling can write a book, and that that book will be as good as anyone else's if they just practice enough.



For me the argument is that a normal ("untalented") person has the _capacity to learn _to write a good book. The extent of learning required depends on the person.



			
				shadowwalker said:
			
		

> So the only reason some people get published and others don't, and why some people are bestsellers and others aren't, and why some people make scads of money and others don't, is because they practiced harder than others?



Not the only reason, but for some people it may be the main reason. Another likely factor, in my opinion, is how much the person studied and/or was taught.



			
				shadowwalker said:
			
		

> Then why do we have debates about Stephenie Meyer or Dan Brown? Did they become bestsellers because they knew the technical skills so well - or because their _talent _for storytelling was great enough to overcome those deficiencies?



I don't argue that the talent of Stephanie Meyer or Dan Brown is nonexistant. I argue that you don't need to be a Stephanie Meyer or a Dan Brown in order to be a good writer.



			
				shadowwalker said:
			
		

> not everyone is born with a talent for writing



I believe _nobody is born with a talent for writing_. 

I believe a combination of nature and nurture can lead to a child growing up with strong cognitive functioning, but as for learning to write and tell stories, that is the result of experience and study.

Just as Coco the gorilla was not born with a talent for sign language. She was taught it and she learned through practice and experience.

I don't argue that talented writers are nonexistant, but I do argue that one can _become_ a talented (or at least, successful) writer with enough determination and constructive efforts.



			
				shadowwalker said:
			
		

> they will never be more than capable writers.



I respect your right to have this opinion, but I firmly disagree.


----------



## shadowwalker (Apr 8, 2012)

KyleColorado said:


> Just as Coco the gorilla was not born with a talent for sign language. She was taught it and she learned through practice and experience.



And so we could expect that with enough practice and experience Coco could tell a story worthy of publishing (after being transcribed, of course. Or shall we teach her to write as well)?


----------



## Kyle R (Apr 8, 2012)

I'm not sure if Coco has the cognitive ability to learn to construct a story...

But, I believe the average person does. That's what I'm saying. And with practice, study and/or instruction, the average person can learn the skills to building a good story.

I just don't accept the notion that only the "gifted" or the "blessed by God" can be writers, while the rest of us should just give up.


----------



## GonneLights (Apr 8, 2012)

shadowwalker said:


> Well, you understand my skepticism.  By saying that no talent is needed, or that talent doesn't exist other than the same natural abilities that everyone has, people are, in fact, saying that anyone who can learn the fundamentals of grammar and spelling can write a book, and that that book will be as good as anyone else's if they just practice enough. So the only reason some people get published and others don't, and why some people are bestsellers and others aren't, and why some people make scads of money and others don't, is because they practiced harder than others? Then why do we have debates about Stephenie Meyer or Dan Brown? Did they become bestsellers because they knew the technical skills so well - or because their _talent _for storytelling was great enough to overcome those deficiencies?
> 
> I just cannot fathom why people find this concept of talent so difficult to swallow, as though there were some kind of elitism involved. Yes, everyone is born with some talent. But not everyone is born with a talent for writing, and they will never be more than capable writers. What is so horrible about that?



Aaah, but I'm not part of that argument. I was just saying hiking and picking up stuff is, actually, a talent. My second position wasn't related to that - I agree with you, but I'm saying _writing _isn't a talent, but a series of talents. Maybe someone has a real talent for character development, but no talent for description. You could break writing down into hundreds of different skills, any number of which a person could have innate talent for, or lust for, and that'll define their particular branch of writing. 

Still, I think theres a lot more to writing being good than merely being good at it. I mean... You've got influences that come in, angles, approaches, originality or therein lack of, ethos, philosophy. I think a good writer is defined more by what they have to say than how they say it. Talent doesn't even come into it - and I agree that talent has to exist. Maybe not in such an austere manner, but there certainly is innate talent. I knew a guy who never touched an instrument before in his life, picked up a clarinet and played a brilliant free jazz solo, hahaha. _Couldn't like some people, huh? _But he had something in him, obviously. And yeah, I agree that the reaction is unnecessarily defensive - as if you're implying THEY'RE lacking the talent. I'd just opt to disagree it's the impetus to a good story line - if you look at my answer, my opinion is that it's milk, hahahah.


----------



## shadowwalker (Apr 8, 2012)

KyleColorado said:


> I just don't accept the notion that only the "gifted" or the "blessed by God" can be writers, while the rest of us should just give up.





KarKingJack said:


> Aaah, but I'm not part of that argument. I was just saying hiking and picking up stuff is, actually, a talent. My second position wasn't related to that - I agree with you, but I'm saying _writing _isn't a talent, but a series of talents. Maybe someone has a real talent for character development, but no talent for description. You could break writing down into hundreds of different skills, any number of which a person could have innate talent for, or lust for, and that'll define their particular branch of writing.



KKJ - yes, I did misread your comment a bit. I would agree that it's probably not "writing" where the talent lies, but in various parts of writing - any/all of which make the story better than someone without those talents.



KarKingJack said:


> ... And yeah, I agree that the reaction is unnecessarily defensive - as if you're implying THEY'RE lacking the talent.



Yes - see KC's response quoted - not to pick on that one in particular; it was just 'closest' and others have stated/implied the same. And KC - where did I say having a talent was being "gifted" or "blessed by God"? Rather an extreme extrapolation there. And nowhere did I imply that anyone here was without talent and should just give up. How could I possibly say that? In fact, I said just the opposite - that people _should _try, that that is how they would discover any talent they may have.


----------



## Kyle R (Apr 8, 2012)

Okay. Well, I don't want to mischaracterize you, so if that wasn't your intention, then it was me misunderstanding your position. Sorry for that.

I just get very defensive when I hear (or think I hear ) people saying "You can't do it!", not just to me, but to anyone.

I want to say "Yes you can! Don't let anyone tell you otherwise!"

Sometimes I feel like the talent factor gets thrown in people's faces as a deterrent. I do believe there are talented writers. And of course they will definately excel. But I also think those who really try hard can see very positive results, as long as they stick with it and get some help along the way, if needed.

Cheers


----------



## GonneLights (Apr 9, 2012)

I think where most of the argument lies is probably a matter of approach; it's like the old argument about fate. One man says fate was kind to him, and the other man says he worked hard for everything he has. The latter man approaches it from the perspective that if fate exists, it comes first and negates his hard work, whereas the former man accepts that fate is an overriding system that doesn't impede his human endeavours. Effectively, who has talent and who doesn't is considered only after the fact - you have a talented writer, not a talented to-be writer.


----------



## QDOS (Apr 9, 2012)

[FONT=&Verdana]Hi all, 

 [/FONT] Having visited several writing forms, I have read what I consider some brilliant storylines that still await a publisher’s acceptance. Retrospectively I have read a fair number of publicised books, which for me personally, I wondered how they made it through the editing process. Storylines dull, disjointed, dysfunctional and full of chronological errors.  :confusion:
[FONT=&Verdana]
Sentence construction, word usage, grammar, punctuation – these are skills, which you learn and can improve on with practice. As to the choice of storyline, the plot, inventiveness of characters and scene development; are these dependants of innate qualities or derived from personal experience. [/FONT]:joyous:
[FONT=&Verdana]
The way our brains are wired and the development of vocal chords enabled us with an innate ability. However, is telling a story, to write it down, a natural ability or are they skills acquired through a process of learning and development. [/FONT]:suspicion:
[FONT=&Verdana]
I guess for me a good storyline evolves within the complexity of its own cognitive existence. My part in this process is simple, I write it down – _in the best and most interesting way I can_. [/FONT] [FONT=&Verdana]

In this respect, a verse written by Kipling is my most valuable ally: [/FONT]:read:
_I keep six honest serving men_
_(They taught me all I know);_
_Their names are What and Why and When _ _[FONT=&Verdana]
And How and Where and Who.[/FONT]_ 

QDOS 8)


----------

