# Rant: Non writers live in a dreamworld.



## Annoyingkid (Dec 17, 2017)

It's taken me 12 years to master drawing, to learn how to write well, to get a degree and to write and illustrate about 2/3rds of my graphic novel trilogy. These are long stories with high detail.
I think that is realistic progression.  

Bear in mind I do not live with my mother and I have my own place, so this is'nt about "getting me out of my mother's basement".

But people in my family love to mock that my art is not pulling in income after so long. They haven't written a thing themselves, don't care to read any of mine, don't know anything about it. That's how they judge worth: income. Be all and end all. My brother proudly claims he has no ideas, my mother considers herself a "songwriter" even though she hasn't sold a single song. So it goes to show the hypocrisy involved. 

She thinks i should quit and work on a masters degree instead. Cos that's right, when something is hard, you quit. Non writers seem to unanimously think they can write a bestseller in a couple of years, only to be shocked that their school education didn't prepare them for writing fiction at all. 

A writer or artist who has yet to break through gets NO respect in this society. 
But when you break through you get all the respect in the world and people want to pretend that they were with you the whole time. 

But if I do make it? I'll remember who my doubters were. And I'll remember the people who supported me. 
and I will have the last laugh. At them. Who ha ha's last, ha ha's best.


----------



## TheCatholicCrow (Dec 17, 2017)

I hear you there buddy ... I really do. There was a bit of a PR scandal with Josh Groban several years back when some people told him he was lucky/blessed to have such a nice voice and he apparently went off on them saying it was from practicing 8hrs+ each day. He was rude about it but definitely had a point. Society seems to think everything is easy and likes to forget the years of work going on behind closed doors before someone "makes it". As to income, it's a difference in personal values (I suspect). If you're getting something out of it (stress relief, fun, creative expression) its worth it regardless of whether or not it brings any money in.


----------



## Dark Squiggle (Dec 17, 2017)

I am only beginning to write seriously, but I think I can relate to this. I have been drawing/painting continuously since I've been old enough to hold a crayon. I find people all the time expecting to get a feel for it just by going to a class or something, and then knocking me by showing  off some  trick I don't know, or getting upset when I tell them to "Just put in the colors that fit.", or tell me that balance and tension are meaningless or can be learned on one foot. Even today someone made a jab at me that I spend so much time on my art and am yet to make a penny on it, so it must be a waste of time. Even worse is, "Oh, you're colorblind? Your painting must be worth nothing at all." - after I have spent years getting what skill I have.
It's not about learning some esoteric trick; it's about making the Art part of you.


----------



## Heliotrope (Dec 17, 2017)

TheCatholicCrow said:


> lucky/blessed to have such a nice voice and he apparently went off on them saying it was from practicing 8hrs+ each day.



Oh man. So this. It drives me crazy. If you are good then it is because you are "lucky" or "have talent"... not because you worked your ass off. Drives me crazy.

On the flip side, I have seen writers give up early on because they "just don't have talent." When really all they needed to do was just study some craft and practice, practice, practice.


----------



## pmmg (Dec 17, 2017)

I find the most common reaction i get from those that find out i am a writer and have written things is a quick rendition of all the things they are planning to write, to which i most often think, ‘yeah, but you never will’. I do often wonder why it seems more important to discuss things they will never do than things i have already done. I think people think writing is just easy and when they are ready it will all flow naturally. I hate to burst their bubble but that aint how it goes.


----------



## Penpilot (Dec 17, 2017)

You know what the sad part is? Writers in general sort of do this to themselves in a way. When they write artist characters, they rarely show what it's really like. Instead, they perpetuate that Hollywood vision of what it's like to be an artist, that it's somehow this magic gift of talent that lets a person make it instead of just plain hard work.

Because of this, I think in a way it makes it harder for non-writers to respect the what an artist does, because they don't know or think that it's hard work.

I remember watching this Stephen King movie, the Dark Half where the main character is writer on his way to writing his first novel. There's a scene where he shows his wife the first 10 pages and she starts to praise him for it, telling him how awesome the whole book will be, just based on friggen 10 pages. Ten pages is around 2500 words. That's like one chapter.

Most writers can do that in one day. It's not some sort of magical feat. Plus rarely is the first draft all that good. This paints the picture that writers get right on the first try. No editing/work needed. It just magically comes out perfect. Besides, one good chapter doesn't mean a thing. It's about being able to put all the chapters together into something meaningful as a whole. 

Sadly, I see this all the time when ever a writer character shows up in movie or tv. And most of the time I just sigh.


----------



## pmmg (Dec 18, 2017)

But, thats how its like for me, i just wave my brush and unicorns pop out. I dont understand this concept of rewriting, why destroy the beauty of art in its rawest form? Plus i dont make tupoz.


----------



## Russ (Dec 18, 2017)

You have my every sympathy, but probably not for the reasons you think.

People value different things differently.  Some people think money is the measure of all things, some are more focussed on other priorities.  That doesn't make either side superior to the other.   People are going to have different opinions and values than you in this life and you getting so wound up about them AK is not going to go you any good at all.  In fact it might just make your profoundly unhappy in the long term.  I think you need to find a way to better handle people disagreeing with you.

Writing, like acting, is a profession with a tough career path, and where only a small number of the practitioners are successful.  There is nothing inherently insulting about people suggesting to you that at some point, your investment might not pay off, and that you might be better off trying something else as a vocation or career path.   You don't have to agree with them, you can do what you want, but  you should not get so disturbed by people talking about these things with you.

Part of the problem of respect for writers, and other artists, these days, is that everyone seems to claim they are one, are on the way to being one.  Sometimes it seems that everyone with a word processor fancies themselves a writer, and everyone with a digital camera claims to be a photographer, when those vocations really are tough and hard won.   We live in a world of posers, wannabes and self focussed individuals with little  perspective on what certain vocations really mean and cost.  Those people have little humility and shoot their mouths off with attention seeking behaviour far too much.   It is no wonder when people become skeptical about certain people's claims when there is so much hot hair and selfies going on out there.  

I have had a totally different experience with non-writers than you have.  When I see people speaking to working writers they are usually quite impressed with their accomplishments and quite aware of all the hard, lonely work that goes into it.

If you want to be a writer, and you want respect for your writing, perhaps a place to start is by respecting non-writers and realizing that writers are not in any way superior to plumbers, or doctors, or carpenters or anything else.  All those people work hard too.   Understanding that the universe does not rotate around writing and writers, and that others are equally or more worthy than writers are of respect and support would be a darned good place to start.  Humility seems undervalued these days.

*A writer or artist who has yet to break through gets NO respect in this society.
*
Respect is earned, if you have not accomplished your goals why do you expect to get respect?   And that is not unique to writers, nobody who has not accomplished much gets respect in this society.  Should society respect you because you say you are trying hard?  That's a pretty big ask.

*But if I do make it? I'll remember who my doubters were. And I'll remember the people who supported me. 
and I will have the last laugh. At them. Who ha ha's last, ha ha's best.
*
Now that is just some bitter stuff man.  Relax, get some perspective.  If you do achieve success I would suggest you consider being grateful rather than vengeful when it happens.  It will make you happier and healthier in the long run.


----------



## Nimue (Dec 18, 2017)

Hmm.  I don’t think I’ve ever encountered the attitude you’re describing.  Probably because I write as a hobby and don’t necessarily expect to make any money from it, much less more than my day job...and in regards to family my mother and my sister both write, so expectations aren’t wildly askew there, and when they talk about their writing process I am all ears.  When people figure out that I write or draw, they either want to know what it’s about or want to see some of it, which...a) fantasy concepts are incredibly embarrassing to describe aloud, and b) noooooo.  So still a bit of an uncomfortable conversation, but it’s not because of any malice on their part, just curiosity...


----------



## Annoyingkid (Dec 18, 2017)

Russ said:


> i



You're correct in that we each have different values. You consider it bitter, I consider it motivating.

_"Respect is earned, if you have not accomplished your goals why do you expect to get respect?"_

Why should I expect to get mocked? In this life we can choose to either respect or mock each other, regardless of what we do.. Which one makes for a better society hm?
_
"If you want to be a writer, and you want respect for your writing, perhaps a place to start is by respecting non-writers and realizing that writers are not in any way superior to plumbers, or doctors, or carpenters or anything else. All those people work hard too. Understanding that the universe does not rotate around writing and writers, and that others are equally or more worthy than writers are of respect and support would be a darned good place to start. Humility seems undervalued these days."_

 I never said writers were superior. I said non writers sorely underestimate what is involved and therefore undervalue writing and art.


----------



## Chessie2 (Dec 18, 2017)

Short of getting laughed at, I've had every response under the sun when people find out I'm an author. It's mainly what I do with my life outside of family responsibilities. Sometimes I tell people, sometimes my family tells people. The only person who truly gives a *** is my husband but as my dutiful, loving other half, he's very supportive and I love him for it. He is understanding of my time to write and the work it takes to run a small book selling business. It took him time to come around but he's my #1 supporter now. My side of the family understands, too, since they've seen me write stories since I was a kid. It's who I am to them.

Everyone else? I get varied responses. Most people ignore it or comment like my father-in-law "but you're making pennies." If there's one thing I've ever loved doing it's telling stories and I'm fiercely protective over my ability to do this. I do get made fun of sometimes. It hurts. But what can I expect? I know even if one day I end up making a living with my fiction people will still think it's stupid. No respect, like Russ said. Just something I'm used to by now, lol.


----------



## Annoyingkid (Dec 18, 2017)

Anyone who takes their shot, be it writer, actor, artist, dancer, musician, whatever, is worthy of respect whether they hit or miss. Because they answered the question of what if, and can live without regrets. People who think money are the measure of all things are entitled to their views. But it's certainly not something I need to become used to, as I am entitled to not associate with them.


----------



## Russ (Dec 18, 2017)

Annoyingkid said:


> Anyone who takes their shot, be it writer, actor, artist, dancer, musician, whatever, is worthy of respect whether they hit or miss. Because they answered the question of what if, and can live without regrets. People who think money are the measure of all things are entitled to their views. But it's certainly not something I need to become used to, as I am entitled to not associate with them.



That is a pretty low bar you want to set.  Results be damned, here is your blue ribbon for showing up.  That can be a very good strategy for helping children develop self esteem and a work ethic, but at some point results have to matter.  

They are  your family.  If  you choose not to associate with them because they don't think enough of the graphic novel trilogy you are working on (but do apparently think you are smart enough to get a masters degree) that is your call.  I think it is the wrong one.


----------



## pmmg (Dec 18, 2017)

Sorry AK, I hope you are not really feeling to as strongly as some of the sentiments written above are sounding. You know, people are people. They don't all have to share your passions to still be people worth hanging with. Family in particular. Its okay, everyone gets annoyed by others at times (maybe a lot of the time) but it passes. I expressed some annoyance above, but truth is, I just observe the behaviors and file it away. Maybe move on to other subjects.


----------



## Heliotrope (Dec 18, 2017)

Russ said:


> That can be a very good strategy for helping children develop self esteem and a work ethic, but at some point results have to matter.



Actually we now know that is it a crappy way of developing kid's self esteem, lol. It was a big push in the 80's but kids know who is good at something and who just showed up and no ribbon changes that. (No attack at you, Russ, because I know you were being tongue in cheek, and really I'm supporting what you are saying). Kids don't get participation ribbons anymore at most elementary schools in my area. Educational research shows the best way to encourage self esteem is to encourage kids to develop skills, and this means pushing them through some uncomfortable learning curves until they get there. 

So that gets to what Russ is saying. Dude, this is a tough business. I've been writing for fifteen years, submitting little shorts and poems to publishers and writing while working on both my Bachelors and Masters in English literature and I have not broken into the game. It takes some serious time and work ethic. Don't even get me started on how hard self pub writers have to work with all their cover designs and marketing stuff. Good grief. I hope Chessie chimes in on that one. 

In other words, don't quit your day job. And don't give up on family because they are not as supportive as you would like them to be. They have your best interest at heart.


----------



## Heliotrope (Dec 18, 2017)

pmmg said:


> I expressed some annoyance above, but truth is, I just observe the behaviors and file it away. Maybe move on to other subjects.



Ditto.


----------



## evolution_rex (Dec 18, 2017)

I listened to an interview between comedian Marc Maron and actor Bryan Cranston. In this interview, Cranston said that he would been happy if he never got any better roles than the background and commercial roles that he started out with. He said that life wasn't easy, he wasn't make much money, but he was doing what he loved doing. His happiness wasn't the result of where his career was headed but the process of the art he participated in.

I take that philosophy to all forms of art. Sure, we all have fantasies of becoming the next King or Rowling, but if that's the only reason doing it, then you're never going to be happy. It's the act of creation, the act of making a story, that you've got to love. Will the opportunities arise that will make your stuff popular? That's up to a mixture of looking for opportunities, take advantage of opportunities that arise in front of you, and just plain blind luck. But in the present day all that is in your way of publishing a book is an internet connection (well, unless the repealing of Net Neutrality screws it up), so if you're not happy making art that very little people will see, I'm not sure you deserve to be happy making art that everyone will see.

That, of course, is about personal happiness and not how others thing of you. But only artists understand artists, as pretentious as that sounds. Personally, everyone I know is just happy that I'm not just wasting my life away, and everyone knew I was on the creative side of things for really long time so no one ever tells me to quit and do something else. I am living with my parents and I am pretty darn poor, but that's because of other contributing factors, mostly my extreme anxiety.


----------



## Sheilawisz (Dec 18, 2017)

Get ready everyone, unpopular views coming this way!

While it's true that there is value in hard work and that developing your full potential at something takes years of practice, you cannot deny that having Natural Ability for doing something in particular is not only real but also very important. I know that many people are most uncomfortable with the idea that Talent exists and that some people really have it easy, and I can understand those feelings but it's very sad to see so much frustration and bitterness caused by that.

Sometimes I wonder why many people that I have observed in various places are so hell bent on doing something that they struggle so much with. Then, other times I get my answer: Money. It's true that in this world you are more respected if you have great financial success, and I think that's why numerous people have this belief that if you are not earning money from whatever that you do then it's just not worth it.

I have often encountered the belief that if you are not into the bookselling industry, you are not a real writer/author. That if you write stories simply for the personal art and pleasure of it, you are just an "amateur" or a "hobbyist" and so on. What if storytelling is my personal nature? What if storytelling is the passion of my life?

Well, it's a money world after all and I have to deal with those views frequently.

Some of the greatest works of universal literature were created by those _amateurs_ and _hobbyists_ with a lot of talent and passion, you know. Some of them made little or no money from their works. Other times, fame and wild financial success came to them easily and they get hatred from people that feel great envy of them.

I think that storytelling should be done because of natural impulse and talent in first place, and for financial reasons in second. I have lost count of how many times I have seen somebody saying "This is a business!" or something like that. Well, selling books is a business indeed and a huge industry as well, that's true. But storytelling by itself is purely a form of art.

Writing stories and earning money can go holding hands, but they are not the same thing.

I know that our Mythic Scribes motto is _The Art of Fantasy Storytelling_ and yet many times I see that the site is more about the bookselling industry. No offense to business people around here, it's just that I often feel out of place.

Just some final words for other Artsy people that may be reading this: If somebody tells you that what you do is not real or not important because money is not involved, or that your natural abilities are not real or whatever, just ignore them and concentrate on doing what you love and enjoy.


----------



## Michael K. Eidson (Dec 18, 2017)

Penpilot said:


> You know what the sad part is? Writers in general sort of do this to themselves in a way. When they write artist characters, they rarely show what it's really like. Instead, they perpetuate that Hollywood vision of what it's like to be an artist, that it's somehow this magic gift of talent that lets a person make it instead of just plain hard work.
> 
> Because of this, I think in a way it makes it harder for non-writers to respect the what an artist does, because they don't know or think that it's hard work.
> 
> ...



This.

Every time I see a writer character portrayed in a TV show or movie, I cringe. They flash a stack of what can't be more than about 50 printed pages, and say they have written a novel. Even if they single-spaced their manuscript, they'd have to use a 6-point font to get 1,000 words per page. And these fictional authors sometimes get rejections, but not on par with what happens in real life.


----------



## Dark Squiggle (Dec 18, 2017)

Michael K. Eidson said:


> This.
> 
> Every time I see a writer character portrayed in a TV show or movie, I cringe. They flash a stack of what can't be more than about 50 printed pages, and say they have written a novel. Even if they single-spaced their manuscript, they'd have to use a 6-point font to get 1,000 words per page. And these fictional authors sometimes get rejections, but not on par with what happens in real life.


I know. I can't even get someone to commission my artwork when I offer to do it for free, and when I show people my stuff, they say, "oh someone'll buy that", because everyone thinks it's like the better mousetrap - build and they'll come, but it never happens. I haven't made a thread on this forum, but I did on two others, offering to illustrate or do cover art for free, and the only replies I got where "Nice stuff, someone'll take you up on your offer.", and the one mod who told me I was selling something (for free?), pulled my thread and threatened to throw me out of the forum. Even the artists themselves somehow just don't get how hard it is to get your stuff seen.


----------



## Devor (Dec 18, 2017)

Annoyingkid said:


> Anyone who takes their shot, be it writer, actor, artist, dancer, musician, whatever, is worthy of respect whether they hit or miss. Because they answered the question of what if, and can live without regrets. People who think money are the measure of all things are entitled to their views. But it's certainly not something I need to become used to, as I am entitled to not associate with them.



I think anyone who puts their art ahead of their well being had damn well better answer one question first: _Do I even have a shot?
_
I don't mean to judge anyone who writes for a hobby in their passtime, or somebody who is convinced they can make it.  But at the bare least you need to have the good judgment not to spend your life on a hopeless task.

Let's call it a feasibility test. Sure there's a learning curve, but it also takes a certain level of skill just to move up that curve. Some people, try as they might, are for who knows what reason, barely able to budge. Maybe they just lack talent, or they can't find the right help, or they're not dedicated enough, or they're convinced they're higher on the curve than they really are. But you've got to be realistic. Where are you on the curve, are you moving forward, and will you be able to hit the top?

If the answer isn't "Hell's yes," then that person desperately needs some perspective.

Here's an article you need to read:

The Sure Thing

^ According to the article, people who look like they're taking extreme risks to everyone else.... in reality, they're not. They're acting on a _Sure Thing_ because they've been able to think it through and solve problems others have given up on.

I mean, risk your livelihood?  Are you mad?




Dark Squiggle said:


> I know. I can't even get someone to commission my artwork when I offer to do it for free, and when I show people my stuff, they say, "oh someone'll buy that", because everyone thinks it's like the better mousetrap - build and they'll come, but it never happens. I haven't made a thread on this forum, but I did on two others, offering to illustrate or do cover art for free, and the only replies I got where "Nice stuff, someone'll take you up on your offer.", and the one mod who told me I was selling something (for free?), pulled my thread and threatened to throw me out of the forum. Even the artists themselves somehow just don't get how hard it is to get your stuff seen.



If you're really willing to do a project for free, let me see your work, and if it's any good I'll find something for you that'll get at least a few hundred views.


----------



## Annoyingkid (Dec 18, 2017)

Russ said:


> That is a pretty low bar you want to set.  Results be damned, here is your blue ribbon for showing up.  That can be a very good strategy for helping children develop self esteem and a work ethic, but at some point results have to matter.
> 
> They are  your family.  If  you choose not to associate with them because they don't think enough of the graphic novel trilogy you are working on (but do apparently think you are smart enough to get a masters degree) that is your call.  I think it is the wrong one.



 At least for me, 100% belief that what I'm doing is worthwhile is required to be motivated to draw and write everyday. Anything that persistently undermines that belief is cut, blocked, whatever. I'm absolutely ruthless with that. I don't care if I've known you for 100 years. If you think the things I'm serious about are a big joke, you're blocked. I'm not going to debate the person over it. 

My entire point with this topic is that we each have different value systems and ways of seeing life which we need to start respecting. And respect doesn't mean a "blue ribbon." It means basic courtesy. Not mockery. I don't do it for the money, others do everything for money. We're all entitled to live the lives we want without being shamed for it.


----------



## pmmg (Dec 18, 2017)

Well, that sounds pretty hard core, and I am sure there must some places between 100% on board, and treating things like a big a joke. I don't think any would tolerate those who treat their passions like a big joke for very long. Sounds like you have had some poor experiences with people making fun of your work. I suppose, fortunately, that has not been my experience, but if it was, I would probably see less of them as well. I am okay with people not sharing my passions, and having their own, but I find I am kind of Zen about it. If you want to do your thing, and I want to do mine, and those two things happen to meet up well, than great, but if not, it ain't no crime. We don't really have to go the same way together.

We all have issues, and issues help us to grow, I find I can afford to treat things in a way where ruthless is not required. But then, maybe if I did, my productivity would go up....

If those around you are telling you your art is a waste of time, then a little less of them would seem in order. But ruthlessly removed...that seems a bit extreme. Family is supposed to have your best interests in mind. If they don't, who does? From far away, what do I know? Nothing really, but I would hope it is not so bad that they must be ruthlessly let go of.

Peace to you. Sorry you are having it rough with those around you.


----------



## Dark Squiggle (Dec 18, 2017)

Annoyingkid said:


> At least for me, 100% belief that what I'm doing is worthwhile is required to be motivated to draw and write everyday. Anything that persistently undermines that belief is cut, blocked, whatever. I'm absolutely ruthless with that. I don't care if I've known you for 100 years. If you think the things I'm serious about are a big joke, you're blocked. I'm not going to debate the person over it.
> 
> My entire point with this topic is that we each have different value systems and ways of seeing life which we need to start respecting. And respect doesn't mean a "blue ribbon." It means basic courtesy. Not mockery. I don't do it for the money, others do everything for money. We're all entitled to live the lives we want without being shamed for it.


I agree completely with the half of this - the part about mockery being inexcusable, but not the first half. In my mind, the definition of a friend is someone you are willing to take garbage from, and a unless friendship is be able to take some hits, it was never worth anything at all. If a friend refuses to treat you with respect, than that is not a friendship, regardless of anything else, and dumping such a person is necessary.
Devor I am making a new thread, in which I will post some artwork.


----------



## Chessie2 (Dec 18, 2017)

Annoyingkid said:


> At least for me, 100% belief that what I'm doing is worthwhile is required to be motivated to draw and write everyday. Anything that persistently undermines that belief is cut, blocked, whatever. I'm absolutely ruthless with that. I don't care if I've known you for 100 years. If you think the things I'm serious about are a big joke, you're blocked. I'm not going to debate the person over it.
> 
> My entire point with this topic is that we each have different value systems and ways of seeing life which we need to start respecting. And respect doesn't mean a "blue ribbon." It means basic courtesy. Not mockery. I don't do it for the money, others do everything for money. We're all entitled to live the lives we want without being shamed for it.


Most people don't understand. They don't care to, and they can't. But I'm somewhat the same way as you (not like I can cut everyone out of my life, just a select few). I don't expect everyone in my life...or anyone...for that matter, to get it. They don't understand how hard I work and that's it's mostly for love. Sure, I hope to make a career out of my writing and pay my bills with it someday but for now, creating has got to be enough. 

It's not just the writing though. I've got formatting, editing, cover commissions, etc to set up and then promotion/marketing, which I suck at. It takes a lot of courage to live openly as an artist but yeah, get it out of your head that people will understand because they won't!


----------



## skip.knox (Dec 18, 2017)

Interesting thread.  I don't worry much about art and such. I don't much care for the word. _Ars_ in Latin. Which was distinguished from _labor_. It set art apart from mere labor. The one was superior to the other. It's no coincidence that those who made "art" in earlier centuries did not make a living thereby. They had their wealth from the land, which gave them escape from _labor_. It's inherently snobbish (the word, not necessarily the people who use it!), and I think this underlies some of the resentment and misunderstanding one hears sometimes. It's encapsulated in that Dire Straits song. Money for nothing.

I try to leave all that stuff by the side of the road. That would be harder to do, I should think, when skepticism, lack of support, or even outright disapproval comes from one's own family. I certainly can see how it could make a fellow bitter and angry, at least sometimes. Is resentment a good motivator? It wouldn't be for me, but ymmv. I subscribe to the philosophy of Elwood P. Dowd._ "Years ago my mother used to say to me, she'd say: In this world, Elwood, you must be" - she always called me Elwood - "In this world, Elwood, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant." Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. You may quote me.  _And I often do.

To which I'll append only this: the comments from folks here show pretty clearly that not *all* non-writers live in a dream world. Some of them, indeed, are the ones whom we hope will publish our books.


----------



## psychotick (Dec 18, 2017)

Hi,

Can't help but feel you're coming at this all wrong AK. If you're a writer, it should have nothing to do with what other people think about what you do. It's all about the writing. If people look down on your choice to write - that's their choice. If they respect you for it - that's theirs too. The problem you're making is giving a crap about what they think.

If you're a writer, you write. That's should be pretty much the end of your focus. And the only concern you should have is about what people think of your work since writing is a communicative art.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## skip.knox (Dec 18, 2017)

>If you're a writer, it should have nothing to do with what other people think about what you do.

I do not disagree, but people feel what they feel, writers and non-writers alike. Then it's trying to figure out how to proceed from there.


----------



## LWFlouisa (Dec 18, 2017)

Everything is but a dream within a dream.


----------



## Sheilawisz (Dec 19, 2017)

Devor said:


> I think anyone who puts their art ahead of their well being had damn well better answer one question first: _Do I even have a shot?
> _
> I don't mean to judge anyone who writes for a hobby in their passtime, or somebody who is convinced they can make it. But at the bare least you need to have the good judgment not to spend your life on a hopeless task.



Hello Devor!

It's good that you mentioned that, since it gives me the opportunity to talk about something else that I consider important. I think that by _putting art ahead of well being_ you mean that we care more about our artistic expression than about making a living from book sales. Well, this is how I think and feel about that:

Having financial stability or even prosperity is a great form of well being, that's true. However, there are also other types of well being. In my case, having a loving family is super important even if we are not rich. If I was given the chance to choose between my family with our modest financial situation, or being super rich but with a nightmare of a family I would choose to keep things as they are now.

Another form of well being is the one that I get from my stories.

I experience a great deal of satisfaction, pleasure and adventure with my storytelling. My stories are my creations, my friends. Without them, my life would feel empty and pointless even if I had a hundred million dollars. My storytelling is my passion, my light, my heart and my reason to stay alive, if that's what I am.

My stories are sparks that bring hope, happiness and light to an otherwise sad, cold and somber life.

That means that they are a source of great well being for me, because they counter and fight against all the bad things, pain and misery that I also have in my life. Earning money too from my stories would be great, that's for sure, but that's not why I imagine and tell them by means of writing.

There are also many Artsy people that actively seek to earn money from their creations, and there's nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Devor (Dec 19, 2017)

Sheilawisz said:


> It's good that you mentioned that, since it gives me the opportunity to talk about something else that I consider important. I think that by _putting art ahead of well being_ you mean that we care more about our artistic expression than about making a living from book sales.



That isn't what I meant.

I was responding to AK, and I was referring to those who choose to take the path of the struggling artist even to the point that it puts their financial well being at risk. Many of the people who take it that far do so hoping to sell their works and make it as an artist. If you're going to take a risk with your livelihood, you had better know what you're doing, and have a realistic assessment of your own abilities, and those abilities had better be there.

There are lots of reasons to write and that's fine. Just don't quit your day job, so to speak, unless you're damn sure your art is where it needs to be for that choice to work out.


----------



## CupofJoe (Dec 19, 2017)

Sort of leaping obliquely. I know far too many writers, poets, musicians, that think the reason they aren't international superstars/feted by the cognoscenti [etc] is that their "art" is misunderstood or too "on the edge". 
It never enters their mind that they might not be very good or more accurate, that there could be a way to do what they want that reaches more people....
Personally I hate having my fiction-work critiqued as I take it all far too personally. So I know I will never make it as a Professional Author.
Oddly I look forward having my work-work critiqued because I get better at what I do. Go figure...


----------



## Michael K. Eidson (Dec 19, 2017)

Devor said:


> I was referring to those who choose to take the path of the struggling artist even to the point that it puts their financial well being at risk



Fwiw, that's how I interpreted what you were saying, Devor.

I'd love to stay at home and write all day, but my wife would have a lot to say about that, not all of it nice, because I'm not in a position to support us with my writing. So I work a day job that pays a decent wage, and write when I can. I hope to some day make enough money from my writing which will, in addition to my retirement income, support us with the quality of life we have now.

I think most of what makes for a publishable story also makes for an entertaining story. Writing without a monetary motive doesn't mean you shouldn't care about the quality of your writing. Having the natural talent to tell a good story doesn't mean you should feel compelled to publish. Not having the natural talent doesn't mean you can't write a publishable story, if you work at it. If a person wants to write, then write. There is no guarantee you'll write something anyone else gives a damn about. If they like what you write, great. If they don't, fine. Take any criticism for what it's worth, apply it to your writing process if you can, and leave the rest behind. But if someone is relying on you for support, and you can't provide the necessary support with your writing, but insist on trying anyway with no other income, that someone is within their rights to object.


----------



## Heliotrope (Dec 19, 2017)

Devor said:


> That isn't what I meant.
> 
> I was responding to AK, and I was referring to those who choose to take the path of the struggling artist even to the point that it puts their financial well being at risk. Many of the people who take it that far do so hoping to sell their works and make it as an artist. If you're going to take a risk with your livelihood, you had better know what you're doing, and have a realistic assessment of your own abilities, and those abilities had better be there.
> 
> There are lots of reasons to write and that's fine. Just don't quit your day job, so to speak, unless you're damn sure your art is where it needs to be for that choice to work out.



Not even putting finances at risk, so much (because she has stated over and over again that finances don't matter), but putting your relationship with your family at risk. Burning bridges over something that is not a sure things is not super wise, IMO. Otherwise, when you do find yourself a starving artist, who is going to support you? Take you in? Provide you with the necessities of life? The people you told to, for lack of a better phrase, F*ck off?

It is all nice sounding to say "I don't care about the money", or "I don't need material stuff," until you are on your own and have to buy soup.

If you love to write, awesome. Most of us here can't argue with that. We all do it. But alienating family over it is..... well, really something to think through.

I have a nephew who has spent many years composing music. He did his degree in music composition. He even had to fly to Prague so the orchestra there could record one of his compositions to be used in films. He has yet to make any money. He is twenty five now and his parents are starting to gently push him to maybe get a teaching degree so he has something to fall back on. I don't think that is cruel, or being unsupportive, it is just planning.


----------



## LWFlouisa (Dec 19, 2017)

Maybe because like, I know no matter how good a writer I am, people are reading less across the board. It's not rocket science here, I write in order to express myself and cope with my traumas. Not everyone goes into writing to make money. It's interesting, I only ever see writers who go in wanting to make money trash people who do it similar to how one writes a diary.

There is a place for both, there is no reason to trash "starving artists", whatever that means in a modern context.

I also have several disabilities that means I have to live with my parents until I can get SSI, that means I have a lot of time of my hands to write. Or it's lying around all the time being bored.

Not everyone has the same situation. But there is nothing wrong with writing for writing's sake.


----------



## Sheilawisz (Dec 19, 2017)

Devor said:


> I was responding to AK, and I was referring to those who choose to take the path of the struggling artist even to the point that it puts their financial well being at risk. Many of the people who take it that far do so hoping to sell their works and make it as an artist. If you're going to take a risk with your livelihood, you had better know what you're doing, and have a realistic assessment of your own abilities, and those abilities had better be there.
> 
> There are lots of reasons to write and that's fine. Just don't quit your day job, so to speak, unless you're damn sure your art is where it needs to be for that choice to work out.



Oh, I see what you mean now.

I agree that risking everything just like that would not be a good idea. I mean, if I were a great graphic artist, a powerful sportswoman or perhaps one of those super talented composers and musicians I would not abandon my regular source of income unless I was sure that I was going to make it big in the financial area of my field.

Then, why do people think that it's necessary to abandon your ordinary job while you are still developing your artwork?

If one of your novels gets accepted by a famous publisher and you get the lots-of-money advance payment that loads of people out there are hunting for, then fine! Go ahead and quit the normal job and start a new life. I guess that you would have contracts and strict deadlines to deal with, so all of your available time would have to be dedicated to your new bookselling life.

My case is very different, because I feel between little and no interest at all on the business area.

What I have observed is that many people seek not only to get some decent income from their books, but to become a super hit and earn a fortune. They seem to regard writing books as a way to get rich fast and have easy lives, if they just manage _to do it right_ or find just the right formula or get enough practice or something like that.

They do not seem to think that something else could be involved, that actually not everyone can do it.

Well, we are all entitled to do with our lives whatever that we want.


----------



## LWFlouisa (Dec 19, 2017)

Sheilawisz said:


> Oh, I see what you mean now.
> 
> I agree that risking everything just like that would not be a good idea. I mean, if I were a great graphic artist, a powerful sportswoman or perhaps one of those super talented composers and musicians I would not abandon my regular source of income unless I was sure that I was going to make it big in the financial area of my field.
> 
> ...



To add, also if someone were suddenly a smash hit, that would be just as destructive. It becomes an extremely fragile situation.


----------



## Chessie2 (Dec 19, 2017)

I don't think many realize just how difficult it is to write professionally or even try to get there. Because, you know, writing for money is so easy when you can just click the publish button and let the masses read your materpiece. It's soooo easy to write books everyone wants to read. It's sooo easy to market and get visibility for those books. It's soooo easy to finish a book. It's sooo easy to build an audience over years and years. It's sooo easy to get respect for your work (and the fact that other writers believe what you do is easy is somewhat insulting). Sooo easy. Hah. Yeah.


----------



## Chessie2 (Dec 19, 2017)

LWFlouisa said:


> To add, also if someone were suddenly a smash hit, that would be just as destructive. It becomes an extremely fragile situation.


Do you realize how difficult it is to even write yourself out of obscurity? 

Where does this strange belief come from that one can just write up a book that will hit all these lists and make one famous? It's nigh impossible for the average writer.


----------



## LWFlouisa (Dec 19, 2017)

Chessie2 said:


> Do you realize how difficult it is to even write yourself out of obscurity?
> 
> Where does this strange belief come from that one can just write up a book that will hit all these lists and make one famous? It's nigh impossible for the average writer.



Where did I say this was easy? I never said this.

I'm not saying its easy to write out of obscurity, I'm saying agents seem to want break out hits instead of consistent moderate success. 

Very different thing.


----------



## Russ (Dec 19, 2017)

LWFlouisa said:


> To add, also if someone were suddenly a smash hit, that would be just as destructive. It becomes an extremely fragile situation.



I'd take my chances with that.   

But  have seen it happen a few times, and so far it hasn't seemed to have harmed any of them too badly.


----------



## Chessie2 (Dec 19, 2017)

LWFlouisa said:


> Where did I say this was easy? I never said this.


No. You didn't. But it seems implied given your answers that writing a book and having it sell are easy things to do. I want to make a living with my writing someday but this doesn't mean I love writing any less than someone else who doesn't. I just think creating divisions like that does nobody any favors. We all have our reasons for writing books. I don't consider myself less artistic than you or Sheila. In fact, I work pretty hard. I have to be really good someday, I keep telling myself, because no amount of money and effort thrown at promotions will keep my readers coming back. Only my storytelling will. It's why I write so much. Because it's hard to make a living doing this. Writing good stories is hard no matter what!


----------



## Sheilawisz (Dec 19, 2017)

Heliotrope said:


> Not even putting finances at risk, so much (because she has stated over and over again that finances don't matter), but putting your relationship with your family at risk. Burning bridges over something that is not a sure things is not super wise, IMO. Otherwise, when you do find yourself a starving artist, who is going to support you? Take you in? Provide you with the necessities of life? The people you told to, for lack of a better phrase, F*ck off?
> 
> It is all nice sounding to say "I don't care about the money", or "I don't need material stuff," until you are on your own and have to buy soup.
> 
> ...



Well I have never said that finances do not matter. What I have said is that storytelling should be done for natural and artistic reasons in first place, and for financial reasons in second. I disagree with the concept that it's just a business, and that anybody can become great at it with just learning and practice.

I agree that alienating one's family because they mock one's work is not a good idea, at least not before you become really successful in the financial area. At least, I would not do it! I have a loving and wonderful family anyway, so my situation is different to that of A.K.

My storytelling passion is shared by my sister, even though she works in a different genre. Our parents know that we are into storytelling and (in the case of my sister) poetry, and they are happy with that. They are not very interested in what we do, anyway. If one of us became wildly successful, nothing would change in our family.

Now, what is the origin of this belief that if you do not put business as first place you are going to starve, like no other possibilities of income existed? At least in my case, I do not have any serious financial risks. I am not rich, but I am not in danger either. It's just that I feel little or no interest in earning money from my works, because that's not the reason that I write stories to start with.


----------



## Heliotrope (Dec 19, 2017)

Sheila, I was responding to the statement, 



Annoyingkid said:


> At least for me, 100% belief that what I'm doing is worthwhile is required to be motivated to draw and write everyday. Anything that persistently undermines that belief is cut, blocked, whatever. I'm absolutely ruthless with that. I don't care if I've known you for 100 years. If you think the things I'm serious about are a big joke, you're blocked. I'm not going to debate the person over it.



Not yours. Do what you do.


----------



## Russ (Dec 19, 2017)

Heliotrope said:


> Not even putting finances at risk, so much (because she has stated over and over again that finances don't matter), but putting your relationship with your family at risk. Burning bridges over something that is not a sure things is not super wise, IMO. Otherwise, when you do find yourself a starving artist, who is going to support you? Take you in? Provide you with the necessities of life? The people you told to, for lack of a better phrase, F*ck off?



Helio is making a great point here and developing an important theme I was trying to convey to AK.

I totally get total focus and dedication to any goal or task, and trying to avoid distractions or people who might (heaven forbid) mock what you are doing.  But...

Despite the belief that you will be a raging success (or any success) at your artist endeavour (and I wish AK every success in the world) there is a chance, no matter how you want to assess it, that you won't be successful.   And if you do not succeed and this does not become your successful vocation, you will have burned a bunch of extra bridges that you didn't need to burn along the way.  When those bridges are family and friends those can be significant losses.   So even if  your chance of failure is small it is always best to plan for the possibility that you will not succeed and that might include not cutting people out of your life over this issue.

A little lesson I  have learned over the many, many conflicts in my life is that it is always wise to both make sure you have a graceful retreat for yourself if things go wrong, and almost as importantly leave others a means to retreat as well so relationships can be maintained.  Sun Tzu said "Build your enemy a golden bridge to retreat over" or something like that.  In this case eliminating people from your life because they don't support, or even mock, your artistic goals leaves you no graceful retreat if you are not successful, and having a "I will remember those SOBs when I am successful and get the last laugh" attitude leaves them no graceful retreat.

So your options then look like, I succeed and have lost family and friends, or I fail and have lost family and friends.   Instead of :

I succeeded and have kept my family and friends, and I have failed and kept my family and friends.


----------



## LWFlouisa (Dec 19, 2017)

What I was specifically implying was I'm tired of being expected to be the next Stephen King or Dan Brown just to get a book published. Not everyone can be. But being a midlist, if I COULD achieve that would be fine by me.

I don't give a crap about "art". I'm talking personal therapy here. If writing were not Cathartic, I wouldn't do it.


----------



## Russ (Dec 19, 2017)

LWFlouisa said:


> What I was specifically implying was I'm tired of being expected to be the next Stephen King or Dan Brown just to get a book published. Not everyone can be. But being a midlist, if I COULD achieve that would be fine by me.
> 
> I don't give a crap about "art". I'm talking personal therapy here. If writing were not Cathartic, I wouldn't do it.



This is a great position to be in.  If your writing is therapeutic, it ads value to your life whether or not it sells.

If it sells well, it is just a bonus.

I know lots of people in the  midlist.   Many of them are very happy.


----------



## LWFlouisa (Dec 19, 2017)

Russ said:


> This is a great position to be in.  If your writing is therapeutic, it ads value to your life whether or not it sells.
> 
> If it sells well, it is just a bonus.
> 
> I know lots of people in the  mildest.   Many of them are very happy.



Exactly. I meant more that Agents seem entitled to me to only want the next Fifty Shades. I dont have that kind of luck.


----------



## Sheilawisz (Dec 19, 2017)

Heliotrope said:


> Sheila, I was responding to the statement,
> 
> Not yours. Do what you do.



Oh, alright. It's just that you quoted Devor's answer to me and you also said _she_ so your comments seemed to be aimed at my statements.



LWFlouisa said:


> I don't give a crap about "art". I'm talking personal therapy here. If writing were not Cathartic, I wouldn't do it.



L.W. I think that if your writing is therapeutic, it means that it's something very personal of yours and that defines it as art. My storytelling is some form of therapy for me as well, or at least it contributes a lot to keep me walking on this world.


----------



## LWFlouisa (Dec 19, 2017)

Sheilawisz said:


> Oh, alright. It's just that you quoted Devor's answer to me and you also said _she_ so your comments seemed to be aimed at my statements.
> 
> 
> 
> L.W. I think that if your writing is therapeutic, it means that it's something very personal of yours and that defines it as art. My storytelling is some form of therapy for me as well, or at least in contributes a lot to keep me walking on this world.



Yea I just hesitate to call it art for above reasons: art seems to be bizarrely associated with having a Henry The 8th sized ego.XD Which isn't exactly what I meant.


----------



## evolution_rex (Dec 19, 2017)

I definitely do believe starving artist type is a pretty destructive life style. It's making a deliberate choice not to find reasonable work, which is a huge risk that will eventually turn you into a burden for other people. I think a better way to phrase what I think some of us are trying to say is that we'd be perfectly happy with a normal day job while we wrote on the side for the rest of our lives if that meant we could write.


----------



## Sheilawisz (Dec 19, 2017)

LWFlouisa said:


> Yea I just hesitate to call it art for above reasons: art seems to be bizarrely associated with having a Henry The 8th sized ego.XD Which isn't exactly what I meant.



Yeah I know, many people think that all artists have a giant ego. At least some of us are that way, that's true. It's just that we love so much what we do, that maybe we come across as too dreamy and out of this world. We are strange birds indeed, but it would be nice to be a little more appreciated in general.



evolution_rex said:


> I definitely do believe starving artist type is a pretty destructive life style. It's making a deliberate choice not to find reasonable work, which is a huge risk that will eventually turn you into a burden for other people. I think a better way to phrase what I think some of us are trying to say is that we'd be perfectly happy with a normal day job while we wrote on the side for the rest of our lives if that meant we could write.



Very well said, Rex!


----------



## LWFlouisa (Dec 19, 2017)

Sheilawisz said:


> Yeah I know, many people think that all artists have a giant ego. At least some of us are that way, that's true. It's just that we love so much what we do, that maybe we come across as too dreamy and out of this world. We are strange birds indeed, but it would be nice to be a little more appreciated in general.
> 
> 
> 
> Very well said, Rex!



I mean to be fair I have known some that do have one, but then you'll have someone like Takatsu as well. Ok not the greatest example, but there are some real nice people.


----------



## pmmg (Dec 19, 2017)

Wow, suprised this thread has drawn as much attention as it has.

Just another abstract aspect to this, which I am not sure is in play, but seems like it could be....

So, one of the skills I would hope many of us have, is just a keen study of humanity, and human behavior and all those things that make people what they are. I think this would be a somewhat necessary curiosity for anyone attempting to write things that connect to other people. If I go about with the attitude of burning bridges, particularly when there is no dire compelling reason, I think that kind of disconnects me from the very thing that should instead be endlessly fascinating to me. I am not sure this is an effective coping strategy that will serve my long term interest. I think I would want to work at developing some others...(Which is not to be construed as an instruction to Mr AnnoyingKid, I dont really know your circumstances). I vote for broadening the forces in my life, not whittling them down. Never know when they may pop up again and be just the thing you need.

And besides, if you really dont like these poeple, put them in your stories as characters


----------



## Heliotrope (Dec 19, 2017)

**Aside: Wait, I thought AnnoyingKid was a woman/girl? Am I wrong? Now I'm confused... what pronoun am I supposed to use for AK? There was nothing on the profile...


----------



## LWFlouisa (Dec 19, 2017)

Heliotrope said:


> **Aside: Wait, I thought AnnoyingKid was a woman/girl? Am I wrong? Now I'm confused... what pronoun am I supposed to use for AK? There was nothing on the profile...



They could be like me? WHo knows.


----------



## pmmg (Dec 19, 2017)

Heliotrope said:


> **Aside: Wait, I thought AnnoyingKid was a woman/girl? Am I wrong? Now I'm confused... what pronoun am I supposed to use for AK? There was nothing on the profile...



Sorry, I actually don't know. Some people give themselves away in that regard, some don't.

Man, Kid, that sure is annoying... enquiring minds want to know.


----------



## Penpilot (Dec 19, 2017)

Has anyone heard of Ted Chiang? He has 4 Hugos, 4 Nebulas, a Campbell, 4 Locus Awards, Turned down a Hugo nomination because he didn't think a story was up to snuff, and had one of his short stories turned into a Hollywood movie, Arrival, starring Amy Adams.

He still has day job as a technical writer.

I'm sure most have heard of Cormac McCarthy. Well, here's a little excerpt from wikipedia.



> After marrying fellow student Lee Holleman in 1961, they "moved to a shack with no heat and running water in the foothills of the Smoky Mountains outside of Knoxville". There they had a son, Cullen, in 1962. While caring for the baby and tending to the chores of the house, Lee was asked by Cormac to also get a day job so he could focus on his novel writing. Dismayed with the situation, she moved to Wyoming, where she filed for divorce and landed her first job teaching



Has anyone heard of Terry Mixon? He's a podcaster who lost his day job at NASA and was able to transition into writing full-time by self-publishing. To my knowledge, he hasn't won any awards for his writing.

To me, these examples show that there's a wide variety of ways to go about your business. I don't know if Chiang makes enough with his writing to give up his day job, but maybe that's not what he wants. He's got awards up the wazuuu and obvious talent, but he has decided for what ever reason to keep his day job.

McCarthy, well it seems he went the starving artist and alienating family route.

With Terry Mixion, he didn't really have a choice in the matter. He lost his job and because he was making money on the side with his writing already, he decided to take a calculated risk and make a go of it. He worked his butt off, and it seems he's found his audience. Fear can be a great motivator to keep driving forward.

Which ever path you take, you have to keep in mind that one way or the other, you'll always need the means to put a roof over your head and food in your belly.


----------



## Russ (Dec 19, 2017)

Penpilot said:


> Has anyone heard of Ted Chiang? He has 4 Hugos, 4 Nebulas, a Campbell, 4 Locus Awards, Turned down a Hugo nomination because he didn't think a story was up to snuff, and had one of his short stories turned into a Hollywood movie, Arrival, starring Amy Adams.
> 
> He still has day job as a technical writer.



I love Ted's work, and I was on a panel with him and Ben Bova once years ago.  Very articulate wonderful guy.

He chooses to write in lengths that unfortunately don't sell that well and more importantly produce weak royalties.  I could do a pretty good guess as to what he made on that movie sale, and while handsome it is not the kind of money that would set you up for life.  Too bad, he is super talented.


----------



## Dark Squiggle (Dec 19, 2017)

Ted Chiang is one of my favorite authors. He's incredible. I didn't know he had a day job, but I always thought it was funny that he didn't write full-length novels.


----------



## Sheilawisz (Dec 20, 2017)

I have always felt that the full-time writer thing is weird.

I directly work on writing only a few days a month, and a day of writing work means 90 or 120 minutes at most. This still allows me to produce the equivalent of a full-length novel (or several novellas) a year, all easy and comfortable. The idea of everyday writing work is strange to me because of reasons like these:

My work with stories is imagination in first place, telling in second and writing in third. This means that I can advance in my work with a story any moment, even if I am away from my Mac doing who knows what. Great sparks and clicks of story insight (Inspiration) can come when I least expect them, like when I am cooking or even cutting the grass in my backyard.

In other words, I live thinking up stories all the time but keyboard time is very limited, and still I am quite productive.

I think that this is why some very talented authors are able to keep a daily job beside their business storytelling work. I guess that I would have trouble with deadlines and contracts and other aspects of the industry, because if you ask me how long a story is going to take I am going to answer: _Whatever that it has to take!_

Would the publishers like that answer? Would it be good for the business?

Also, I get the impression that Artsy views are getting misunderstood in this thread: It's not that we think that money is irrelevant, what happens is that selling books is not the fuel and reason behind our work. We work on our stuff because of natural passion, enjoyment and personal expression, and we really have no choice.

If I was the only person left in the world, I would imagine and write stories anyway.

Would making it big in the fields of fame and money and signing autographs be nice for us? Sure! Can we live and be happy and satisfied without that? Sure, as well.

This _starving artist_ that you guys have talked about sounds very extreme to me. If some people are really like that, it would be just a tiny minority of us artsy folks.


----------



## LWFlouisa (Dec 20, 2017)

Sheilawisz said:


> I have always felt that the full-time writer thing is weird.
> 
> I directly work on writing only a few days a month, and a day of writing work means 90 or 120 minutes at most. This still allows me to produce the equivalent of a full-length novel (or several novellas) a year, all easy and comfortable. The idea of everyday writing work is strange to me because of reasons like these:
> 
> ...



Exactly. I once had a non writer friend, whom had the nerve to ask why I'm writing book if an EMP blast went off tomorrow, and nobody gives a crap about your book to buy it.

Of course he was a sociopath all around though, among other issues. But I'm not going to suddenly not write just because there isn't anyone to buy my work.

Keep in mind, in ancient times part of the art of storytelling was keeping social order in check, not earning a living.

I get similar reaction in my personal hobby, studying pen and paper ciphers. You have these people saying why bother with deprecated encryption, just borrow the source code from Two Fish. And the thing is, they seem to miss the point that modern day encryption would not be here if not for early encryption schemes. Even Whitfield Diffie, studied historical ciphers.

It seems like in any given field, there will always be someone that wants others that focus on the present along with them. Even if perhaps just because something is no longer in serious use, doesn't make it no longer relevant to know those skill sets.

What are they going to do when empires collapse, and they no longer have their precious computers? Meanwhile, I'm investing in an insurance policy.

Sometimes you got to tell the story that's a bit of a hard sell.


----------



## skip.knox (Dec 20, 2017)

I do not write in order to make money. In fact, so far, I've spent more than I've earned.

That said, I do think there is another motivation that has not been mentioned. I write because I want someone to read what I have written. I am not writing solely for myself. If the world ended, I'm not at all sure I would keep writing. I might even go so far as to say it's not the writing, it's the sharing, that matters to me most. That is only one motivation; others have been mentioned here. The whole art vs money thing is a false dichotomy. We humans are more varied than that.

Even the money side gets over-simplified in these arguments (which can be found all over the net). For example, I do have a financial goal: I'd like to break even. To me, that would be success. Ironically, because I am retired, I actually have a ceiling as well. If I start making too much money a year, they start cutting my Social Security money. So I would have to go from making a few bucks to making about 30k a year; fall in between and I'd be back to losing money. Ain't life funny.


----------



## Heliotrope (Dec 20, 2017)

skip.knox said:


> I do not write in order to make money. In fact, so far, I've spent more than I've earned.
> 
> That said, I do think there is another motivation that has not been mentioned. I write because I want someone to read what I have written. I am not writing solely for myself. If the world ended, I'm not at all sure I would keep writing. I might even go so far as to say it's not the writing, it's the sharing, that matters to me most. That is only one motivation; others have been mentioned here. The whole art vs money thing is a false dichotomy. We humans are more varied than that.
> 
> Even the money side gets over-simplified in these arguments (which can be found all over the net). For example, I do have a financial goal: I'd like to break even. To me, that would be success. Ironically, because I am retired, I actually have a ceiling as well. If I start making too much money a year, they start cutting my Social Security money. So I would have to go from making a few bucks to making about 30k a year; fall in between and I'd be back to losing money. Ain't life funny.



This is the same for me. I'm like a lot of the people here. My grandmother paints water colors. She has for many  years. She sells the odd one now and again at markets and shows. Sometimes she gets one in a gallery. You will never see her at a large gallery, or on prints at high end shops. She paints because she sees beauty in the world and she wants to share it. She doesn't care about the money so much, but she appreciates it when other people appreciate her art.

Like Skip, and my grandma, I'm not sure I would keep writing if there was no one to share it with. I write as self expression. I'm always the most motivated to write when it is for a challenge on this site, or for a contest that has explicit criteria. I love writing knowing someone is going to read it and that it is "for" something. There has to be a reason. I can't just write because it feels good. Part of my issue with motivation for my WIP is that I'm not sure anyone is ever going to read it, so I have little motivation to work on it on a regular basis. I have a day job. I have a nice family I like spending time with, so it often get's put on the back burner. But if a contest comes up? Or a challenge? I'm in.

For me, money would mean someone liked my work enough to pay for it. Money is the by-product of what I really want.... acceptance. Knowing I entertained someone. Then I know my job is done.


----------



## psychotick (Dec 20, 2017)

Hi,

Strangely - I write for me. I wrote before I considered publishing. I write loads of stuff I know I'll never publish. And yet I publish and make money to live on. As I often say, I write for me and I publish for others.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Annoyingkid (Dec 20, 2017)

Devor said:


> That isn't what I meant.
> 
> I was responding to AK, and I was referring to those who choose to take the path of the struggling artist even to the point that it puts their financial well being at risk. Many of the people who take it that far do so hoping to sell their works and make it as an artist. If you're going to take a risk with your livelihood, you had better know what you're doing, and have a realistic assessment of your own abilities, and those abilities had better be there.
> 
> There are lots of reasons to write and that's fine. Just don't quit your day job, so to speak, unless you're damn sure your art is where it needs to be for that choice to work out.



Photo by C D
Photo by C D
Photo by C D

At the end of the day,past a certain point, people need to be allowed to make their own mistakes. There's a line between suggestion and trying to dominate another human being. I've met many artists who's practice I did not get to say the least, but telling them so and not to quit their day job, would be a comment that just feeds my ego over supporting them. Especially if I hadn't even seen their art. In every other field, people respect the limitations of their perspective, of their knowledge base, and their reality. We don't criticize the researcher for taking too long to learn science or do a research study because people acknowledge that they don't get what that involves. Yet just about everyone thinks they get writing and art. Everyone thinks they can just write the  Great American Novel. 

Drawing is different. People think they either can or cannot draw. They think that because it's about talent, that practicing for years is unnecessarily spinning your wheels. or a misguided form of perfectionism.  If someone wants to lower their standard of living because they find value in making art that's not skilled, that's their  life and their reality. If we don't understand what they get from their art, then how can we make accurate value judgements on how they should balance their life? We're fundamentally looking from the outside in. If we see their art as low on the value scale and they see it as very high on the value scale, then agreement will not occur and going beyond making a suggestion,into a persistent naysaying, or even mockery, becomes harassment and psychological bullying.


----------



## Sheilawisz (Dec 20, 2017)

Annoyingkid said:


> They think that because it's about talent, that practicing for years is unnecessarily spinning your wheels. or a misguided form of perfectionism.



Well that's one of the common misconceptions about natural abilities or talent.

The truth is that even if you have natural ability for something in particular, it still takes a long time of practice, discipline and hard work so you can develop all of your personal potential. The levels of dedication involved are something that not everybody can attain, and that's why I believe that having a true love for what we do is also very important.

In writing stories, sheer discipline to keep working on a story is a crucial part if you want to finish a novel of good size.



LWFlouisa said:


> Exactly. I once had a non writer friend, whom had the nerve to ask why I'm writing book if an EMP blast went off tomorrow, and nobody gives a crap about your book to buy it.



_Always print your stories, everyone! =)_


----------



## skip.knox (Dec 20, 2017)

I get that, Sheilawisz. Study the masters, as Dali said. On the other side, I also believe it's true that without natural talent, practice and hard work will carry you only so far. Someone who is tone deaf, for example, or who has no sense of rhythm, is not going to get far as a musician. I've watched people who were naturally good at drawing. It's like watching magic. I can sketch a face. What I cannot do is sketch recognizably the same face from another angle. Artists can. Despite my ability with Photoshop, it's why I hire an artist for my book covers. 

As for the OP, I also recognize that different people require different levels of support. Some artists can labor in solitude; some can even work in the headwinds of criticism and mockery, while others need support and approval. This says nothing about moral fiber or such; it simply says there are as many different kinds of artists as there are human beings. 

And yeah, as Annoying Kid annoyingly pointed out <g>, there are some human beings who don't understand artists at all. True enough. There are human beings who don't understand mathematicians or engineers or politicians or revolutionaries. Thus sayeth the poet: diff'rent strokes.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 21, 2017)

I think people put too much stock in raw talent. I agree with Stephen King that talent is cheap. It's nice to have, but hard work is what separates the "talented" person from the successful one. Much of what we see as "talent" in the authors we love is the result of a hell of a lot of hard work and practice.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 21, 2017)

skip.knox said:


> I get that, Sheilawisz. Study the masters, as Dali said. On the other side, I also believe it's true that without natural talent, practice and hard work will carry you only so far. Someone who is tone deaf, for example, or who has no sense of rhythm, is not going to get far as a musician.



I don't know that I'd analogize these things to a lack of talent. Tone deafness is a neurological condition. A true inability to maintain rhythm, called "beat deafness" also looks to be a biological disorder. They're both types of amusia. I'm sure there are biological disorders that would render it very difficult, if not impossible, to be a good writer. However, when we're talking about talent or lack thereof, I think you have to set aside the cases where someone is suffering from a physical impairment. 

I believe that with music, as with writing, anyone who puts the time and effort into it can become good. Sure, there are "geniuses" in any art--people who transcend what we generally think of as talented. I don't think you can learn to be a "genius" in an art. To me, there is something going on biologically. But the vast majority of successful writers are not geniuses. They're people who have worked hard to learn the craft and to be good at it.


----------



## Russ (Dec 21, 2017)

At some level writing is a form of communication.   I would suggest storey telling is the same.   That to some degree requires an audience, who matter in the process.

I guess technically you could be your own audience, but that strikes me as quite hollow, and certainly would never require any development of skill or craft in story telling of any type.


----------



## psychotick (Dec 21, 2017)

Hi,

Talent versus effort again? For me this is a fallacy.I think with certain exceptions everyone has enough talent that they can become a successful writer. And no one has so much talent that they can achieve this goal without a lot of hard work. Sure maybe some people don't need as much as others but nobody gets out of this without putting in the hours.

In both cases however, a third factor hits success and probably has a bigger impact - luck. You just never know what's going to be a hit. Case in point my sister has been complaining to me lately about an acquaintance of hers - another NZ author - who seems to be winning awards at the moment for her first book out of the blocks. She can't understand how a book so poorly written can do so well! Sadly I an. Right book in the right place at the right time. Talent and hard work simply can't beat that.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Heliotrope (Dec 21, 2017)

Russ said:


> I guess technically you could be your own audience, but that strikes me as quite hollow, and certainly would never require any development of skill or craft in story telling of any type.



This.

But I guess it comes down to goals too, if your goal is to just write nice little stories on a personal blog or in a journal in your house and never have anyone read them, it's just for personal fun, then it all doesn't matter. You don't need an audience and you can just indulge in you talent (or lack there of, lol).

If you want to submit to a contest or a challenge now and again and maybe have a poem or short published, or publish your own shorts yourself, then it matters differently. Then you have to work at it more and develop an audience (and your skill)

If you want to publish novels (either traditionally, or by yourself) then you have to be willing to put in a lot more work, both with building audience and with developing skill.

And I'm not one to put too much stock in talent either. Talent will get you so far. But hard work and determination are necessary if you want to be successful (if that is what you want). I have seen plenty of my students with "talent" go no where simply because they didn't want to put the effort in, and kids with less "talent" walk away with all the scholarships simply because they were harder workers.


----------



## Devor (Dec 21, 2017)

I think I've been coming to a different perspective on talent, but it's still only half-developed, so bear with me a moment.

If you read a bunch of books, and with little to no other direction sit down to write one of your own, how well will you do?  I think that this is what we usually call talent, and I think that's a mistake.

To me, the real measure of talent isn't your starting point but your ability to improve. If you write a story, and get feedback on it, how well can you fix it?  Will your next story be better?  Are you developing your creativity, your character's voice, your description, and the rest?  _How good can you get?
_
I don't take for granted that anyone can get there. I don't assume that hard work is everything. I think there's more to it than that. I think that real _talent_ is an intuition that shapes your _attitude_, and that without it you're going to struggle.


----------



## Russ (Dec 21, 2017)

Devor said:


> I think I've been coming to a different perspective on talent, but it's still only half-developed, so bear with me a moment.
> 
> If you read a bunch of books, and with little to no other direction sit down to write one of your own, how well will you do?  I think that this is what we usually call talent, and I think that's a mistake.
> 
> ...



I  have never really thought through the meaning of talent.  But now you have me intrigued.  Will add this to the pile of things I am  pondering these days.


----------



## Heliotrope (Dec 21, 2017)

"Talent" for me is that raw, unquantifiable ability people have early on for a certain thing. Some people are very athletically talented, some musically. But talent is meaningless without skill development, IMO. I've used this example before about my kid. He is six. He wanted to play the fiddle. I put him in violin lessons. His teacher says that he "has talent." He uses an advanced bow hold, he picks up rhythm easily. He has an "ear" for tone.

But he is still playing "twinkle twinkle little star". That raw talent, without serious training, skill development, and practice, is not going to get him to the orchestra. He has to learn the skills and theory and put the time in.

This is one thing that drives me bonkers about (new) writers, and where I believe many new _writers _live in a dream world. They for some reason think they can get by on sheer talent alone and don't have to put any of the work in because it "ruins their art" or whatever.  OR, on the flip side, they get a little bit of criticism and give up because they take the criticism to mean "lack of talent" instead of just lack of skill in that one area of story development. 

That attitude would never fly in any other artistic field. It would never fly in any field ever. But for some reason everyone who has a tiny sliver of talent in writing can be the next _whatever _whenever their undeniable artist is recognized by the world.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 21, 2017)

Heavy buy-in to the idea of talent carrying the day is a form of elitism. It's the idea that I can get to point _X_ but you can't because I have some quantum of talent that is missing in you. It's reductive, partly for reasons I stated above, and my guess is that if one really looks into it, one would find it is also rooted to some extent in privilege.

When you look at success as the product of hard work and perseverance, you're not only providing a more realistic view of success in the craft, but a more egalitarian one where people who won some kind of biological lottery for talent aren't held up as separate and above the rest. It's also a more respectful view of those already successful, acknowledging the efforts it took to carry them there.


----------



## Chessie2 (Dec 21, 2017)

I don't believe in talent either. What I do believe, however, is that some writers are inclined to write more often than others. The more the writer practices, the better writer gets. Talent won't matter. Honing the skills is what does.

Besides, it's a jungle out there. Maybe I'm too sensitive but I take issue with the notion that writing for money means a writer isn't artistic. At least, that's what I'm getting out of this thread. I don't even know why I care anymore but I do. Maybe because the folks saying they would never write for money wouldn't bat an eyelash and accept payment for their work. Maybe because it takes a different level of craft and understanding of humans in general in order to sell your work successfully, whatever that means. All I know is that I've loved writing stories since age 8 and I've worked and toiled to write engaging stories. Sometimes I fail, other times I get it right. Writing to market or for money means something different to every writer. I want to entertain so I think about the market/readers when I write. Why? Because I'm expecting people to pay money for my work so there needs to be value in it for someone else. I write mostly to share and add hope in other people's lives. I don't see how that's a bad thing.


----------



## Chessie2 (Dec 21, 2017)

Sheilawisz said:


> I have always felt that the full-time writer thing is weird.


Not trying to pick on you here, but it's these sorts of statements that make me personally feel not welcome. You are a moderator. Why say this? What's so weird about writing full-time? Have you any experience writing full-time? How does that seemingly take away from being an artist? Don't you think that practicing writing all the time, like daily, means a heightened honing of your craft? Some of us work very hard to get pennies for our work. If it's so easy, maybe you could give it a shot? No disrespect, I'm truly curious!


----------



## Heliotrope (Dec 21, 2017)

Chessie2 said:


> Maybe I'm too sensitive but I take issue with the notion that writing for money means a writer isn't artistic.



X a billion likes.


----------



## Devor (Dec 21, 2017)

Steerpike said:


> Heavy buy-in to the idea of talent carrying the day is a form of elitism. It's the idea that I can get to point _X_ but you can't because I have some quantum of talent that is missing in you. It's reductive, partly for reasons I stated above, and my guess is that if one really looks into it, one would find it is also rooted to some extent in privilege.
> 
> When you look at success as the product of hard work and perseverance, you're not only providing a more realistic view of success in the craft, but a more egalitarian one where people who won some kind of biological lottery for talent aren't held up as separate and above the rest. It's also a more respectful view of those already successful, acknowledging the efforts it took to carry them there.



So, if we're talking about how to coach or teach or encourage new writers, I think you've got a point, in that we shouldn't shut people down for having "no talent."  And I certainly wouldn't want to dismiss the role of hard work or the power of attitude.  But it's hard for me to understand the notion that talent, however it's defined, isn't a real factor in success.  People are all different, with different backgrounds and aptitudes and genetics and perspectives, and all of that is going to affect what each person is capable of.

It makes more sense to me to encourage people broadly to do the hard work of taking stock of themselves than to tell everyone broadly that they'll succeed it if they waste a chunk of their lives trying really hard.  I mean, I wouldn't presume myself to be capable of answering that question for anyone but myself, but I find it equally presumptive to assume that everyone can be successful if they tried.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 21, 2017)

Devor said:


> People are all different, with different backgrounds and aptitudes and genetics and perspectives, and all of that is going to affect what each person is capable of.



I don't think I agree with this, barring the exceptional (genius) category or, on the other end, some kind of biological condition that limits the person. Otherwise, when you talk about backgrounds, genetics, perspectives, and the like as determining what someone is _capable_ of I think you start getting into some very dangerous territory, and what's more, at least insofar as the genetics goes, I don't think it is scientifically valid territory (again, setting aside the outliers above). I think the vast majority of humans have the same potential or capability in these areas. Whether someone has a certain background (access to books, support from family and community, education, time, materials, and so on) is largely within the realm of privilege (broadly speaking) and not talent. I'm quite leery of attempts to put the vast majority of these sorts of things down to innate superiority of one person over another in a particular discipline. You have those inordinately gifted people, and you have people who suffer from disabilities that can hinder them, but in the vast space between those extremes you have the substantial majority who have the same innate _capability_ to do something like write.


----------



## Devor (Dec 21, 2017)

Steerpike said:


> .....but in the vast space between those extremes you have the substantial majority who have the same innate _capability_ to do something like write.



I don't know, maybe I'm missing the underlying point you're trying to make, but if we assume that capability is at all measurable, it would seem on the face of it to be wrong to say that everyone is equally capable.  I mean, perhaps if the point is that we shouldn't make assumptions about someone based on, say, some kind of genetic test or because of somebody's specific background or perspective on whatever, then sure, okay, I didn't mean at all to take things that far to begin with.  But as a whole people are different, all of these things make up a part of who you are, and every person at some point needs to take stock for themselves of what they want and what they're capable of - and sometimes that can mean giving up on something, and learning to want new things in life, until your desires match your abilities. That's part of life and part of growing up.

And to me, I think mindless encouragement and endless promises about working hard for it only keeps people from getting real about themselves.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 21, 2017)

Devor maybe we're using "capability" differently. I'm using it to refer to an innate potential a human has. I think on the whole we're all born with the same capability. Let's take two people, one (Person A) born into a family with access to books and education, that encourages writing and creativity, etc., and another (Person B) born to a much differently family, where reading and writing weren't valued, or (in an extreme case) who was never really taught to read beyond the most basic level, and let's say they're both now age 30. Of course Person A is going to be able to produce writing of much higher quality and ability than Person B. But that's not down to talent, it's due to circumstance and the environment in which they were raised. I think they were both born with the same _capability_, and that is true of all of us in a general sense. I don't think, as a rule, that Person A has some kind of innate superiority that gives them an advantage over Person B. 

Does that make more sense?


----------



## Russ (Dec 21, 2017)

Steerpike said:


> Devor maybe we're using "capability" differently. I'm using it to refer to an innate potential a human has. I think on the whole we're all born with the same capability. Let's take two people, one (Person A) born into a family with access to books and education, that encourages writing and creativity, etc., and another (Person B) born to a much differently family, where reading and writing weren't valued, or (in an extreme case) who was never really taught to read beyond the most basic level, and let's say they're both now age 30. Of course Person A is going to be able to produce writing of much higher quality and ability than Person B. But that's not down to talent, it's due to circumstance and the environment in which they were raised. I think they were both born with the same _capability_, and that is true of all of us in a general sense. I don't think, as a rule, that Person A has some kind of innate superiority that gives them an advantage over Person B.
> 
> Does that make more sense?



Politics aside, then how does one account for significant difference in literary capacity and interest amongst young children from similar environments?  Are you suggesting that there is no genetic role in both intelligence and expressions of intelligence?


----------



## psychotick (Dec 21, 2017)

Hi Devor,

But why are people at different levels of capability? That's the issue you need to come to grips with. Because unless you are either a child prodigy who picked up a pen at the age of two and started writing or else in some way developmentally challenged, you really haven't got much to hang your hat on in terms of suggesting that talent is some sort of underlying be all and end all that overrides everything else. The problem is that if you take say a fifteen year old writer and try to assess his ability, you don't know how much of his ability is due to his hard work and interest. You don't know how much is due to his family having read to him from an early age etc. So to say that someone is or isn't "talented" is problematic at best. You don't know their level of innate talent. You can only judge their current ability.

But that's by the by. The real issue for anyone involved in mastering any art or craft is what can they do about it? How can they become a success. Well of the three factors I mentioned, two - luck and talent - they can't do anything about. The only one they can work on is hard work. So really either suggesting that someone is or isn't talented is largely a waste of time. The question is are that at a point where they can improve their ability, whatever it happens to be, and are they willing to try? My guess is that most people who say they're untalented in whatever field, actually have much the same innate ability as most others. They just aren't willing to try, and it's easier to simply give the excuse of not having any talent.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 21, 2017)

Russ said:


> Politics aside, then how does one account for significant difference in literary capacity and interest amongst young children from similar environments?  Are you suggesting that there is no genetic role in both intelligence and expressions of intelligence?



I think genetic and epigenetic factors play a role, but I don't think they're determinative in most cases. Even among similar environments there are differences, and I think those can be substantial. I also think that when you're talking about measuring "capacity" you're getting into some shaky science.


----------



## Devor (Dec 21, 2017)

Steerpike said:


> Devor maybe we're using "capability" differently. I'm using it to refer to an innate potential a human has. I think on the whole we're all born with the same capability. Let's take two people, one (Person A) born into a family with access to books and education, that encourages writing and creativity, etc., and another (Person B) born to a much differently family, where reading and writing weren't valued, or (in an extreme case) who was never really taught to read beyond the most basic level, and let's say they're both now age 30. Of course Person A is going to be able to produce writing of much higher quality and ability than Person B. But that's not down to talent, it's due to circumstance and the environment in which they were raised. I think they were both born with the same _capability_, and that is true of all of us in a general sense. I don't think, as a rule, that Person A has some kind of innate superiority that gives them an advantage over Person B.
> 
> Does that make more sense?



Okay.... it sounds like you're trying to say that "talent" is just another expression of "privilege," but I don't agree with that notion. People with similar backgrounds and goals in life often come to different ends.  From what I've read the science also suggests that as people age the effects of "socialization" dwindle and your innate characteristics comes out more and more.  I think that's why some people write their first book at 50 and find that it does well - I think sometimes your life can actually suppress your talents.

I won't get into the notion of privilege, as it's a heated political subject right now.  But I do think that you're experiences and your family and your upbringing do all become a part of you, and are worth owning up to.

None of that changes the importance of a person taking honest stock of themselves, and their abilities, both innate (I've struggled with this too long...) and practical (I can't balance all of this at once...).


----------



## Heliotrope (Dec 21, 2017)

Yeah, I'm not sure our little corner of the internet here is going to solve the nature/nurture debate, though it would be fun to go there, lol. (10,000 page thread crashes the entire system). Meritocracy is fun to debate, but not the point of this discussion, I don't think.

Talent is a sticky word, for sure, because it implies some negative things about people who don't "have it", and who, really, gets to determine who "has it" and who "doesn't"? I mean, I've coached swimming for a million years and I have seen kids who cried for years and wouldn't even dive into the pool at 5 or 6 go on to swim for National level teams and eventually the Olympics by 15, once they matured and developed their skills. It is never my place to tell a parent "I don't think this is the sport for your child."

(But I have a handicapped child who I was told would never walk or even survive, so I'm in the "Who knows what anyone is capable of" camp, lol.)

It's the "I have natural talent so I don't have to work at it because my artistic genius transcends time and space, and the reason I'm not famous is because everyone else is too stupid to appreciate me" attitude that makes me crazy. 

Oh, and the "if you changed your art to appeal to others then you "sold out" and aren't really an artist." attitude.


----------



## Devor (Dec 21, 2017)

psychotick said:


> The problem is that if you take say a fifteen year old writer and try to assess his ability, you don't know how much of his ability is due to his hard work and interest. You don't know how much is due to his family having read to him from an early age etc. So to say that someone is or isn't "talented" is problematic at best. You don't know their level of innate talent. You can only judge their current ability.



But this is why I've tried to bring every post back to the importance of a person taking stock of themselves - I'm not trying to judge anybody's talent at all.




> But that's by the by. The real issue for anyone involved in mastering any art or craft is what can they do about it? How can they become a success. Well of the three factors I mentioned, two - luck and talent - they can't do anything about. The only one they can work on is hard work. So really either suggesting that someone is or isn't talented is largely a waste of time. The question is are that at a point where they can improve their ability, whatever it happens to be, and are they willing to try? My guess is that most people who say they're untalented in whatever field, actually have much the same innate ability as most others. They just aren't willing to try, and it's easier to simply give the excuse of not having any talent.



A few things here.

1) There have been studies that show that most of the time people talk about "luck" when usually it's about "timing."  Sometimes you can get a grip on timing, but not always.  It's not something that should be always dismissed as being out of one's control without first considering it.

2) Luck, talent, and hard work are not the only factors. Another would be your learning resources - do you have books on writing? A writing community?  The so-called "Mastermind" group / Critique group?  A writing teacher or coach or "cheerleaders"?  Writing is one of those things you could struggle with forever just because you're going in the wrong direction with your efforts.  And the biggest factor would have to be attitude.

3) 100%, a lot of people give up on things very early from this notion that they have no talent, when really they haven't given themselves enough of a chance to even figure that out properly. I'm certainly one of them - I gave up on drawing as a child and have been convinced of my inability ever since.  Recently I gave it another shot and found that with the slightest direction, I sucked a little less than I expected to. In another twenty years I might crack open a book and make a real effort because I've come to believe I do have some kind of undeveloped knack for visual creativity, just not for working it with my hands. BUT I think that's all the more reason to try and get a proper understanding of talent instead of dismissing something that obviously exists, and giving people misguided notions about how it works.


----------



## skip.knox (Dec 21, 2017)

I guess I've always believed there are talented people and untalented people. I would cite as examples, writers like Ray Bradbury or Isaac Asimov, both of whom were getting stories published while they were teenagers. I wrote stories as a teenager, too. They weren't as good. The difference had nothing to do with putting in years of practice, obviously. Those guys were talented. Gifted. Whatever you want to call it.

I find it curious that people who will argue about talent in writing will more readily recognize it in other fields. You will hear this most often embedded in this phrase: "oh, I'm no good at math."  People believe there is such a thing as people who are naturally good at math, and others who are not. To extend this parallel, you'll rarely hear people argue that with enough dedication and practice, anyone can be a successful chemist or physicist. 

To return to the arts, there are musicians who are naturally talented. Stevie Ray Vaughan was playing with professional bands when he was something like fourteen. Almost entirely self-taught. Of course he practiced (by report, the guitar never left his hands), but so did plenty of other kids. There are other musicians who could do things like play one instrument, then pick up a completely different one and play it like an experienced musician. That is talent, no other word for it.

One thing I do love about working in the arts (and the humanities, btw) is exactly this diversity of experience and perception. Can you imagine a bunch of engineers having a discussion of motive and method regarding their profession? *snort*  We are a more diverse, and more interesting, crowd.

All that said, I agree with Heliotrope: I don't have much patience with excuses. And it doesn't matter how good you are, you can do better. And that's where I do have some misgivings about this talent thing. Talent is a gift. As such, it's static. It was there at birth (presumably), in the genes, maybe, and you can't improve it or sharpen it. Study, practice, perseverance, these things operate on some other portion of our brain, and it's there that we can always improve. Talent lets some people out of the starting blocks early, but we all have to run the race.

This is also why I don't much care for inspiration. I can control my skill. I can work. I can persist. But I have to wait on inspiration to waft in on an errant breeze. I can't rely on it, can't improve on it. I don't have time for the Muse. She will have to wait on the porch; I've got work to do.

Great thread, guys.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 21, 2017)

skip.knox

I won't reiterate anything I've said before, but wanted to make a point with respect to the math example. My daughter was the perfect example of "I'm not good at math." Did terribly in math in high school. Utterly convinced some people were just good at it and able to "get it" and that she wasn't one of them. She's in college now and wants to go to optometry school--math and science are heavily required. After putting off math as long as possible due to her certainty that she just didn't have the talent required for it, she had to start taking a bunch of math classes last spring. She was worried her 4.0 GPA would go down the tubes.

I sat down with her and said "Look, you have to put aside this fear you have of math, and the idea that you aren't good at it. Your brain has the same capability to do math as anyone else in that class if you can get past the mental block." Anyway, between my advice and that of others around her, she decided to approach it with that mindset and put aside her conviction that she just sucked at math (with hampered her so much in high school). She put a lot of hard work into the classes, but she was able to learn the material and even maintain her 4.0 GPA. At one point, in the middle of the second math class she took, she even called me and said "I get this stuff. This is kind of fun." I wouldn't go so far as to characterize math as fun, but I think the anecdote illustrates how much preconceptions about natural ability, and negative self-talk, can affect our actual performance.

That's part of the danger of the over emphasis of talent, particularly to new writers. If you think some people just have it and some people don't, it becomes very easy to compare yourself to others and convince yourself that you don't have it.

Everyone on this forum has the ability to be a good writer. Everyone.


----------



## Heliotrope (Dec 21, 2017)

Funny, I was horrible at Math until I had an attractive math teacher. Then suddenly it became so interesting.... couldn't look away. My grades did improve.... so strange.


----------



## Sheilawisz (Dec 21, 2017)

Chessie2 said:


> Not trying to pick on you here, but it's these sorts of statements that make me personally feel not welcome. You are a moderator. Why say this?



Indeed I am a Moderator, and as a member of this community I have my right to express my views in Forum discussions whenever that I want even if some people do not like them. In post #61 of this thread I described my _very personal_ experience and feelings about storytelling and the book business, that's all.



Chessie2 said:


> What's so weird about writing full-time?



As I said in my post:



Sheilawisz said:


> My work with stories is imagination in first place, telling in second and writing in third. This means that I can advance in my work with a story any moment, even if I am away from my Mac doing who knows what. Great sparks and clicks of story insight (Inspiration) can come when I least expect them, like when I am cooking or even cutting the grass in my backyard.
> 
> In other words, I live thinking up stories all the time but keyboard time is very limited, and still I am quite productive.



There you have the answer.

In my case, writing is just the final step in my creative work with stories. I can say that I am a full time story creator, and yet the act of writing itself (keyboard work) is very little in comparison. I do not write every day, so I am not a full time writer. To me it's all about imagination and narrative power, and that's a very spiritual thing in my experience.

That's why I call myself a storyteller in first place, and a writer in second.



Chessie2 said:


> Have you any experience writing full-time?



The closest that I got to everyday writing was the work with a _Frozen_ fanfiction of mine that I am particularly happy with. A 38k words novella finished in exactly 50 days, with constant work every single day. My imagination was particularly intense and wild during that period, but normally that's not how I work.

With most of my stories, the process is much slower. I find that my creative mind gets benefit from doing other things in everyday life, something like recharging my Imagination sparks perhaps.



Chessie2 said:


> How does that seemingly take away from being an artist?



In my case _Writing_ everyday is not how I work, even if I _Imagine_ every day. That's my creative process, my own personal art. If you do something different, then those are your ways and I am not telling you that you are wrong or less of an artist.



Chessie2 said:


> Don't you think that practicing writing all the time, like daily, means a heightened honing of your craft?



My constant work with stories has allowed me to improve my skills as years have passed, but I do not have to write everyday.



Chessie2 said:


> Some of us work very hard to get pennies for our work. If it's so easy, maybe you could give it a shot? No disrespect, I'm truly curious!



In post #61 I said clearly that I would likely have trouble dealing with the contracts and deadlines that are part of the bookselling industry, because I do not work that way. Self-publishing business like Amazon is a possibility that feels friendlier to me, but at least for now I have little or no interest in that.

Yes, storytelling as I experience it is easy and as natural as breathing. If you have a problem with that, it's your problem and not mine. I'll keep doing what I do, and you'll keep doing what you do. In other posts of this thread, I said that I have no problem with people that want to earn money from their books (which includes artsy folks) and yet you come and pick on me anyway.

You are being quite sensitive here.


----------



## Dark Squiggle (Dec 21, 2017)

I don't know how much of talent is natural ability, and how much is an unfair edge, but it definitely exists. I had a friend in highschool who could retell stories better than they were in the first place. We used to sit around and listen to him retell books, Xbox games, movies and manga, and he was consistently better than the originals. Could I have gained this skill? maybe. Is the reason I didn't have it because my parents didn't allow me to watch  movies, play videogames or read manga? Maybe, but I know plenty of people who did these things and couldn't tell a story half as good as it was originally. I don't know. I don't think anyone can know, but this guy was not any smarter than me, so he must've had some kind of innate gift for storytelling most people don't, unrelated to how smart he was.


skip.knox said:


> One thing I do love about working in the arts (and the humanities, btw) is exactly this diversity of experience and perception. Can you imagine a bunch of engineers having a discussion of motive and method regarding their profession? *snort*  We are a more diverse, and more interesting, crowd.


You need to talk to engineers differently. Many of them can tell you of an intense love and devotion they feel towards their profession, and how they came to feel that way. The many types of stuff for you to use is a testament to how different  engineers can be from one another, just as different types of writing attests to different types of writers.
I have never actually published a story online, or even allowed many of my stories to be read by my friends, and most of my stories were never completed, but I have always thought I was writing for the world to see. I always thought I could write those stories that I wanted to read that were the similar to the things I'd liked reading, but don't exist, and wanted everyone to be able to read those hybrids.
I can follow a beat and am not tone deaf, but am incapable of singing. I borrowed a friend's violin, and with his help, over the course of a couple of months,  I could play "Twinkle Little Star" and other simple songs. I sort of just stopped my music when I left the dorm, and no longer had access to the violin, but it still makes me feel good to know I'm not incapable of playing music. If a kid could play a song on the first day, without all those hours of holding the bow, learning what to do with your fingers, learning the difference between a full and half note, and all that, I'd be very impressed. That definitely is talent.
Now, sifting through old notebooks, I can see that I am much better than I once was, but I am not fooling myself into thinking I can write half as good as what I would like to copy. Had I taken my writing seriously, maybe I'd be able to, which is why I am trying to get more serious about it now.
Well, my post was all over the place, but so is this thread


----------



## A. E. Lowan (Dec 21, 2017)

*raises hand* Full-time writer. I write with a pair of partners, and we write for a lot of reasons. Money is definitely in there, rather fond of money, it keeps the lights on and the computer running, but so is the complete, utter, inability to _not_ write. I honestly don't understand what non-creatives think about all day, when I have a head full of characters and scenes blocking my view in the grocery store. But when I do encounter those people who want to write something "someday" I smile and encourage them, because who knows which one may actually do it? Which one just needed that little push?


----------



## Russ (Dec 21, 2017)

Steerpike said:


> I think genetic and epigenetic factors play a role, but I don't think they're determinative in most cases. Even among similar environments there are differences, and I think those can be substantial. I also think that when you're talking about measuring "capacity" you're getting into some shaky science.



It is not a simple area, but no area of science still worth pursuing is.   What we most be cautious of, is fear of pursuing good science because it might offend political sensibilities.  Now that is scary stuff.

I spend a lot of time with neuropsychologists who keep me up on developmental research amongst children.  The field is fascinating and we are learning a lot, but  many researchers are afraid of the political attacks they will face if they discuss certain results and that is not good for the state of human knowledge.


----------



## Sheilawisz (Dec 21, 2017)

Russ said:


> I spend a lot of time with neuropsychologists who keep me up on developmental research amongst children. The field is fascinating and we are learning a lot, but many researchers are afraid of the political attacks they will face if they discuss certain results and that is not good for the state of human knowledge.



Indeed, saying that some people have special abilities that others lack is what is often known today as _Politically Incorrect._

For those of you that doubt that Talent is a real thing:

*José Raúl Capablanca*

One of the greatest Chess players of all times. The legendary Capablanca never even opened a book on Chess theory. Instead, he learned how to play Chess naturally at the age of four years by watching his father play the game. Soon after that, this little Capablanca would easily defeat his adult father in Chess.

At age 13, Capablanca was already so good that he defeated the national champion of his country.

This most powerful Chess player went on to become a legend, and he was all natural. When people asked him how many moves he could see ahead, Capablanca would answer that only one but it was always the right move.

Most of the times, Chess players that want to be competitive in tournaments have to study Chess theory for years and dedicate themselves to the game with enormous personal intensity. They have natural abilities for Chess as well, but nothing like Capablanca. This man was a monster of Chess, an immensely talented and totally natural player.

I can give other examples of people like that, in other fields apart of Chess, if somebody is interested.

What is different in the brain of unbelievably powerful Chess players? Science is not sure yet, but to start with they do have great abilities for memory and calculations that most people do not possess.

The same can be said about musicians, painters, engineers, storytellers and so on.


----------



## Michael K. Eidson (Dec 21, 2017)

skip.knox said:


> One thing I do love about working in the arts (and the humanities, btw) is exactly this diversity of experience and perception. Can you imagine a bunch of engineers having a discussion of motive and method regarding their profession? *snort* We are a more diverse, and more interesting, crowd.



I don't have to imagine a bunch of engineers discussing motives and methods. I live it every day. You can snort all you like, and imagine us to be less diverse and interesting than you, but many engineers would just as well snort at you and imagine you to be less diverse and interesting.

Then there are people like me, trying to be in both camps, and don't much care for either side snubbing the other, as then it feels as though both sides are snubbing me.


----------



## TheKillerBs (Dec 21, 2017)

skip.knox said:


> One thing I do love about working in the arts (and the humanities, btw) is exactly this diversity of experience and perception. Can you imagine a bunch of engineers having a discussion of motive and method regarding their profession? *snort*  We are a more diverse, and more interesting, crowd.


I had a hearty laugh over this. I'm an engineer and I've been a teacher. Know what the difference between a teacher's room and an office in an engineering firm is? The work that's being done. The people inside are largely the same. I expect that in other disciplines, the same would hold true despite the assumptions and stereotypes about one group or another.


----------



## Heliotrope (Dec 21, 2017)

Russ said:


> I spend a lot of time with neuropsychologists who keep me up on developmental research amongst children. The field is fascinating and we are learning a lot, but many researchers are afraid of the political attacks they will face if they discuss certain results and that is not good for the state of human knowledge.



Oh! PM me this stuff! I'm obsessed with child development.


----------



## Heliotrope (Dec 21, 2017)

Sheila, I don't think anyone is denying talent exists. It does. But to tout it as the be-all-end-all of art, and suggesting that it is the only thing one needs in order to be successful, and that anyone who works hard to achieve their goals will be unsuccessful if they don't have "it", is a bit Brave New World-ish for a few folks. There are just too many factors involved in all this.

*For those who have not read Brave New World it is a lovely short written by Aldous Huxley about a society of people who are genetically engineered to fill certain roles in the society and cannot ever escape the role that they have been created for. Have a read of the first chapter.

http://www.idph.com.br/conteudos/ebooks/BraveNewWorld.pdf

And side note, I'm not sure if you have noticed, but we all seem to be pretty normal people here. Non of us are child prodigies. If we were, we would be swimming in our millions and not on Internet forums debating all this stuff. So how are examples like the above helpful?

"Oh, well, if you haven't been writing best sellers since you were five then give up now because you never will." Is that really helpful? I'm not sure what the purpose of the above example was, but that is how it came across.

I think you would find more examples of people who worked hard and studied hard to be successful chess players, than child prodigies who just came into it through whatever divine intervention.


----------



## Devor (Dec 21, 2017)

Heliotrope said:


> "Oh, well, if you haven't been writing best sellers since you were five then give up now because you never will." Is that really helpful? I'm not sure what the purpose of the above example was, but that is how it came across.



I'm pretty sure that's not at all what Sheila was saying.

I know the conversation on talent has gotten a little garbled.  I will say that I'm pretty sure I wouldn't even mention talent if I was trying to help somebody directly with their work, either as having it or not, because it's definitely not a good framework for learning or teaching anything.  Teaching is all about next steps and the long path and how to get there. "Talent" isn't much help there.

Talent isn't something you talk about for the rookie.  Talent something you talk about when you have a notch or two under your belt, you've done all this hard work, and you go, "What the hell? Why is that person so much better than me?"  It's that unpleasant surprise that comes up in your middle age as a writer.


----------



## Heliotrope (Dec 21, 2017)

Devor said:


> I'm pretty sure that's not at all what Sheila was saying.



I hope not, because it seemed so tone deaf.


----------



## pmmg (Dec 21, 2017)

In fairness, I'm not exactly sure where Sheila has said such a statement as talent was all that was needed. I think she has lent a few words to the notion that effort can achieve the same result, perhaps just not as easily.

Talent is such an abstract thing. Some people do seem more naturally inclined to certain types of things than others. In the arts, I think talent is the appropriate word. I think it is also true, that one with less talent than another will eventually out perform one with more talent, if they put in the work and the other does not. So, IMO, having talent alone is not enough, there must be whole lot more along the way to cultivate it. Those cultivating will get better, talent or not. (Even young chess playing dude).

I am not sure what my talent is or is not in regard to writing. I do know, if I don't put in the effort it does not get written and I don't grow and get better, so I say talent is great, but work ethic trumps talent over time if talent has no work ethic. But if one is talented and has the work ethic, then I expect some very great things. They may always have something I am missing, but that is life. I'm okay with not being the most talented, I just want to be able to do what I want to do with the skills I have. I bet I can write a better story than chess dude, even if he makes chess look easy and I don't.


----------



## Sheilawisz (Dec 21, 2017)

That was a most wonderful post, pmmg!

I am in my smartphone at the moment, so I cannot type a lot. I shall post again with more detail, later tonight.

I want to explain what was the weakness of the great Capablanca.

For now, see ya and Hugs! =)


----------



## Heliotrope (Dec 21, 2017)

pmmg said:


> Talent is such an abstract thing.



Thank you. Yes.

My issue with talent is that it is subjective.

Sheila gave us a story about a success. Let me give you some failures:

In 1919 Walt Disney was fired from his job at the Kansas City Star newspaper because his editor thought he "lacked imagination and had no good ideas."

Thomas Edison's teachers told him he was too "stupid to learn anything" and he was fired from his first two jobs for being "non-productive".

Micheal Jordan was cut from his High School basketball team in his sophomore year.

JK Rowling was rejected at least a dozen times for Harry Potter and was even told to "take a writing course". But she just kept submitting until she found someone who would publish it.

There are many on this site who I think are talented... but would the ones I think are talented be the same ones you (any of you) think are talented? Would we choose the same writers? Or are they just the writers that have a style that I "like" so therefore I think they are "better"?

I just don't believe that "talent" is a quantifiable thing. I just think there are so many other factors out there that determine success. Drive. Motivation. Self-confidence. Support networks.



Devor said:


> I'm pretty sure I wouldn't even mention talent if I was trying to help somebody directly with their work, either as having it or not, because it's definitely not a good framework for learning or teaching anything. Teaching is all about next steps and the long path and how to get there. "Talent" isn't much help there.



Exactly. It's really not helpful for learning.



Devor said:


> "What the hell? Why is that person so much better than me?" It's that unpleasant surprise that comes up in your middle age as a writer.



Lol. I like to look in the mirror and tell myself "You have just as much talent. Just less practice." 

Then I happily sit down and get to work.


----------



## Chessie2 (Dec 21, 2017)

Heliotrope said:


> Lol. I like to look in the mirror and tell myself "You have just as much talent. Just less practice."
> 
> Then I happily sit down and get to work.


Haha yeap pretty much. Although I do so love finding books with amazing prose and storytelling. Getting sucked in is like, "What are you doing? Let me IN so I can write like this, too!"


----------



## skip.knox (Dec 21, 2017)

I figured I'd catch some flak for that. I meant no offense, though I can see how some might take it. I worked at a university for thirty-five years. I was just reporting what I observed, or a distillation of it. I think I've gone as far as I can on this thread. There are some decidedly different points of view here, which is great.


----------



## Sheilawisz (Dec 21, 2017)

Heliotrope said:


> Sheila, I don't think anyone is denying talent exists. It does. But to tout it as the be-all-end-all of art, and suggesting that it is the only thing one needs in order to be successful, and that anyone who works hard to achieve their goals will be unsuccessful if they don't have "it", is a bit Brave New World-ish for a few folks. There are just too many factors involved in all this.



As answer, here are quotes from my previous posts in this thread:



Sheilawisz said:


> While it's true that there is value in hard work and that developing your full potential at something takes years of practice, you cannot deny that having Natural Ability for doing something in particular is not only real but also very important.



That one is from post #18. Now, from post 67:



Sheilawisz said:


> Well that's one of the common misconceptions about natural abilities or talent.
> 
> The truth is that even if you have natural ability for something in particular, it still takes a long time of practice, discipline and hard work so you can develop all of your personal potential. The levels of dedication involved are something that not everybody can attain, and that's why I believe that having a true love for what we do is also very important.
> 
> In writing stories, sheer discipline to keep working on a story is a crucial part if you want to finish a novel of good size.



So when did I say that talent is the only thing somebody needs to be successful in a specific field?

José Capablanca was a true freak of talent, literally a monster. I wanted to use that example because yes, there are several posts in this thread in which people deny that talent is important or that it is even real. That example does not mean that only prodigies and geniuses are capable of success in their fields, it's just meant to show how powerful talent can be.

*J.K.Rowling:* A woman without high education in literature, and without any previous experience as an author suddenly appears out of nowhere and attains unbelievable success with her _Harry Potter_ series. A natural storyteller with a prodigious imagination, and one of my personal heroes.

*Stephenie Meyer:* Also rejected several times when she was trying to get _Twilight_ (by then called Forks) published. Also, no formal education in writing. Stephenie breaks many if not all of those famous writing rules, by the way. Her story and narrative style still managed to enchant millions of fans, and she has earned a fortune too.

*Albert Einstein: *The great genius physicist also faced trouble to finally get recognition and fame. Albert's professors even hated him. They simply could not understand how extremely brilliant he was, and in the end he changed science forever.

The truth is that not everyone can be the next Rowling, the next Einstein or the next Capablanca. Does that mean that less talented people should not even try it? No, it does not. However, when people are told that talent does not matter or does not exist, and that hard work alone will take them to great success they are being misled.

A combination of natural ability and hard work is the really important thing.


----------



## Sheilawisz (Dec 22, 2017)

*About the Chess prodigy José Capablanca.*

While it's true that the legendary _Chess Machine_ managed to defeat all of the great Chess players of his time, he was certainly not invincible. You know what his weakness was? Capablanca was overconfident. He trusted so much his monstrous natural abilities in Chess, that he would not reinforce them with further studies and technical learning.

The most famous example of this is when Capablanca lost his World Championship title to Alexander Alekhine in 1927.

It is known that the overconfident Capablanca went to a literal Chess War without physical and technical preparation. In the other hand Alekhine knew that he needed to be in the best shape possible in order to face the great challenge, and he also studied Capablanca's play extensively.

This means that not even Capablanca's huge talent would make him invincible, and that he would have been an even greater Chess player if he had reinforced himself by learning more technical Chess and by studying his opponents in depth.


----------



## Heliotrope (Dec 22, 2017)

Thanks for clarifying Sheila  

I see now that we are on the same page mostly about this. I was thrown by the context and reason behind the example. I wasn't sure where it was supposed to be going, and it felt a bit tone deaf, given the context of the debate. Adding the other layer helps with the depth of the example.


----------



## Sheilawisz (Dec 22, 2017)

Well, no worries at all Helio.

I did not provide more information about Capablanca at first because I was waiting to see if people would be interested in my example. I really wanted to see what people would say about all of that, since the interactions in a thread like this one are really interesting.

There are other comments that come to my mind, but I am already tired tonight.



skip.knox said:


> I figured I'd catch some flak for that. I meant no offense, though I can see how some might take it. I worked at a university for thirty-five years. I was just reporting what I observed, or a distillation of it. I think I've gone as far as I can on this thread. There are some decidedly different points of view here, which is great.



Skip, I admire you a lot and I know that you meant no offense to anybody.

Indeed, the different views that have been expressed in this thread are an interesting contrast. At first I did not think that this thread would grow to be something like this, but it has been alright after all.

I am going to comment about your most recent Mythic Scribes article very soon!


----------

