Can Writing Be Taught?

[Steerpike]

The instinctual reaction is 'yes,' but let's take the question deeper. Here is one answer from an essay by Tom Bissell:

"Can writing be taught?… Of course writing can be taught… All human activity is taught. The only thing any human being is born to do is survive, and even in this we all need several years of initial guidance.

Harder to judge is the possibility of teaching a beginning writer how to be receptive to the very real emotional demands of creating literature. To write serious work is to reflexively grasp abstruse matters such as moral gravity, spiritual generosity, and the ability to know when one is boring the reader senseless, all of which are founded upon a distinct type of aptitude that has little apparent relation to more measurable forms of intelligence. Plenty of incredibly smart people cannot write to save their lives. Obviously, writerly intelligence is closely moored to the mature notion of intellect (unlike math or music, the adolescent prodigy is virtually unknown to literature) because writing is based on a gradual development of psychological perception, which takes time and experience. Writing can be taught, then, yes–but only to those who are teachable."

In On Writing, as I recall Stephen King takes the position that anyone can learn to be a good writer, but no one can learn to be a great writer - you either have the ability to transcend to that level or you do not.

What do you guys think? It seems clear to me that in any creative endeavor there is some kind of innate embodiment of "genius" that can't be replicated through learning and practice. At the same time, it seems clear that only a small number of artists in any creative endeavor have that genius, and that there is plenty of room for the rest of us to work as well.

 

[deilaitha]

I absolutely agree with you.

There is also a difference between writing well and good writing. I consider "writing well" an ability to communicate ideas in a clear way, using good grammar, spelling, organization, and flow. You can teach almost anyone (barring learning disabilities) to write well. Good writing, on the other hand, does require that spark of genius, that inspiration, that not everyone has. Not everyone is a brilliant mathematician, yet you can teach math to just about anyone.

When it comes to that kind of distinction, here is a real life example. I recently read The Hunger Games series and thought it was good. It was creative, entertaining, and exciting to read. It was well written. But it's like a board book compared to anything by Stephen R. Donaldson. Donalson is a genius--his writing does indeed probe the psychological aspect of life that a young writer could never hope to achieve. Of course writers evolve--but some evolve faster than others.

Speaking of Donaldson, I can't wait for October 2013 when his final Thomas Covenant book comes out.

 

[Steerpike]

Yeah, I think Donaldson is a good example from Fantasy. Peake as well. Going outside of genre, I don't think you can teach anyone to be Vladimir Nabokov, for example. You might be able to teach them to be John Grisham, though.

 

[Caged Maiden]

I hope one day I can be a genius... Considering the time it takes to become one, I should have started a few years ago.

 

[Tasha]

I think to some extent yes but you can't teach anyone to be the next Sanderson, Donaldson, Martin, or Jordan to name a few. There could be genius writers out there who just need to learn to hone their skills. But I don't believe you can teach anyone to be an amazing writer if they don't have the underlying talent already there ready to burst out.

 

[Endymion]

What makes a good writer in your opinion?
I think everyone can learn to write well and beutifully and that kind of stuff, but there are only some chosen ones ( lol ) that have the creativity and imagination to truly become something more than just a writer.

 

[Feo Takahari]

I utilize a very mathematical approach to stories--put in characters as variables and setting as constant, then work out the equation to its conclusion--and I think anyone of reasonable intelligence could be taught to write like this. The stories it produces are a lot like some of Henrik Ibsen's stuff, and I'm kind of an Ibsen fanboy, so I think people can be taught to be great writers. That said, it would probably be impossible to teach someone to write like Julio Cortazar (a writer whose work I can't even process on any level other than the surface.)

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

This is not an original thought on my behalf but one I agree with:

You can teach anyone to be a better writer. What you cannot teach is better storytelling. If someone can't tell a story well they will never be a brilliant writer. They can become technically proficient but they will never exceed that limitation.

We all know people who just can't tell a joke. They have terrible delivery, lack emotion or inflection, or screw up every punch line. Story telling is the same. Some people you know can captivate their audience of friends with the simplest tales. Other friends receive eye rolls and knowing smirks when they attempt the same.

Storytelling is a talent. Writing is a skill honed in time through determination.

 

[Penpilot]

I think writing can be taught, but like the quote says, it's very dependant on the willingness and dedication of the student. Are they willing to learn? The ability to learn IMHO is a skill in itself, and to me, is a key to getting better at anything, including writing.

For me, I try to be a continual student of writing. I listen to what professional authors say about process. I read and reread books on process, trying to build a firm foundation of theory knowledge and then try to understand and apply it in practice. When I read a book, I take time to actively think about what the author is doing, how they're doing it, and if it's working or not. Always be learning is one of the things I think makes a good writer.

 

[cliche]

I believe that writing can only be taught up to a certain point. After that it is up to the writer to use his/hers imagination (something that needs to be built by the individual). Is it possible to teach someone how to imagine? We all learn in different ways and we all put our own twist on each story we write. Some of the stories we write may have a similar plot to another story but that does not mean that it is an exact duplicate; one will obviously be better and the other may find it difficult to describe certain scenes. You cannot teach them how to write out a certain scene, you cannot tell them how much imagery to use (if you do then you might as well be writing the scene out yourself). Some people may like your style of writing whilst others will despise it with a passion, its all about personal preference. If you like to write and continue to do so then your style of writing will develop, you'll notice certain things that do not work or when you read it out loud you will hear things that do not seem right to you.
On the other hand there are basic things that people have to remember about writing (such as grammar and punctuation) these things can be taught but not much else without the co-operation of the student.
This is just what I think though.

 

[Sinitar]

That spark of genius can be attained through hard work, even more so when we discuss writing. In my opinion, great writers have the advantage of knowledge. Because they know how a story works and what it needs, they can afford experimenting with bits of everything and create something unique. Meanwhile, us mortals are stuck in the endless struggle of trying to understand why filtering is bad, why 'show don't tell' appears on every writing forum and so on.

Confidence is probably the key factor to good writing. When you know you're good and have what it takes to write good stories, all that remains to do is focusing on what really matters: the actual story.

 

[Feo Takahari]

I believe that writing can only be taught up to a certain point. After that it is up to the writer to use his/hers imagination (something that needs to be built by the individual) . . .You cannot teach them how to write out a certain scene, you cannot tell them how much imagery to use . . .

I'd like to argue with this on two counts.

The first is that I don't think you need imagination to be a good writer. To draw an analogy, I'm terrible at programming, but if I start with two or three programs written by other people, I can easily splice them together to suit my purposes. My lack of creativity extends to writing, but now that I've read a great many books, I have so many sources to draw on that I can create effectively "new" works without a single original idea in them.

The second is that you can tell another writer "you need more imagery here" or "you should use fewer asides" or "I like the way you use this paragraph to convey two meanings at once," and if they're willing to listen, you can show them how to improve the later scenes in their work. I've watched over the span of about a year as an author I've been editing went from muddled and awkward to alarmingly brilliant, and I think a lot of that came from the writing advice she received from myself and other editors.

 

[cliche]

I'd like to argue with this on two counts.

The first is that I don't think you need imagination to be a good writer. To draw an analogy, I'm terrible at programming, but if I start with two or three programs written by other people, I can easily splice them together to suit my purposes. My lack of creativity extends to writing, but now that I've read a great many books, I have so many sources to draw on that I can create effectively "new" works without a single original idea in them.

As I have said this is my opinion but anyway...
Yes you can put two or three ideas together but you need imagination to combine those ideas together in the first place. That part cannot be taught to someone without them being spoon fed the information(example: them telling them which sections should go where). It depends on the genre really if it is more fantasy based then you need to use your imagination to visualize the scene so you can describe the smells and feelings of the area. I'm no expert (please don't take offense to 'I'm no expert' because in the past I have had an argument with some random person because I have used 'I'm no expert') but in my opinion you need to draw the reader into the novel, you need to use your imagination to the effect that it gets them imagining what you are trying to describe and doing it successfully. The reader needs to be able to imagine him/herself in that protagonists current situation and environment whilst at the same time following the story. You need to be able to use both your imagination and experience to get the balance between the two.
Sorry I wondered off for a bit.
You are using your imagination when combining those ideas because it is in your head where those ideas merge and work together.

The second is that you can tell another writer "you need more imagery here" or "you should use fewer asides" or "I like the way you use this paragraph to convey two meanings at once," and if they're willing to listen, you can show them how to improve the later scenes in their work. I've watched over the span of about a year as an author I've been editing went from muddled and awkward to alarmingly brilliant, and I think a lot of that came from the writing advice she received from myself and other editors.

Yeah you can say that in editing but what about before? what is the formula for the perfect scene? what percentage of imagery would you think about using in any one chapter? There is no general rule on how to write a particular scene as everyone writes it differently. It's hard for me to describe but... it's more of that person using his or hers own style to decide where 'they' think imagery should go and where it shouldn't.
Yeah you can give them advice but it is up to them to follow it and they may follow it in their own way. When we are younger and taught how to make a cake; were we taught their way? Or have we learn't our own way of making that same cake? Do we break the eggs at the exact same angle? do we use same ingredients or do we change it over time when we think that muscovado sugar would be better than ordinary sugar? Sorry for putting all these questions down it's just I find it easier to explain myself when doing so.

 

[Erica]

Donalson is a genius--his writing does indeed probe the psychological aspect of life that a young writer could never hope to achieve. Of course writers evolve--but some evolve faster than others.

Now (and with all respect for your opinion, which is shared by many others) this is where we get to one problem with the concept of greatness: it is very subjective. I enjoyed the Covenant books, but I did not particularly enjoy Donaldson's writing for its own sake, especially in his earlier works. I certainly would not call him a great writer. He threw adverbs around like they were ten for a dollar, for instance, and he was completely in love with the words "attar" and "mordantly." I read the Thomas Covenant books when I was a Freshman in college, and even though I knew almost nothing about craft back then, I still noticed these things about his writing.

The thing that kept me reading was not his prose but the way his unique characterization and world building kept me wanting to find out what would happen next enough to ignore Covenant "gritting the words out mordantly" for the umpteenth time. I would say his greatness, such that it is, lies more in his ability to create deeply flawed and emotionally disturbed characters, and to somehow get you to root for them even when you want to smack them too.

But this is not to say that his prose is not great. Greatness is in the eye of the beholder, after all, and I am just one reader among many.

I will also say that his prose improved markedly in his later books. Perhaps he is edging towards greatness now. But this suggests that greatness can be something you can achieve or improve on with work.

 

[Feo Takahari]

"n my opinion you need to draw the reader into the novel, you need to use your imagination to the effect that it gets them imagining what you are trying to describe and doing it successfully. The reader needs to be able to imagine him/herself in that protagonists current situation and environment whilst at the same time following the story."

That's a valid approach. I prefer to hold readers at arm's length, forcing them to see the characters from an outside perspective, and that's also a valid approach. In fact, I don't think there exists a style of writing that's inherently bad, just bad ways of using a style, and bad habits that hinder certain styles. Since everyone has at least one style, it follows that anyone who practices long and hard enough to learn how to use that style, and lets go of all his or her bad habits, should be able to write a story at the peak of that style. (I would furthermore contend that some styles can easily be learned, and that some writers are capable of learning several styles, but that's a bit of a harder case.)

 

[Benjamin Clayborne]

The instinctual reaction is 'yes,' but let's take the question deeper. Here is one answer from an essay by Tom Bissell:



In On Writing, as I recall Stephen King takes the position that anyone can learn to be a good writer, but no one can learn to be a great writer - you either have the ability to transcend to that level or you do not.

What do you guys think? It seems clear to me that in any creative endeavor there is some kind of innate embodiment of "genius" that can't be replicated through learning and practice. At the same time, it seems clear that only a small number of artists in any creative endeavor have that genius, and that there is plenty of room for the rest of us to work as well.

I have to agree with King; almost anyone can become competent, but that spark of genius is essentially ineffable (or rather, we so far don't know how to quantify it). It's based on your entire personal history; everything you've read, seen, done, experienced, and to some degree your innate neurology and genetics.

 

[Lord Darkstorm]

When I was younger, I took a few lessons on painting from a very nice lady who gave me a bit of wisdom I still remember. Talent is what is needed to be able to do something creative. Some people have a lot, some only have a little, but both can reach the same level of quality, the only real difference is the amount of work required to get there.

Maybe there is something some people have that can't be learned, but I would rather believe that the only thing stopping me from writing a novel that will become a classic is myself. That way the only one to blame for not doing so is me.

 

[Erica]

I do think the importance of hard work and open mindedness (in the sense of being willing to approach a seemingly intractable problem from a fresh angle) is underestimated these days.

 

[Penpilot]

I do think the importance of hard work and open mindedness (in the sense of being willing to approach a seemingly intractable problem from a fresh angle) is underestimated these days.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[Ankari]

Of course writing can be taught. Great technical writing is not what makes authors great. When an author has been deemed great it is because of the content of the story, the flesh of his world, and the depth of his character. Great technical writing doesn't contribute to this, it just makes it easier on the reader to read the meat of the book. Writing technique is like a smooth road versus a bumpy road. Both can have a great destination, but the smooth road allows for the driver to not be distracted by pot holes and unlit lanes.

The greatness that, I think, people are said to be born with is their imagination foresight. I have never heard of someone honing their imagination skill.