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

[Brian Scott Allen]

Writing is a very different beast. We can attempt to draw parallels between sports, musical instruments, musical composition, but they will inevitably fall short. With sports, there are certain physical requirements that come about only by winning the genetic lottery. (See Cam Newton) With musical instruments, you need certain physical tools (I got stubby hands and as such can never play guitar as well as Hendrix) as well as a certain mindset. With composition, you need certain technical proficiency, but that can be learned, but you also need a certain ear, which comes about naturally. But writing, the knowledge, the skill, the ability can be better learned and developed because storytelling is something that comes naturally to all of us. We've told stories as long as we could talk (speaking individually and speaking of the entirety of the human race). Every time we relate a memory, an experience, or anything we tell a story. That is all we are doing. We are writing stories, often times longer than the stories we tell every day. This is something natural. Sure, some people are better at it than others, but that does not mean these other storytellers aren't great. Even still, the skills to become a great writer can be learned.

The ability to create compelling characters, arcs, plots, settings and everything else can be learned by anyone of reasonable intelligence. But, there is something to say that some people don't have the "heart" to become a writer. However, that notion is overstated. It is not that they don't have the heart it is that the specific story they are telling doesn't have the heart. Or that they don't have the heart to write in the genre they are currently in. However, if they search for their kind of story and put their heart in it, they will become great.

In short, the skills of writing can be learned. The heart of writing has to be developed by introspection and seeking out yourself and your own skill. This might mean that we will have to change the genre or abandon a failed story. But the heart of a story is never out of reach.

 

[Ronald T.]

Clearly I have angered and perhaps offended certain people with the way in which I discussed this topic. That was never my intention, and I’m saddened to discover this. I have only respect for each of you here at Mythic Scribes. I have learned an incredible amount from being a member, and I thank you all.

I mentioned in my original post that I believe some sort of “innate talent†is required if a person is to achieve greatness in writing. I still do. In fact, I believe that is true in all the various endeavors of life.

Let’s look at a few examples of people who reached what most would call a level of “greatness†in their chosen field – Mozart, Vladimir Horowitz, Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Frank Lloyd Wright, Julia Morgan, Enrico Caruso, Maria Callas, Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Celine Dion, Josh Groban, George Lucas, Quentin Tarantino, and nameless others.

These are only a few who have reached such elevated status. The list could go on and on. But I’m very aware that what one person would categorize as “greatness†in a particular area, someone else might see as merely “adequateâ€, perhaps even trash. The concept of “greatness†is subjective. I think we all accept that.

However, what I referred to in my post was the idea of “greatness†as perceived by a majority of the populace. No one can please everyone. And they shouldn’t even try. They should please themselves first, and hope they do so for others. I am also a true believer in the idea that most of us are the worse judges of our own work. If we are ever to reach a level that might be considered some form of “greatnessâ€, that will be for others to decide.

And one other thing – I agree that “greatness†also exists in works that have yet to be discovered. I think that goes without saying.

Now here’s the most important part of “this†post.

I absolutely do not believe anyone should give up, or stop trying to achieve greatness as a goal – and that includes me. My point was to suggest that in striving for a less lofty goal, such as becoming a “good†writer, which seems a more realistic goal, one is less likely to be disappointed in the end. (From your responses, perhaps the use of “adequate†was a bit extreme. So I will accept your various points of view on that issue.) With that said, if setting the highest goal possible, and then settling for something short of that works for you, then by all means, go for it.

As I mentioned in my second post -- as a child, it wasn’t a wise thing for me to show an egotistical point of view. And it seems all but impossible to shake the influences of those early years. At least for me it is. So I’ve learned to give the impression my goals don’t soar with the eagles. However, that is in direct contrast to my true nature. It’s just that I can’t rid myself of the feeling I will pay an unwelcome price if I allow my ego to show even slightly. Of course, in that ongoing attempt, I’m quite certain I fail miserably.

But if you can aim for some point over the rainbow without fear of repercussion, then more power to you. I wish that was something I could do.

And I wish to make something else as clear as possible. I think most of us involved in writing can distinguish the difference between great writing, good writing, adequate writing, and poor writing. And I think we can do that even with works that don’t fall into our preferred genres.

I’m not sure how to define that ability, or where the dividing lines lie. If I gave the impression in my original post that I actually knew these things, then I apologize. My point was that I believe most of us know when we’re reading a book that seems to rise above most others on the subject or in the genre.

And some people can make that distinction quicker than others. We all have greater or lesser gifts in particular areas, and that is true with writing as well. However, writing is such a huge and complex subject that it usually takes years to master even a few of its elusive skill-sets.

So, I suppose I might’ve made myself clearer and somewhat less offensive had I suggested that “great writing†is an author’s ability to use most of these varying elements in his or her writing, and do so proficiently.

I have no doubt that those we label as great writers never gave up or stopped trying to improve. As we all know, the quickest path to failure is to give up. If I gave any of you even the slightest impression that is what I thought you should do if you were unable to be the best, then I apologize once again.

As long as we work at improving our skills, and continue our studies to increase our knowledge concerning each aspect of writing, I have little doubt we will become better writers. How high each of us can fly is up to the various gods.

As always, my best to all of you,

-- The hermit in the woods --

 

[Legendary Sidekick]

Speaking for myself, nothing you said is offensive. It was just easily misunderstood as discouraging.

You do make several valid points, such as not fearing failure and not giving up just because someone else is better. —And there's certainly nothing discouraging about that.

More importantly, your posts are sincere and you're sharing what you honestly believe. There's nothing wrong with sharing an honest opinion or with people disagreeing. I didn't feel like there was ever any danger of this thread erupting into a flame war or anything even close to that, so no worries, Ronald!

 

[Miskatonic]

Ultimately you either get published or you don't (assuming this is your goal). After that it's pretty much in the hands of literary critics, bloggers and fans to decide the quality of your work and talent as an author, regardless if it's accurate or not. You can bet on one group liking your stuff, or at least having positive things to say, and another group that thinks you are overrated or outright stink.

 

[kennyc]

....
All I can say is that I’ve spent a lifetime participating in various fields of art, writing included. And if I learned anything, it’s that “natural talentâ€, or “aptitudeâ€, or “a natural born giftâ€, are real aspects of any artistic endeavor. I’ve seen it proven out too many times. But if anyone can show me empirical proof –- not personal opinion -- that I’m wrong, I will happily look at their evidence and adjust my thinking.
....

Nature or Nurture?
This is really at the root of this discussion (every time it comes up ) .

Both are real, both are evidenced differently in each individual and their circumstances.

In biology/evolution the measure is survival, passing on of one's genes.
In art it could be said to be the same the measure of 'greatness' is whether the art survives, whether it inspires, whether it is passed on.

 

[kennyc]

I just saw this quote by Stephen King. He goes on to say that he's only concerned with the practical question of being published as a measurement of talent.

The source is here:

Stephen King’s “Everything You Need to Know About Writing Successfully – in Ten Minutesâ€Â | Aerogramme Writers' StudioStephen King's "Everything You Need to Know About Writing Successfully – in Ten Minutes"

While I do find the discussion here interesting, in some regards I also feel this way. There are a lot of people with "great talent" that don't get a lot of readers. And a lot of people with "mediocre" talent who do.

To me, the question is ripe for arguments that aren't really grounded in anything substantial on all sides. Whether or not we're born with something or gain something may not matter much. The question we're all asking is, "How far can I get with my writing?" And that's a personal question with a lot more variables.

And it might be noted that King absolutely supports the inborn Talent perspective and suggests that those without it should find something else to do.

My perspective is that everyone has SOME level of talent that can be brought to bear on their writing if they are willing to lean the skills needed to write.

A couple of Stephen King Quotes:

“I've said it before, and I'll say it again. When you find something at which you have talent, you do that thing (what ever it is) until your fingers bleed or your eyes pop out of your head.”
― Stephen King

“Discipline and constant work are the whetstones upon which the dull knife of talent is honed until it becomes sharp enough, hopefully, to cut through even the toughest meat and gristle.”
― Stephen King, Danse Macabre

 

[Devor]

And it might be noted that King absolutely supports the inborn Talent perspective and suggests that those without it should find something else to do.

My perspective is that everyone has SOME level of talent that can be brought to bear on their writing if they are willing to lean the skills needed to write.

A couple of Stephen King Quotes:

“I've said it before, and I'll say it again. When you find something at which you have talent, you do that thing (what ever it is) until your fingers bleed or your eyes pop out of your head.”
― Stephen King

“Discipline and constant work are the whetstones upon which the dull knife of talent is honed until it becomes sharp enough, hopefully, to cut through even the toughest meat and gristle.”
― Stephen King, Danse Macabre

Yes, I took a personal note of those kinds of remarks in his article as well. His focus seems to be on the flip side of things. I haven't seen him say anything about who can be a great writer, only that if you hate it or you're really really bad at it then you should stop.

In those cases, I always find myself wondering if there's a motivation or attitude shift that would help somebody get beyond those kinds of stages, or if it's really some ingrained lack of talent, or if there's even a practical difference between those two statements.

Nevertheless, whatever burdens face those of us at the bottom in ability, it's not necessarily the same obstacles faced by those with highest levels of ability.

How were GRRM and JK Rowling able to write such phenomenal works? It doubtless goes well beyond talent. It probably goes well beyond effort. The truth is, the totality of their life's choices and experiences at the time came together for each of them to bring them to writing these books. And they had very different life experiences - so what does that mean for us?

I've no idea.

 

[Heliotrope]

Yes, I took a personal note of those kinds of remarks in his article as well. His focus seems to be on the flip side of things. I haven't seen him say anything about who can be a great writer, only that if you hate it or you're really really bad at it then you should stop.

In those cases, I always find myself wondering if there's a motivation or attitude shift that would help somebody get beyond those kinds of stages, or if it's really some ingrained lack of talent, or if there's even a practical difference between those two statements.

Nevertheless, whatever burdens face those of us at the bottom in ability, it's not necessarily the same obstacles faced by those with highest levels of ability.

How were GRRM and JK Rowling able to write such phenomenal works? It doubtless goes well beyond talent. It probably goes well beyond effort. The truth is, the totality of their life's choices and experiences at the time came together for each of them to bring them to writing these books. And they had very different life experiences - so what does that mean for us?

I've no idea.

This post is not aimed at devor, just an extension on his idea, or question...

I find it very interesting to read about the different experiences of different writers.

Like, Stephen King hated his first book (Carrie) and trashed it. His wife pulled the pages out of the trash and told him to continue it. He had given up.

George RR Martin had written a few books before GOT but none of the really took off. What I find interesting about George RR Martin is that he takes his time. It takes years before he finishes his books. Over 5 years almost for each one.

JK Rowling spent 6 years just writing the first Harry Potter book.

JRR Tolkien took 10 years to write The Lord Of The Rings. I notice this as being a trend. Sometimes an author really loves a specific story, and spends more time on it... Really making it right. And it seems those are the books that really take off. So talent or no talent, have a drive to tell a specific story seems really important. And taking the time to tell it right seems even more important.

 

[FifthView]

There's an early podcast of Writing Excuses in which the guys try to show how to line edit by taking the first book Brandon Sanderson ever wrote, in 1994 when he was still a teenager. (Never published.) For a teenager...maybe it's not too bad. But it's really bad. The intro to the topic lasts about 2:30, and then Brandon starts reading lines from it. Writing Excuses 4.29: Line Editing | Writing Excuses First line was "The wind blew carelessly and freely." And then he starts describing the sand, and his description of the sand goes on for about 5 pages before any human figure is introduced.

 

[Brian Scott Allen]

There's an early podcast of Writing Excuses in which the guys try to show how to line edit by taking the first book Brandon Sanderson ever wrote, in 1994 when he was still a teenager. (Never published.) For a teenager...maybe it's not too bad. But it's really bad. The intro to the topic lasts about 2:30, and then Brandon starts reading lines from it. Writing Excuses 4.29: Line Editing | Writing Excuses First line was "The wind blew carelessly and freely." And then he starts describing the sand, and his description of the sand goes on for about 5 pages before any human figure is introduced.

But look at him now. Sure his prose might not be tight but damn is he good at world building, magic systems, and punchy endings. He is also continually improving on his characters and prose. I don't think he was a virtuoso and don't think he is a virtuoso, but I bet if he continues to work on his craft he will become a virtuoso. This is because he is a reasonably intelligent individual that is also driven to become great and to write greatly.

 

[Telcontar]

Sanderson went through a phase that many of us probably have/will: that time when you think creating a good book is just about how pretty your sentences are. In thinking this he was failing to play to his strengths. It's the Writer/Story-teller divide with the added categories of world-builder, pacer, and no doubt several other important categories.

 

[Heliotrope]

But look at him now. Sure his prose might not be tight but damn is he good at world building, magic systems, and punchy endings. He is also continually improving on his characters and prose. I don't think he was a virtuoso and don't think he is a virtuoso, but I bet if he continues to work on his craft he will become a virtuoso. This is because he is a reasonably intelligent individual that is also driven to become great and to write greatly.

See, and Brian Scott Allan has another really good point. I can't say that John Grisham's prose moves me in a profound way like perhaps Faulkner, but his in-depth knowledge of the legal system and his ability to develop and built tension is amazing.

Margaret Atwood has some of the most fully developed three dimensional characters I have ever read, but her plots tend to meander and sometimes feel a bit pointless or forced.

Clive Cussler has the most boring cut out cardboard characters ever, but his detail into history and the clues of his treasure hunts are so exciting and plausible they capture my imagination.

Terry Goodkind does not have any new fantasy ideas at all, even to the point of using "the dark lord (named Darken) who wants to destroy the world"… and yet his story structure and his ability to foreshadow events and create mystery is so good that I have read The Wizard's First Rule every single summer since I was 15. (Almost 20 years… good God).

Which I guess brings us back to "Where do your talents lay? And how can you use it to your advantage?"

My first few books started out as epic fantasies with multiple POVs. They were crap. I decided to try a middle grades fantasy (Being a HUGE fan of A Wrinkle in Time, Harry Potter, Narnia, The Invention of Hugo Cabret….) and it is coming so easily now I feel like I have found my 'niche'.

 

[Heliotrope]

I was a competative swimmer as a kid. I used to see kids hate coming to practice. The kids that never won a race. I was like that too, until I started winning. Then I loved it. Then I was dragging my parents out of bed at 4 Am to get to the pool.

I think that if you are good at something, or successful at something then you enjoy doing it. I have a feeling that pretty much everyone here enjoys writing because at some point in their life they were led to believe that they 'had talent' or were 'good' at it.

I think we each just have to figure out exactly where those talents lay and exploit the hell out of them.

 

[kennyc]

This post is not aimed at devor, just an extension on his idea, or question...

I find it very interesting to read about the different experiences of different writers.

Like, Stephen King hated his first book (Carrie) and trashed it. His wife pulled the pages out of the trash and told him to continue it. He had given up.

George RR Martin had written a few books before GOT but none of the really took off. What I find interesting about George RR Martin is that he takes his time. It takes years before he finishes his books. Over 5 years almost for each one.

JK Rowling spent 6 years just writing the first Harry Potter book.

JRR Tolkien took 10 years to write The Lord Of The Rings. I notice this as being a trend. Sometimes an author really loves a specific story, and spends more time on it... Really making it right. And it seems those are the books that really take off. So talent or no talent, have a drive to tell a specific story seems really important. And taking the time to tell it right seems even more important.

And .... Anthony Doerr (my new favorite writer) took ten years writing his Pulitzer Prize winning - "All the Light we cannot See"

 

[JCFarnham]

Something Brian said a few posts back spoke to me. Reasonable intelligence and the drive to get better.

There may be a lot of "learnable" skills in writing, perhaps more so than some arts(?), but there is still that hint of talent there. If someone can be reasonably intelligent enough to write, then another can certainly be below that line and have very little aptitude at all. Of course I think talent if it can be defined at all is only a fraction of what makes any writer "good". There's skill, dedication to craft, experience... perhaps a measure of right-place-right-time?

Wild, out of control, superstar success happens or it doesn't. Good writing is definitely possible for most, IF one has any interest in telling a story.

 

[Penpilot]

But look at him now. Sure his prose might not be tight but damn is he good at world building, magic systems, and punchy endings. He is also continually improving on his characters and prose. I don't think he was a virtuoso and don't think he is a virtuoso, but I bet if he continues to work on his craft he will become a virtuoso. This is because he is a reasonably intelligent individual that is also driven to become great and to write greatly.

I read Sanderson's first book, Elantras, a while back and thought it was OK. Could see he was a good world builder, but the overall story was obviously an early effort. I also read a bit of his first Mystborn books. Though it was good but it didn't pull me in. Didn't help I'd started reading Game of Thrones at the same time, so Mystborn got left behind.

I recently read his short story in the Writing Excuses anthology Shadow's Beneath, and I couldn't believe how much he improved. The short story and it's prose was IMHO miles ahead of what I'd read from him before.

Now I'm really curious to read his stuff in chronological order to see how he develops as a writer.

 

[kennyc]

Did the title of this thread change? The link in my email notification no longer works and it appears to be due to quotes around the "Great Writer" -- were those added? I know the email notification link worked fine earlier.

 

[Devouring Wolf]

I was a competative swimmer as a kid. I used to see kids hate coming to practice. The kids that never won a race. I was like that too, until I started winning. Then I loved it. Then I was dragging my parents out of bed at 4 Am to get to the pool.

I think that if you are good at something, or successful at something then you enjoy doing it. I have a feeling that pretty much everyone here enjoys writing because at some point in their life they were led to believe that they 'had talent' or were 'good' at it.

I think we each just have to figure out exactly where those talents lay and exploit the hell out of them.

I actually have to disagree with this. Some people are very success-oriented. They thrive on competition and see success as a motivation to do even better next time. While I do agree that being good at something makes a person more disposed to liking it, this isn't always true.

I have a very low opinion of myself and therefore I do not see any success I achieve as an invitation to push myself to do better. Whenever I do well at something I don't actually believe I can surpass myself and I worry I won't be able to measure up. Whenever I succeed I cannot help but feel "that was it and from now on I'll disappoint" That's not to say that I don't enjoy being praised. I feel elated when someone compliments me, but then the doubt kicks in that either they're just lying to be nice or I won't be able to deliver next time.

Part of the reason I love writing is because I am allowed to be bad at it. No one is expecting my first book to ever get finished let alone published or turned into a best-seller. Of course, I don't aspire to write bad novels, I try to do my best but there is an odd comfort in the notion that I will probably never be the best. I think part of the reason I chose to write a very niche novel is because even though I believe it is the best novel ever written (or partially-written)I do not expect a huge number of other people to think so.

I guess there are people who love to soar to knew heights, but the higher I climb the more I become afraid of fall until the fear eats up all my joy.

 

[Penpilot]

I guess there are people who love to soar to knew heights, but the higher I climb the more I become afraid of fall until the fear eats up all my joy.

For me, I've come to expect the fall, and when it comes, I've come to enjoy it a bit. Sure it hurts, and there are tears. It's humbling, and I don't mind that. That's when the competitive side of me kicks in.

If I did it once, I can do it again, or at least, it'll be fun trying.

 

[Caged Maiden]

I think we addressed this subject pretty fully when we discussed the MFA article. Here's a quote from my response to that thread:

One might make the statement "Talent is born, not made" (or whatever) and to an extent, it's true. But it isn't the end all be all. I have a generous dose of dexterity and I might have made a great dancer, but I certainly wasn't drawn to dance. Am I a natural dancer? Who knows. I know I'm not a natural writer, though. I was born with intelligence, artistic vision, and tenacity, I suppose (because I see those qualities in my parents), but I certainly wasn't born a good writer. Nature and genetics play a role in one's potential however.

I don't see what the point is in debating what anyone's potential can be, though. Writing isn't singing. There are many people who sing very well, and there are many people who write very well. But to compare writing to singing isn't the same thing as comparing Tolkein to Elton John, any more than it is about comparing Stephen King to Madonna.

What does the comparison get us? My friend, Kat Eggleston is a great singer to me, but she's not commercially marketable. She plays small shows at pubs and sings folk music that is amusing, moving, and authentic. I'd be proud to move a small group of people with my stories as she does with her voice. I don't want to be Stephen King. Or Madonna.

To every scribe here, I would say the same thing: Be yourself, whoever that is. Your writerly voice is your own, and your stories, as well. You do not have to fill shoes that don't fit you, and no one has the right to make you feel inferior for not wanting to.

I'm not saying that as a person who has given up in any way. Most of you know me and have been along with me on this journey since 2011, when I came to this forum and found my home. I work every day to better myself as a writer and deepen my understanding of the craft in general. And you have become my friends, and we learn together. One step at a time.

I read a good-selling book written by an urban woman who certainly didn't come off as refined, but her book sells. Who buys it? Probably people who relate to that sort of language and subject matter. I may consider her a very mediocre wordsmith, but she has fans who pay her for her words. So what? Some of my favorite books weren't works of amazing writing, but clever stories that engaged me and surprised me with their twists and happy endings. And to me, those books that were absent of all epicness, devoid of masterful prose, and heart-wrenchingly honest in their simple execution. And they are great. To me. And they have special meaning to me, because they helped bring me to where I am now. And if one had to be "great" to be a writer, those books wouldn't have been available to me. And we would live in a monochrome world with only one tune, because nothing else would ever measure up.

Be unique, and honest, and the best you can be. But know that every goal has its own prerequisites, whether that goal is to snag an agent, publish a series with a big publishing house, or to share your words for free with your friends and family. I had a conversation with one of my writer friends this week, and what I came away from that conversation with was the very realization that we could spend a lifetime trying to be perfect, but no matter what we do, we will fall short. We will not please everyone. Maybe not even our closest friends. We must work to please ourselves. Because life should be great. And we will never feel complete, or accomplished in our goals, when we strive only for someone else's perfection.