Writing: Talent vs Practice

[Flaviosky]

Dear Community,

I was wondering if writing, as an activity, may abide to the same laws as many other disciplines.

Of course, the more you practice, the better you get at it, but in some cases there's a talent cap where the effects of practice get diminished gradually (decreasingly marginal gains), so even by practicing, you may end up wiriting badly anyway because you simply don't have talent to advance further.

May "writing talent" exist? May some people be gifted or cursed in terms of writing potential? Or writing may be one of those things that are there for everyone to develop if they're disciplined enough?

I'd love to hear your thoughts about this. Thanks.

 

[AllanR]

For most people I would expect the cap (with lots of practice) to be good -an average practised writer will still be able to tell a good story and be entertaining.
Now exceptional and genius? Perhaps that is good writing with courage?

 

[Valtharius]

Hard to say, especially since writing talent is so subjective.

 

[Astro Pen]

I think I would replace the word practice with familiarity. Once one is familiar with the writing process it is easy to take ideas and lay them out. A comfortable ease of flow is achieved.
One can practice a lot and yet remain tense as a writer. Particularly if one expects to "learn to write" by absorbing and applying rules.

Letting go is hard, but the invisible critic, "practice", looking over your shoulder like a schoolmaster and watching you write, is an obstruction to expression.
Instead let writing become familiar and natural as talking. Play with it, try pushing boundaries of expression. Lone paragraphs, or lines just to produce a style, a feel or a moment. That is where progress will be made, when you, later, bring their colours into the mix.

 

[Mon0Zer0]

Nature AND Nurture.

Writing isn't one discipline it's several - research, memory, vocabulary, grammar, creativity, rhythm, juxtaposition of concepts, wit, empathy, feel for structure etc.

Someone might have a natural acuity or interest in one aspect that would give them a head-start over another person, but there are so many facets for writing that its unlikely for someone to develop the whole suite, so writers have to develop these through practice and self reflection.

Of course, the more you practice, the better you get at it, but in some cases there's a talent cap where the effects of practice get diminished gradually (decreasingly marginal gains), so even by practicing, you may end up wiriting badly anyway because you simply don't have talent to advance further.

I don't agree with this. Writing is a skill borne out of hard work (edit: and hard play) more than inspiration.

The point at which any cap is going to kick in would be above the level of competency. Most writers could probably attain that level if they were sufficiently motivated and had the right kind of guidance.

Beyond competence, you're getting into the more subjective realms of Mastery, and what people write about, as well as "elite" or "novel" ways of using their skills.

 

[Biskit]

I think practice can improve the mechanics of writing, crafting sentences that convey the writer's meaning in a way that is pleasing, and perhaps easy to read, but the other side, assembling the ideas to be conveyed, seems to be as much about "talent" as practice. Regardless of whether you write intricate prose or keep it simple, the thing that matters most is that you are the curator of the story. You, the writer, need to select from a vast array of information which bits you want to present to the reader to convey the story, and really the quality of your writing depends on which bits you pick, how you present them, and in what order.

One of the things I've often seen praising "great" writers is their observation of people and how they present that. I don't think it matters what you are writing, it's that observation of the world, of people, and weaving those elements into your story that creates the strongest impression on the reader. I'm sure that you can practice that to a certain extent, but I think there's something innate about the way really good writers see the world. Even if you're creating the most outlandish fantasy, there has to be something familiar for the reader to latch on to whilst they marvel at the wonders you've invented. The "better" that familiarity is, the better your writing, and the more fantastical your story the stronger that hook needs to be.

 

[sule]

Talent exists, but it's no substitute for hard work. My opinion is exactly the opposite of yours: talent is the thing that hits a ceiling where you can't go any further; hard work and effort can always raise you above where you were.

Writing often is your best bet of improving at the craft, but don't forget to read. Teach yourself (or learn from someone else) how to read with the eye of a writer. When you read a story, ask yourself, "What is going on here? What is the author doing that I could apply to my own writing?" Read good description, and ask yourself what makes it good. Do the same with dialogue, exposition, character, etc. The great thing about being a student of fiction is that most of your "textbooks" can be gotten from the library.

Basically, if you're worried that you've hit a plateau in your skill as a writer then it's a great time to sit down with a good book and figure out what you can learn from it.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I think talent is very important

 

[Wayne Mack]

If not through practice and study and experience, where does skilled writing come from? There are no physical characteristics, such as in athletics or labor intensive activities; we are all born with the same level of writing skill -- none. No, I don't believe that there is some mystical talent that is awarded by forces unknown. That is both the promise and bane of writing; there is nothing preventing one from succeeding except the time and effort required to do so.

 

[sule]

I wasn't trying to say that I think talent doesn't matter--in my opinion at least, it does. There is a level of skill with wordcraft that can be inherent; certainly it takes one person less time to master a skill than another. The point I was trying to make is that it is more important for a writer to put effort into their craft. Without hard work, talent will often lie unpolished.

 

[reiver33]

Even the most finely-honed set of writing skills are worthless without an underlying creativity - in the field of fiction (great if you're a technical author). Otherwise all you end up with is the perfectly crafted expression of a poor idea. Of course the opposite is also true - raw talent hamstrung by a naïve or simplistic realisation - but I've always considered style to be the lens through which ability is viewed by the reader, and it can be magnified or diminished, but never obscured.

To me the idea of deconstructing another (presumably 'successful') writers work for pointers concerning your own seems pointless. You are what you write, just as much as a painter, dancer or any other member of the performing arts. Certainly you can emulate another's style, presentation, even content, but it won't be 'you' at the heart of the work, and to me that's what matters.

 

[Droflet]

"You should never try to teach a chicken how to dance. Not only will it be a waste of your time but it will annoy the chicken." Robert A Heinlein.
I pinched that as my motto.
Some people can write, some people, regardless of their desire, cannot write. It's really that simple. Ah, and that complex.

 

[Steve Harrison]

I know people who have been obsessively playing golf several times a week for decades and if anything are now worse than when they started. Just sayin'.

On the other hand, I don't think you don't need to be talented to become a good writer - however you define talent - but I am convinced it must help.

 

[Kerrybuchanan]

It’s a tricky one. I think that to be a really good writer*, a person needs both talent and hard work.

*What defines a really good writer? I think the late Sir Terry was a truly brilliant writer, yet many think he’s not (literary folks, mostly). I love Anne McCaffrey’s novels, yet now I’m a writer, I can see the faults. I still love her novels, mind.

It seems to be hard to define ‘good’. Is an author a good writer because they sell thousands of copies (Dan Brown, JK Rowling), or are they just lucky? I’ve read work from fledgling writers that I consider superior in every way to most successful authors, yet they can’t get a publishing contract no matter how hard they try.

Sorry if I slid into a wee rant there. Grumpy after a poor night’s sleep! Apologies for straying from the original OP’s question.

 

[The Judge]

I'd say that creating a written story requires two different skills -- storytelling and the actual writing. (I wouldn't like to draw exact boundaries between them, and to an extent they overlap, but off the top of my head that would probably be plot, pacing and the use of storytelling techniques such as cliff-hangers -v- characters, dialogue and description, and the actual prose used.)

It's possible to be successful as a novelist while only being good at one of those two. For instance, Dan Brown and Jeffrey Archer sell by the bucket-load because they have a gift for telling a story -- it doesn't necessarily mean brilliant plots, either, just that they have a knack of being able to hook a reader. As I've mentioned before on Chrons, Anthony Horowitz once interviewed Archer in the latter's penthouse flat (as he noted, they were both novelists but only of them had an original Monet on the wall) and beforehand he read one of Archer's novels. Horowitz felt the novel had no authentic sense of period, the dialogue was "questionable" (ie trite and ridiculous), and the whole thing was full of cliches with a villain straight out of Victorian melodrama but "I had to admit I was utterly hooked. It was an absurdly enjoyable read."

To my mind, storytelling requires at least a spark of innate talent, though undoubtedly it can be (and usually has to be) honed by working with that talent. However, the ability to capture a story in elegant, or even serviceable prose, with decent dialogue and description, can be achieved solely through hard work and dedication. As is often said on Chrons, writing is both an art and a craft.

But "practice" alone isn't enough, not even for the craft-like aspects of writing. Churning out hundreds of thousands of words doesn't in and of itself make a writer better if it's done without thought. Even natural-born athletes need targeted training in order to achieve greatness, and the same is true for writing -- sow's ears remain sow's ears no matter how much time is spent working on them; they become silk purses only when one can understand and wield magic. And it has to be a learning process, which can mean reading with intelligence as to how other people create their own magic (not copying them, but seeing how they've done it), but more importantly to my mind it means getting feedback, and listening to it with sufficient humility to accept such feedback and work with it. It's not unknown for someone new to put work up in Critiques expecting praise, then storm off when it isn't forthcoming -- in my view such a person won't improve in skill, no matter how much he writes, unless and until he accepts that he needs to improve.

 

[paranoid marvin]

It is a tricky question. Talent is an innate ability to be able to do something. Is anyone born with such skills in respect to writing?

I think you have to enjoy writing to be any good at it, and that is usually governed by external influences beyond our control. Access to books and education at an early age, access to stimulae to encourage the imagination and creativity are (in my opinion) necessary.

If you are given books and education at an early age, are encouraged to write and create and get a chance to see something of the world around you, then you are in a much better position to become a good writer than someone who isn't. It's then a case of nurturing and developing those skills and abilities.

 

[paranoid marvin]

It’s a tricky one. I think that to be a really good writer*, a person needs both talent and hard work.

*What defines a really good writer? I think the late Sir Terry was a truly brilliant writer, yet many think he’s not (literary folks, mostly). I love Anne McCaffrey’s novels, yet now I’m a writer, I can see the faults. I still love her novels, mind.

It seems to be hard to define ‘good’. Is an author a good writer because they sell thousands of copies (Dan Brown, JK Rowling), or are they just lucky? I’ve read work from fledgling writers that I consider superior in every way to most successful authors, yet they can’t get a publishing contract no matter how hard they try.

Sorry if I slid into a wee rant there. Grumpy after a poor night’s sleep! Apologies for straying from the original OP’s question.

I think sometimes it's about finding a niche in the market. There's also no doubt some luck involved in getting a book published, as it can also help if you know someone with influence in that department. From a publishing aspect, it doesn't matter how good or bad you are as long as you sell. It's all a case of getting someone to take a chance with publishing your work, and effectively advertising and distributing it.

I suppose much like any other artist, whether it's writing, acting painting it's a case of being discovered. How many genius musicians/painters/authors died in poverty because they weren't discovered until it was too late?

 

[reiver33]

I would say that storytelling, in its broadest sense, is a talent with its roots in linguistics and as such a talent enhanced by experience but not one that can be acquired independently. Writing is just one outlet for that ability, along with verbal history, voiceover narration and sophisticated stand-up comedy.

In terms of success (a quick aside) I think talent counts for maybe 25%, alongside perseverance, luck, and (in the modern era) exposure. Those with neither the time nor inclination to establish an on-line presence will continue to labour in obscurity, but, speaking personally, I’m content with that.

 

[The Big Peat]

With apologies if I'm echoing some people as I'm ploughing straight in without reading -

Talent exists. It matters. There are some people who be shunt at the whole writing thing no matter how hard they try; there are some people who simply seem to grasp things the rest of us struggle with effortlessly. Not many of either, but they exist.

Practice and Work and Knowledge and what not matter more. Even the most talented writers will improve with hard work. Hard work can transform the rough diamonds into something amazing. And so on. And, perhaps most crucially, knowledge and work and practice will let a writer find out what exactly their talents are.

Because writing is not just one amorphous thing, but it is a collection of skills and disciplines and most of us aren't equally good at all of them. Some have a talent for wordsmithery, for picking the right word for the right phrase and for the rhythm of things, that others do not. Some have a talent for plotting, and knowing when to surprise the reader or give them what they're waiting for. Some have a talent for observation of the world and finding interesting things to say about it. Some of us write great dialogue, some of us write great action scenes. Some of us are researchers and can create incredible verisimilitude through that, some of us have wild imaginations and can wow and enchant readers with that. This is but a small selection of the various talents within the discipline. Want to become a great writer? Find which of those skills and talents you are naturally great at and use the hell out of it.

Which I think brings us to the idea that you have to practice and work and acquire knowledge in a good, productive manner. It is not hard to find examples of people working very hard and getting sweet fanny adams out of it because there is something wrong in their approach. And in a way, being able to work out what methods of working and learning do best for you and then doing them, is in itself a talent and arguably one of the most important in writing.

TLDR - Talent exists, it is important, but rarely as important as hard work and most people have some form of talent that can make for great fiction.

 

[Foxbat]

I’m of the opinion that both talent and hard work have their place in any undertaking. I think it’s possible for a person to improve in any field through hard work. They might never become a viruoso at their craft but it’s certainly possible to make great improvement.

The biggest thing about improvement through hard work is to know where your weaknesses lie and to work on the areas for improvement. As was mentioned in another post, people can play golf all their lives and never improve. Perhaps better than simply playing all the time would be to improve on their weakest areas of the game and then apply that improvement when it comes to a full game. Translating that into writing, this is where constructive criticism can be invaluable. Through critique, a writer can learn where the weaknesses exist and work to improve.

One thing that I think needs a mention is passion. You could be the greatest wordsmith or storyteller in the world but without the drive that passion provides, you could spend your whole time looking for excuses not to do the hard work.