# Nature vs. Nurture Writers' Edition



## Darkkin (Jan 18, 2019)

Nature vs. Nurture, a dead horse beaten to glue, right...Well, not quite, this is the Writers' Edition:  Is decent writing an inherent talent, a skill gained from practice and revision, or does it fall somewhere in between.  Are authors who hit the lottery of perfect conditions e.g. _Frey's Million Little Pieces _(A bestselling phenomenon with cringeworthy technical merit), better writers than authors like Charles Krauthammer or Michael Pollan?  Is it nature, nurture, or merely being in the right place at the right time or a confluence of all three aspects?

What are your thoughts on the subject?


----------



## Tettsuo (Jan 18, 2019)

I believe it's like all things. There's some talent involved, but to be really good, you're going to have to work at it. And, the best of the best have both work ethic and talent.


----------



## Megan Pearson (Jan 18, 2019)

I'm siding with nature over nuture. For example, my mother writes poetry. Nevertheless, I quickly learned not to show my mother anything I wrote, and for a time I even had to deny _that_ I wrote under threat of punishment. (She has long since forgotten about this and now croons, 'oh, honey, your writing is so good! I can't wait until I can read some more of it.' *Shudder* It's got to be finished work only and then I put boundaries on how we will talk about what I share with her. She's killed too many good muses...) So if it were all nurture, well...

My father once tried writing magazine articles for pay. That didn't go so well. He strongly warned me against following in his terrible experience. So, no nurture there, either. 

Now, decent writing I see as different from the inherited curse of the writing disease. I think anyone can learn to become a decent writer and sometimes natural writers may even find their skill a hinderence in a field that calls more for technical expertise in writing than it does expression. Nature may supply the desire to learn, and perhaps even the motivation to see someone along the path of willingly becoming a decent writer, but it takes dedication, practice, and persistence to become a published author. I think this goes well beyond nature. For people to whom writing comes easily, they may not be willing to jump through all of the hoops of the publishing game. That's why I think we can have very good storytellers whose writing may not even be very good at all. 

An example of this would be a series my husband first began reading online. Some publisher noticed the story's popularity and picked up the author (who by now has 3 or 4 books published by them). Hubby has all of them lying around here somewhere, but gah! Is that guy's writing awful! However, he's a great storyteller. His stories really speak to a wide buying public. I don't see that so much as luck as having a product for which there is a demand. In my opinion, luck has little to do with what a publisher is willing to buy. Now, whether works like his will pass the test of time? That's a different question.

There are many fine writers out there whose works don't resonate with today's buying public. I think that our passing them by is more a reflection of the public's tastes than it is of the quality of writers who may be out there. Yet, the ones that do resonate, whose works have endured over the long years, I think they have something more to them than just decent writing. I think works like these have got to contain an innate sense of artistic mastery that no amount of teaching or practice alone can inspire.


----------



## SueC (Jan 18, 2019)

So much to consider! I think it must be a combination of both - nature AND nurture - but it's almost as important to qualify those elements to determine how they impact a writer's career. There are what I think of as "natural" writers. Those who have to write, who strive every time they sit down to the computer to make their words sing. They are satisfied with nothing less, and would be this way no matter what everyone around them is doing. You may have a family of sport enthusiasts who have no interest or understanding for a brother who writes. Doesn't matter. That brother will write, no matter what. So no nurture there. But I have to say that does not mean _quality_ work. It is the very passion that is held that makes natural writers better, makes them work hard to become something special. And sometimes that only means special to themselves.

I always think of writers who's only goal is to write for money, and follows trends carefully, as the more versatile of the two. Its like going to school and getting a degree in journalism or marketing. You learned to write to an audience, to sell, to appeal. Typically not pouring your heart out on a story, but writing all the same. I remember when I was first trying to send work out, I would see the question - who is your audience? I always wondered what that mattered, a well-written story or book should be appreciated by everyone. I have since learned to modify that stand - I understand more now. But I think a person who has _learned_ to write well, and discovers a formula that works for the current bunch of readers, can be extremely successful. Interesting topic.


----------



## luckyscars (Jan 18, 2019)

People often assume the process of learning by 'nurture' involves family influence, specifically parents. That may often be the case but it is entirely possible for that nurture to come from elsewhere. It could be friends. It could be a favorite teacher. It could be something else entirely. 

I got into writing because I got into reading and I got into reading simply because I grew up without television. It was not a skill or interest that was inherent but one born of circumstances. If I had played TV and video games a lot of as kid instead of read I doubt I would have ever developed the interest. An interest then nurtured by a librarian who gave me suggestions and an English professor later on. I learned to write by reading.


----------



## Kevin (Jan 18, 2019)

There is also, the opposite- where the family doesn't push reading, doesn't  read themselves. I wonder what sort of percentages come out of situations like that? 
...
I push, recommend, talk excitedly about a book, yet Jr. is not interested. He likes a good story, but not enough to read one. That gene did not carry over.


----------



## Bayview (Jan 19, 2019)

I think some elements are nature (well, insofar as basic intelligence and ability to learn are "nature") but most is nurture. But I agree with luckyscars that the nurturing is the whole environment, not just parents or even just people. I also learned to write by reading, and it's fairly rare for me, when I tour around writers' boards, to find someone whose work I admire who isn't also a voracious reader.

I don't have much use for how-to books or MFA programs, but reading fiction, especially when you're young and everything soaks into your subconscious so easily? I think that's invaluable to a writer.


----------



## midnightpoet (Jan 19, 2019)

With me, it's a little bit of both. I was lucky to be born into families of well-educated people, plus I got a lot of encouragement along the way.  My mother was a teacher, and she taught me well, but I was also blessed by a very active imagination and curiosity.  I liked learning new things, and still do.  Despite all the advances in learning and technology, there's still a lot science doesn't know about the human brain. Some things don't have a clear answer, and maybe that's just as well.  Sometimes maybe it's best to just let the mystery be.:wink:


----------



## Theglasshouse (Jan 19, 2019)

Its has to be a bit of both because either helps when both are put to good use or people have these qualities. Even Stephen king's in his book on writing said. Almost anyone can be a writer. But his advice is very non-prescriptive. He had a writers mentality since very young. He would have a large family help him. I think motivation is a big aspect many have. Time is important, even though I don't know remotely how writers manage their time.


----------



## luckyscars (Jan 19, 2019)

Bayview said:


> I also learned to write by reading, and it's fairly rare for me, when I tour around writers' boards, to find someone whose work I admire who isn't also a voracious reader.



Just out of curiosity (I've previously considered starting a thread about this and never bothered) have you ever met anybody who has been a good writer who isn't a voracious reader? Like, anybody at all? You said its rare, that implies you have?

Let's define voracious charitably as "once daily reading of fiction in the order of at least a few pages".

There have been times when I have gone a few weeks or even months without really regularly reading anything for various reasons and I am not being too dramatic when I say my brain reverts to a kind of dehydrated lump: If I attempt to write in that time it is terrible. However all it takes is a good novel or a few short stories and it totally changes. Not just in terms of ideas (though there is that to) but in terms of ability to actually craft sentences.

Not sure what this has to do with nature and nurture but...probably something! Maybe for a writer simply reading is a source of self-nurture?


----------



## Theglasshouse (Jan 19, 2019)

I read this short story in a well known science fiction magazine and decided to write what the author hinted at because of his title. I have felt I often have needed to read more frequently. It does help trigger the imagination. I had to constantly change the title because it was the key idea of the work, but he did not explore the other angle of the story I would have wanted to see. Which resulted in a new short story.


----------



## Kyle R (Jan 19, 2019)

Darkkin said:


> Is decent writing an inherent talent, a skill gained from practice and revision, or does it fall somewhere in between.


 
I tend to scoff at the notion of "inherent talent" in writing. Until scientists discover a "writing gene", I'll continue to believe that creative writing is an entirely learned skill. :encouragement:

Other examples: knitting, sculpting, cooking, carpentry, clockmaking . . . These things aren't naturally built into our DNA—they're crafts that are learned and honed over the years. The same goes for writing fiction.

I consider it a misconception when non-writers argue that "anyone can write fiction", due to the fact that we all use words in our day-to-day lives. As if using words suddenly makes one an author.

Using language to _communicate_ isn't the same as using language to _create a fictional narrative_. They're entirely different skills.

Just like writing poetry versus writing screenplays—both use words, but the application of those words is entirely different.

Every new medium requires its own learning curve.



			
				Darkkin said:
			
		

> ... authors who hit the lottery ... _Is it nature, nurture, or merely being in the right place at the right time ... ?_


Success is a trickier beast to nail down. Marketing and exposure certainly plays a huge role—an element that's not entirely in the author's control. :cower:

But _output_ is certainly within the author's control, and (for the most part) successful career writers seem to have one thing in common: they continue to work hard, and are steadily producing new works.

Publishing frequently isn't any guarantee of success, of course—but publishing _infrequently_ surely makes things a hell of a lot harder.


----------



## Bayview (Jan 19, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> Just out of curiosity (I've previously considered starting a thread about this and never bothered) have you ever met anybody who has been a good writer who isn't a voracious reader? Like, anybody at all? You said its rare, that implies you have?
> 
> Let's define voracious charitably as "once daily reading of fiction in the order of at least a few pages".



I'm not sure, to be honest. I mean, sometimes I find writing I enjoy and I know nothing about the writer, so I think I said "rare" instead of "never" mostly to allow for a bit of uncertainty on the topic. I can't right now think of anyone whose writing I enjoy that I _know_ doesn't read extensively.


----------



## Megan Pearson (Jan 21, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> Maybe for a writer simply reading is a source of self-nurture?



I'd agree with that.



Bayview said:


> I can't right now think of anyone whose writing I enjoy that I _know_ doesn't read extensively.



This makes me wonder, to what extent does _what_ we read influence our writing? 

My hiatus from the real world to pursue an M.A. has cultivated a habit of reading thousands of pages a semester in my field of study where I read for information rather than for enjoyment. Certainly, it is a focused endeavor. Much of my writing reflects this in that it has become much tighter and more focused (kind-a like academic writing is supposed to be!). However, my fiction has suffered in that I have developed a _much_ different voice in it than the one I used four years ago when I left off writing fiction regularly. I'm finding this learned formality can be hard to shake; for example, I'm reading an entertaining fiction story right now and find it's hard to 'just' enjoy the story. I am kinda frustrated by this. Yet, I have repeatedly read that a good writer--especially one who wants to write professionally--should not be influenced by the tone or style of what one reads. (So, clearly, I have a ways to go!)

But I do have to add (and in-line with John Gardner's advice in _On Becoming A Novelist_), in regards to the question of nurturing our writing through extensive reading, I think a similar argument may be made about nurturing our writing through earned life experience. Having reached the advent of middle-age, either a story rings true or it doesn't while reading it (a great predictor of my continuing or putting it down). Those life experiences also add their heavy influence to what I write to a much greater extent now than any influence as to how I might write based upon what I am currently reading. In other words, I would much rather go out and do than read someone else's account of whatever to help me write about a topic. (This is not to exclude research, only, that 'nurturing' ought to include both reading & experience.) 

As Louis L'Amour used to say, "it's all grist for the mill."


----------



## luckyscars (Jan 21, 2019)

Megan Pearson said:


> Having reached the advent of middle-age, either a story rings true or it doesn't while reading it (a great predictor of my continuing or putting it down). Those life experiences also add their heavy influence to what I write to a much greater extent now than any influence as to how I might write based upon what I am currently reading. In other words, I would much rather go out and do than read someone else's account of whatever to help me write about a topic. (This is not to exclude research, only, that 'nurturing' ought to include both reading & experience.)



I think this is a really important point.

I've often wondered if it is possible for somebody who has lived in a more or less isolated way, who has largely learned about the world through second-hand (such as reading) to actually be a good writer regardless of what they do. I am not convinced it is possible, honestly, and I hate to say that because it tends to be perceived as elitism...but if you have a malnourished life experience I don't think you can be a good writer.

You need to interact with people. You need to travel, even if its only a limited amount. It isn't about the mileage in the experience but the experiences in the mileage, but you cannot spend most of your life in your basement and have a hope of writing about the real world articulately. I think that's true no matter how much you read. 

Of all the things that are important to good writing, and there are many, a sincere living voice is probably one of the most important and yet chronically overlooked.


----------



## Megan Pearson (Jan 21, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> I think this is a really important point.
> 
> I've often wondered if it is possible for somebody who has lived in a more or less isolated way, who has largely learned about the world through second-hand (such as reading) to actually be a good writer regardless of what they do. I am not convinced it is possible, honestly, and I hate to say that because it tends to be perceived as elitism...but if you have a malnourished life experience I don't think you can be a good writer.
> 
> ...



As someone who has been on both sides of the do vs. 2nd-hand-life scenario, I think you are right. 

Having been a terribly shy bookworm (<--caveat: yes, life changes. Most people I know think of me as quiet yet outgoing [an odd combination, to be sure]. Except at parties, especially parties with lots and lots and lots of little children under the age of 5 running around at high speed and screaming, for hours and hours, like today when I sat by the door with the dog until it was time to go. :numbness:  Thankfully, they have a nice dog.) 

Anyway... Having been a terribly shy bookworm, I remember reading this one book in particular in my late teens. I was enjoying it until I realized the author was referencing one story I had read, then another story, until I became convinced that no part of that particular story was truly genuine: it was completely derivative. He lacked what you've just named "a sincere living voice." 

I remember first feeling somehow like the author had betrayed me. It was as if he had cheated somehow. This caused a flurry of activity on my part as I started mentally cataloging other books I had read. This led me to a second revelation: If I didn't go out and do, then the only thing I would be able to write about would in itself be derivative of what I had read. (Well, I can't say I quite as traumatized as that reads, but you get the idea.) I can't say my becoming more outgoing was solely linked to this discovery, but it helped. I have since squared off with rattlesnakes and politicians (not at the same time!), made a point of talking with strangers while traveling across the country, and have even tried eating ants and octopus (eew! Again, not at the same time). 

Those experiences sure do have a way of stacking up! It's like building an internal database of experiences of thoughts and feelings we can draw from--those things that give us our voice and make our fiction ours. Yet it's also the extensive reading that helps us frame those experiences into a work of writing structured in such a way that the reader knows what to expect when finding our blog or essay. So, I guess I've come 'round again in my argument. They go hand-in-hand. (Although, and like you've suggested, Luckyscars, I too wonder if experience isn't more often seen as the ugly step-child to 'reading more'? And I don't mean as in reading for research but as in mining for ideas and plot devices.)


----------



## Bayview (Jan 21, 2019)

I don't think I agree on the "lived experiences" part, or at least not once things get beyond an absolute extreme.

It's a bit hard to tell exactly what famously reclusive authors were doing, I suppose, since their reclusiveness led to a dearth of public records, but Poe was apparently socially withdrawn, as were Proust and Dickinson. Octavia Butler is described as having "paralyzing shyness". Most female writers who published more than fifty or a hundred years ago would have led really sheltered lives by most standards, but they still managed to write about interesting things.

I think if someone is _completely_ isolated, they'd probably have a hard time finding their own observations. And I think there's something to be said for authenticity - it's a lot easier for someone who's been to war to write a story about going to war. But for writing in general? I think an introvert can have an advantage over an extrovert, in that they tend to be quiet observers. Someone sitting by the door with a dog can see a hell of a lot of what's going on at a party by being an impartial observer rather than a participant. Someone who stays close to home and watches people and reads can have a much richer inner life than an adrenaline junkie who's always looking for her next fix and only seems to get excited about external events.

I think there are great writers who've gone out and had big adventures, and great writers who've stayed home and watched the world. I think being _interested_ is probably the key thing... paying attention to what's going on, whether what's going on is big or small, feeds an imagination.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jan 21, 2019)

Bayview said:


> I don't think I agree on the "lived experiences" part, or at least not once things get beyond an absolute extreme.
> 
> .





I don't think it is so much the events of those experiences as much as the people they meet.
Getting out into the world exposes us to a myriad of people we would never meet in a mere book.
All of my best characters were based on real people I have met in the army, or on the flightline...or even on death row.






But back to the original post of *Nature V Nurture*.


I believe that it takes *both *to make it in the *modern writing world*.
Sure, mebbe a century ago you coulda made it with one or the other alone.
But nowadays, with Indie publishing crowding the market and letting in the whole world, you simply must have the _basic talent_ as well as the _disciplined focus_.
It's a tough market out there, and you will be facing thousands of other authors who have both skills and discipline.
Think of it like the Olympics: those athletes have natural talent, but it is honed to perfection by focused discipline.
No one just walks in off the streets and wins a gold medal.
Before Usain Bolt won all his medals, he ran 100,000 miles in training and competitions.


----------



## Guard Dog (Jan 21, 2019)

Ralph Rotten said:


> ...or even on death row.



Hell, Ralph... We're all on Death Row.  

...most are too cowardly to face it, and the rest are too chicken-shit to admit it.


G.D.


----------



## luckyscars (Jan 22, 2019)

Bayview said:


> I don't think I agree on the "lived experiences" part, or at least not once things get beyond an absolute extreme.
> 
> It's a bit hard to tell exactly what famously reclusive authors were doing, I suppose, since their reclusiveness led to a dearth of public records, but Poe was apparently socially withdrawn, as were Proust and Dickinson. Octavia Butler is described as having "paralyzing shyness". Most female writers who published more than fifty or a hundred years ago would have led really sheltered lives by most standards, but they still managed to write about interesting things.
> 
> ...



I don't think we are talking about quite the same thing.

I don't think extroverts typically make good writers, for more or less the reasons you describe. 

When I say 'experience' I am really talking about exposure to the kinds of stimuli that are needed for the kinds of story the writer wants to tell. It doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing thing, nor must the standard necessarily be the same for everybody, but I think there should be some kind of connection between the writer and their main subject matter that comes from real life. You don't need to have been a sailor to write a story set on a ship, though that would likely help, but you probably should at least have visited the ocean. Or at least left home and gone to a museum or something. 

The sheltered-women example is an interesting one. A house maid in an 18th century estate might be considered rather lacking in what we would call life experience but that would ignore the kind of life that can take place under a single roof, right? What makes a person like that uniquely qualified may be their 'fly on a wall' presence and how they can observe people from quite a special perspective. So in a sense they might enjoy as unique a perspective and experience as, say, a mountain climber and may be better placed to tell some stories. Does that make sense?

I've known writers who have spent hours and hours sitting on a bus or a train on a circular route just watching and listening in on conversations and filling notebooks with what they see and hear. I'd call that life experience, in the context of writing at least.


----------



## midnightpoet (Jan 22, 2019)

This is an interesting discussion.  We might as well say, were you born that way or is it a life choice?  Yes, writing is a learned skill, but there is a certain level of intelligence involved.  As in what makes a genius?  I can think back for example to the author of Beowulf. The tale was told probably over a camp fire and in the future tellings evolved into the complete story until it was written down.  But where did the original inspiration come from? You might say a similar thing about Homer or Caedmon.   

Whatever the truth, I've always found the human experience to be interesting, and a lot of my writing comes from reading and life experiences. Like one said above, being a successful writer is an entirely different animal - yet there is something I believe is inborn that we haven't quite figured out yet.


----------



## Kyle R (Jan 22, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> The sheltered-women example is an interesting one. A house maid in an 18th century estate might be considered rather lacking in what we would call life experience but that would ignore the kind of life that can take place under a single roof, right?



I think everyone has their own unique circumstances and experiences to call upon, when seeking inspiration and/or insights that can help with their writing.

A recluse might not have a lot of worldly experiences to pull from, but they'd probably have a deep well of knowledge when it comes to feeling lonely/isolated/socially awkward (etc).

Plus, there's the whole _imagination_ factor, where even a sheltered individual might have a very convincing (and/or compelling) imagination to help guide them, when writing the kinds of experiences that they've never had. :encouragement:


----------



## Guard Dog (Jan 22, 2019)

The other side of this question - and maybe the better one - is how much does natural curiosity play into things?

I've known people who were very goal-oriented in most everything they've done. Their motivations were always in achieving some particular thing they wanted. Anything that didn't fit into that, they had no interest in.

Others, like me, are natural 'busybodies', always poking into things, finding out how things work, or what makes a particular thing the way it is, or even finding out if they could do something they've seen someone else do.

In my case, some of the people around me encouraged that, but just as often as not, I'd hear 'why are you doing that?', 'what good is that to you?' etc.

Still, here I am, doing exactly what I always have.

So who gets the blame/credit for that one? I'm quite sure it's a natural tendency, and not a nurtured or cultivated one.

And how does that apply to the question at hand? Especially since I'm doing what I am - writing/learning to write - as much to simply learn yet another skill as anything?



G.D.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jan 22, 2019)

"Boring conversation anyhow!"
As he fires his blaster at the keyboard.


----------



## Myk3y (Jan 25, 2019)

If you don't nurture your talent, it will remain buried. If you have no talent, there's nothing to nurture.

I read, recently, a truly awful except of an '84,000 word novel', as touted by the first-time author. It was dire. He had gumption and stickability - heck, he strung together 84,000 words - but most of them were poorly chosen or arranged in the wrong order, or paired unsuitably with unwilling partners.

I have no preconceived ideas about my talent. I think I am a middling-level writer that can, if he really works at it and edits the heck out of his scratchings, can produce something readable. Probably not that someone will pay for, but won't just bin after the second sentence.

But, I struggle with vision and innovation and the story that needs telling. I have to tease it and look at it from six different directions before I can work out what the story actually is. Often I have a beginning, middle and end, but they are for three different stories.

What I've come to realise is that without practice, within boundaries, with a direction, writing is just ramble. You need to write to something. What that 'to' is, is the golden ticket.

I've got reams of half-finished 'stories' that are essentially just exercises in descriptive writing. They've been useful vehicles, but they don't comprise a story because theres no boundary or direction.

A story will fight to get out. You need to tame it, lead it along and release it into the wild in a controlled manner.


----------



## Myk3y (Jan 25, 2019)

Ralph Rotten said:


> "Boring conversation anyhow!"
> As he fires his blaster at the keyboard.



I find that the quality of my writing is directly attributable to the expense not spared on the keyboard I use to write on. As you can see, this $16 one isn't up to much...

The trouble is, I've not yet found a keyboard worthy enough to capture the blockbuster that lies within. I've got my feelers out, though. I believe Chicony and Cherry and Logitech are just a tiny step away from delivering to me the conduit to my brilliance


----------



## Guard Dog (Jan 25, 2019)

Myk3y said:


> I read, recently, a truly awful except of an '84,000 word novel', as touted by the first-time author. It was dire. He had gumption and stickability - heck, he strung together 84,000 words - but most of them were poorly chosen or arranged in the wrong order, or paired unsuitably with unwilling partners.



Eh, I guess I'm at least one up on that then.

Y'see, I never had any interest at all in becoming a writer. However, despite that handicap, I've strung together over 320,000 words of one particular story I've been working on for a very long time. ( You can find various excerpts of it around here. )

( Btw... the 'writing' part of the program has only been goin' on for 5 months now. )

Y'wanna hear the funny part? 

I still don't have any urge to be a writer, only to get this story written down.

How's that for odd?

The moral of the story, I guess, is that you can never really judge the motivation - or reason - behind a person doing a particular thing.

...or how likely they are to succeed at it.



G.D.
P.S. I spent U.S. $40 on my keyboard. It seems to be good for a bit over 65,500 words a month.


----------



## Myk3y (Jan 25, 2019)

Guard Dog said:


> The other side of this question - and maybe the better one - is how much does natural curiosity play into things?
> 
> I've known people who were very goal-oriented in most everything they've done. Their motivations were always in achieving some particular thing they wanted. Anything that didn't fit into that, they had no interest in.
> 
> ...



I think you're right, in that a natural curiosity will leave you with a large body of knowledge from which to work.

I am an inveterate fiddler and picker and undoer. I clearly have a very developed monkey brain that has to know. As a result, I don't just superficially look at stuff, I delve into it and try and fit it into the world. Why does a hornbill have such a huge beak when it lives on small fruits? What happens if I put a piece of toffee in my dog's food bowl? Does 240v really hurt? That sort of thing...

Having a good memory helps. 

I am blessed and cursed in equal measure with an insatiable curiosity, a technical, engineers mind, Aspergers, a great memory, an active imagination and a solid, if irritable, work ethic.

I also have an amazingly patient and caring wife who directs and checks those impulses (like calling downstairs at 2.45am this morning 'I want you in my bed, now', and a good thing it was too - I needed to stop writing, it would ruin my Saturday to be tired and grouchy).

All of those, and my Mum and Dad that fuelled in me the desire to have to learn, the sister I competed with, the teachers I upset and scorned and surprised and disappointed, all go to making me what I am and what I will become. 

I never amounted to much, educationally. School barely contained me. But the world - what a place! Luckily those closest to me have never, ever asked 'what's the use of that?' - they know I will find a use, some day. Much like my biscuit tin of mismatched screws, bolts, nuts and washers, they're of no use whatsoever until you need one, and then you thank your foresight in saving that greasy little piece of metal for posterity.


----------



## Theglasshouse (Jan 29, 2019)

Inspiration doesn't need to be confined to our experiences always such as write what you know but also uses the imagination. It's best as a mix of these experiences, why limit your sources of inpiration? Writers need both what could be taken from real life and not taken from real life.


----------

