# Publishing Fears/Thoughts



## Philip Overby

I'm taking a wild guess and to assume none of us here are best-selling authors.  Many of us could be one day, who knows for sure.  My big problem is that I have a fear of sending stuff out to publishers.  For short stories it's a bit easier.  I'm going to start doing a lot of more of that.  But overall, in my whole life, I've actually only probably sent out a half a dozen manuscripts for any type of publication.  

The only print publications I have are two poetry anthologies I was solicited to write something for.  I have a handful of online publications, but those were years ago, so I don't even remember where they were published.  

All in all, what are your thoughts about submitting novels or stories?  Do you have some fear of failure like I do?  Are you confident and send stuff out all the time?  Do you have trouble completing anything (like me) therefore you have nothing to send?   Are you a widely published author and you can share some tips for me to become widely published? 

I know most of the major fantasy publishers Del Rey, Bantam Spectra, and some others require solicited manuscripts from an agent.  Unless that's changed.  TOR I believe accepts unsolicited manuscripts but more often than not, you'll be in a humongous slush pile.  

Me?  I think I'm going to try the small press route.  Most of my novels are kind of quirky so I'm not sure how well they'd stand in mainstream fantasy.  But you never know.  I may give the big boys a shot within the year!


----------



## Chilari

I got a short story published a few years ago, with a small online magazine. Didn't get paid much for it. After Paypal had taken it's cut and converted to GBÂ£, it was about Â£1.50. But for a novel, first I'd have to finish one (okay, I did do that), then I'd have to be actually happy with it, but I would send it out if I ever got to that stage. And if I find no luck, I know someone who is in the process of setting up her own small publishing company to publish her own fantasy novels, and I could always see what she thinks. If she said no I'd write something better rather than go down the self-publishing route, because I see no point in trying to sell something myself that publishers wouldn't accept.


----------



## Donny Bruso

I have yet to really 'finish' anything enough to send it to a publisher. None of my major fantasy or sci-fi projects are more than half done, and for some reason I don't seem to do well with short stories. I just don't have the room I need to work. To be sure, most best selling authors start by selling short stories until someone asks them for a novel, but I guess I'm bouncing around between too many projects to get any of them done. :/


----------



## Ravana

Many publishing houses will at least look at "unsolicited" manuscripts, even when they say they don't. Unless you're already established as an author (with several short publications to your name), you shouldn't bother with an agent… assuming you could get one to bother with an unknown (and if you can, there's a good chance the agent isn't going to be very good… or scrupulous). The best approach for a first novel is probably to send a query letter, along with publishing history, synopsis and first chapter. This is far more likely to get looked at than sending the whole thing in a box… not to mention easier on your stamp budget. If the publisher is interested, they will then solicit _you_–at which point it no longer falls into the dreaded "unsolicited" category.

Yes, you will be in a humongous slush pile, in nearly every situation–even if you are agented: all an agent does is try to send the manuscripts that, in their experience, a given publisher might be interested in… but that just means those submissions go in a separate, slightly smaller and marginally higher-priority slush pile. My take on small presses is that you have to be very careful and attentive to detail, in order to make sure you aren't going to be ripped off–if, say, your contract calls for you to pay for part of the press run, or if you are going to be paid in a couple crates of copies which it then becomes your own job to distribute. (That's ignoring vanity presses, where you're paying for the _whole_ thing.) Or they might accept the manuscript and take their own sweet time actually getting it to a printer… and then not offer you a kill fee for hanging on to it for years and then deciding they don't want it after all. Also consider your goals: having a book published by a small press may net you very little in the way of exposure, or credibility in terms of convincing other publishers later that you're worth taking a chance on. (And vanity press publication will likely backfire, for the last of these.) That having been said, there's nothing wrong with small presses _per se_, only that you have to make sure of exactly what you're dealing with.

I have trouble keeping my material in circulation… laziness: I've long since overcome fear of rejection. (I tell people I paper my walls with rejection letters. Which isn't true, but only because nearly all my wall space is occupied by shelving, and the balance by art). If you want to succeed in getting published, a thick skin is an indispensable necessity, as you _will_ be rejected more often than not–a simple case of arithmetic: even if every single one of your stories gets accepted eventually (unlikely!), odds are it will have passed through several hands before it finally gets picked up.

The most important "tip" is: do your research. Make sure that your target publishes the sort of thing you're trying to sell them. Otherwise, you're wasting your time and theirs… and you do _not_ want to obtain "name recognition" of the "Oh, god, not _him_ again!" variety.…


----------



## Philip Overby

I've done NaNoWrimo for 3 years and completed the 50,000 words each year.  So I know I can finish something if I really try.  The goal is just to put it out there.  After years of writing, I'm kind of getting bored with just writing for myself.  I like doing it, don't get me wrong, but I want to have people actually read what I'm writing.  I think what I'll more than likely do is finally finish a novel then start at the top and work my way down.  (I've finished one that I shopped around, it got rejected twice, but both publishers had nice things to say about it and wanted me to send something else, which I haven't per laziness).  I'm trying to build up some publishing creds by sending out short stories now.  

Ravana, you have lots of good points about the publishing industry.  I've done manuscript evaluations for a small press before and I know how hard a job it is to dig through slush piles.  Especially when I had to deal with some authors that didn't take rejection well.  Now the shoe is on the other foot, so I completely understand that rejection is part of the game.  I don't have any sacred cows anymore.  My manuscripts are no longer my precious babies.  

So I'm going to try to go full speed ahead.  I sent out one short story this week and now I'm working on another.  And I have a couple of novel ideas I'm bouncing around to decide which one to work on first.  So I'm on my way!  To where I don't know!


----------



## Mdnight Falling

Oh I'm petrified >.< I think that's why I've been writing the same book for over two decades. I sent it out originally when I was 14 and never heard back from anyone which of course led me to believe that it was so horrible that they didn't want to waste the paper and ink to even tell me it wasn't up to their standards. Even now that I've been rewriting it and the prologue has had several publishers wanting the "honor" of publishing it, I'm still scared of rejection. but most publishers will tell you why they won't accept it in their rejection letters. So I always read them when they bother to send them and then I try their suggestions.


----------



## Kelise

I'm utterly terrified. I've tried submitting a short story to an anthology and didn't get in - that's the only thing I've sent out there so far! While I've (kinda) finished a novel or two before, none have been anything I'm willing to send out just yet. I wait to wait until I have something to the standard of Patrick Rothfuss or Scott Lynch's first novel, and THEN try to get that published. ...I'll be waiting  while XD


----------



## Mdnight Falling

Bah! Star don't try to live up to someone else's standards  If YOU think your work is good... Send it out. I would LOL then even if you get rejected you'll be told why >.<


----------



## Philip Overby

I figure a lot of people have the same problem I do.  Inability to complete things/fear of rejection/too busy.  That seems to have always been my problem.  Plus I have what I call "creative ADD" in which I see something new and shiny I like and thus abandon something I've written 200 pages of.  It's quite the problem.  But now I'm finishing things even if they suck.  Editing can do wonders, really!

Anyway, best of luck to everyone in their writing!


----------



## Meg the Healer

Phil the Drill said:


> I figure a lot of people have the same problem I do.  Inability to complete things/fear of rejection/too busy.  That seems to have always been my problem.  Plus I have what I call "creative ADD" in which I see something new and shiny I like and thus abandon something I've written 200 pages of.  It's quite the problem.  But now I'm finishing things even if they suck.  Editing can do wonders, really!
> 
> Anyway, best of luck to everyone in their writing!


 
I have a similar problem. When I get stuck in one aspect, I put it down for a while (and sort of forget about it), then something new pops into my head and I'll write 30 pages and do a read thru. After the read thru I'll find that it doesn't work with my previous pages. So then it becomes which section do I rewrite. I'm in a constant state of rewriting, that I fear I'll never finish anything.

My fear of publishing isn't really about having my work rejected - that's just part of the industry. It's more of how many times will I have to face rejection before that one company says yes? Or will even one company say yes? Having worked two jobs for most of my life, I'm a very hard worker - but I've also seen first hand how sometimes the hardest worker gets passed over. I've poured so much into my writing that it terrifies me that it will be passed over again and again. I'm still a strong individual and I can live with rejection, but I do wonder how many times a person can repeatedly be told no before it breaks their spirit. So I think that's my main fear.

I've only ever had one thing published and it was a short I wrote for the college I went to. It was voted on by my peers to be accepted into the anthology, so I guess that's a confidence builder in and of itself.


----------



## Donny Bruso

Rejection sucks, but it is unfortunately part of the game we've all chosen to play. Personally, I have never submitted anything for publication, largely because I suffer from  the same issues as Meg and Phil, I get stuck, I put it down, I see something shiny and it gets neglected. I have submitted short stories to contests before. The primary one that comes to mind was also the most recent. I submitted 'Fire in her Blood' the short I posted in the showcase to a contest on writing.com. The story is generated from a given prompt, which I was about the only one to follow. 

The woman who ended up winning the contest review the story and said that it made hers look terrible in comparison, and that as far as she was concerned, my submission has the blue ribbon tied up.

Well little did I know, the contest I had entered was really run by a group of about five people whose only purpose was to hand out awards and such to their little clique, which I was not a part of. So not only did my entry not win, it didn't even place. I am by no means the most gifted writer in the world. There are untold thousands of people out there better than me. However none of them happened to enter that contest. I read every competing entry, and even allowing for personal bias, my work was by far the best.

So yes, rejection in all its forms sucks. The trick is not losing confidence in yourself and your work. Until you have a contract with a publisher, the only person you have to satisfy with your writing is yourself. Don't compromise your work for someone else. Publishers may demand that some things be changed. Look at their demands objectively. If you agree that it improves the work, by all means work with them. If you feel it bastardizes your work and is something you can't stand for, then fight it. Shop your work around until you find someone who will work with you to publish the story you want to tell, not what the editor thinks is best.


----------



## Mdnight Falling

Phil the Drill said:


> I figure a lot of people have the same problem I do.  Inability to complete things/fear of rejection/too busy.  That seems to have always been my problem.  Plus I have what I call "creative ADD" in which I see something new and shiny I like and thus abandon something I've written 200 pages of.  It's quite the problem.  But now I'm finishing things even if they suck.  Editing can do wonders, really!
> 
> Anyway, best of luck to everyone in their writing!


 
Creative ADD!!!! That right there is priceless >.< I think I suffer from it too


----------



## Kate

FEAR!!! It's a killer, stops us from doing so, so much.

I seem to have reached a point now where I'm over it. I just close my eyes and send.  It's taken me a long time to get to that point, but that long time is peppered with regrets of the "what if it was good enough?" variety. This isn't to say thought that I'm not scared of rejection, I am.  But I've now just started to submit anyway.  I'm waiting on responses from a couple of short story markets now. Who knows.  The fact that I've submitted means A LOT! And even if I don't get accepted, I'm still proud of myself for getting it out there.  I've had rejections by the bucket load and it feels awful, but the day I had my first short story accepted (tiny, tiny, tiny and unpaid thing that it was), I felt like I'd won the freakin' Pulitzer!  

Courage isn't fearlessness.  Courage is acting despite fear.  Go forth! Submit! Get Rejected! Submit Again!


----------



## Mdnight Falling

Hear hear Kate! Couldn't have said it better myself >^.^<


----------



## At Dusk I Reign

Kate said:


> Go forth! Submit! Get Rejected! Submit Again!


Unless you _really_ suck at writing, in which case rejection slips should be seen less as an obstacle to overcome and more an indication that you're better suited to carrying out light clerical duties.


----------



## Kate

At Dusk I Reign said:


> Unless you _really_ suck at writing, in which case rejection slips should be seen less as an obstacle to overcome and more an indication that you're better suited to carrying out light clerical duties.


 
Ha! Yeah, maybe  
Though I like the idea that everyone who loves to write enough to submit stuff, could keep learning, keep perfecting, and one day get that happy news.


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin

Kate said:


> Ha! Yeah, maybe
> Though I like the idea that everyone who loves to write enough to submit stuff, could keep learning, keep perfecting, and one day get that happy news.



I think that's pretty much true. I mean, maybe not everyone can be a *great* writer, one of the folks whose words are remembered for hundreds of years...  But I think most folks, given enough time and effort, can train themselves to write well enough to tell enjoyable stories, just like most people can train themselves to paint well, or to play baseball well.

Some people are farther away from that goal than others - a 450 pound couch potato with no athletic background at all is much farther from being a competitive triathlete than someone who's stayed in shape all her life. But either *can* do it - one is just beginning from a more advanced position than the other. Likewise, someone who never reads, never writes, and has a poor grasp of spelling, grammar, and storytelling could become a pro-level author - it would just take a lot longer (and therefore require a lot more effort and discipline) than someone who had already built up those skills.

What we perceive as "talent" is more and more being shown to simply be skills whose foundations we have already put a lot of work into. Not always true, maybe - but it seems to be so more often than not.


----------



## Ravana

At Dusk I Reign said:


> Unless you _really_ suck at writing, in which case rejection slips should be seen less as an obstacle to overcome and more an indication that you're better suited to carrying out light clerical duties.


 
Like sending out rejection letters, perhaps?


----------



## Kate

Kevin, I hope you're right!  I suppose that's the fine line between writing as an art and writing as a craft.  For natural writers it's both, I think. For the rest of us, we keep learning one word at a time.


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin

I've read about this a bit, and modern science/medicine isn't even sure that there IS such a thing as talent, or someone being a "natural". Brain development is still something we're learning a lot about, but it sounds like a lot of people are drifting toward the idea that what we perceive as talent is really just the result of early brain development. In other words, the things we do when we're 0-5 years old or so impact the way the foundation of our brain develops, which impacts what things we will learn most easily for the rest of our lives.

I don't know that I buy that as an absolute (I have twin girls, who grew up in basically the same environment but have fundamental differences in the way they think - not just their opinions on things, but the manner in which their brains work; that argues for different minds having different sorts of intelligence, and those intelligence types perhaps having different sets of skills they will tend to excel at - arguing there could be some level of genetic pre-dispositions). How I feel though is that an awful lot of what we call "talent" is actually the result of hard work.  It's easier to blame a "lack of talent" than to actually work at something.

And I think everyone learns one word at a time.  Some people might make it look more effortless, just like the guy who runs ten miles a day, every day, is going to make a five mile jog easily while I am gasping for breath. But the effort was in there somewhere, even if you can't see it at the time.


----------



## At Dusk I Reign

Ravana said:


> Like sending out rejection letters, perhaps?


I wouldn't say that the majority of people who work in the publishing industry are incapable of writing a novel.

I'd think it, but I wouldn't say it.


----------



## Ravana

I would only refrain from saying it if the sense of "incapable" being used were the moral one–that is, I would say that they are not incapable of _perpetrating_ a novel. And I suppose that they would be no less capable of generating the requisite physical form of a novel than the celebrated Infinite Monkeys of Stratford-just-off-Avon, so that objection can be removed as well.

But _writing_ one…? 

Seriously, though: I'm with Kevin on this one… as I developed in some detail a couple months back in some thread or other. Most deficiencies can be overcome by perseverance and a will to learn; any that remain afterward can generally be taken care of by a decent copy editor. Barring organic brain damage, the only people who "can't" learn are the ones that believe they don't _have_ anything to learn. And those people will indeed be incapable of writing a novel–_regardless_ of whether or not they possess any (putative) innate talent.


----------



## At Dusk I Reign

Ravana said:


> I would only refrain from saying it if the sense of "incapable" being used were the moral one—that is, I would say that they are not incapable of _perpetrating_ a novel. And I suppose that they would be no less capable of generating the requisite physical form of a novel than the celebrated Infinite Monkeys of Stratford-just-off-Avon, so that objection can be removed as well.
> 
> But _writing_ one…?


I probably should have chosen my words more carefully. Especially with you around to slap me down. Of course most people can write a novel - all that's required is discipline. Perpetrating art on an unsuspecting public, however, is a whole different kettle of frogs.



Ravana said:


> Most deficiencies can be overcome by perseverance and a will to learn; any that remain afterward can generally be taken care of by a decent copy editor. Barring organic brain damage, the only people who "can't" learn are the ones that believe they don't _have_ anything to learn. And those people will indeed be incapable of writing a novel—_regardless_ of whether or not they possess any (putative) innate talent.


Indeed, learning isn't the problem. There are writing workshops around the world which are busily engaged in teaching people how to write. The majority of those who attend such workshops will never write anything worth reading though. Why is that? I'd suggest it's because while theory can be taught, the 'innate talent' you so deride cannot (I'm not one of those who believe that simply writing about your cat makes you creative, at least not in any meaningful sense). Still, we've crossed swords regarding this topic elsewhere so I won't bother you further with my obviously antiquated views. I just thought your reply deserved a response as I tend to lose track of posts. I blame age, lack of sobriety, and the voices in my head which too often distract me.

[edit: Bloody hell, Ravana, choose an avatar already even if it's one of the default options - I feel like I'm in Legoland.]


----------



## kiercoria99

I'm finding the query letter difficult to create.  I'm not afraid of the rejection so much as sending out queries and synopses that don't reflect my novel as I hope.  Is there a thread or section that deals with critiquing queries and synopses?


----------



## Ravana

At Dusk I Reign said:


> Bloody hell, Ravana, choose an avatar already even if it's one of the default options - I feel like I'm in Legoland.


 
Hee hee. Happier now? (You realize, of course, that you almost got one involving Legos.…  )


----------



## Elder the Dwarf

Phil the Drill said:


> I figure a lot of people have the same problem I do.  Inability to complete things/fear of rejection/too busy.  That seems to have always been my problem.  Plus I have what I call "creative ADD" in which I see something new and shiny I like and thus abandon something I've written 200 pages of.



I've just started writing, but those four sentences couldn't describe me better.


----------



## Elder the Dwarf

Kevin O. McLaughlin said:


> just like most people can train themselves to paint well, or to play baseball well.



Gotta stop you there.  I understand what you're trying to say, but those might not be the best examples, depending on what you consider to be "well".  I could paint every day for the rest of my life and never even be a halfway competent artist, and I know for a fact that 85 percent of the people I know couldn't play baseball well if they hit two thousand balls a day for their entire lives (some of them have come close to that). 

Also, to the talent thing, I can't swallow that at all.  I can honestly say that I am, if not the single laziest, then in the top ten laziest people I know.  With that being said (and usually I'm very self-deprecating so please don't take this to be me being a cocky... tool.  I don't know what else I'm allowed to say on this forum) I test well above average and (in my own opinion) am above average athletically (wow I didn't come off well writing that, did I?)  So if talent is not "real" for lack of a better word, how is that possible?


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin

I'll agree that there's some level of genetics involved.    If you're born with above average intelligence, you will have an easier time tackling certain pursuits. Likewise, if genes favor you with good reflexes (higher fast twitch muscle counts), or a body type which stays in shape more easily, you might have a better than average response to some athletics.

But there's something to be said for hard work, too.

Genes can give someone an ability to pick up skills more rapidly; but they don't give the skills themselves (at least not in almost all cases). Trying not to sound equally cocky here - I was lazy through school, mostly because I was bored to tears. I was an auto-didact, did most of my learning on my own, and needed very little attention to school work to test very well. On the flip side, I was *never* talented physically (decent body shape, really poor early athletic focus). Despite that, I worked at martial arts hard enough for long enough to own one of the best schools in my state, very well known for the quality of instruction (something to do with having NOT been a natural, I think), eventually won a batch of medals from assorted nationals, and went on later to teach combatives courses to the US Army infantry.

Hard work trumps genetics.

You said that you "know for a fact that 85 percent of the people I know couldn't play baseball well if they hit two thousand balls a day for their entire lives". I suspect you'd be wrong - IF they were being taught to do so, training in an effective manner. With many skills, it's not enough to practice hard - you need to practice hard in the right way. The writer who writes every single day, without fail, but never reads anything to learn technique, or never has a master critique that technique, may well never earn great skill. Practice doesn't make perfect - perfect practice makes perfect. All that doing something the wrong way daily does for you is reinforce bad habits and poor craftsmanship.


----------



## Elder the Dwarf

I don't know.  I agree with everything you said and I was exaggerating but I think baseball specifically is a game that requires a lot of natural ability.  It depends what your definition of being good is but I know a lot of people who have played all of their lives and struggle to even throw a strike or hit the ball out o the infield.  Hand eye coordination, like speed, is a skill that can only be improved to a point, most of it is natural ability.  On the flip side, I know some people that just picked up a bat last year and could make most high school teams because of their natural athletic ability.  It is not as natural of a sport as basketball but it still requires a lot of natural ability.  Hard work pays off but genetics determines to what extent your work helps.

I'm going to stop now as this isn't a sports forum and I get way off topic when it comes to sports.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

Phil the Drill said:


> I'm taking a wild guess and to assume none of us here are best-selling authors.



I guess that depends on how you define best-selling.  I've had all five of my books on Amazon's Best Seller's Lists for Fantasy, Epic Fantasy, Historical Fantasy, Action and Adventure, Men's Adventure, and Science Fiction and Fantasy Lists. This goes for both kindle and books bestsellers (which list both paper and ebooks). I held spots 1 - 5 on Historical Fantasy threre was never a time that at least 3 of my books weren't on multiple of the lists for about a year and a half.  I sold 70,000 copies most of which occurred from Nov-2010 to Sep 2011 (when they were removed from the market).  But no, I've yet to make the NYT or USA lists...the closest I got to Amazon Top 100 was 102.



Phil the Drill said:


> Many of us could be one day, who knows for sure.  My big problem is that I have a fear of sending stuff out to publishers.  For short stories it's a bit easier.  I'm going to start doing a lot of more of that.  But overall, in my whole life, I've actually only probably sent out a half a dozen manuscripts for any type of publication.
> 
> The only print publications I have are two poetry anthologies I was solicited to write something for.  I have a handful of online publications, but those were years ago, so I don't even remember where they were published.
> 
> All in all, what are your thoughts about submitting novels or stories?  Do you have some fear of failure like I do?  Are you confident and send stuff out all the time?  Do you have trouble completing anything (like me) therefore you have nothing to send?   Are you a widely published author and you can share some tips for me to become widely published?



My best advice...is that you need to take some time to do some serious introspection and decide if this is REALLY what you want. The one thing I can promise you is that it only gets harder from where you are now. Each time you think you've made it there is a new moutain to climb and it's not for the faint of heart. You have to want it...with every bone of your body...and fight for it even when you know it is hopeless...because it will look hopeless on many occassions and you'll have a million reasons to quit. If you can't give 200% you'll probably spend a good bit of your time doing something that you'll eventually walk away from. We each only have a limited amount of time so spend it wisely.  Now that being said...if you write for pure enjoyment and you don't care if you ever get published then I want to encourage you with unbriddled enthusiasm. 

That may not be the answer you were looking for but you asked so I thought I should give you my honest opinion.



Phil the Drill said:


> I know most of the major fantasy publishers Del Rey, Bantam Spectra, and some others require solicited manuscripts from an agent.  Unless that's changed.  TOR I believe accepts unsolicited manuscripts but more often than not, you'll be in a humongous slush pile.



Yes this is still true, though unsolicited gets very little mindshare even when it is allowed so I would not suggest going after a major fantasy publisher without an agent.



Phil the Drill said:


> Me?  I think I'm going to try the small press route.  Most of my novels are kind of quirky so I'm not sure how well they'd stand in mainstream fantasy.  But you never know.  I may give the big boys a shot within the year!



Small press is a viable alternative - my wife runs one and the authors there are doing very well...and of course don't totally rule out self-publishing especially if your stuff is really "quirkly" and may have a very niche audience.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

Ravana said:


> Many publishing houses will at least look at "unsolicited" manuscripts, even when they say they don't. Unless you're already established as an author (with several short publications to your name), you shouldn't bother with an agent… assuming you could get one to bother with an unknown (and if you can, there's a good chance the agent isn't going to be very good… or scrupulous).



I'm going to respectfully disagree. Publishers use agents to separate the wheat from the chaff and unsolicited manuscripts ar read by very junior people and get very little attention. I would venture to say your chances of getting plucked from the unsolicited pile is very slim...and if you can't get a reputable agent interested then the work may not be strong enough to begin with.  Even those that have agents sometimes can't be published so getting one is no guarantee of success. To say any agent that takes on an "unknown" is either not good or unscrupolous is IMHO not based on fact. Agent's need clients...if your work is good, and they think they can sell it, it doesn't matter if you are unknown. 



Ravana said:


> The best approach for a first novel is probably to send a query letter, along with publishing history, synopsis and first chapter. This is far more likely to get looked at than sending the whole thing in a box… not to mention easier on your stamp budget. If the publisher is interested, they will then solicit _you_–at which point it no longer falls into the dreaded "unsolicited" category.



Both agents and publishers make their "submission requirements" very clear. And each one is different. Some want just a letter, some want an outlines, others want a ceratin amount of pages...I don't think any will ask for the whole thing to start with. But in any case the important thing is not to follow TOO THE LETTER what their requirements are.  If they say they want 30 pages you stop EXACTLY at 30 pages. If they say they want your name in the upper right then you put it in the upper right.  Many times this is a test to see if you took the time to do your research and if you don't follow their mandate then they figured you didn't take the time so they won't spend the time. People reading slush piles need to process huge amounts of submissions with very little time between - they look for reasons to reject you so it's important to play by their rules.



Ravana said:


> Yes, you will be in a humongous slush pile, in nearly every situation–even if you are agented: all an agent does is try to send the manuscripts that, in their experience, a given publisher might be interested in… but that just means those submissions go in a separate, slightly smaller and marginally higher-priority slush pile.



A good agent will have a personal relationship with the editor they submit a work to. They already know that the piece will be "to their liking" and in that situation there is no higher-priority slush pile. Their job is to build enthusism in the piece with the editor so that they can sell it to the other people in the company (management, marketing, sales).



Ravana said:


> My take on small presses is that you have to be very careful and attentive to detail, in order to make sure you aren't going to be ripped off–if, say, your contract calls for you to pay for part of the press run, or if you are going to be paid in a couple crates of copies which it then becomes your own job to distribute. (That's ignoring vanity presses, where you're paying for the _whole_ thing.) Or they might accept the manuscript and take their own sweet time actually getting it to a printer… and then not offer you a kill fee for hanging on to it for years and then deciding they don't want it after all.



I've not hard of any of these practices, but that doesn't mean they don't exist - carefully reading your contract applies no matter where it comes from - big press or small press alike.



Ravana said:


> Also consider your goals: having a book published by a small press may net you very little in the way of exposure, or credibility in terms of convincing other publishers later that you're worth taking a chance on. (And vanity press publication will likely backfire, for the last of these.) That having been said, there's nothing wrong with small presses _per se_, only that you have to make sure of exactly what you're dealing with.



I agree there are many options now so consider your goals and align with them.



Ravana said:


> If you want to succeed in getting published, a thick skin is an indispensable necessity, as you _will_ be rejected more often than not–a simple case of arithmetic: even if every single one of your stories gets accepted eventually (unlikely!), odds are it will have passed through several hands before it finally gets picked up.



Agree.



Ravana said:


> The most important "tip" is: do your research. Make sure that your target publishes the sort of thing you're trying to sell them. Otherwise, you're wasting your time and theirs… and you do _not_ want to obtain "name recognition" of the "Oh, god, not _him_ again!" variety.…



I agree with the do your research...but also think there is little chance you'll get any "name recognition" as that _guy_. You would have to do somethign REALLY REALLY bad for anyone to remember you...they process literally thousands of submissions and they are forgotten as soon as the next one is read.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

Kevin O. McLaughlin said:


> I think that's pretty much true. I mean, maybe not everyone can be a *great* writer, one of the folks whose words are remembered for hundreds of years...  But I think most folks, given enough time and effort, can train themselves to write well enough to tell enjoyable stories, just like most people can train themselves to paint well, or to play baseball well.
> 
> Some people are farther away from that goal than others - a 450 pound couch potato with no athletic background at all is much farther from being a competitive triathlete than someone who's stayed in shape all her life. But either *can* do it - one is just beginning from a more advanced position than the other. Likewise, someone who never reads, never writes, and has a poor grasp of spelling, grammar, and storytelling could become a pro-level author - it would just take a lot longer (and therefore require a lot more effort and discipline) than someone who had already built up those skills.
> 
> What we perceive as "talent" is more and more being shown to simply be skills whose foundations we have already put a lot of work into. Not always true, maybe - but it seems to be so more often than not.



I usually find myself agreeing with Kevin but going to respectfully disagree this time. I think you CAN always improve your writing. In other words you can gain _skill_. Practice does make perfect and the more you do it...the more you study others...and attempt to learn from past mistakes...*will *make you a more "skillfull" writer than you were say 10 years ago.  

But "talent" is an innate ability that you either have or don't.  The ability to invent ideas from nothingness can't be taught.  You either do it naturally or you never will. I'm also a painter so I possess both of those innate abilities but I'll never be able to play baseball well enough for someone to pay me to do that for a living. No matter how hard I try or how much I might want to.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

Kevin O. McLaughlin said:


> I'll agree that there's some level of genetics involved.    If you're born with above average intelligence, you will have an easier time tackling certain pursuits. Likewise, if genes favor you with good reflexes (higher fast twitch muscle counts), or a body type which stays in shape more easily, you might have a better than average response to some athletics.
> 
> But there's something to be said for hard work, too.
> 
> Genes can give someone an ability to pick up skills more rapidly; but they don't give the skills themselves (at least not in almost all cases). Trying not to sound equally cocky here - I was lazy through school, mostly because I was bored to tears. I was an auto-didact, did most of my learning on my own, and needed very little attention to school work to test very well. On the flip side, I was *never* talented physically (decent body shape, really poor early athletic focus). Despite that, I worked at martial arts hard enough for long enough to own one of the best schools in my state, very well known for the quality of instruction (something to do with having NOT been a natural, I think), eventually won a batch of medals from assorted nationals, and went on later to teach combatives courses to the US Army infantry.
> 
> Hard work trumps genetics.
> 
> You said that you "know for a fact that 85 percent of the people I know couldn't play baseball well if they hit two thousand balls a day for their entire lives". I suspect you'd be wrong - IF they were being taught to do so, training in an effective manner. With many skills, it's not enough to practice hard - you need to practice hard in the right way. The writer who writes every single day, without fail, but never reads anything to learn technique, or never has a master critique that technique, may well never earn great skill. Practice doesn't make perfect - perfect practice makes perfect. All that doing something the wrong way daily does for you is reinforce bad habits and poor craftsmanship.



I think what you are there are actually three ingredients. 
1. Skill - which you are in control to improve if you work at it.
2. Talent - which you either have upon birth or at a minimum are set at a very young age and won't change overtime
3. Perseverence - which is that you'll never stop until you reach your goal.

Of the three I think #3 is probably the most important as if you give up it's game over.  If you have all 3 then I think there is no doubt that you will "make it".  If you have #1 or #2 and #3 your chances are pretty good. So in that respect Kevin is right in his optimistic belief that anyone who tries hard enough CAN succeed (i.e. you can get there with #1 and #3) but will your writing be exceptional?  Will it stand the test of time?  Only if you manage to get published and have #2 - at least that is my cents worth.


----------



## Elder the Dwarf

MichaelSullivan said:


> I think what you are there are actually three ingredients.
> 1. Skill - which you are in control to improve if you work at it.
> 2. Talent - which you either have upon birth or at a minimum are set at a very young age and won't change overtime
> 3. Perseverence - which is that you'll never stop until you reach your goal.
> 
> Of the three I think #3 is probably the most important as if you give up it's game over.  If you have all 3 then I think there is no doubt that you will "make it".  If you have #1 or #2 and #3 your chances are pretty good. So in that respect Kevin is right in his optimistic belief that anyone who tries hard enough CAN succeed (i.e. you can get there with #1 and #3) but will your writing be exceptional?  Will it stand the test of time?  Only if you manage to get published and have #2 - at least that is my cents worth.


It depends both on what your goal is and what you are talking about.  If you are a writer and your goal is to get published, you are probably right.  If, however, you play basketball and your goal is to get in to the nba, you are wrong.  There are thousands of very talented 5'8" guys that work their asses off to play basketball.  The lucky ones end up in a d II school and are never heard about.  It all depends on what your definition of successful is.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

Elder the Dwarf said:


> It depends both on what your goal is and what you are talking about.  If you are a writer and your goal is to get published, you are probably right.  If, however, you play basketball and your goal is to get in to the nba, you are wrong.  There are thousands of very talented 5'8" guys that work their asses off to play basketball.  The lucky ones end up in a d II school and are never heard about.  It all depends on what your definition of successful is.



Good point, I define success as "being able to make a living from your writing"


----------



## FictionQuest

This is an excellent discussion, but I can't help wondering what became of Phil the Drill. He started the thread back in March. Are there any updates? Did he find the courage do get his work out there? How does the story end?


----------



## Elder the Dwarf

MichaelSullivan said:


> Good point, I define success as "being able to make a living from your writing"



I like that definition for writers too, though some people probably have different opinions, as success is a very personal term.  And, with writing, I think I agree with your earlier statements about work ethic and skill.  My only real point was that there are some areas in life where a little hard work, or a lot for that matter, is not enough to get you by.  As depressing as that might be, it is true.


----------



## writeshiek33

i am publishing through a very small new company and paying for everything but on the flip side i get 100% royalties i know this sounds like a scam but with the folks that started the publishing company so far they been open and truthful so far


----------



## writeshiek33

MichaelSullivan said:


> I
> 
> But "talent" is an innate ability that you either have or don't.  The ability to invent ideas from nothingness can't be taught.  You either do it naturally or you never will. I'm also a painter so I possess both of those innate abilities but I'll never be able to play baseball well enough for someone to pay me to do that for a living. No matter how hard I try or how much I might want to.



yes we who can create those ideas it is true but the real skill is developing them into something readable


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin

MichaelSullivan said:


> I usually find myself agreeing with Kevin but going to respectfully disagree this time. I think you CAN always improve your writing. In other words you can gain _skill_. Practice does make perfect and the more you do it...the more you study others...and attempt to learn from past mistakes...*will *make you a more "skillfull" writer than you were say 10 years ago.
> 
> But "talent" is an innate ability that you either have or don't.  The ability to invent ideas from nothingness can't be taught.  You either do it naturally or you never will. I'm also a painter so I possess both of those innate abilities but I'll never be able to play baseball well enough for someone to pay me to do that for a living. No matter how hard I try or how much I might want to.



Most of the current research doesn't support the existence of innate talent, beyond the obvious: things like people who have specific genetic dispositions having a marginal edge in one thing or another.

We talk about talent all the time, but the science doesn't support it. Right now, anyway; this time next year, the opinions might have swung back the other way, for all I know. 

But here's my take on something important, something critical, something ABSOLUTELY crucial to every writer.

Michael said that "The ability to invent ideas from nothingness can't be taught."

I agree completely.

It's not taught.

It's HUMAN.

No human being is without this ability. Ever.

We might not use it much. We might not practice is, and therefore it might grow rusty and tired from disuse. But we all have it. We all have the innate, inherent ability to invent ideas from nothingness. Every human being does this, from the time they are a small child and on into death. We do it when we play. We do it when we write, or draw. We do it when we dream about the people we love. We do it when we wonder about what death means, and what comes afterward. We do it when we imagine the most wondrous, amazing things - and when we imagine the most simple and mundane.

We create ideas from nothingness with every breath, with every blink, with every night's dream, with every curious thought.

The ability to create ideas from nothingness is fundamental to being human. Central to being sentient. An inseparable part of what we are.

And yes, there's no science behind any of that.   It's my belief - that the true beauty of humanity lies in our ability to dream something that isn't true - but perhaps could be. My belief that this power is something that we can each hone, and nurture, and grow, and build upon.

Not some of us.

All of us.

Maybe it's silly. But it feels true to me.


----------



## Elder the Dwarf

Kevin O. McLaughlin said:


> Most of the current research doesn't support the existence of innate talent, beyond the obvious: things like people who have specific genetic dispositions having a marginal edge in one thing or another.
> 
> We talk about talent all the time, but the science doesn't support it. Right now, anyway; this time next year, the opinions might have swung back the other way, for all I know.
> 
> But here's my take on something important, something critical, something ABSOLUTELY crucial to every writer.
> 
> Michael said that "The ability to invent ideas from nothingness can't be taught."
> 
> I agree completely.
> 
> It's not taught.
> 
> It's HUMAN.
> 
> No human being is without this ability. Ever.
> 
> We might not use it much. We might not practice is, and therefore it might grow rusty and tired from disuse. But we all have it. We all have the innate, inherent ability to invent ideas from nothingness. Every human being does this, from the time they are a small child and on into death. We do it when we play. We do it when we write, or draw. We do it when we dream about the people we love. We do it when we wonder about what death means, and what comes afterward. We do it when we imagine the most wondrous, amazing things - and when we imagine the most simple and mundane.
> 
> We create ideas from nothingness with every breath, with every blink, with every night's dream, with every curious thought.
> 
> The ability to create ideas from nothingness is fundamental to being human. Central to being sentient. An inseparable part of what we are.
> 
> And yes, there's no science behind any of that.   It's my belief - that the true beauty of humanity lies in our ability to dream something that isn't true - but perhaps could be. My belief that this power is something that we can each hone, and nurture, and grow, and build upon.
> 
> Not some of us.
> 
> All of us.
> 
> Maybe it's silly. But it feels true to me.



Kevin, I'm with you with all of that.  Maybe a better example of what I was saying is musical ability.  I may eventually be able to play a guitar, but I couldn't sing no matter how hard I worked at it.  I think that makes talent real, despite what scientists may say.


----------



## writeshiek33

Mdnight Falling said:


> Creative ADD!!!! That right there is priceless >.< I think I suffer from it too



yep same here


----------



## Steerpike

I think anyone can learn to be a good writer. You cannot learn to be a "great" writer. There is a certain innate quality that separates the geniuses from the rest of the pack. But anyone can learn to be a good writer; even a very good one. 

I also think anyone can learn to be a good singer, and there are a lot of those around, but it takes innate ability to stand out as a great singer.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

writeshiek33 said:


> yes we who can create those ideas it is true but the real skill is developing them into something readable



Hence why I think you need talent AND Skill ;-)


----------



## MichaelSullivan

Kevin O. McLaughlin said:


> Most of the current research doesn't support the existence of innate talent, beyond the obvious: things like people who have specific genetic dispositions having a marginal edge in one thing or another.
> 
> We talk about talent all the time, but the science doesn't support it. Right now, anyway; this time next year, the opinions might have swung back the other way, for all I know.
> 
> But here's my take on something important, something critical, something ABSOLUTELY crucial to every writer.
> 
> Michael said that "The ability to invent ideas from nothingness can't be taught."
> 
> I agree completely.
> 
> It's not taught.
> 
> It's HUMAN.
> 
> No human being is without this ability. Ever.
> 
> We might not use it much. We might not practice is, and therefore it might grow rusty and tired from disuse. But we all have it. We all have the innate, inherent ability to invent ideas from nothingness. Every human being does this, from the time they are a small child and on into death. We do it when we play. We do it when we write, or draw. We do it when we dream about the people we love. We do it when we wonder about what death means, and what comes afterward. We do it when we imagine the most wondrous, amazing things - and when we imagine the most simple and mundane.
> 
> We create ideas from nothingness with every breath, with every blink, with every night's dream, with every curious thought.
> 
> The ability to create ideas from nothingness is fundamental to being human. Central to being sentient. An inseparable part of what we are.
> 
> And yes, there's no science behind any of that.   It's my belief - that the true beauty of humanity lies in our ability to dream something that isn't true - but perhaps could be. My belief that this power is something that we can each hone, and nurture, and grow, and build upon.
> 
> Not some of us.
> 
> All of us.
> 
> Maybe it's silly. But it feels true to me.



True - sentient beings have the ability to conceptualize an idea from nothingness - but an idea is not enough.  Anyone can visualize something in their heads, pick up a paint brush and apply oil to canvas. But does that mean everyone can "paint"? It takes "talent" to transfer an idea into something compelling. A writer does this with words, an artist with the medium he works in. You can learn "techniques" you can acquire "skill" but the ability to translate an "idea" into a finished product that enlightens, entertains, or just "looks pretty" is the talent portion for which I speak.

I don't really care what science can prove or not. I base my assertions from my own observations over the years. Not everyone can play in the major leagues. Few aspiring artists will ever rival the works of "the masters" after all there is a reason that these people are at the top of their game....they have a tremendous amount of talent, skill, and they work hard at their craft. I think you can "get by" without talent...i.e. skill and hardwork can get you a good solid base hit - maybe even a double.  But if you are going to get the homerun I think you need a fair amount of talent that I think is founded in a persons individual personality (or soul) whatever you want to call it.  The thing that makes me .... unique.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

MichaelSullivan said:


> I think you can "get by" without talent...i.e. skill and hardwork can get you a good solid base hit - maybe even a double. But if you are going to get the homerun I think you need a fair amount of talent that I think is founded in a persons individual personality (or soul) whatever you want to call it. The thing that makes me .... unique.



It may seem reasonable to you, based on your experiences, but this is why we _have_ science -- cognitive biases lead us to believe all sorts of things that aren't true. The _only mechanism that exists_ that allows us to test whether our observations are correct... is science.

Without having looked too deeply into the research about whether or not there's any such thing as innate talent, if that is in fact what the science says, you can't reasonably say "Well my experience is different" and ignore all the actual science. I mean, come on... it's Science!


----------



## writeshiek33

MichaelSullivan said:


> Hence why I think you need talent AND Skill ;-)



exactly why i try to practice and learn from what i read plus i acknowledge due my dyslexia it going to take twice as much time and hard work most others


----------



## MichaelSullivan

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> It may seem reasonable to you, based on your experiences, but this is why we _have_ science -- cognitive biases lead us to believe all sorts of things that aren't true. The _only mechanism that exists_ that allows us to test whether our observations are correct... is science.
> 
> Without having looked too deeply into the research about whether or not there's any such thing as innate talent, if that is in fact what the science says, you can't reasonably say "Well my experience is different" and ignore all the actual science. I mean, come on... it's Science!



I don't see how a scientific experiment could be created to test/prove such a hypothesis. Without knowing more about the actual study/studies yes I can lend a skeptic's eye to whether science has "spoken" on such a subject.  New scientific discoveries refute past scientific assumptions all the time. No...I'm not convinced yet.


----------



## Telcontar

I suppose data could be gathered on people attempting a certain task for the first time, and their success at that task somehow correlated to the existence of 'talent.'

However, I think we're thinking of talent incorrectly. Talent is not some aspect that you have within you - it isn't in your DNA (not directly). Talent at any task is a combination of a number of other factors. Sports talent, for instance, is some combination of coordination, reflexes, and observational skills (being able to learn from watching).

Storytelling talent (which I consider the part of fiction writing that cannot truly be learned, though I will qualify this statement in a moment) is composed of several parts as well. Empathy is a major one, and our ability to empathize is bound up in how our brains work. It can be taught, but only with great difficulty because attempting to learn empathy where you had none is practically trying to rewire your brain (in the metaphorical sense, at least. I have no idea of the physical truths behind what goes on in somebody attempting to 'learn' empathy). 

The craft of writing, on the other hand, is a purely human construct and can certainly be learned. However, in our little hobby the craft and the talent are so tightly bound up it is often hard to tell where one ends and the other begins. Perhaps because of the ideas themselves - a really fantastic idea won't change much when you attempt to put it into words because of how strong it is. Another way to put it might be a weak idea conforms to the language, where a strong idea forces the language to conform to it.

Of course, the talent to think up great ideas isn't the only talent that goes into writing. The aptitude towards entertaining writing also exists. Take Shakespeare. His ideas aren't always great. His plots are weird or cliche (even then) or stolen directly from other works. However, he is still the freaking Bard because of HOW he told those stories, the gorgeous language they were wrapped in.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

MichaelSullivan said:


> I don't see how a scientific experiment could be created to test/prove such a hypothesis.



Get a group of people who have no experience with a particular task, and start them at it. Periodically measure their output. Give them all the same training and the same amount of practice. At the end of it, see if some of them are significantly better at it than others. Or something like that.



> Without knowing more about the actual study/studies yes I can lend a skeptic's eye to whether science has "spoken" on such a subject.  New scientific discoveries refute past scientific assumptions all the time. No...I'm not convinced yet.



Sure, it's fine to say "I've looked at the evidence and I don't think it supports conclusion X," it's just not reasonable to say "I don't care what science says, I'm going to go with my own instincts."


----------



## MichaelSullivan

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> Get a group of people who have no experience with a particular task, and start them at it. Periodically measure their output. Give them all the same training and the same amount of practice. At the end of it, see if some of them are significantly better at it than others. Or something like that.



For something as quantifyable as, say, hitting a 100 mph fastball - sure that works. But art is subjective. What one person sees as exceptional another will vilify. So there isn't any way to quantify the output they produce. You can't say objectively this result is "good" and that result is "bad". So I see no way you can "measure" artistic ability in a truly quantifiable way. If you can't measure it you can't test for it. That's what I was referring to. 



Benjamin Clayborne said:


> Sure, it's fine to say "I've looked at the evidence and I don't think it supports conclusion X," it's just not reasonable to say "I don't care what science says, I'm going to go with my own instincts."



Having no access to "said evidence" and the techniques used to collect it I can't comment one way or another.  I'm not saying I don't care what science says, I'm saying I would need a specfics to determine whether the test was performed in a way that I can trust the results. It's not a matter of me discounting science...it's a matter of wanting the details before accepting something as "fact".


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin

OK, I didn't mean to stir up so much controversy over the science bit. I did do the research on this one, not too long ago. Was back in school taking some additional courses around my "non-writin" profession (y'know, the one that pays the bills right now). Wrote a paper on a related subject.

Anyway - "does talent exist" is a hotly debated topic. Right now - or as of a year ago, anyway - the current in vogue theory was that talent did not for the most part exist.

But the whole thing is related to the "nature vs nurture" debate, and that's still raging too. How much of what we are is related to genetics, and how much to environment? To put it in terms of this debate - when someone is excellent at a skill, how much of that did they get from their DNA, and how much did they pick up along the way?

Anything picked up along the way can be picked up at any time. It might take longer at one point in your life than at another point, but it's always possible. We see 80 year old people doing extensive neuronal rewiring. Very viable at all ages, just takes application of a lot of effort.

But if it's genetics, then you either got it, or you don't. If you didn't get the right DNA sequence for something, you simply don't have it. There's evidence, for instance, that tastes for certain foods is genetic (identical twins who were separated at birth have been studied *extensively* for this sort of thing). There's also some evidence that interest in at least some sorts of activities have some level of tie to genetics.

The debate is really how much each impacts things. And the answer is probably "it depends on what things".


Are there some people who through a twist of the genes probably have some sort of superior ability to give words meaning on the page? Perhaps. I *will* buy that.   Your classic early master of something might be related to that. Your outstanding writers, musicians, artists, whatever - might be examples. But I don't think most of us are talking about Shakespeare here. We're talking about the ability to write stories that people enjoy reading.

And that's not really about talent. I think. I feel like it's mostly about skill - the skills honed through long practice.

Stephen King had a quote in "On Writing" which is related to this topic. While I'm not sure my own feelings match his precisely, there does seem to be some germ of truth in it:

"While it is impossible to make a competent writer out of a bad writer, and while it is equally impossible to make a great writer out of a good one, it is possible, with lots of hard work, dedication, and timely help, to make a good writer out of a merely competent one."


----------



## Ravana

MichaelSullivan said:


> I agree with the do your research...but also think there is little chance you'll get any "name recognition" as that _guy_. You would have to do somethign REALLY REALLY bad for anyone to remember you...they process literally thousands of submissions and they are forgotten as soon as the next one is read.



Heh. Depends on how _often_ you're "that guy." I used to know someone who was proud he sent off fifty-plus submission letters a week.…  I'd have to imagine that even with massive slush piles, you'd need a pretty common name for it not to start registering eventually.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

Kevin O. McLaughlin said:


> Anyway - "does talent exist" is a hotly debated topic. Right now - or as of a year ago, anyway - the current in vogue theory was that talent did not for the most part exist.



"current in vogue theory" -- note "theory" is why I was not takin it as "a scientific fact" - I was taken to task for discounting "science" but I've not been presented with any scientific evidence to dispute.

As to nature/nurture -- most people who have children side on the "nature" side of that equation. I have three children all born into similar situations - stable family - one at home care giver - one bread winner - similar socio and econmic status - and they are all VERY VERY different.  Again - not scientific - purely imperical but my children should be very similar if their personalities and perpencities were related to how they were nurtured as their environments were pretty darn similar.


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin

*I* never used the word "fact", Mike. I said current research doesn't support the idea, which is true (last I was reading, anyway!).

Science has facts. Facts are specific events which are observed. Facts are raw data, directly measured.

Facts in science are *never* extrapolated from data.

We can say that if I drop a ball, and see it fall to the ground, that my ball, on that occasion, fell to the ground. It's an observed fact. We can't say that proves gravity exists - gravity is a theory. Yes, still.    (I'm sure you know all this, Michael, just explaining for anyone who doesn't.)

Virtually everything upon which we base modern science is theory, not fact. Those theories are based upon observed experiences, recorded as data - facts. But whenever we try to extrapolate anything from the data, we're creating a theory to explain the data. We're not stating a fact.



Anyway - there ARE some interesting facts around the nature/nurture thing. Several very intensive surveys have been done of identical twins (who are genetically the same, of course). Both twins raised together and those separated at an early age were observed. Even those identical twins who were reared together had very different personalities, in most cases, which puts the lie to the "genetics is everything" theory. But on the other hand, separated twins were even more interesting - some traits were the same, some were very different. You'd get cases of a pair of twins both preferring the same flavor of ice cream, for instance - but both showing remarkably different aptitudes.

So the theory there most generally accepted is that part of who we are is made up by genetics - and part by our environment. It's where that line is drawn that has researchers arguing like mad, and probably will for quite a long while to come.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

Kevin O. McLaughlin said:


> *I* never used the word "fact", Mike. I said current research doesn't support the idea, which is true (last I was reading, anyway!).



Hey Kevin, sorry if it came across as putting some words in your mouth. I actually wasn't responding to you....it was this post by Benjamin:



> It may seem reasonable to you, based on your experiences, but this is why we have science -- cognitive biases lead us to believe all sorts of things that aren't true. The only mechanism that exists that allows us to test whether our observations are correct... is science.



The point I was trying to make is I wasn't disputing science because you can't scientifically test "writing talent". To test something it has to be measurable and quantifyable. But evaluating "art" is impossible because there is subjective and there is no objective standard to say...this is good and that is bad. 

Now you certainly can test "writing skill". If you define that as copy editing - you can produce a piece with a known number of grammaric errors and test how many are found....then do some training and produce a similar work (or even the same) and see if more errors are found.  This is quantifable and testable.

But even with that...English is a living language and conventions change all the time.  Old school editors will say put a comma on an introductory phrase.  Others loosened that conventiion to say only if the introductory phrase is longer than 4 words.  I won't even get into the religous debate over the Oxford comma.


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin

No harm done.  =)  I just wanted to be sure I was being clear - and talking about theories as if they were facts grates against my background (heavy on the physics to start out, heavier on the bio end these days). It's not something I wanted to be thought guilty of!  

The talent debate (does it exist or not) is complex. On the one hand, you have folks saying that talent is inborn, genetic. My personal bias is the feeling that's not the whole truth - that our makeup is partly genetics, and partly environment, and the two mesh together to produce who we are.

Others suggest that there is some sort of narrow window during early years where cognitive development patterns are set, and change (although possible) to radically different patterns becomes much more difficult after that period - hard enough to be effectively impossible for most people.

I've seen some substantial evidence to back that last bit up. It doesn't suggest that it's _impossible _to "grow a talent" that you didn't previously have. It does suggest that it can be exceptionally difficult to do so.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

It occurs to me that from the perspective of someone who wants to succeed as a writer, it doesn't _matter_ whether talent is inborn or not (and if it is, whether you have any). You have to work your ass off to find out whether you can succeed in any event.


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> It occurs to me that from the perspective of someone who wants to succeed as a writer, it doesn't _matter_ whether talent is inborn or not (and if it is, whether you have any). You have to work your ass off to find out whether you can succeed in any event.



Of course it matters!  

If talent is completely inborn, and absolutely necessary for writing success, then only folks with talent will ever succeed at writing. Those without, simply won't make it. Doesn't matter how hard they try, or how many hours they work at building their skills. If this were true, anyone without writing talent would simply be doomed to mediocrity without hope of working their way to a higher level of skill.

However, if what we think of as talent is actually the result of skills gained through thousands of hours of practice, then anyone (or pretty nearly anyone) can acquire talent. That means if you work hard enough at writing, you can become an excellent writer - your work is what matters, not your genes.

It's a significant difference.


----------



## lawrence

"If talent is completely inborn, and absolutely necessary for writing success, then only folks with talent will ever succeed at writing. Those without, simply won't make it."

Just look at the junk that gets published and sells in many thousands. Plenty of poor writers have 'succeeded' in terms of sales. As Michael said, art is subjective. So we have bad authors and bad artists becoming famous. Many talented people do not get anywhere. The lucky break is as central to success in creative work as is the hard work and gifting. 

I personally believe that the talent is something that some people have 'naturally'. Its in their nature, and nurture can play a part in bringing it out and helping it blossom.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

Kevin O. McLaughlin said:


> Of course it matters!
> 
> If talent is completely inborn, and absolutely necessary for writing success, then only folks with talent will ever succeed at writing. Those without, simply won't make it. Doesn't matter how hard they try, or how many hours they work at building their skills. If this were true, anyone without writing talent would simply be doomed to mediocrity without hope of working their way to a higher level of skill.
> 
> However, if what we think of as talent is actually the result of skills gained through thousands of hours of practice, then anyone (or pretty nearly anyone) can acquire talent. That means if you work hard enough at writing, you can become an excellent writer - your work is what matters, not your genes.
> 
> It's a significant difference.



No, what I mean is, without working your ass off to produce something, you can't tell whether what you have is real talent or not. Imagine two writers starting out, A and B. A's very first paragraph is beautifully written; B's very first paragraph is crap.

Now they both write novels. A's output is consistently as good as the first paragraph, but it turns out he doesn't really have a good grasp of long-term character development. The prose is great but the characters just aren't that interesting.

B, meanwhile, has crappy prose at first, but as he writes he improves, he gets feedback, eventually his prose is as good as A's. And he has a better grasp of character development, how to make characters seem real and interesting.

In the long run, B turns out to be a better writer than A, even though on a first gloss, A seemed like he had more "talent."


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin

lawrence said:


> Just look at the junk that gets published and sells in many thousands. Plenty of poor writers have 'succeeded' in terms of sales. As Michael said, art is subjective. So we have bad authors and bad artists becoming famous. Many talented people do not get anywhere. The lucky break is as central to success in creative work as is the hard work and gifting.



What poor writers have succeeded in sales? What "junk" sells thousands of copies?

I see plenty of writers whose work *I* don't happen to enjoy reading, who have made large numbers of sales.

The fact that a writer has made large numbers of sales pretty much means the writer is not poor at their craft. I might not like a given writer's work. You might not. But lots and lots and lots of other people clearly have.  

Art _is_ subjective. Don't fall into the trap of assuming any one point of view is correct when it comes to what defines good writing. Calling a work "junk" because *you* didn't happen to like it is a little silly, if many thousands of other people obviously did like it.


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> No, what I mean is, without working your ass off to produce something, you can't tell whether what you have is real talent or not. Imagine two writers starting out, A and B. A's very first paragraph is beautifully written; B's very first paragraph is crap.
> 
> Now they both write novels. A's output is consistently as good as the first paragraph, but it turns out he doesn't really have a good grasp of long-term character development. The prose is great but the characters just aren't that interesting.
> 
> B, meanwhile, has crappy prose at first, but as he writes he improves, he gets feedback, eventually his prose is as good as A's. And he has a better grasp of character development, how to make characters seem real and interesting.
> 
> In the long run, B turns out to be a better writer than A, even though on a first gloss, A seemed like he had more "talent."


But Clayborne, in your example both writers obviously have talent.

One is more talented at certain things; the other more talented at other things. Their eventual skill level will depend upon how much they are able to work at and improve their weak spots.

To add to your example: writer C, who is born without a shred of writing talent, tries to write anyway. He produces buckets of terrible prose. He goes to school, gets an English major, but his writing is still universally considered bad. He goes to workshops. He takes classes from masters in his field. He reads over fifty books a year to learn from other writers' work. He writes five thousand words a day, every single day, for ten years, producing scores of books and hundreds of short stories.

But since he has no talent, *because he was not born with it*, none of his writing will ever or can ever be good, regardless how much time he spends.

THAT is what the talent myth means.

If talent is inborn, then someone without that "writing gene" is doomed to fail at writing, no matter how hard he tries.

And frankly, I just don't buy it.    I especially hate it, because in our culture we use the Talent Myth as an excuse for failure, or worse yet as an excuse to never try.

We all learned to write somewhere. We learned first to love stories. Then, we learned to love pulling apart stories and learning what made them tick. That love - that PASSION - fired us to continuously work at learning from each bit of fiction we devoured, and to hone our minds in ways that help us develop our own fiction.

I think it's possible for someone to come to that astonishingly early. I think it's also possible for someone to come to that astonishingly late. My own feeling - my hunch, my gut - says that what is primarily involved is passion and love for what you are doing. You have to love stories to write stories. You have to love the guts of them, love what makes them tick, love them the way a five year old loves putting together with Legos things pulled from their imagination. That love, if encourages and allowed to bloom, can lead to the passion and fire which spurs one to write long enough, hard enough, and with enough attention to learning one's craft to build skills as a writer.

Maybe there _are_ some people who have some special level of talent above and beyond the scope of most mere mortals.  I don't know. But almost everyone can learn to love telling stories, and almost everyone can learn the skills to tell them well.


----------



## writeshiek33

i too have that problem everytime i want to focus on my main story something new pops in


----------



## MichaelSullivan

lawrence said:


> Just look at the junk that gets published and sells in many thousands. Plenty of poor writers have 'succeeded' in terms of sales. As Michael said, art is subjective. So we have bad authors and bad artists becoming famous.



If we are talking about something that has been published by a third-party (i.e. not self-published) then I'm not sure you can call it "junk".  The term "gatekeepers" exists for a very real reason. Now it may be that some things seem "too comercial" for your tastes (i.e. a celebrity tell-all) or you may lean toward a higher end prose than something like, say, Twilight. But in order to make it to market many people have had to annoint it as "worthy".

But to me, the true "gatekeeper" is the readers and if it has sold "many thousands" than the market has spoken. It can't be junk and well-read simultaneously. Sure it might fit your tastes...I personally despised _The Road _by Cormac McCarthy but it has won the Pulizer, was an Oprah Book Club Pick, and has sold millions of copies. That's a primary example of the "subjectivity" of art.



lawrence said:


> Many talented people do not get anywhere. The lucky break is as central to success in creative work as is the hard work and gifting.



I personally believe that the talent is something that some people have 'naturally'. Its in their nature, and nurture can play a part in bringing it out and helping it blossom.[/QUOTE]

You hear a lot about the "lucky break" and I won't deny that being in the right place at the right time is crucial. My success to date is directly related to being one of the indie authors who made it big at Xmas last year.  But to me luck is made by constantly putting your stuff out there until the spark finally cathes to a flame.  The first two books of my Riryia Revelations have only been on the market for a few weeks, but already it's showing a bit of smoke rising from the tinder (Library Journal named it to one of their Top 10 Best Books of 2011 lists and both books have gone into a second printing - Even though the release of the second wasn't even scheuduled for another 4 days). So if it does indeed "catch" was it a lucky break...or the fact that I kept going and refused to surrender for the twenty-one years that it took for the series to become an 'overnight' success?

I've said it elsewher but repeate it again for context what every writer nees is:
1. Talent
2. Skill
3. Willingness to work hard
4. Perseverance

The more of each you have the better you make your odds. I think some writers will "succeed" without all of the ingriedients. Heck some catch fire right away and so don't need #4 but if you want to better you "odds" at "getting lucky" then hope for a  good dose of #1 (which you may or may not have control over) and fully dedicate ourself to #2 -  #4 (which you have complete control over) and then you'll be in good shape.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

Kevin O. McLaughlin said:


> But since he has no talent, *because he was not born with it*, none of his writing will ever or can ever be good, regardless how much time he spends.
> 
> THAT is what the talent myth means.
> 
> If talent is inborn, then someone without that "writing gene" is doomed to fail at writing, no matter how hard he tries.




If your born with talent - your life (if you are choosing a career that requires that partiuclar talent) is easier...without question. But are you doomed to "never making it". I don't think so...it just means that you'll have to work harder at it. Someone with talent (defined by me as an innate ability to spin stories from nothingess) needs to work hard at the skill portion (how to transpose that idea well). If the "lack of innate talent" can't be changed then you really can't "work on it" but with enough hard work, persevernce, willingness to improve those things you can change you'll proably "make it".  It might take longer...because  it will be a harder road...but because art is subjective it doesn't have to be "great" it has to be "good enough".



Kevin O. McLaughlin said:


> And frankly, I just don't buy it.    I especially hate it, because in our culture we use the Talent Myth as an excuse for failure, or worse yet as an excuse to never try.



One of the great things about being human...and for those of us who live in societies that embrace freedom...is that your only limitations are self-imposed. Sure you may never be "the star" but you can revel in any level of success you achieve. When I started _The Riyria Revelations_ I told my wife, "If I sell 50 books to people who I don't know I'll be happy." and I was and if that's as far as it ever went - I'd have been okay with that. We are each in control of our fates. If we fail, or give up, we have no one to blame but the man in the mirror.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

Kevin O. McLaughlin said:


> Maybe there _are_ some people who have some special level of talent above and beyond the scope of most mere mortals.  I don't know. But almost everyone can learn to love telling stories, and almost everyone can learn the skills to tell them well.



Here is part of the reason I believe in the "innate talent".  Kevin, I belive you are aware of my wife, Robin Sullivan. You'll be hard pressed to find anyone on this planet who is more passionate.  She loves writers; she loves books.  She runs a small press and is a fantastic developmental editor.  She's taken stories and torn them down to their studs and helped the author build them from the ground up. She has been a tremendous contributor to my works and they are all so much better for them. But she is the BASF of writing...she doesn't make the products...she makes the products "better". 

For all her love of writing, and skill at editing, Robin freely admits that she can't create something out of nothingness. Believe me I've seen her try. We were on vacation at a beach once and while floating around one of our children asked her to tell them a story - and she quite literally floundered. She will always be a "contributor" to books and a valuable addition to any project. But I don't think she'll ever be able to write fiction.


----------



## Elder the Dwarf

Kevin O. McLaughlin said:


> And frankly, I just don't buy it.    I especially hate it, because in our culture we use the Talent Myth as an excuse for failure, or worse yet as an excuse to never try.




Really?  That's my favorite part.  I don't think that talent is the only thing that matters, but I am insisting that it is _part_ of the equation.  Now, I understand that I can't argue with science and that my opinion doesn't really matter (no, I'm not being sarcastic don't take that as me being upset) but I really do believe that talent exists.  My brother and I grew up the exact same way.  I love him to death, but he isn't very smart.  On the other hand, he is much more athletic than me.  And we worked the same amount at the same sports, he probably worked just a little harder than me in school, and we were basically the same people if you think about what we did. 

I know a bunch of people who started playing basketball at the same age as me.  I was better than most and some were better than me.  If talent doesn't exist, we would start with the same skills.  The _exact_ same skills.  So I can't buy that.

That being said, I have enjoyed this thread, and your posts have been really interesting and thought-provoking Kevin.  Also, I think talent plays a slightly lesser role in writing, so I agree with your examples to an extent.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

Kevin O. McLaughlin said:


> But Clayborne, in your example both writers obviously have talent.



_Not at the beginning._ My point was that you can't tell whether someone has talent _until_ they spend a long time writing. At the beginning, A appears to have "talent" and B appears to have no talent. (And neither does C, your example guy.) And it turns out that B has more "talent" than A does.

But is it something that was inborn? Or is it due to their upbringing? Imagine this:

A grew up in an intellectual environment, the only child of parents who were a lawyer and a professor. He read a lot of books of all kinds as a young child, all the way through college; he spent a lot of time writing stories, though he never really showed them to anyone or got any feedback on them (his parents assumed he'd become a doctor or lawyer and never made an effort to encourage his writing). But he read so much good prose that he was able to mimic it and learn come up with his own good prose. However good character development/story progression is a lot harder than pretty prose, and he never really studied that _per se_ before he started writing seriously.

B, on the other hand, grew up the son of a truck driver and a housekeeper, with five siblings. He never had time to read as a kid, nor did the family have a lot of books around. He'd go to the library occasionally and read something, but it wasn't a consistent part of his lifestyle. But he worked hard in school and got a scholarship and so was able to go to a decent college. While there, he met people who introduced him to various authors and genres he'd never been aware of, and he read a couple of good novels. And he was thrilled. He started reading as much as he could. Then one day someone asked if he'd ever written anything. He'd never even thought about writing himself, and had never written anything beyond what was needed for schoolwork before he started writing seriously.

In a physical sense, what would "talent" even _mean?_ Presumably it would be neurological structures that make someone's creative output better (although since "better" is entirely subjective, it's still troublesome to quantify). But we are so far from being able to measure that, let alone quantify it, right now there's no point in even discussing whether someone in particular person has it. The laws of physics certainly don't prevent someone from having neurological structures better-suited toward storytelling, and I would be amazed to find out that there really is no way for the underlying hardware to make any difference in creative output.

But for any particular _person_ starting out writing, the question of talent is utterly irrelevant. Until you put a lot of blood, sweat, and tears into writing, there's no way to know whether or not you will have any success. Success is not a measure of talent; I don't think Stephenie Meyer writes well at all, but she's undeniably successful. Is it because of hard work? (Some, no doubt.) Inborn talent? Or, as in my opinion, luck that she wrote a story that _happened_ to resonate with a large audience? A lot of people think her writing is crap, but whether someone has talent _cannot_ be subjective, if it's an inborn quantity.

Anyway, enough rambling. My point is that new writers need to not worry about or even think about whether talent exists, because the goal isn't to find out if you're _talented_, it's to find out if you can be _successful_, and the only way to find out is to put in the time.


----------

