• Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!

Rant: Non writers live in a dreamworld.

Devor

Fiery Keeper of the Hat
Moderator
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

Felis amatus
Moderator
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

Fiery Keeper of the Hat
Moderator
.....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

Felis amatus
Moderator
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

Istar
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?
 
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

Felis amatus
Moderator
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

Fiery Keeper of the Hat
Moderator
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

Staff
Article Team
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

Fiery Keeper of the Hat
Moderator
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

toujours gai, archie
Moderator
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

Felis amatus
Moderator
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.
 

Sheilawisz

Queen of Titania
Moderator
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.

What's so weird about writing full-time?

As I said in my post:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
 
Last edited:

Dark Squiggle

Troubadour
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.
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

Forum Mom
Leadership
*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

Istar
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

Queen of Titania
Moderator
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.
 
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

Maester
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.
 
Top