Can anyone who makes the required effort become a “great writer”? I don’t think so.

[Ronald T.]

In another forum, I read a thread from March, 2013, in which quite a number of our members were unwilling to acknowledge the concept of “inborn talent”.

I have to disagree wholeheartedly with those who deny that "innate talent" exists.

Almost my entire life I have been both a graphic and sculptural artist. From the age of seven or eight, that was my never-ending dream. I have worked in many graphic mediums, including pencil drawings, watercolors, oils, as well as in 3-D art, such as stone and woodcarving, and in oil-clay for sculpting maquettes for use in producing bronze sculpture. I have sold my graphic and sculptural art for forty years -- some of it to long-time art collectors -- and have twice won the highest award for woodcarving at the California Woodcarver's "Best-of-the-best" show in Cambria, CA.

Now, I mention these things for a reason. Art has always come easily for me. That doesn't mean I haven't worked hard at it. I have. I am self-taught and I've spent months on end without a day off trying to improve my skill level. For me, that effort paid off.

But here's the point.

I've known many woodcarvers who have spent even more time than I have at trying to become proficient carvers, yet they still carve at what I consider a beginner's level. I can tell they would give their left arm to reach a level that might be thought of as advanced, and yet they fail. This is after thirty or more years of taking every carving class that comes along. For some reason, they are simply unable to improve. The same can be said of the students I shared classes with in high-school and college. Those students longed to be good artists, yet they never produced anything that a professional might call adequate. It wasn't because they didn't want to improve, because they did. Yet they simply lacked a particular element that would make that goal possible: an innate talent.

Does anyone truly believe that being an opera star is possible merely through study and practice? I'm sorry my friends, it isn't. Nor is it possible to become an exceptional artist simply because one is willing to do the hard work and put in the time. If you don't have an intrinsic gift in these areas to begin with, it's not going to happen. The same is true with the art and craft of writing. One can study and practice, and they are likely to improve. But they are very unlikely to become a great, or even what is considered a very good writer. The gift of talent in any field is a quintessential part of rising above what one might consider merely 'adequate". It's heartbreaking, but true.

I am what many would call a novice writer. I have been a devout reader and a rabid student of writing for nearly forty years. However, I have been writing seriously for only eleven years. So, whether I have even the slightest gift for writing has yet to be seen. I will continue to work my ass off in an attempt to become a "great" or even a "talented" writer. But I'm not foolish enough to believe I will ever reach such lofty levels. I will likely have to settle for "adequate". However, that won't stop me from chasing the dream.

Most of us will have to settle for that non-lofty description. Yet, in the field of writing, even "adequate" is far above the norm.

So, all I can say is -- keep writing. If we’re fortunate, someday people might speak of us as talented writers. I believe that for most of us…this distinction is the dream.

Of course, I could be wrong. I think I can remember I was, "once".

What do you think? Does "innate talent" exist, and does it make a difference?.

As always, my best to all of you.

--The hermit in the woods--

 

[goldhawk]

Becoming a bestseller is an unreason goal. Becoming a mid-list author is a reasonable one and one I think most people can achieve. Unfortunately, the big publishers do not support mid-list authors any more and the small ones are not enough for a steady paycheck.

 

[MemoryTale]

I broadly agree Ronald, but I have to point out that different people look for different things in writing. To some people Tolkien is unmatched genius - to others, he's a bore who spends so long describing the woods he forgets to have anything happen in them.

With so much variety of taste you can argue that almost anyone can be a great writer, as long as they write something to your particular taste.

I should point out, I do not equate talent with success. Not to say successful writers aren't talented, but it is also true that talented writers aren't always successful.

 

[Brian G Turner]

What do you think? Does "innate talent" exist, and does it make a difference?.

From my 15 years managing the chrons forums I've seen precious few aspiring writers with natural talent - perhaps 1. What I have seen, though, is that those who push the hardest to become the best they can be, become the best I see.

I will likely have to settle for "adequate".

I honestly think this is aiming too low in the long-term - though to be fair, as a novice it's a respectable early goal to aim for. I wouldn't stop there, though.

 

[TheDustyZebra]

I think there is definitely innate talent in all fields, and no matter how hard a person may work, if they are not one who has the gift, they will never be as good as the naturals. But they can be good, and they may make a better living at it than a natural who doesn't work hard.

I have a son who is highly intelligent, "gifted", yet he is also one of the laziest people on the planet. He wouldn't have to put in half the effort that others do in order to do well in school (he's skipped two years already) but he doesn't put in any and comes close to failing at times. You have to use it or it doesn't do any good.

When I was in radio, I noticed right away that there are some people who "have it" and some who don't, and even if one has been doing it for years or decades, they still aren't as good as even new people who "have it", once the new people have mastered the mechanics.

 

[allmywires]

What do you think? Does "innate talent" exist, and does it make a difference?.

Yes, and sometimes, not at all.

Depends what you want to achieve. If you want to be a many-times over millionaire, you need mass appeal, not talent (E.L. James or her inspiration Stephenie Meyers anyone...). If you want to write something that resonates with a core group of people - maybe one, maybe hundreds, if you're lucky, thousands - you probably also will only achieve that through hard work, self promo, connections. You might not be fabulous, your ideas may be recycled, but you could make a decent wage from knowing enough and working hard enough at the industry, and sheer perseverance. Equally, you could have the rawest, most beautiful turn of phrase, a detailed and finely curated world, but if you're lazy or don't put the work in to find out who's going to read/buy your work, you won't succeed.

'Innate talent' is the spark on the flint that starts years of hard work, rewrites, networking, marketing, editing, compromise, and maybe if you're lucky, a moderate amount of success. Without the 'innate talent', it's a lot harder to motivate yourself to keep going through all those obstacles. I don't think it's got all that much to do with whether you're any good at writing, it's just about whether you love it enough to work hard at it.

IMO, anyhow.

 

[goldhawk]

When I was in radio, I noticed right away that there are some people who "have it" and some who don't, and even if one has been doing it for years or decades, they still aren't as good as even new people who "have it", once the new people have mastered the mechanics.

I find the people who "have it" are the keeners, the ones who will use every spare moment to read and study in their field. It's not so much a talent as it is an avid interest.

 

[Dennis E. Taylor]

I find the people who "have it" are the keeners, the ones who will use every spare moment to read and study in their field. It's not so much a talent as it is an avid interest.

Mm, have to disagree. I had an avid interest in guitar when I was a teenager. Played it constantly, did anything I could to be around people who played. At the end, I still sucked at it. I have no musical talent, and no amount of keenerism is going to get me over that hump. OTOH, when I discovered computer programming, I floated to the top of the barrel in no time.

Similarly, people like Mozart, Ramanujan, Gretzky, are able to reach the top of their fields with apparently little effort.

Personally, I find the argument that "there is no talent, it's just (X)" to be nothing more than a special case of True Scotsman fallacy. Sticking another name on it doesn't change anything. Some people are naturally good at certain things. By the same token, and probably due to the same mechanism, some people totally suck the hairy root at some things, and will never work their way up to merely incompetent regardless of effort.

And yes, you can become quite competent at something through diligence and hard work. But that doesn't in any way disprove talent. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

For any artistic endeavor there are people who have no aptitude (I'll use that word because talent seems to be a loaded word for some people), those who have a moderate amount, and those who have even more. Why should writing be any different?

A writer with a moderate degree of aptitude who works very hard may become a better writer than one with much more aptitude who hardly puts forth any effort at all. Either may be wildly successful if they hit on an idea that has a huge appeal for readers. (And readers who love their books may well mistake a great idea for great writing. They aren't the same thing at all.)

But neither of the above will be as good as a writer with a spectacular degree of aptitude who spends years perfecting his or her craft. That's the person who will become a great writer. That doesn't mean that we can't -- with some aptitude and a willingness to work hard and improve -- write books that will bring pleasure to thousands of readers, or that to do so isn't a worthy goal. It's not necessary to become a bestseller or to write something for the ages to make our efforts worthwhile.

 

[Zebra Wizard]

I compare writing to cheffing often, I can somehow come up with a cooking analogy for anything writing related . But like a chef, you can train, learn your craft and become a respectable writer. The more knowledge you seek out, and actively seek out criticism to improve your work speeds up your craft immensely. But even with so much knowledge you can become a respected chef, but not an outstanding one.

To be a great chef you need creativity that comes from within. Ideas. Confidence. Style. Being bold and giving your cilents something new and different. Many chefs can cook delicious meals, but to achieve the greatest acclaim you need to be different from the rest. But ofcourse there are plenty of people who would happen chow down on a McDonalds, and thats totally fine, just like the literary world theres what some would consider trash, but the public eat it up anyway, because it's not neccesarily what is made of, but how it tastes.

 

[Droflet]

Under my avatar are the words: I don't teach chickens how to dance. It's in reference to a Heinlein quote: You should never try to teach a chicken how to dance. Not only will it be a waste of you time but it will annoy the chicken.
His meaning, I believe is obvious. Everyone has a talent of some kind but that does not mean they can turn that talent in all directions. You may be an exceptional brain surgeon but it does not mean you are capable of building a house. Over the years I've seen people struggle to write but they all too often, despite their desires, don't get it. These are the chickens to whom I refer. Other chickens, especially on here, just need some dancing lessons to nudge them in the right direction. Just my 20 cents worth.

 

[Loren]

Do what you do because you love what you do.

If you do that it won't matter how you rate in other peoples' eyes because you will be at peace in your own.

Loren

 

[tinkerdan]

I won't dispute that some may have a natural talent for specific things such as art, music, and writing.

But they still have to learn everything they can; and they still need to apply themselves and work hard at what they do. And there is still the possibility that someone with talent may end up always in the mediocre group. And just as much chance that those who apply themselves and learn everything without that natural talent might still shine above those with the natural talent.

Perseverance hard work and dedication are a talent of a sort and coupled with another talent that can be a wining combination whether you had a natural aptitude for something or not.

Now: I'm tone deaf and otherwise musically disinclined so no matter how much I might apply myself it is only to the utter dismay of those close enough to hear.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

So many different issues here. First there's this conflation of greatness as a writer with success. My thought is that very likely many of the greatest writers in the world, the ones with huge talent and important things to be said, have never been published at all - and sadly will never be. The advent of self publishing removes some barriers for people, but not all of them. And the old trade publishing system was a major barrier to anything not deemed commercial.

But then we get to the idea that some people have no talent. That, with exception of a very few people, is not true. Everyone has some talent. Some have more, some less. But you need more than talent to be a commercial success - even if you are great. And you need more than that just to be considered as great even if you're a commercial failure. You need passion. You need hard work. The most talented writer in the world will be a failure comerically and in terms of greatness, if he can't be bothered putting in the effort or doesn't have a passion for writing.

And conversely someone mentioned the great composers. Yes, massive talent. But did that mean that they didn't put their hearts and souls into their work? No. Of course not. They did. And so trying to gauge later how much of their greatness and their success is due to their talent and how much is due to passion and hard work, is a guessing game.

Then last there's this concept of a measuring stick against which greatness is measured which seems to have passed most people by. Is Stephen King a great writer? I don't know. Certainly he has talent and passion and works hard. But the most common measuring stick we use to judge his greatness is commercial success. And so by that stanard yes he is great. By the standards of the literarty he may not be. His work may be derivative and prosaic. (Don't know, just saying.) Is Rushdie great? Maybe. Or maybe he's just controversial. (Again, don't know.) What about EL James? So many decry her writing. Yet the fact of her commercial success clearly means she's tapping into some sort of public need or want. So from that perspective she surely is great.

And how do we judge writing greatness? The prose? The plot? The characterization? The originality? There are just so many criteria, and I doubt anyone would be able to find a metric that everyone else would agree with.

My thought is that we need to forget this entire concept of talent, at least when it comes to writing. We need instead to go to a gestalt concept. We need to look at the story telling and the writing, the innate writing ability, the hard work, the passion and the freshness. And only then will we come close to deciding who is and isn't great.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[Foxbat]

Vincent Van Gough springs to mind. He didn't really achieve 'greatness' until after his death. If he was so great then why wasn't it recognised as such when he was alive? It forces me to believe that it's not a specific thing and it's not about talent but perception.

With that in mind, my philosophy is work hard and to hell with labels like greatness.

 

[Mad Alice]

One of the best writers I personally know has never been published and will never be published. Because their very great gift was taken away by an acquired brain injury. I watch them struggle for words now. I watch them look at pages and can't decipher the context of what's written.
But when I want to write I think of how they would put it. I try and find the words they've lost.
Gifts are fleeting possessions ofttimes. Sometimes they aren't even respected until they are gone.

 

[REBerg]

One of the best writers I personally know has never been published and will never be published. Because their very great gift was taken away by an acquired brain injury. I watch them struggle for words now. I watch them look at pages and can't decipher the context of what's written.
But when I want to write I think of how they would put it. I try and find the words they've lost.
Gifts are fleeting possessions ofttimes. Sometimes they aren't even respected until they are gone.

Sadly wow.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Yes, I know a writer who died suddently without finishing or publishing. Seems so sad.

Anyhow, I think there are innate storytellers and that might matter more than any amount of writing talent.

 

[HareBrain]

I think there are innate storytellers and that might matter more than any amount of writing talent.

I wouldn't separate them, and this illustrates a problem with the original question, to me. What does "writing talent" actually mean? Which part of the many, many activities that go into completing a book does it relate to? The ability to see, in a flash of instinct, which words might go together to create a unique metaphor? The ability to juggle tens of characters in a plot that reaches a satisfying conclusion? An insight into body language that isn't really part of writing but could be used to enhance it? I think people can be innately talented in all of those things, but unless they're innately talented in many of them, it might not be a huge advantage.

 

[WaylanderToo]

I won't dispute that some may have a natural talent for specific things such as art, music, and writing.

But they still have to learn everything they can; and they still need to apply themselves and work hard at what they do. And there is still the possibility that someone with talent may end up always in the mediocre group. And just as much chance that those who apply themselves and learn everything without that natural talent might still shine above those with the natural talent.

Perseverance hard work and dedication are a talent of a sort and coupled with another talent that can be a wining combination whether you had a natural aptitude for something or not.

Now: I'm tone deaf and otherwise musically disinclined so no matter how much I might apply myself it is only to the utter dismay of those close enough to hear.

^^^ this, this thrice this. Innate talent will only get you so far after that you have to work at it. I would never (NEVER!) have been able to run as fast as Usain Bolt not matter how hard I trained or cocktail of drugs I took, likewise (while I might despise footballists generically) it would have been highly unlikely for me to have been able to match the achievements of someone like Rooney regardless of application. Take it into artistic fields Dave Grohl is just amazing - a multi-instrumentalist (which I believe it is possible to practice at to get to a decent standard), singer (see my comment about the athletes above) AND a songwriter there is talent in abundance there, but I think we can all agree that it is honed by ferocious application/dedication to his art as well as the one thing that no-one can count on; a stroke of luck. There are countless super talented artistes across various fields who will remain unknown for various reasons (their agent hated them, their face didn't fit, racial prejudice, sexism, fashion, a lack of application or even fashion). So many things go into making a success that it's impossible to quantify - that being said once you are 'there' dedication can help you stay ahead of the pack ("funny thing is the harder I work the luckier I become" is a quote I recall from somewhere).

For myself I do have ideas - however to try and get those ideas onto paper then flesh out these ideas to longer than a couple of paragraphs.... . I guess what I need is someone who is an awesome writer who hasn't got an imagination