Oh! PM me this stuff! I'm obsessed with child development.
-
Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!
Rant: Non writers live in a dreamworld.
- Thread starter Annoyingkid
- Start date
Oh! PM me this stuff! I'm obsessed with child development.
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.
*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.
Last edited:
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.
I hope not, because it seemed so tone deaf.
pmmg
Myth Weaver
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.
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.
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! =)
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! =)
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.
Exactly. It's really not helpful for learning.
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.
Last edited:
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!"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.
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.
As answer, here are quotes from my previous posts in this thread:
That one is from post #18. Now, from post 67:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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, 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!
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, 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!
Last edited:
