# Revision woes



## Epic (May 29, 2010)

I feel entirely in over my head.

Recently, I finished my first novel-length piece. I was very excited. As most advise, I put it away for a few months before I sat down to edit/revise. Well, after going through it with a red pen, re-reading, and then writing an synopsis of what happened in the novel (a useful way to spot holes and get ideas during the revision process, I think), I noticed a lot of things that I think I need to change, to broaden the story.

That's all well and good. I don't mind rewriting things to make the story better; my woes aren't about laziness, or having no love for the process. What's troubling me is figuring how to structure all said changes. When I wrote the book it was fairly free; there was no outlining, I just let the characters aim me. Now, I feel the need to move things around--this chapter goes here, that one here, I should move that paragraph to that chapter, should I put a chapter above the introduction chapter?--and all this re-planning is giving me a headache.

My gut reaction is to say, "Eff this outlining stuff! I'll just re-write it from scratch!" But I'm afraid of that decision. There's also that voice in my head that wants to put it aside and start a new project, but that scares me too. 

Like I said, this is my first go at this. Has anyone had similar experiences, or maybe some words of advice?


----------



## garza (May 29, 2010)

If what you wrote didn't turn out the way you thought it would while you were writing it, you're in good company. That happens to everyone in all sorts of writing. 

Having served as an editor and writer for a number of years I can tell you that you will always be your own worst enemy in one of two ways. Either you will will look back at what you have written and see only its weaknesses, or you will read it over when you've finished writing and refuse to believe that any single word in in should be changed. One reaction is as bad as the other. Both can be destructive.

Before you start major revisions get a second opinion from someone you  trust. You may need to let it rest a bit longer, as well, then go over it again.


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (May 29, 2010)

Plenty of people write new drafts from scratch.  Sometimes you just have to.  Starting a new project and coming back to this later is also an option, but if you've already let this one marinate for a few months, it probably won't help much.


----------



## The Backward OX (May 29, 2010)

Ilasir Maroa said:


> Plenty of people write new drafts from scratch.


Actually, I think we all do.


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (May 29, 2010)

A new draft and a first draft are not the same.


----------



## TWErvin2 (May 29, 2010)

*Epic*,

Consider (or keep in mind that) going at it with the notion that your first revision (or second draft) won't be the final one. Fix and iron out as much as you can. Then go at it a third time. It will be in much better shape, and the third pass will be easier.

One thing to also consider is that every day you spend time at it, you become a more experienced writer. But, if you feel that the current project is hopeless, there is nothing wrong with moving on to a new one, taking what you've learned to that new effort.

Good luck!

Terry


----------



## garza (May 30, 2010)

I don't recall ever writing a new draft of anything from scratch, certainly nothing of book length. I have read, or tried to read, books that should have been rewritten from scratch, preferably by a different writer. 

So much of my writing has been for periodicals with fixed deadlines that I developed an 'edit on the fly' mentality early on, so most of my rewriting has been reworking sentences written in the past five minutes. Setting longer works aside for a few weeks, then going through for a final edit has always fixed everything to make the publisher's editor happy. 

Ghost books can be a pain in the rumpus because the subject and the subject's lawyer and wife and girlfriend and dog all have to approve. But the money's good, so it's worth it. 

If a work, on review, appears to need a new start from scratch, then the suggestion that the writer should move on to another project is a good suggestion.


----------



## Sam (May 30, 2010)

I've written my first novel no fewer than three times. I started the very first version in 1999 and finished it a year later. Then, halfway through my second one, I decided I wanted to rewrite the first part of the first one. That took about five months (my first novel was separated into two "books"; the first took place two years before the second). Then, a couple of years after I'd finished the second and third ones, I decided to rewrite the entire first part. That took another year. Last year, having felt that the rewrite was not up to par, I rewrote it again. This is, and will be, the final version. 

I didn't do this because the task of editing seemed horrible to me, or because I was lazy. I figured that it would be easier to rewrite a novel from scratch, bringing in new ideas and a new mindset, rather than spending God knows how long editing and tweaking the other one. So I don't think you're alone there. My first novels were woeful in terms of writing. My advice to you would be, if your novel is good, get out the red pen. If you feel editing will be a waste of time, write it again. It's more practice for you.


----------



## garza (May 30, 2010)

Does fiction really take so long to write? I would think it would go rather quickly since you are creating the 'facts' of the story yourself and do not need to spend time chasing down people to interview or digging through archives. 

My present personal project is a political history of Belize in the 1950's and while I'm paying a UB student to research the paper trail, it's taking a long time to get everything together. All the people I needed to interview are either dead, moved out of the country, or so old they tend to wanter off answering questions. If I could just make it up the job would be a lot easier. 

But never having written any long fiction, I suppose I'm in for a shock if I ever try.


----------



## Heid (Jun 2, 2010)

In my (exceptionally limited) experience when it comes to writing long pieces of fiction you'd be surprised just how much research and prodding 'n' poking one may need to do. For example: in a current project I've just started brainstorming I'm having to research the effects/treatment/prognosis etc. of pancreatic cancer. Of course, Googling this is a doddle when searching for hard facts but when it comes to emotional experience I feel some deeper snooping is required. There are also a number of other things I will be writing about that I have no experience of whatsoever and this will involve chasing people down to ask questions.

Not to mention that if you have a full-time job, as I do, and you are mild-mannered Blue Collar worker by day and Novelist Extraordinaire by night then time constraints can make writing fiction (or anything) a slower process. But that's just how I've seen it...so far


----------



## moderan (Jun 2, 2010)

garza said:


> Does fiction really take so long to write? I would think it would go rather quickly since you are creating the 'facts' of the story yourself and do not need to spend time chasing down people to interview or digging through archives.
> 
> My present personal project is a political history of Belize in the 1950's and while I'm paying a UB student to research the paper trail, it's taking a long time to get everything together. All the people I needed to interview are either dead, moved out of the country, or so old they tend to wanter off answering questions. If I could just make it up the job would be a lot easier.
> 
> But never having written any long fiction, I suppose I'm in for a shock if I ever try.



Often you're not creating the facts but creating the body of the narrative from previously-existing facts. This is especially true of topical fictions and of science fiction. In the second case, research (at least for me) is a much more protracted affair than actually writing the piece. Putting the pieces of the research together to make the story is also often a longterm romance.


----------



## Kat (Jun 2, 2010)

I'm sure that there is an easier way to do this but I separated each chapter into it's own file. It made it easier to re-arrange things later. I have cut and changed so much of my novel that it is not even remotely the same. I'm on my fourth draft I think. I am ready to just re-write the whole thing too. Sorry I don't have much practical advice but I'll suffer with you.


----------



## Red_Venus (Jun 2, 2010)

From my experience with my own novel, I can completely relate to your issues, Epic. I noticed that, on my second time through with the editing, my story would flow better if I moved certain events to a previous chapter and certain scenes to another. I scuttled things around, chopped and scuttled some more. 

Then I decided to do something really wierd that worked for me, but may not in your instance, as I'm not sure that this advice is "writing formula". I began looking at each chapter as a smaller story of the greater whole. I did what movie directors do. I "shot it in scenes" so to speak, taking the more problematic chapters and reworking them, and then fitting the easier chapters around those. Then I re-typed the entire novel. It was easier than starting all over, because each chapter was finished, I just had to sew them all together. I hope that makes some kind of weird, convoluted sense to you? At any rate, it worked for me. And it wasn't as overwhelming as starting in chpater one and re-writing the entire novel just because some sections of my plot didn't broaden or explain as much of the story as I wanted.

For what it's worth...


----------



## Sam (Jun 2, 2010)

garza said:


> Does fiction really take so long to write? I would think it would go rather quickly since you are creating the 'facts' of the story yourself and do not need to spend time chasing down people to interview or digging through archives.



Yes. In my opinion, fiction is harder to write than non-fiction. I've done a college dissertation on Napoleon which came to fifteen thousand words. Once I had the main body worked out, my research done, and knew my conclusion, writing it took little over a day. Fiction novels, however, are a different beast. Even the most-outlined novel will hit a snag midway through, a plot hole, or will just peter out. You also need to remember that fiction-writing is a lot different than non-fiction. Non-fiction novels are predominantly telling and invariably use passive voice. Good fiction relies on a mixture of telling/showing and passive/active. It relies on stronger verbs, tighter sentences, use of proper pacing, tension, characterisation, plot-lines, points of view, conflict, resolution, and a plethora of other things that combine to make a really good story. 

With non-fiction, barring research, everything has already been done for you.


----------



## C.M.C. (Jun 2, 2010)

Sam W said:


> Even the most-outlined novel will hit a snag midway through, a plot hole, or will just peter out.



Not if you're doing it right.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 2, 2010)

That's what you think.  Muaaahahaaaaaaaaaaa


----------



## Sam (Jun 2, 2010)

C.M.C. said:


> Not if you're doing it right.


 
How many novels have you written?


----------



## Sam (Jun 2, 2010)

C.M.C. said:


> Not if you're doing it right.



Sorry, let me elaborate on this further still. Every author who ever lived, professional or otherwise, reached a point in their career where their quality of work diminished or they questioned themselves. It's not a case of doing it "right", because there is no right or wrong way to write a novel. 

I find your above comment to be conceited, and for that reason I've asked how many novels you've written.


----------



## caelum (Jun 3, 2010)

Epic, if your plot is essentially there, I can imagine some topical fixes and shit in the editing, but are the loopholes really so large and irreparable that your story is broken?  I think you should be able to tweak it to perfection, though of course I've never read your novel.  If your main character changes sex in the rewrite, that may or may not be a significant edit.

I don't buy for a minute that fiction takes a long time to write.  If you look at quite a few career novelists, they pound off a couple, or more, a year.  Your first one or two might take a while—learning and all that—but if you've got the magic touch, you should be able to groove out the stories.  It's only four-hundred pages-ish.  Say you average five pages a day.  That's going to add up fast.


----------



## Kat (Jun 3, 2010)

I don't know about everyone else but for me the writing is the easy part. It's the editing that takes forever.


----------



## C.M.C. (Jun 3, 2010)

Sam W said:


> Sorry, let me elaborate on this further still. Every author who ever lived, professional or otherwise, reached a point in their career where their quality of work diminished or they questioned themselves. It's not a case of doing it "right", because there is no right or wrong way to write a novel.
> 
> I find your above comment to be conceited, and for that reason I've asked how many novels you've written.



It's not about how many novels I may or may not have written.  Your original statement said, and I quote, "Even the most-outlined novel will hit a snag midway through, a plot  hole, or will just peter out."  That simply isn't true.  Whether I've written only one novel, or have fifty in the trunk, I've written one that didn't have a plot hole, a snag, or fizzled out, so you are unequivocally wrong.  Maybe you have trouble getting all the way through a book, but plenty of authors are able to write without the threat of the whole thing falling apart.  

And that's not to mention the absurdity of one of the "most-outlined" books having a plot hole in it.  I would say that if you can't see the giant plot hole while you're outlining, you don't really know what a plot is.  That's one of the fundamental reasons why outlines exist; to prevent plot holes from sinking a manuscript.


----------



## Sam (Jun 3, 2010)

C.M.C. said:


> It's not about how many novels I may or may not have written.  Your original statement said, and I quote, "Even the most-outlined novel will hit a snag midway through, a plot  hole, or will just peter out."  That simply isn't true.  Whether I've written only one novel, or have fifty in the trunk, I've written one that didn't have a plot hole, a snag, or fizzled out, so you are unequivocally wrong.  Maybe you have trouble getting all the way through a book, but plenty of authors are able to write without the threat of the whole thing falling apart.



I was making a general statement and not one directly related to me. I don't have any problems writing novels, as evidenced by the fact that I'm working on my eighth as I type this. My point was: A lot of people start novels, write a few chapters, and hit their first major blockade. It may be lack of idea for where the story's going, lack of discipline to get through the tough parts, or they didn't realise writing novels required such a commitment. Notice I said "a lot", not "all". Of course there are plenty of authors who can write a novel without it falling apart. I've done it, but there were times when I had to rewrite whole chapters to fix a problem. It happens. 



> And that's not to mention the absurdity of one of the "most-outlined" books having a plot hole in it.  I would say that if you can't see the giant plot hole while you're outlining, you don't really know what a plot is.  That's one of the fundamental reasons why outlines exist; to prevent plot holes from sinking a manuscript.


I don't outline. Never have, never will. All of my novels stand on their own, with only the need for minor editing once finished.


----------



## C.M.C. (Jun 3, 2010)

Reading comprehension test:

"Even the most-outlined novel will..."

That gives more than the faint impression that you're referring to all novels.  It is a declarative statement dictating that every novel written will go through one of those problems.  That's why I said you were wrong, because you are wrong.


----------



## garza (Jun 3, 2010)

Sam W - I just saw a post of yours that I had overlooked. You commented on my question about the time it takes to write fiction as opposed to non-fiction. 

I've never written a 'non-fiction novel'. The only one I've ever read is Truman Capote's 'In Cold Blood', and I don't recall that the passive voice was dominant.

One of the points I alway stress in workshops and seminars I lead is the importance of working mostly in the active voice. This will lead automatically to your requirement for 'stronger verbs, tighter sentences'. The active voice is more concise, the passive voice wordier. The passive voice is useful, but must be used with care.

If a single, short, paper on Napoleon is your one foray into non-fiction, then you have more to learn about that genre than I have to learn about fiction. You talk as though I've never made any study of fiction. I have. I've never written much fiction, and never any book-length fiction, but I've read a lot of fiction from a very early age and I've read a lot about fiction over the past ten years or so. 

Your statement that 'With non-fiction, barring research, everything has already been done for you' is ludicrous. You brush off research too lightly. Most of my research has been in the field. To prepare one paper on rural poverty - and not 15 thousand but over 30 thousand words - demanded spending day after day, night after night, living with, talking with, listening to, and working beside rural farm families over an eight month period. 

Work already done for me? Bull hockey. You can't go to a library and find all the material you need. You can find the reports and papers that others have prepared before you, but they can't tell you how it is now, today, in that village, in that part of the country, with those families. 

Of course there are plot lines in non-fiction. You have to dig them out as you study the lives of the people you are writing about. My book on 1950's politics has a complex plot with many characters whose points of view have to be considered. How did Phillip Goldson see the independence movement differently from George Price? I have spent hours interviewing George Price, the nation's first Prime Minister, but Phillip Goldson died before I could talk with him. I've had to rely on his writings and on interviews with people who were close to him. Other than having one university student looking up what is available in the national archives, I've had to dig everything out for myself.

Conflict? I've been in the midst of shooting wars on three continents trying to ferret out the root causes of rebellions and insurgencies and violent civil unrest. You brush off research as if I can Google up everything, or spend a pleasant afternoon in the library. 

You do not know what you are talking about.

Good writing is good writing. I was taught that as a 14-year-old stringer for the local newspaper. I'm a bit past having to be lectured to about the basics, thank you, though every day I continue to study the way words work together to create the effect we want, whether in a history of drip irrigation or the write-up of an interview with a rebel leader in the Salvadoran bush or a report on the rapid demise in the last century of the traditional Khmer culture.

I've made my way with words for 55 years and I've never had to look for a day job, so I believe I know a bit about what I'm talking about. Please don't lecture me as though I were a beginner.


----------



## Sam (Jun 4, 2010)

garza said:


> I've made my way with words for 55 years and I've never had to look for a day job, so I believe I know a bit about what I'm talking about. Please don't lecture me as though I were a beginner.



Mr Garza, I never lectured you, though it seems you have an uncanny habit of jumping in with your "years of experience" whenever someone presents an opinion. For a person supposedly writing for 55 years, you don't have a very thick skin. I made my point of why I thought fiction-writing was harder. It was not a direct attack at you. It was not meant to disparage any achievements you may have had in the field.


----------



## garza (Jun 4, 2010)

Sam W - Sorry about that, but you did seem to dismiss 'research' as some minor activity requiring little effort. Very little research happens in the library. What's in the library has already been researched by someone else. Your job as a writer is to contribute new material to that corpus, not to rewrite what someone else has worked to produce.

I don't write about subjects unless I've been in the field, talked with people, watched what happens, photographed both people and activities. The photos are to use directly in articles and as parts of reports, and as adjuncts to my field notes. 

Go to Afghanistan or Iraq. Learn enough of the local language to get a feel for it. Hire a good interpreter and sit with the people and listen to them. Listen to what they say, listen to how they say it, listen for what they do not say, and watch their faces and their hands as they talk. Or go back east and do the same thing. Has the Mekong Delta revived? Are efforts to revive Khmer culture succeeding? 

I'm too old and already have too many scars to go to the places I'd want to go, if only I were 20 years younger. If you young folks want to be real writers, go find a war or revolution. Or dig into the social unrest that's around you right now. And if you think there is no social unrest boiling away just below the surface of wherever you are right now, you have not been paying proper attention.

Bringing up my age and all is becoming a reflex action that I've got to stop. But except for fiction, I think I know a bit more about writing that most of the people here. From what I've seen there are only a few experienced professional writers among the group, and I suppose I'm a frustrated teacher. 

And even with fiction, putting together a proper sentence in English, putting that sentence into a properly structured framework, would seem to be basic skills that need to be developed by many of those who are here. 

I'm off to Cayo to do some research at an two organic farms that are doing well.


----------



## Epic (Jun 4, 2010)

caelum said:


> Epic, if your plot is essentially there, I can imagine some topical fixes and shit in the editing, but are the loopholes really so large and irreparable that your story is broken?  I think you should be able to tweak it to perfection, though of course I've never read your novel.  If your main character changes sex in the rewrite, that may or may not be a significant edit.


 
My problem isn't really loopholes. There's nothing WRONG with the plot, at least on a basic level. There's a beginning, there's a middle, there's an end, and it's all pretty entertaining. However, I can see spots in it that are weaker, and I feel the need to revise them (either just a polish, or complete re-forging) to make the story more rich. My problem was wrapping my head around the revision process--it's very new to me, and the idea of moving/changing/redoing/fixing has anxiety behind it that plain ol' writing does not, at least for me. 

I'm trying to work through it, though.

P.S: I had no idea this thread was going to blow up as such. I'm reading with interest.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 4, 2010)

> One of the points I alway stress in workshops and seminars I lead isthe importance of working mostly in the active voice. This will leadautomatically to your requirement for 'stronger verbs, tightersentences'. The active voice is more concise, the passive voicewordier. The passive voice is useful, but must be used with care.



Completely disagree. "Passive voice" is another phrase writers should just expunge from their vocabulary.  Write in the natural voice of what you're doing.   Trying to decide what it is only gets you looking over your shoulders and insecure.

There is absolutely nothing about active voice that dictates "stronger verbs".   There is nothing actually "active" about active voice, nor passive about passive voice.  A confusion that affects a lot of people who tell young writers to worry about this crap.

Like almost all these shibboleths that people say must be "used with care"  (voice over, flashback, alternatives to "said", multiple POV, etc.)  the solution is just not to think about it.  Anymore than an athlete is thinking over all the terms coaches and PE majors use to describe his moves on the court.

Just don't even worry about it.

(Did I mention not to think about the terms "protagonist",  "theme" or "headhopping" either?)


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 4, 2010)

BTW,  here's an example of active voice.   "I slept for ten hours."

Now here's a sentence in passive voice,  "It was generally believed by the villagers that Lord Essex not only seduced young peasant women but was also known to murder them and drink their blood."

Now I ask you...


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (Jun 4, 2010)

"It was generally believed... ...that... ...but was also known"?  I'd say there _is_ something bad about that sentence, although it's _not_ the fact that it's in passive voice.


Seriously, though, Lin's right about this.  Whether or not to use passive voice is really more of an issue as regards the voice you're using for the story, and not so important to "good writing".


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 4, 2010)

> 'd say there _is_ something bad about that sentence


 
Sure you just didn't not get it?


Because you definitely didn't get what i was saying.  It's not an "issue" at all. It's nothing to think about.  Telling your story might lead to constructions that somebody would term "passive voice", but that doesn't matter to the writer.  And sure as hell not to the reader.


It's kind of like a fencing teacher watching a really deadly swordsman fighting off a crowd and saying, "Ah, I see you chose to utilize the second variation on Stalgren's Riposte".   

And the guy is saying,  "Actually I just kept him from stabbing me, then lopped off his head."


Jargon and overthinking are the teachers' and critics' meal ticket, but poison to the creative artist.


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (Jun 4, 2010)

lin said:


> Sure you just didn't not get it?
> 
> 
> Because you definitely didn't get what i was saying. It's not an "issue" at all. It's nothing to think about. Telling your story might lead to constructions that somebody would term "passive voice", but that doesn't matter to the writer. And sure as hell not to the reader.
> ...




No, I got it.  It was just not well-formed.


As far as your assertion that knowing what the passive voice is is getting bogged down in "jargon", and "overthinking", I find it ridiculous.  I'm not saying that not knowing what passive voice is makes you a bad writer, I'm saying that _knowing_ what passive voice is _doesn't_ make you a bad writer.  

You can propogate your little writing mystique all you want, but telling people that knowing critical theory is "poisonous" to their writing is beyond absurd.


----------



## Sam (Jun 4, 2010)

Actually, Lin's absolutely spot on. I cannot recall how many threads I've read in the last year about "passive/active", "show/tell", and a whole host of other technical jargon. I've read about people who were afraid to go ahead with a chapter because they had told something in it. If I've said it once, I've said it a million times: There are no rules in writing. The sooner people realise that, the better their writing will be. 

I'm not talking to you in particular, Ilasir, but in general terms. Go read any novel -- _any _one -- and if you find it entirely devoid of adverbs, passive writing, and telling, I'll bow to the whole "rules" claptrap.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 4, 2010)

> No, I got it.  It was just not well-formed.


 
No, as a matter of fact, you didn't get the joke.  Sorry.  But it was there, you just didn't get it.
There is no way you can know what you don't get.

Duh.



> As far as your assertion that knowing what the passive voice is isgetting bogged down in "jargon", and "overthinking", I find itridiculous


 
There is no way you can know what you don't get




> I'm saying that _knowing_ what passive voice is _doesn't_ make you a bad writer.




Sure.  I just said that thinking about it, or using all that critical crap to guide creative work is a big mistake.


And you know why I said that?


Because it's true.


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (Jun 4, 2010)

lin said:


> No, as a matter of fact, you didn't get the joke. Sorry. But it was there, you just didn't get it.
> There is no way you can know what you don't get.
> 
> Duh.


 
I assumed you were making the point that just because something is in the active voice, it doesn't make it inherently better, more well-written, or more interesting than something written in the passive. If not, then no, I _don't_ get it.





> Sure. I just said that thinking about it, or using all that critical crap to guide creative work is a big mistake.
> 
> 
> And you know why I said that?
> ...


 

Lin, I'm sorry, but if you want to contribute to the "creative writing genius" myth, that's your choice.  But it's _your_ choice, and I see no reason why I should be bound by it.  I've seen plenty of multi-published writers discuss their use of the "craft" side of writing, and they're doing just fine.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 4, 2010)

> If not, then no, I _don't_ get it.



Now you're starting to get it.

And now you're saying that "critical structure" (which "passive voice" is NOT, by the way, it's just grammar) is necessary, by "genius" is a myth?
Interesting.
Revealing.

Actually, saying "gee, passive or active" to yourself while writing is not "craft".  
There is actually almost no technique in writing.  It's a very heavily talent-weighted art from.  More so than any other, less "craft" than any other.

If you want to tell me you've seen successful writers say they sit down and ponder the passive voice, let's see a citation.  I don't believe it for even a hot second.  God knows if you do.

But... you frequently find successful writers, like successful actors (another field in which talent overwhelms technique), go on and on about their studies and craft and such.
It's because it sounds good.  Saying, "Well, thank God I was born really talented and lucky enough to be interested in writing things lots of people like to read about",  just doesn't work in interviews and sounds egotistical.

In fact, this crap may or may not be useful to critics (God knows what useful to critics...the vast majority of what they come up with as structure is total shit)  or teachers, but it's useless for creative work.

An analogy here--I realize you're not good at them, but permit me--would be language.  I know more about grammar and syntax of a couple of languages that most native speakers.  This is very often true of second language people.  You have to study things natives do "instinctively" from early childhood.  But I'll never speak better than they will, or write better than they will.

Then there's my sword analogy, still laying there.   In which it turns out the guy with four fencing masters doesn't necessarily beat the barbarian athlete, who has an internal viciousness, cunning and blooded experience and just cuts through all the crap and kills the guy.

But that's really heaping on too much.  If you really think its necessary for a writer to have all that shinola in mind to write (despite the evidence of the thousands of successful and even great writers with not writing instruction whatsoever) then you think that.  Perhaps it's the only thought on the matter you find useful, or self-renumerative or even permitted.  Who knows.

But it's blatantly and demonstrably a crock.


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (Jun 4, 2010)

Actually what I said was that knowing literary theory is not inherently harmful.  If someone is looking for the get rich quick scheme of writing, then they're going to keep looking for it.

I also never said genius was a myth.  The point I was making is that not everyone can be the next Hemingway, but they can certainly write decent fiction by applying techniques and guidelines judiciously.  The writers I mentioned are all mostly midlisters, so if you were trying to say that the craft of writing doesn't guarantee a bestseller, I'm not arguing.

As far as your native speaker analogy goes, no one is a native speaker at writing.  It is a taught skill, just like reading.  And writing is not speaking.  Does that make your analogy completely invalid?  No.  But don't pretend an analogy is somehow an un-deniable proof of your position.

Nowhere have I said that you should or need to keep the entire body of literary theory in your head while you write.  If you want to keep burning straw-men, go ahead.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 4, 2010)

> Actually what I said was that knowing literary theory is not inherently harmful.



I know.  As would have, I thought, have been apparent from my post.  What I said (twice) was that trying to apply it to the creative process creates problems and doesn't help.
This should really be obvious when you follow writer's sites and see all these kids coming in with their "can I please have more than one protagonist",  "can I write something without having a theme",  "is it head hopping to have to people thinking things",  "I searched for all the places that where i use 'was', is it ok now".



> I also never said genius was a myth.


  Ah, silly me, I made that interpretation of your 





> if you want to contribute to the "creative writing genius" myth, that's your choice.


Perhaps you can see how I might have gotten that impression.
Or perhaps not.   
It took three rounds for you to figure out that just because you didn't get something didn't mean it was somebody else's fault.  Christ knows how many slippery little turns this will take.



> Nowhere have I said that you should or need to keep the entire body ofliterary theory in your head while you write. If you want to keepburning straw-men, go ahead.



Well, you said it right there.  I never did, so you're the one.  If you want to dream up straw men and say I burned them, it's about par for the course.



> so if you were trying to say that the craft of writing doesn't guarantee a bestseller,



You see to have a real problem reading what I say, and absolutely no problem just attributing to me anything that flits through your head, doncha?   
Actually what I indicated (hope it doesn't take three repeats for this one to sink in)  was that there is almost no "craft" or "techique" in writing...it's mostly just about a person talking in a voice that people like and doesn't cause problems in the reading.  The gift to drill ratio approaches 1:0
Kind of like with acting.  Some guy wanders in and is beloved by audiences, some other guy goes to school for 20 years and never really learns how to act.

Let me guess:  do you teach writing?

Let me make a little stronger guess:  you don't write novels, do you?


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (Jun 4, 2010)

And what _I_ said is that it _doesn't_ necessarily cause problems to apply literary theory to creative writing.  It doesn't necessarily help, either.  I _also_ said that just knowing the commonly proposed guidelines, theoory and schools of thought wasn't inherently bad.  Two separate statements.  

What your little anecdotes show is that people new to writing have preconceptions and misconceptions.  It doesn't follow that all of them are based on something some creative writing teacher said.  Although I'm sure plenty of them are.  When I started trying to learn how to write better, I looked at plenty of creative writing lessons and discussions of literary theory.  Nowhere did I find anything that said you can only have one protagonist, or that you must go in knowing the theme.  I also knew how to apply ciritcal thinking skills to decide what I should listen to and what I shouldn't.


As far as the myth issue goes, I refer you back to your own comment about whose fault it is that you didn't get something.

On to the final issue:  I have seen several midlist writers discuss their use of the "craft" of writing.  They were not trying to make themselves look less egotistical; they were serious about the topic.  Presumably, the use of "craft" has helped them in some way to be successful.  

The if statement was addressing the possibility that you might have a different definition of "successful" than I do.  It's called an "if-then" statement, Lin.  There's a fact or outcome in question, so you throw something out there to address it.  If the outcome that statement was addressing doesn't occur, then you ignore the statement.  Are you getting this?

The strawman:  



			
				Lin said:
			
		

> But that's really heaping on too much. *If you really think its necessary for a writer to have all that shinola in mind to write* (despite the evidence of the thousands of successful and even great writers with not writing instruction whatsoever) then you think that.


 
See that there?  That's you telling me and anyone else who might be reading what I think.  When that's not what I said _or _think.  That's what we call a strawman.

Finally, addressing your two ad hominem attacks on my position:  

First, I am not a creative writing teacher.  Nor have I ever been.

Second, I do in fact write novels.  I have attempted maybe seven short stories in five years, and I have never completed one to my satisfaction.  I do not really like writing short stories, although I have enjoyed reading them many times.

And for the record, I do not consider voice, pov, theme, "was"ing, "-ing", or really _any_ "rule" before I put a word down on the page.  I _do_ consider them when I go back over something and I find I don't like it.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 5, 2010)

> If you really think its necessary for a writer to have all that shinola in mind to write



Let me suggest that between fumbling around with all this other stuff you make as study of what the word "if" means.
Hint--it doesn't mean "there you are telling prople what I meant"

You really, truly, don't get that, either do you?   Just absolutely amazing.



> And for the record, I do not consider voice, pov, theme, "was"ing, "-ing", or really _any_ "rule" before I put a word down on the page.



Let me ask you.  In view of this thread from the time you jumped in with that gratuitous little contradiction on my passive voice example with little Cheeverian twist, why in the WORLD do you think I or anybody else would have any interest whatsoever in what you consider?   You can't even interpret simple prose, and have NO idea how to proceed in dicussion logic.

Why in HELL are you doing this?  It doesn't embarrass you?

It doesn't embarass you to be passing out advice to people on how to write fiction when you can't finish a story?

Why not just kind of drop it and not stick things into people's discourse for no reason?

How about it?





Let me guess.....


----------



## Epic (Jun 5, 2010)

If I may be so bold as to jump in...

I don't think there's anything wrong with anyone's advice on both sides. I think what everyone is contending is setting RULES for writing, which I agree is impossible.

Someone advising a person to use an active voice isn't necessarily wrong, as long as everyone understands it's not a TRUTH. 

I've heard many writers give the same advice on active voice, some as prolific as Stephen King (though, I know Mr. King is a subject of argument on this board, so I'm not trying to say he's a God). I just think it's important to put a small addendum on the subject, which is that not everyone is going to write the same. But, then again, if one is teaching writing to another person, they can only teach writing as they know it, which is kind of why writing CAN'T be taught, to an extent. But, I digress. 

Just my two cents.


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (Jun 5, 2010)

lin said:


> Let me suggest that between fumbling around with all this other stuff you make as study of what the word "if" means.
> Hint--it doesn't mean "there you are telling prople what I meant"
> 
> You really, truly, don't get that, either do you? Just absolutely amazing.


 
That's rather funny coming from the person who jumped on someone else's if statement, Lin. And let's be honest here, that comment quite clearly makes the implication that I think you need to keep all this stuff in your head when you write. If you didn't think or wish to suggest that that's what I was saying, you wouldn't have made the comment.





> Let me ask you. In view of this thread from the time you jumped in with that gratuitous little contradiction on my passive voice example with little Cheeverian twist, why in the WORLD do you think I or anybody else would have any interest whatsoever in what you consider? You can't even interpret simple prose, and have NO idea how to proceed in dicussion logic.


Lin, that was a joke based on my interpetation of your meaning. I believe I even said "something might be wrong with this sentence, but it's not the passive voice." I don't see what your problem is. Next, you opened the door to what I consider by asking whether I believed a writer needed to keep all that stuff in their head, and then making the rather odd ad hominem that I must be a creative writing teacher. I responded quite naturally by saying I was not a creative writing teacher, nor do I practice the philosophy that a writer must keep all of literary theory in their head to write well. 




> Why in HELL are you doing this? It doesn't embarrass you?
> 
> It doesn't embarass you to be passing out advice to people on how to write fiction when you can't finish a story?


 
Again, nowhere did I say I can't finish a story. You suggested that I do not write novels, because apparently literary elitism is confined to other formats, such as the short story, or poetry. Or something else. I have no doubt you'll tell me both propositions are wrong. I then proceeded to inform you that I do not write short stories that often, and that I have not finished one _to my satisfaction_, which to such a learned interpreter of prose as you could not _possibly_ suggest that I have never finished any kind of story _whatsoever._ So I find it a bit odd that you accuse me of such. I have in fact finished _plenty_ of stories, all on the longer side of novel length. Find a different talking point.



> Why not just kind of drop it and not stick things into people's discourse for no reason?
> 
> How about it?


 
Yes, I can see how agreeing with you would be considered irrelevant. I shall take pains to avoid doing so in the future.







> Let me guess.....


 
Yes, Lin. Shocking. You said several rude and insulting things about me, and I chose to respond to them. Mature? Perhaps not. A big clunking "DUH!"? Your obvious intent.



Epic: No, no, dive in. If it was a private discussion, it would not be held on a forum. Your comment is not at all a digression, but a very salient point. No two people write the same way, and every generalization has its exceptions. Often more exceptions than not. 

I think that _considering _the common "rules" of writing is even more relevant to revisions than to first drafts. _Following _those rules is a different matter entirely. You can take that last statement as the sum total of my position.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 5, 2010)

Well, my guess that you would keep worrying at this like a mutt with a hambone sure came true.
And my side bet that you'd get even more convoluted, self-righteous, and just generally scattered paid out in spades.

I think once you've gone through the "Yes, of course I get it, what was it" stage and twisted the strawman in the wind a couple of times, it's all pretty irrelevant.

I seem to recall you as somebody with no great accomplishments but vast opinions that don't change in any way just because they're demonstrated to be ridiculous.  And a fever pitch for spin-doctoring nothingess ad nauseum.
So, I suggested you just drop and get on with maybe finishing some of those stories you said you haven't finished, but then apparently disagreed with yourself on and yammering away.

Let me suggest this, though.  I don't really much care about your opinions on what I say.  So why share them with me?  If I say something to somebody, why not just give it a pass?  Instead of being useless at high volume.
Think it over.

Oh, right, sorry.   
Consider getting out of my hair.
Nothing I say is addressed to you.


----------



## caelum (Jun 5, 2010)

I agree with lin on writing unconsciously.  Can't overanalyze too much when you're in the heat of the moment which is true for practically anything.  This is sort of relevant to the "getting in the zone" thread not too long ago.


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (Jun 5, 2010)

We've been talking past each other for awhile now, Lin and it's been partly my fault. I'm sorry.










To the OP: It is my qualified(by which I mean, "with the qualifier: I've never been published for money, so take this with whatever amount of salt you like") opinion that learning the "jargon", techniques, and tools of theoretical analysis of literature can be of benefit to a writer if applied correctly. This is especially true of revision where you've gotten the first draft or so out and on paper, and you'd like to reassess or examine the piece. There is no right way to write or revise, and sometimes these things can hinder you--but sometimes they can help you. Several examples have been given of times when the "craft" has hindered writers. It's up to the individual to decide whether this knowledge is worth it or worthless.


Caelum, I agree whole-heartedly.  Especially with first drafts, I think it's better to let the writing flow and not worry too much about the rules or guidelines or whatever.  The first step to finishing a story is getting something on paper.


----------



## caelum (Jun 5, 2010)

Yeah, sometimes I get caught up with editing the piece before I'm even finished the first draft, but now I just try to pound out the original, and then take out the iron, scalpel, and sandpaper and tear into everything bothering me, everything that needs to be fixed.


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (Jun 5, 2010)

I'm in a bit of a slump right now, because very time I start writing, I catch a glimpse of something I wrote earlier, and my editor side goes: "Damn that's crap!" and I get too worked up over it to keep going. I can't write more than 1000 words before it happens.


The first novel draft I ever wrote I got 102,137 in two and a half months.  I think my writing is better now, but there's less of it.


----------



## MrSteve (Jun 5, 2010)

It can be difficult to get rid of the internal editor actually. I'm working on a couple of pieces at the moment where I'm not happy with everything and I want to go back and start changing things. I'm not really one for editing actually. I tend to edit as I go but, which is find when you're writing a few thousand words at a time but when your whole piece is 3000 words my tendency is to just start again and have another go at writing the story. What I find strange is that I can write a few thousand words of a novel in a day without any problems but a smaller piece takes nearly ten times as long. I suppose it's because I don't plan out the shorter pieces to the same extent so I have to let my mind catch up with the words I'm writing.

That said, a 3000 word piece will take me three days and I have to work at three or four at the same time otherwise I don't get the amount of words I want down.


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (Jun 5, 2010)

You'd think it'd  be easier to turn off the internal editor in a short story, but it isn't for me.  Of course, there're still less words, so I have a statistically better chance of finishing the story before I get too bogged down.  Because I'm a panster, I can't write as much at a time for a single short story, so I have a similar practice of working on multiple pieces.


----------



## garza (Jun 5, 2010)

It seems a comment of mine started all the trouble, so I need to ask a question. 

Should I send back all the money I've made all these years paying attention to such grammatical points as what voice I've used in a sentence?


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 5, 2010)

Sure.  Shall I send you my address?


(My guess is...you really don't)


----------



## MrSteve (Jun 5, 2010)

Ilasir Maroa said:


> You'd think it'd  be easier to turn off the internal editor in a short story, but it isn't for me.  Of course, there're still less words, so I have a statistically better chance of finishing the story before I get too bogged down.  Because I'm a panster, I can't write as much at a time for a single short story, so I have a similar practice of working on multiple pieces.



I'm not sure I hold with the whole panster/plotter thing actually. I think we all do both to varying degrees and that, really, we have to find our own path. I tend to think of myself as 50% plotter and 50% panster but if I really analysed my writing I would probably find it differed quite considerably from that.

As humans, we do like to pigeon hole ourselves in to little boxes but once we're there we find that the box is actually a little bit smaller than we originally thought and we might want to get out and stretch our legs. And, besides, there's a slightly different box over there which is a little like this one but has an extension built on and... what's that in the corner, is it a two car garage?

So I am left with thinking that perhaps you and I _should_ be more plotters than pansters when it comes to writing short stories and just accept it as another little duality of existence? As writers, we have plenty already. Personally, I like the myriad of writing systems and rules that have come about as a result of people trying to teach writing. They don't all apply to me but the wonderful thing is, I don't have to let them all apply to me either. Writing has been so unexplored as a process, and is such a personal journey, that the more systems we have, the more people can pick and choose the systems they like. Ultimately, that can lead to finding your place as a writer much quicker. 

The only thing I don't agree with is the concept that a writer has to have a talent for writing to be any good. I don't believe in talent anymore. I used to, but that was many moons ago and I have seen too much to allow that to stand.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 5, 2010)

> The only thing I don't agree with is the concept that a writer has to have a talent for writing to be any good.


 
That's pretty strange.

I gather (or hope) you mean "writing" in the sense of style and way with words, not concepts like imagination or coming up with good stories.

That's a really weird statement.


Perhaps you could help us out with examples of good writers who don't have talent?


----------



## MrSteve (Jun 5, 2010)

> I gather (or hope) you mean "writing" in the sense of style and way with  words, not concepts like imagination or coming up with good stories.



Nope, I mean there is no such thing as talent, in any field. It's just something we have invented to explain why some people are better than us at tasks we hold with some esteem.


----------



## garza (Jun 5, 2010)

Lin - The money question is moot. I tend to spend as fast as I get. Sorry.

I believe you have explained what MrSteve meant. Some people are skilled wordsmiths without being talented writers in your sense of having an imagination and being able to come up with good stories. I believe I may fit that description. Over the years I've tried several times to write fiction over the objection of my agent who has continually told me I can't write fiction, that I do not have any talent for it, that I should stick with what works. 

He's probably right. Non-fiction as been good to me, starting with home-town journalism. From early on I've concentrated on language, on the technical side, and learning to use the language to tell the story. But the story has to be there first. I cannot make up the details of an insurgency in its battle with a despotic government, but I sure as hell can write the story once I'm in the field to see the blood and hear the unmistakable sound of a SAW ripping through bush. 

Then all my practise as a wordsmith comes into play. With my words I can show you the blood, let you hear the sound of the SAW, make the scream of the burning child real to you. 

But I can't make it up, and I believe that's what MrSteve means. I don't have that kind of talent. I don't have the imagination to pull a story out of my head and put it on paper.

Edit - MrSteve - No, I can't agree with you at all about that. Different people start with different abilities. To deny that is to deny the obvious. 

I tried from diaper-days to get my son interested in books, writing, radio, photography, all the things that  attracted me as a youngster. He would have none of it. School was a struggle. His grades were good but his attitude was terrible. When he graduated from high school at 17 he went to work for a building contractor. By the time he was 19 he was building small projects, like convenience stores and service stations, himself, running his own crew. All he has ever wanted to do is build, use his hands, see something solid that he can claim as his own work. He is talented in a way I am not. And it is a talent. At the age of 13 he learned to weld and within a year was better than the master welder who taught him. Tell me that's not talent.

There are musical prodigies. There are math prodigies. Tell me they have no talent.


----------



## JosephB (Jun 5, 2010)

Gee, I thought talent meant that someone is just naturally good at something. It's not meant to explain anything. I think some people just wish that wasn't the case, that it isn't something you need -- that there's some formula or method or some nut to crack that makes up for not having enough of it.


----------



## MrSteve (Jun 5, 2010)

> I believe you have explained what MrSteve meant.



Please read my previous statement. I suspect you were writing your post as I was writing mine. 



> Gee, I thought talent meant that someone is just *naturally *good at  something.


 - Emphasis mine.

That is the bit I have a problem with. Naturally. There is no reason for us to genetically become predisposed to any particular talent. That would make for an inefficiant system and the human brain is quite an efficient system as it is.



> I think some people just wish that wasn't the case



Conversely, I think that the supposed 'need for talent' is a huge limiting factor that prevents people even attempting to learn the skills needed for writing.


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (Jun 5, 2010)

"Talent" is sort of like "general intelligence".  It's all the aspects of our brain that we haven't figured out yet.  For example, look at the ten-thousand-hours model.  It posits that you have mastered something once you've spent 10,000 hours practicing it.  (Not mastered like there's nothing left to learn.)  One commonality among most writers is that they were and are avid readers.  That suggests that a lot of reading is a crucial component of writing "talent".  But it's obviously not the only component.  It's much easier to take things like that and mass them up together as talent than to try to work through scientifically all of the complementary factors that go into being "talented" in a certain area.

Garza, I'd label that an issue of preference as opposed to talent.  Your son enjoyed working wit his hands, and so he spent the majority of is time on it.  After awhile, he got pretty good.


----------



## JosephB (Jun 5, 2010)

MrSteve said:


> Conversely, I think that the supposed 'need for talent' is a huge limiting factor that prevents people even attempting to learn the skills needed for writing.



So are you saying  that by taking classes or reading a lot or learning some method or working really, really hard  you can just learn to write a good story -- that natural ability isn't a factor?  I'm  sorry, but that sounds like wishful think to me.

 But here's a  thought: Maybe some people with a natural ability or talent for writing recognize  it at some point and then decide that's what they want to do. And then they sit  down and write something good -- something other people will want to read. No  way to know for sure, but I bet that's the way it works most of the  time.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 5, 2010)

> Nope, I mean there is no such thing as talent, in any field.



Well, if that's what you think, I guess it explains your comments on this.  But you do think that there is "good writing", I gather?



Amazing


----------



## garza (Jun 5, 2010)

No, MrSteve, the human brain is not an efficient system. It is effective in many ways, but it is not efficient. And there is no reason to say that one brain having an ability in one area that another brain does not is less efficient, in the larger context of society, than having all brains having equal abilities in all areas. 

Ilasir Maroa - I do not believe it's a mere matter of choice that leads to the development of what you might call talent. When I was growing up I was often reminded of how I had demanded to be taught to read at a very early age. My son, without doubt as intelligent as I am, perhaps more so, never, ever, showed any interest in learning to read. He is nearly 45 years old now and so far as I know has never in his life read a story or a poem just for the pleasure of reading. He does have an extensive library of his own now, but it's all construction related. 

I was surprised earlier this year to get an email from him saying that he had spent every day for the previous two weeks at the library. I replied that I was glad to see he was finally developing an interest in reading. He replied that he wasn't reading at the library. He had gotten a contract to build one.  

Ask infant school or primary school teachers. They will tell you that little Joél came to school at five already reading books and is dong great in language arts but failing math. But next to him is Reynerd, who has to be forced to read but who learned the multiplication table the first time he went through it and works arithmetic problems for fun. Neither is stupid, but their brains, somehow or other, are apparently wired differently.


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (Jun 6, 2010)

Of course their brains are wired differently, one likes math and one likes reading.

I knew some really smart kids in school, but most of them were not readers.  Because they didn't enjoy it, not because they were no good.


----------



## MrSteve (Jun 9, 2010)

Well, first of all I'm sorry for taking such a long time to reply to this. I've been busy working. I had a commission to finish and that was on top of playing the Wychwood festival over the weekend. What little time I have had left I have spent recovering. I can't tell you how tired I am.

Anyway...

I should explain why I said what I have about talent. 

Throughout my life people have told me I am talented. I have worked with and been friends with people who, at one time or another, I thought had real talent. Without exception, every 'talented' person that I have worked with has claimed not to have a talent. You might chalk this up to modesty but some of these people have made a living from being very immodest. It was an old comic who first tole me there was no such thing as talent. 

"There's no such thing as talent son, there's just hard work and then there's more hard work."

Those words stuck with me. I'm sure there were times when they helped push me towards what I wanted to do. Along the way I was again called talented for things that I was doing and I could do nothing but give the same answers as those I had asked before. I didn't feel talented. I felt like a fraud. I'm not talented. I work damn hard. I became professional in three different disciplines. Not world class in any one but more than just a hobbyist. Over the years I have been a professional comic, musician and writer and have also been successful working as a web designer and I am a classically trained actor. It's quite an achievement for someone of my age but I don't feel that any of it was through talent. Hard work, yes; perseverance, perhaps but not through some talent. 

My story isn't unique. Have you any idea of the amount of comedians who are also accomplished musicians of some sort? I'm not just talking about the ones who rely on playing music as part of there set either. And yet, I still get told by 'talented' people that they aren't talented. I can only assume they feel as I do in some way.

And then there are those people who claim to be talented. This is what really ****es me off. For every 'talented' person that I have met I have met someone who claims great talent at one task or another. They boast about it much of the time or use it to put people in there place. They use there 'talent' not to perform the task that they are supposedly talented at but, instead, to put people down, to say that others will never achieve the same as them because they don't have the 'nack' for something.

I was playing in a club, I think it was in Manchester but I traveled a lot at the time so I may be wrong, and the compare there (who was running the event) came around to us after and literally pointed at each one of us in turn, telling us which one would make it and which should give up now. It was horrible and it's something I've seen all over the place. The thing that really stuck in my throat about the night was that the patrons didn't laugh at the compare but they did at the acts. When it really came down to it, this guy couldn't do the job. 

So, for some time I have questioned the concept of talent. It doesn't sit well with my experiences. Throughout my life it has been the people that have worked the hardest that have been best at there chosen paths, regardless of some supposedly god given ability. 

And then I read this book. It's called 'The Talent Code' and it's by Daniel Coyle. The book's all right, if mostly anecdotal, but the concepts of myelin interested me and I sought out more information on the subject. I did find the book really interesting and it probably did stop me believing in talent. Subsiquently, what I have read on the subject is much more in depth but nothing currently contradicts that (at a very simple level) this is how skills are formed in the brain. If anything, current scientific theory seams to support the basic premise. 

That's why I say there is no such thing as talent. Scientifically, we have an explanation for the formation of skills in the brain. UCLA have recently published a study that says the amount of myelin we produce might be a genetic, and therefore scalable via some form of human husbandry. Does that make it a talent? I would say no because talent implies an ability that has been granted to us naturally, not the predisposition to learn abilities.

It's a complicated subject and I urge anyone who really wants to understand what I've been saying to read up on the subject. I don't explain it well. There were a few things I wanted to comment on though:



> No, MrSteve, the human brain is not an efficient system.


Maybe not the most efficient system possible but do we really have something that equals it in its efficiency? 



> I had demanded to be taught to read at a very early age. My son,  without doubt as intelligent as I am, perhaps more so, never, ever,  showed any interest in learning to read.


Surely this only goes to show that we might have a genetic predisposition to interests and not the actual abilities that stem from them?



> Ask infant school or primary school teachers. They will tell you that  little Joél came to school at five already reading books and is dong  great in language arts but failing math.


Which again, doesn't go towards a case for talent because 'little Joél' (who I can only imagine is the love child of Little Richard and Billy Joél) could have been pestering his parents to teach him to read for quite some time. Perhaps he found that he enjoyed it and so picked it up because it didn't seam like work. Perhaps his parents pushed him towards reading but were not actually any good at teaching maths. There are many more reasons to explain a young child excelling at abilities than mere talent.



> Well, if that's what you think, I guess it explains your comments on  this.  But you do think that there is "good writing", I gather?


It depends what you mean. Good writing as in well crafted sentences and flowing prose? Yes, I don't think that can be disputed. I do think, however, that they can be learned. Actually, scratch that. I _know _it can be learned because I have seen people learn it. Actually, to go back to my comedic days, you see people who want to be comedians learn first what makes an audience laugh and then how to string those moments together and finally how to craft those comic moments in to engaging speech. It's not a million miles away from writing prose. If anything it is more difficult, from a technical aspect. These people are poets in there own right and most of them don't have a 'talent' for writing when they start. If they stick at it, they end up with that 'talent' through practice. 



> So are you saying  that by taking classes or reading a lot or learning  some method or working really, really hard  you can just learn to write a  good story -- that natural ability isn't a factor?  I'm  sorry, but  that sounds like wishful think to me.


Yes, that's basically what I'm saying. You have to practice in the right sort of way but we do that naturally over time anyway and, having done so, we forget that we have practiced like that.



> But here's a  thought: Maybe some people with a natural ability or  talent for writing recognize  it at some point and then decide that's  what they want to do. And then they sit  down and write something good  -- something other people will want to read. No  way to know for sure,  but I bet that's the way it works most of the  time.


OK, here's another thought: Maybe that somebody (yes the same somebody from your example) actually didn't posses a natural ability at all. Perhaps they did have an interest in reading and stories when they were younger though and that interest stayed with them as they grew up. They learned to write at school and, because they liked reading so much, wanted to emulate the people who had written the books. They toyed with the idea of writing a book, all whilst still at school. They might have made up there own books when they were younger, perhaps cutting pictures out of magazines for illustrations. As they grew older the stories and books stayed in there head, fermented if you will. They lost the impetus to write as they started getting older, meeting girls, getting drunk. They finally get a job, perhaps after college, and that's it. That's all we hear about them for (let's say) ten years. But, they keep reading. They do so in the knowledge that it is a fun thing to do and the stories keep mounting up in there brain, fermenting all the time. Reading these stories is building the mental pathways that a writer needs and, although he hasn't actually wrote anything, he has subconsciously practiced writing every time he picks up a book. 

At 35 years old (again, for example) this guy writes his first book and it goes on to become a best seller. Everyone heralds him as a natural talent. But right back at the begining we said he had no natural ability. It's only the practice that his brain has done via reading that has allowed him to achieve this as a goal. 

One final thought: Have you ever seen "X-Factor"? Most of the people who get through on those shows have been singing for many years. Many of them have either been to stage school or had professional singing lessons. We are never told about this because it suits the producers of the show to allow us to think they have some sort of natural talent or ability. I wonder what we would see if they were actually able to show us the exact amount of time each of those singers had _really_ practiced before coming on to there show. I'm willing to bet that it would be much more than you would expect for someone who has a 'natural talent'.


----------



## Like a Fox (Jun 9, 2010)

Mr Steve - I find that train of thought an interesting one. Though the predisposition to learn something could well just be called talent, couldn't it?

There are those who are not musically inclined, for example, who are tone deaf and can't catch a beat, and even if they worked their little hearts out, they most likely will never be a brilliant musician because they are not 'predisposed to learn' it, like someone who is more musically inclined. If they did manage to achieve brilliance I can only imagine that they'd have to work at least twice as hard as someone else. I don't think interest and hard work is enough. There needs to be that predisposition, and I think really that's what people are talking about when they refer to talent. It might all be hard work, but certain people are predisposed to be better at some things than others. Isn't that talent? Talent doesn't mean you don't have to work on something, just that you've been given the right tools.

I'm just musing here. Not necessarily disagreeing with you, it just seems like hair-splitting.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 9, 2010)

One thing I have never understood is how many people that deny the existence of talent are very convinced there is such a thing as intelligence.  (And that they have more than others)


----------



## MrSteve (Jun 9, 2010)

> Mr Steve - I find that train of thought an interesting one. Though the  predisposition to learn something could well just be called talent,  couldn't it?



I would agree if it were a predisposition to learn a particular thing. That's what we define talent as, _"a person who possesses unusual innate ability in some field or activity" __(http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=talent)_. What the book is saying is that we are all predisposed to learn but there are some who are taught in such a way as to foster ability (and the students own interest and passion are a part of that).

The UCLA study is basically saying that the ability to produce more myelin can be handed down through genetics but this isn't prevalent in society. Einstein, for example, had more myelin in his brain than normal (I can't cite sources for that, it is in 'The Talent Code' however) and a lack of myelin in the brain has been linked to learning difficulties (e.g dyslexia) and degenerative illness (e.g alzheimers).

Musical 'talent' can be learned. I know someone who did it. Ross, who calls himself Toss and appears on the podcast, was tone def when he was younger. His musical teacher gave up on him at school but he really wanted to stick at it. We are now in the same band and he has been in several musicals as well as writing three musicals himself. He contributed material to the musical comedy duo I was a part of (Full Frontal) and is embarking on modernising the soundtracks to some classic silent movies. 

Having said that, actual tone deafness is a  _"disconnection between the posterior superior temporal gyrus and the  posterior inferior frontal gyrus" - Wikipedia. _It's an actual medical condition in all but 1% of sufferers and, therefore, not quite relevant to the debate. It's the same as saying that no matter how hard he works at it, a man with no legs will never win a knobbly knees competition.


----------



## Sam (Jun 10, 2010)

You can take a person -- man or woman -- with an okay grasp of English and teach them every nuance of the language and it still won't make them write better than someone for whom writing comes naturally. There are certain people who are just hard-wired to be good at something. No matter how much an ordinary person tries, they will never reach that pinnacle. 

For instance: I can undergo a severe training regime for the next four years, but I'm never going to beat Usain Bolt in the hundred-metre sprint at the next Olympics. You can teach me everything there is to know about painting, but I will never be a Picasso or a Da Vinci. 

Of course talent exists. I'll give you an example pertaining to myself: I'm currently in the middle of doing an English and history degree at my university. For the literature, we were asked to write a 2000-word essay on Henrik Ibsen's _A Doll's House. _Now, I'm a lover of reading, but there are certain books that irk me. Ibsen's was one of them. I knew, when I started reading the first chapter, that I would never finish the book. So I downloaded a PDF version of it and used the search function to find my quotations. The maximum I read was about five or ten pages, but I found the citations I needed and backed them up with sources from other books. I then wrote my essay on that same weekend. 

One of the girls in my class, who has that aforementioned "okay" grasp of English, spent two weeks reading the book twice before starting her assignment. She then spent another week writing it up. When she handed it in, she turned and said to me, "That's the hardest I've ever worked on an essay. If I don't get high marks, I'm going to cry". 

She got a 66, which is the same mark she got in her previous assignment the semester before. She was upset and didn't understand how she could be marked the same when she had gone to such an extreme effort, spending almost a month readying the assignment. In contrast, I felt guilty about my 73 (70-75 is first-class honours -- the highest -- and 60-69 is second-class). 

My point is this: I didn't put in near the effort she did because I didn't have to -- because I'm confident in my ability to write. That's what natural ability is, Steve. Some people make difficult things look easy, and others make easy ones look difficult. No matter how much hard work a person puts in, they will seldom equal someone naturally gifted in that area. People have an ear for music, for example, and can listen to a song and then pick up a guitar and play it. I'd have to learn the tabs. Some people can listen to your car and tell you that you need a service. Some lucky people have eidetic memories and can memorise books. I can't do any of those things; but I know what I can do, and I know I can do it well. 

That, for me, is the essence of talent.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jun 10, 2010)

> fiction-writing is a lot different than non-fiction.


Sam:- I read this and think "how can such an accomplished writer not use 'different from'? Then I hear this Irish accent in my head, oh yes.:grin:


----------



## caelum (Jun 10, 2010)

I never used to believe in talent.  I used to believe that skill and ability were acquired traits, and that if one were to train hard enough, to work hard enough, they could rewire their brain to do anything.  I still believe that to some extent, but not so much.  I think much of who we are, the way we think, solidifies early in life, or is even to genetic, and so the older we get the more difficult it is to change.  I do believe in change, though, and learning, and think that so long I stay receptive to new ideas, and am willing to reexamine old ideas, I will always learn and change, and improve.  They say pride is the ultimate learning disability, because if one thinks they already know everything, they won't really be trying to learn, will they?


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (Jun 10, 2010)

Sam W said:


> You can take a person -- man or woman -- with an okay grasp of English and teach them every nuance of the language and it still won't make them write better than someone for whom writing comes naturally. There are certain people who are just hard-wired to be good at something. No matter how much an ordinary person tries, they will never reach that pinnacle.
> 
> For instance: I can undergo a severe training regime for the next four years, but I'm never going to beat Usain Bolt in the hundred-metre sprint at the next Olympics. You can teach me everything there is to know about painting, but I will never be a Picasso or a Da Vinci.
> 
> ...



I think you're exaggerating a bit.  You can't play a song you heard on a guitar if you don't know to play guitar.  If you've practiced guitar a lot, then you're much more likely to be able to pull off such a stunt.  The difficulty rises as the complexity of the piece increases.

For example, I've been learning piano recently.  When I was younger and in Boy Scouts, we sang Taps to end the meeting.  We never learned the melody in terms of notes.  But a few days ago, they played Taps on a TV show I was watching.  I thought, "Hey, it'd be great if I could play that on the piano."  I sat down and tried to figure out how to play it.  After five minutes or so, I had figured out the melody, and around ten minutes later, I'd improvised a left-hand for it.  It sounds pretty good for someone who's only been playing intermittently for about a year.  No one else in my family could have done this, but it's not because I am more talented than they are.  It's because I spent a year practicing piano and learning to hear the intervals between notes, and they haven't.  I could not do the same with Fur Elise, or La Campanella.  I am not good enough at piano, nor have I developed my ear enough to do so.  I had to learn the first the same way anyone else does, and I would not even attempt the second.

Another example:  I was in AP English Junior and Senior year of highschool.  So were plenty other smart and average people.  I could bull**** an A or B paper in two hours the morning before it was due.  Other people had to spend several days working on it.  But I read 100 books a year at that time, and was writing for fun almost every day.  Other avid readers and writers also had an easier time in the class, while extremely smart students, including one of our valedictorians(I was not one), were in the several days group.  Their papers ranged from very good to Ds and Fs.

You might be able to argue reasonable doubt in physical activities such as running.  But intellectual pursuits don't map the same, and if they do involve talent, do so to a much lesser extent.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jun 10, 2010)

"Hard wired" seems to imply that it is there from the start. I think that I am a fairly fluent writer, but I also believe that has a lot to do with having a mother who was an English teacher. Because she read aloud to me every night as a small boy and was selective about what she read, that then led me on to spend a lot of my early life with my head in a book. I am not saying there can not be a natural talent, but something is usually needed to trigger it and even without it the right circumstances lead to a fair degree of ability.


----------



## Sam (Jun 10, 2010)

Ilasir Maroa said:


> I think you're exaggerating a bit.  You can't play a song you heard on a guitar if you don't know to play guitar.  If you've practiced guitar a lot, then you're much more likely to be able to pull off such a stunt.  The difficulty rises as the complexity of the piece increases.



My little brother has never played in his life, while me and my older brother have been playing on and off for ten years. So one day I come home to find him messing about with my guitar. When I didn't kill him, I learned that he was after listening to the intro to AC/DC's _Riff Raff. _He picked up the guitar and played it, albeit slowly, to perfection. I asked him how long he'd taken to figure out each note. He replied, nonchalantly, "About ten minutes. I said, "Ten minutes a note?" And he replied: "No, ten minutes for the whole thing". He told me he figured out the purpose of the frets and the strings, and then kept plucking away until what he heard in his head was the same as what he played on the guitar. Since the intro was just note progression, he didn't need to use chords. I agree that if he had to have heard a song with chords, he might have struggled with it. The point is, he had no experience with guitar. 

That was three years ago. Now, he's a better player than me and my older brother put together. Because he's natural. 



> For example, I've been learning piano recently.  When I was younger and in Boy Scouts, we sang Taps to end the meeting.  We never learned the melody in terms of notes.  But a few days ago, they played Taps on a TV show I was watching.  I thought, "Hey, it'd be great if I could play that on the piano."  I sat down and tried to figure out how to play it.  After five minutes or so, I had figured out the melody, and around ten minutes later, I'd improvised a left-hand for it.  It sounds pretty good for someone who's only been playing intermittently for about a year.  No one else in my family could have done this, but it's not because I am more talented than they are.  It's because I spent a year practicing piano and learning to hear the intervals between notes, and they haven't.  I could not do the same with Fur Elise, or La Campanella.  I am not good enough at piano, nor have I developed my ear enough to do so.  I had to learn the first the same way anyone else does, and I would not even attempt the second.
> 
> Another example:  I was in AP English Junior and Senior year of highschool.  So were plenty other smart and average people.  I could bull**** an A or B paper in two hours the morning before it was due.  Other people had to spend several days working on it.  But I read 100 books a year at that time, and was writing for fun almost every day.  Other avid readers and writers also had an easier time in the class, while extremely smart students, including one of our valedictorians(I was not one), were in the several days group.  Their papers ranged from very good to Ds and Fs.
> 
> You might be able to argue reasonable doubt in physical activities such as running.  But intellectual pursuits don't map the same, and if they do involve talent, do so to a much lesser extent.


I don't see your reasoning here. If you're doing an English class, and you have a talent and passion for the written word, chances are you'll do better than someone who's never written a word in their life. Some people can do six-digit sums in their heads -- they become accountants or maths teachers or professors. 

Let me put it like this: Our professor said to us, during our first class, that if we read throughout the duration of the course, we'd pass the class. But me and you, Ilasir, don't read the same as other people. Reading and writing is our life. We enjoy it. We immerse ourselves in it, while all the time paying close attention to a variety of things: The style of writing, the syntax of the sentencing, the position of good quotes that we'll use in our essays. 

I've been reading since I knew what a book was, but it's only when I started writing that I began to pay more attention to every little detail. Why is the author putting those three sentences in when one would suffice? Why is he using a long, meandering sentence there instead of breaking it up? Technique. I've said it already in this thread: Writing non-fiction is vastly different than (sorry, Olly) writing fiction. In non-fiction, you're bringing across an opinion as concisely and precisely as possible. It does not lend itself to techniques used in fiction. But I'm still as good at writing non-fiction (i.e. essays) as I am at writing fiction, arguably more so. Why? Because I believe I have a talent for writing. It's that simple, really. I can adopt my writing voice to suit the rigours of either. That doesn't come from reading or writing or teaching. It's just something innate. 

At least_ I_ believe it is.


----------



## JosephB (Jun 10, 2010)

Mr. Steve, do you have or are you around children very much? Well, I have two children. My wife and I have read to both of them since before they could talk. They are five and seven now and both still love it when we read to them, and they also now enjoy reading on their own. My point here is, they've both been exposed from an early age to what a story is, characters, plot etc.

Our oldest has a fairly good imagination, but when our youngest plays, it's all about creating scenarios and concocting stories. The pictures she draws are fantastic and all have detailed stories behind them. When she plays with her dolls, she makes up dialog and situations -- off the cuff -- amazing stuff. These days, when my daughters play with dolls together, the youngest takes the lead and plots things out, the oldest certainly keeps up and adds to it, but it's not the same. 

My youngest has a vivid imagination. I've seen it in other children too, and I was the same way. Imagination can be nurtured and you can encourage a child to use it. We certainly do. But I believe some people just are born with more vivid and active imaginations. It's like intelligence. Or a sense of humor. Or empathy, or any of the more ethereal qualities that we have that can't quite be pinned down or fully understood.

To me, imagination is the seed of good writing and although it can be drawn out and developed, if a person doesn't have much of one, there's not much you can do about it.

And since we're making comparisons that don't necessarily apply, artistic talent is definitely something you're born with. Of course, it too can be developed and you can get much better with practice and instruction. I've seen many people struggle earnestly to learn to draw and paint, but they just don't have it and never will, regardless of how hard they work at it.

I'm a professional designer and the same can be said for that. I've seen people toil along in mediocrity, people that work their asses off, but they just can't quite get it. The best they can do is crank out adequate imitations of good design.

So, of course, talent or natural can be nurtured. But something has to be there in the first place. In the end though, it all amounts to nothing more than speculation. The writing speaks for itself.


----------



## caelum (Jun 10, 2010)

JosephB said:


> In the end though, it all amounts to nothing more than speculation. The writing speaks for itself.


 
Amen.  That's the most non-bull**** response I've seen to this thread.


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (Jun 10, 2010)

Sam W said:


> My little brother has never played in his life, while me and my older brother have been playing on and off for ten years. So one day I come home to find him messing about with my guitar. When I didn't kill him, I learned that he was after listening to the intro to AC/DC's _Riff Raff. _He picked up the guitar and played it, albeit slowly, to perfection. I asked him how long he'd taken to figure out each note. He replied, nonchalantly, "About ten minutes. I said, "Ten minutes a note?" And he replied: "No, ten minutes for the whole thing". He told me he figured out the purpose of the frets and the strings, and then kept plucking away until what he heard in his head was the same as what he played on the guitar. Since the intro was just note progression, he didn't need to use chords. I agree that if he had to have heard a song with chords, he might have struggled with it. The point is, he had no experience with guitar.
> 
> That was three years ago. Now, he's a better player than me and my older brother put together. Because he's natural.
> 
> ...




For the record, I can do six digit _multiplication _in my head, but that doesn't mean I want to be an accountant.

Anyway, you made my point for me: if you have a passion for something, you've done it a lot.  It's called practice.  You don't have a passion because you're good, you're good because you have that passion and you've been acting on it.


----------



## MrSteve (Jun 11, 2010)

> My point is this: I didn't put in near the effort she did because I  didn't have to -- because I'm confident in my ability to write. That's  what natural ability is, Steve. Some people make difficult things look  easy, and others make easy ones look difficult.



Surely what your anecdote implies is not that you did better because you have a talent for writing but, rather, that you knew what was expected in an assignment and produced that. Now, assuming that your teacher is more interested in you learning the subject rather than passing the class, if he/she saw the amount of effort each one of you had put in, would he have marked the assignments in the same way? If the purpose of the assignment was to learn about the book, did not your fellow student actually accomplish more regardless of whether the conclusions she drew were not as academically relevant as yours?

Tell me, where in your anecdote did you succeed because you had a talent and not just because you knew the right process to accomplish the task?



> People have an ear for music, for example, and can listen to a song and  then pick up a guitar and play it. I'd have to learn the tabs.



Ross can do that. He was tone def. He does it as fast as I can and I (supposedly) have a talent for it.



> People have an ear for music, for example, and can listen to a song and  then pick up a guitar and play it. I'd have to learn the tabs.



That is the prefect illustration of how 'Deep Practice' actually works. He didn't need a talent for it, he just needs to practice in the right way. 



> Mr. Steve, do you have or are you around children very much?



When I was at college we did a lot of theatre in education work and, in my 4th year, I taught Guitar for a little extra money.



> My youngest has a vivid imagination. I've seen it in other children too,  and I was the same way. Imagination can be nurtured and you can  encourage a child to use it. We certainly do. But I believe some people  just are born with more vivid and active imaginations. It's like  intelligence. Or a sense of humor. Or empathy, or any of the more  ethereal qualities that we have that can't quite be pinned down or fully  understood.



Scientific study has shown that the youngest in a family of 4 (I believe it was four) is likely to run faster, not only than it's siblings but than the other children of similar age and physical prowess. The reason for this is that they tend to be the people who have to catch up more with the family unit so they get more practice in the skills needed to run fast at an early age. It is entirely possible that the imagination you have seen in your youngest is not natural at all but 'practiced' at a higher pace than your older child because they felt they had to keep up with the rest of the family. Your older child didn't have the same pressures there. That's only one of the many possible reasons that could separate siblings' skill sets. We are constantly surrounded by stimulus after all.



> To me, imagination is the seed of good writing and although it can be  drawn out and developed, if a person doesn't have much of one, there's  not much you can do about it.



I would agree with that sentiment but I would argue that imagination isn't a talent in and of its self. I still believe that even imagination is a learned skill. I don't think we are born with it but that we develop it as a consequence of our surroundings. 

A few people have mentioned intelligence now but it is important to remember that intelligence is a human construct anyway, and one that can be measured. From a scientific standpoint, intelligence could be said to correlate with the production of myelin and the rate we are caipable of producing it. That's not a talent, however, that is genetics.



> In the end though, it all amounts to nothing more than speculation. The  writing speaks for itself.



I beg to differ. The problem with this topic is the same as with many debates about talent. As soon as someone displays any skill at a particular thing, they are labeled as talented.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 11, 2010)

Maybe because you are conflating "skill" with "talent", which isn't the case.

Does nobody tire of the endless "nature vs nurture" drone?   Best dismissal I ever heard was,  "Teachers think their students are spart because of environment and their children are smart because of genes."

Which can kind of be applied across the board in this stuff.   The idea of denying the existence of talent isn't even new, however bizarre and gormless:  it was epidemic in the mid seventies psych/soc world to declare that there is no such thing as a trait.  Same "argments".   It got laughed off.  Like ebonics.


----------



## MrSteve (Jun 11, 2010)

> Maybe because you are conflating "skill" with "talent", which isn't the  case.



Then define talent so we have a baseline for comparison.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 11, 2010)

Know what,  it's kind of one of those, people know it when they see it kind of things.    And since it inevitably involves somebody being "better" at something, it rests on the indefinable.  Unless you'd like to offer a definition of "good" to build this on.

There's almost nothing somebody can't say doesn't exist, then challenge people to prove it.  Talent is observed all over world, all over time.   If you want to try to live in a world where there isn't any, nobody can stop you.  Enjoy.


----------



## JosephB (Jun 11, 2010)

MrSteve said:


> I beg to differ. The problem with this topic is the same as with many debates about talent. As soon as someone displays any skill at a particular thing, they are labeled as talented.



You beg to differ that the writing speaks for itself? Maybe you misunderstood. I'm saying this argument doesn't matter. It's about the writing. You know -- the proof is in the pudding, etc. I really can't see how anyone could argue with that.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Jun 11, 2010)

> As soon as someone displays any skill at a particular thing, they are labeled as talented.



This is, of course, far-fetched.  Most people know the difference between being skilled and talented. Between being gifted and accomplished.  And so on.   This isn't some esoteric distinction or gloss.  Unless somebody wants to talk themelf into being so.


----------



## MrSteve (Jun 12, 2010)

JosephB said:


> You beg to differ that the writing speaks for itself? Maybe you misunderstood. I'm saying this argument doesn't matter. It's about the writing. You know -- the proof is in the pudding, etc. I really can't see how anyone could argue with that.


 
I'm sorry. You're right. Ultimately this discussion doesn't detract from anyone's actual abilities when it comes to writing, however they were achieved. 



> This is, of course, far-fetched.  Most people know the difference  between being skilled and talented. Between being gifted and  accomplished. This isn't some esoteric distinction or  gloss.



And yet you either can't or won't define it:



> And since it inevitably involves somebody being  "better" at something, it rests on the indefinable.


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (Jun 12, 2010)

It's been a very interesting discussion, but we're far past the point where the existence or not of talent has any relevance to the OP. If anyone would like to continue this discussion, I must ask that they do so in the Lounge or Debate, whichever they feel is a more suitable area for such a topic. The posts in this thread will be left here, unless those involved would prefer they be split off and moved to whatever area the discussion is continued in.

And with that, any further posts in this thread that do not address the OP will be deleted or split off. Thanks to everyone for their cooperation. 



~Your friendly neighborhood moderator


----------

