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

[HareBrain]

are you born with good imagination or is that something that can be practiced and nurtured

I think it's probably something you're born with to a degree, and also might be down to upbringing. Studies have shown that one thing that helps develop a rich inner world is a childhood with lots of boredom and unstructured free time. My younger brother and I both had that -- no organised after-school activities, cub scouts etc -- and we're both pretty imaginative. My three older siblings had much more organised activity, and seem to me less so.

But I also think you can train yourself to get more in touch with your subconscious. If someone has interesting dreams, that's probably a sign that the imagination is potentially fruitful, even if it's got a bit lazy. And exercises like constantly asking yourself "what would happen if such-and-such" has got to be good for toning up the imagination muscles.

 

[RX-79G]

"Talent" is an odd concept. It is easy to see the application to something like playing an instrument or cooking. They require having a certain sensitivity and an ability to do a very particular thing. And that can happen without being good at anything else.

Writing is a much more general behavior. Everybody puts words into sentences every day. Some people do that much better than other people, but are they expressing a singular talent, or are they just very intelligent people? Reading the books that Richard Feynman and Carl Sagan wrote would lead you to believe they had writing talent. Feynman also learned to draw pretty well - despite insisting he had no "talent" for art. The fact that they both had very high intelligence seems to have more to do with their aptitudes than some specific language or storytelling talent.

I would be interested in hearing about any notable writer that doesn't show a variety of aptitudes.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

It's an interesting point. Tolkien for instance was a fantastic watercolorist.

 

[Steven Sorrels]

It's an interesting point. Tolkien for instance was a fantastic watercolorist.

And Stephen King has been part of a band with fellow writers and editors for years.

 

[Toby Frost]

That's a good point. I suspect that anyone offering their services as a writer-for-hire would run up against the view that "But I write stuff every day!" is the same as writing it really well. Writing is quite general behaviour, but to fine-tune it is rare. Also, I'd say that the skills of writing a novel or a short story (two very different things) are different from, and not involved in, casual writing such as writing an email clearly. So perhaps it's as much about the functional stuff like pacing, structure and so on as it is about the literal skill with which the writing is constructed. I vaguely remember Kazuo Ishiguru complaining that students who could write an excellent paragraph were not equipped to write a good novel.

It's probably also true that some things aren't required for reasonable writing that you might expect. Even for a man from England, I find other people extremely hard to read: unless something is pointed out to me, I probably won't notice it. But that lack of intuitive understanding has never really got in the way of writing - in fact, I rather like the way that you don't have to wonder what the characters are thinking because you know exactly, since you made them up!

 

[Stephen Palmer]

I've always thought power of imagination was far more important than power of technique, which is why I always go against the grain in these "writing technique" threads. If you ain't got the vision, no amount of technique is going to save you.

To go back to the original question, I do also think you have to have "stuff" in your work - this was the term used by my first editor to describe the stance - political, ethical, whatever - behind the fiction. You have to have something to say.

 

[The Big Peat]

I've always thought power of imagination was far more important than power of technique, which is why I always go against the grain in these "writing technique" threads. If you ain't got the vision, no amount of technique is going to save you.

To go back to the original question, I do also think you have to have "stuff" in your work - this was the term used by my first editor to describe the stance - political, ethical, whatever - behind the fiction. You have to have something to say.

I'm the opposite because I tend to look at what's published - or what's published big, what's published small, what's published indie and what's published not at all - and come to the conclusion that too much imagination appears to be an active barrier to success, or at least too much on the page is.

 

[Ragandar]

I think it's probably something you're born with to a degree, and also might be down to upbringing. Studies have shown that one thing that helps develop a rich inner world is a childhood with lots of boredom and unstructured free time. My younger brother and I both had that -- no organised after-school activities, cub scouts etc -- and we're both pretty imaginative. My three older siblings had much more organised activity, and seem to me less so.

But I also think you can train yourself to get more in touch with your subconscious. If someone has interesting dreams, that's probably a sign that the imagination is potentially fruitful, even if it's got a bit lazy. And exercises like constantly asking yourself "what would happen if such-and-such" has got to be good for toning up the imagination muscles.

That's interesting, because my free time was far more structured than that of my brother and sister and I'm by far the most imaginative of the three. I believe, however, that this is likely due to my cycling to school. An hour of cycling alone every day and the fields with cows quickly became woods with orcs and fairies. My brother went to school closer by, and my sister always cycled with her friends, so there was less of a need for distraction for them. So the boredom thing was definitely there, but it was hardly unstructured.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

I'm the opposite because I tend to look at what's published - or what's published big, what's published small, what's published indie and what's published not at all - and come to the conclusion that too much imagination appears to be an active barrier to success, or at least too much on the page is.

Have you read my Hairy London ? It's style and construction might intrigue you…

 

[The Big Peat]

Have you read my Hairy London ? It's style and construction might intrigue you…

I have not but have just taken the kindle sample.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

I have not but have just taken the kindle sample.

You can download the short story that led to the novel for free - Xana-La. Enormous fun to write, but I don't think I'll be able to do it again…

 

[RX-79G]

I've always thought power of imagination was far more important than power of technique, which is why I always go against the grain in these "writing technique" threads. If you ain't got the vision, no amount of technique is going to save you.

To go back to the original question, I do also think you have to have "stuff" in your work - this was the term used by my first editor to describe the stance - political, ethical, whatever - behind the fiction. You have to have something to say.

I would largely agree with this, mainly because I can't really imagine a "technique" that is going to allow creative writing to happen. To have something even vaguely original to say, you have to be writing something slightly unexpected that makes the story "novel" to the reader. If a writer has developed a voice and turns it into a formula, that may be a technique, but one arrived at by being imaginative in the first place.

"Stuff" might be pretty darn similar to those "theme" thingys our English teachers kept on about.



On the "intelligence" front, consider a standardized test. Pre-1996, an SAT was considered another kind of IQ test. So if you scored high in the Verbal section, what have you demonstrated? Primarily your large vocabulary and ability to make or understand analogies. Can a writer who has a poorer vocabulary and is not able to make metaphors likely to write well? Good writers must, at a minimum, have a high-ish verbal IQ if they want to use language to construct something novel. Otherwise they are like a visual artist who cannot draw well enough to depict the idea in their head. At a minimum you have to be able to manipulate language in an above-average way if language is the tool for creation.

There are a few writers whose incredible use of language sets them apart from everyone else. Maybe those are the "talented" ones. All the other good writers are people who are smart and have decided to turn that intelligence to fiction writing instead of marketing, anthropology or other callings where verbal intelligence is important. I don't think they even need to be incredibly imaginative - the ideas are all out there; which ones we choose to assemble and how is where the creativity comes in.

 

[ErikB]

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--

I believe that one can become good at anything with time, however as a photorealistic wildlife artist I can also say that it is innate talent that separates those who have mastered their art from those who might be very proficient but lack that spark.

I think that the same is true of writers. Really masterful writers or great ones as you describe have a certain inherent spark that separates them from those that are proficient but not compelling.

I have seen it in artwork and writing is in my mind a different form of creative expression, but one that requires that same kind of inspired spark.

 

[Phyrebrat]

I think it depends on your vantage. Are you looking from a place of getting published or creating something you're happy with? I (tire of) say(ing) this a lot: Stop writing to a blueprint. Writing is an art that uses technique, not a technique that uses art.

If you want a higher chance of being published, then by all means be a slave to techniques, but if you have a story you want to tell, or a theme you want to explore, explore it!

Am I published? No. Am I an authority? No. Have I ever written something that's not been true to my aesthetics? Never, but technique has never come into that.

As a professional choreographer and teacher, I find it far more helpful for my students to improvise and freestyle - playing - and to go from there, rather than teaching them technique. It's ludicrous to put a technique on a body before you know what that body's innate movement vocabulary is. I think writing is the same. Why push literary fascism on someone who has their own voice? Write you, and then tweak polish it.

pH

 

[The Big Peat]

On imagination vs craft (and art vs technique)

Saying craft is more important is not to say imagination is unimportant.

I have already given one reason for believing craft more important (if you wish to be published), namely that there's more highly derivative works out there than poorly written works.

Another reason though is that most people on forums like these already have a surfeit of ideas. What they don't have is a surfeit of craft. So for most people I'm talking to about writing, craft is more important. Maybe lower down the totem pole, imagination is more important - without those ideas, you never start. Maybe higher up, with people who've got their craft down, the imagination becomes more important again. But I think for advanced apprentices/aspiring journeymen, the craft is the big thing. Again, that's a bepublished-centric viewpoint, but I think even if you just want to write stories for you, you'll enjoy them more and find the process easier if you're a better writer.

However, something that has made me waver in these beliefs is the thought that yes, imagination is a skill that can be trained, and that very few people train theirs. That being able to consistently make up stories about people and things, or build on our flashes of inspiration, is a thing you can get better at and few would-be authors seem to be trying to. Knowing which bits of your imagination to put on the page and which not to is arguably a skill - or technique - of imagination too.

And I think telling people to explore technique is no prescriptive thing - or at least, doesn't have to be. There's a ton of different techniques out there after all. The more you know about them, the more stories open up. I have some I can't imagine as anything other than first person. Although, again, this seems to be a stage thing. Do I tell people to just go and write? Yes, sometimes. But when they're popping up with questions and requests for critiques, then clearly the time has come to suggest tweaks they can add. And again, that seems to be more of the people I talk to.

To a certain extent though, arguing imagination vs craft is (while fun) like arguing whether the engine or the wheels of your car are more important. You're not going anywhere with just one of them.

You can download the short story that led to the novel for free - Xana-La. Enormous fun to write, but I don't think I'll be able to do it again…

It appears to be free on Amazon.com but not Amazon.co.uk at the moment alas.

 

[Venusian Broon]

Studies have shown that one thing that helps develop a rich inner world is a childhood with lots of boredom and unstructured free time.

Somehow this seems to perfectly describe 70s and 80s childhood for me.

I think if computers hadn't been slightly more glorified slide rules at the time, I may have turned out very different

 

[Phyrebrat]

I certainly agree in the balance, but all too often there is a focus on how-to. I think your craft and your imagination have to keep pace with one another.

But as I keep seeing on here there is a preponderance of focus on technique. How many times do we see someone recommend meditation and creative visualisation practice over, say, Save the Cat or other how-to books?

pH

 

[The Big Peat]

I think it is a fair observation that here people focus more on craft than ideas, yes.

 

[HareBrain]

How many times do we see someone recommend meditation and creative visualisation practice over

I recall an anecdote by Colin Wilson about the time he had to shut himself in a hotel bedroom and rewrite someone else's screenplay, the film's director (Dino de Laurentis no less) having given him until morning to do it.

Realising he had no hope under normal circumstances, Wilson handed the whole process over to part of his subconscious he called "Gerald"(?), and lo! the job was done.

Alas, the anecdote was very vague about what this "handing over" process involved. But assuming it happened as he related, that could be the best piece of writing advice ever, and nothing to do with writing technique.

 

[Venusian Broon]

I recall an anecdote by Colin Wilson about the time he had to shut himself in a hotel bedroom and rewrite someone else's screenplay, the film's director (Dino de Laurentis no less) having given him until morning to do it.

Realising he had no hope under normal circumstances, Wilson handed the whole process over to part of his subconscious he called "Gerald"(?), and lo! the job was done.

First name Gerald, second name Panic. Yes I've used his services a few times. He seems to like to drink lots of coffee and not require any sleep...