[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 37 KB, 555x312, staring-cat.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4581419 No.4581419 [Reply] [Original]

Do you need talent to be a good writer or is hard work sufficient enough?
Do you need smart to be a good writer?
How do you learn to write? Is it merely practicing or a combination of talent and intelligence?

Because I'd like to write and I'm neither talented nor intelligent.

>> No.4581454

pls respond.
I don't want to become an author, I just want to do it for my own pleasure

>> No.4581482

bump

>> No.4581492

Talent doesn't exist. You need to work hard and work smart.

>> No.4581498

Being smart is not totally demanded, but it helps a lot.
Now, regarding talent...
Hard work without talent = just decent writer.
Talent without hard work = good writer with weaknesses.
Talent + hard work = top-class writer.
Don't worry too much about what you are, this has no importance. What's important is what is actually written by you.

>> No.4581508

>>4581492
>Talent doesn't exist
Spoken like a talentless drudge. You sound like those fat, ugly women who claim that beauty is only subjective, etc.

>> No.4581520

>>4581508

Only the talentless think talent exists. The talented would rather be recognised for their hard work than some magic kiss of the gods, while the talentless crave an excuse for their own incompetence.

>> No.4581531

Forget about all that. Talking about inherent talent or not, intelligence and so on regardless on the conclusion, you must look at your own work and press hard on it. And whose is to say what's sufficient or what is good? If anything, to be a writer you need to have faith in your own judgement, which is not to say you must enclosure yourself in self-congratulatory judgement or to be overly critical. So not to fall for that, you need to practice your innermost sincerity. To ask others on what it means to be good or what does it take to be good is to derail yourself from the building of your own subjectivity. As a writer, you should be asking only yourself on those questions and to believe that you can make something good, that you might be one step ahead of others and show them the good that they might have never expected.

>> No.4581533

>>4581520
With sports, where training is everything, maybe. Creatively there are people who are gifted. This 'there's no such thing as talent' meme is born from that gross American tradition of wishing everyone to feel like a special little snowflake who is capable of anything they set their mind to. (it also helps sell the books of those when they can use a title like "Talent is Overrated" or "You Can Be a Superstar Too, Just Buy This Book!"

Self-help in the guise of research

>> No.4581558

>>4581520
So, you're claiming that talent doesn't exist, just before teaching us what "the talented" (i.e. people who actually have talent) want and do?
How can they be talented if talent doesn't exist?
"Only the talentless think talent exist" is the most stupid sentence, logically speaking, I've ever read.
You are stupid.
And your hard work ethics are not universal. Rimbaud did not "work hard". The discussion is over for me.

>> No.4581560

>>4581531
This
You must create the non existent masterpiece that you wish to read and work as hard as it is needed

>> No.4581569

>>4581533
Even in sports, pure talent exists. Did you see children playing football? Some are madly talented with no training, at 6 or 7 years old... they would even put some good adults to shame. Some others are worthless and will be worthless all their lives.

>> No.4581577

>>4581569
Ronaldinho playing football as a child, compared to the adult Ronaldinho:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Krnd-YdUXGI
...they have the exact same skill.

>> No.4581586

>>4581577
I doubt that he already had the necessary tactical long term thinking developed but I get your point

>> No.4581592

>>4581419
Ignore all /pol/ tards on this unless they have a solid argument.

to be "smart" all you need to do is be in the right environment for a time, and practice analyzing things; from sentences to logical holes in ideas.

>> No.4581596

>>4581419
Hard work. The idea that someone can be a talented writer without also having put in the hours of practice is fucking stupid shit, and so are the people who believe that's how it works.

>> No.4581607

>>4581569
are you implying that some people are born with predestination and extra ability to play sports/be a writer/whatever ?

how would that make sense from biological point of view?

if Nature & evolution is bbased entirely on survival, do you really think that some people would be born with some extra ability (talent) to write ? to do something that isn't required to survive? lel

>> No.4581610

Eugh. How many times have people been educated on the talent myth on this board, yet still there are idiots who swallow it or trot out this hilarious "s-special snowflakes" argument.

>> No.4581624
File: 234 KB, 380x576, 1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4581624

>All these retards coming to /lit/ wanting to be writers, asking how to become a great writer, not knowing it takes hard work in both writing and reading through your whole life, not sitting in front of the computer being a lazy fucker wanting to become the next great writer overnight.

We need a sticky for this kind of people.

>> No.4581627

>>4581624
We need the mod to actually be a mod and not just ban me for calling people reddit. At our queer ass janitor doesn't ask for me to get banned globally and for 3 days like that faggot on /x/.

>> No.4581632

>>4581577
Man I love Ronaldinho. Fuck Messi.

>> No.4581638

>>4581632
>loving a nigger

>> No.4581659

>>4581492
This is a stupid lie. Talent absolutely exists. Your talents are what you base yourself on.

Practice and training are still the "key to success" though. Most people are talented in one way or another (some more than others, some less) but the people who actually do shit are the ones who put in effort to get better. Because at some point, if you're lazy and don't improve, that natural talent is going to be surpassed by people who aren't even naturally good at it but put in the work.

>>4581419
To answer your question, OP, it's a combination. It also seems to be something difficult to learn if you haven't been doing it since you were very young. Little kids can write the stupidest shit and no one will care, and writing stupid shit is the longest and one of the most important parts of learning to rite good shit. I think the biggest problem people face when trying to learn to write fiction is embarrassment at how bad their writing is OR lack of embarrassment for something that is genuinely bad. The former because it discourages the person, the latter because someone who can't be self critical is never going to improve.

Another large obstacle you'll face is that it's hard to find critique in that initial terrible shit phase because everyone dismisses you as hopeless. Just ask politely and introduce yourself as a total amateur but don't persist if no one wants to help you out just try somewhere else. I'm specifically talking about internet critique btw

>> No.4581656

>>4581533
>sports, where training is everything
You are a special kind of stupid.

>> No.4581672

>>4581533
Coordination and strength are to sports what perspective and empathy are to creativity. With sports training is not everything. If you are naturally very uncoordinated you will never be in the NBA.

Otherwise I agree with you on everything

>> No.4581674

>>4581659
No, that is utterly wrong.

Give me one example of a person you deem to have a natural, God-given talent and I will deflate for you. Absolutely promised. I guarantee you I have studied this shit way, way more than you have or will. Excuse the impatience but Jesus /lit/ are so incredibly ignorant about this subject.

>> No.4581681

>>4581674
I'm not saying someone has more skill points in Football when they're born and that makes them better at the sport. I'm saying that people are born with genetics they cannot control that predispose them towards different activities. How is that wrong?

>> No.4581683

>>4581681
In the case of almost all things bar obvious physical dispositions such as height, length of legs/limbs etc., it is entirely wrong.

>> No.4581689

>>4581683
Can you explain how? I don't know much about genetics but enough to know it determines a lot more than just obvious physical traits, and that there is much debate over how much it actually controls.

>> No.4581694

>>4581689
It's easier for you to give me a named example of someone who excels in a certain field that you deem to be "naturally talented" beyond their height or other obvious physical attributes which predispose them to an activity.

>> No.4581699

>>4581607
your understanding of evolution is shaky at best. some people have poor motor skills and bad eyes, but they are still around; just like a person can have a genetic mutation that harms them, they can have one that helps them to become a writer, for instance.

>> No.4581704

>>4581699
>they can have one that helps them to become a writer

They actually cannot have any kind of genetic predisposition to writing.

>> No.4581706

>>4581694
Sure, let's say Christian Bale. He's a Method actor who can convincingly play a range of characters. I would argue that aspects of his personality that he inherited from his parents predisposed him towards being an actor.

>> No.4581714

>>4581706
>inherited from his parents

Characteristics are not genetic, first and foremost. That would be a learned social conditioning, which he would have gained in his infancy.

Further to this, Bale's parents were both in performance arts - one a circus performer, the other a talent manager. Bale's father was essentially a pedagogue of talented artists, helping internalise motivation for acting in the young Bale and ensuring he practiced in the right way.

You see parents as this inherited thing. The reality is that his parents helped him to practice in a most efficient and brilliant way, plus they helped instill a motivation within Bale from a young age for his craft which inspired him to improve of his own accord.

>> No.4581721

>>4581419

I felt like I was a writer when one day I was walking around and began to observe my mind - it was observing constantly, churning data and producing output in the form of internal monologues, critiques, analyses, all separate from the baser mind and it's sensory stimulus.

Of course then you must understand the concepts of narrative, you must be purging narratives from every essence of your surrounding existence, you must be interested in all things whilst displaying a complete lack of care for the self and the wonton woes that come with it which would otherwise grind you to dust beneath it's weight.

And this is just the beginning; you must continue to study and understand symbolism; the pathos, the logos, must study the use of grammar and then finally you must reach into the well of creation inside of you, essentially cutting a swollen pustule allowing it to bleed out into the form of symbolic language so as to create a bridge between that which burns inside of you and that which burns inside of the other - that which is also you. With words constructed into social narratives you stir a fragmented self into a less fragmented self or into a more fragmented self depending on the goals of the writer and, of course, the knowing of the writer of his own knowledge and ability.

>> No.4581725

>>4581704
are you a tard? thats like saying you can't have a genetic mutation that helps you do calculations in your head, of course you can. some people can do calculus, some people can't. some people have photographic memories, some people don't. there are autistic people who can draw entire city skylines perfectly from memory.

you are either a tard yourself or a troll.

>> No.4581727

>>4581725
You really don't understand in the slightest, but there is no point in even arguing it with you. Writing is not a normal function of the mind, it is the bringing together of many different parts of the mind. This differs hugely from mathematics or drawing. It is far more abstract in terms of mental processes.
Your attempt to bring genes into this - noticeably lacking in any citations of course - is hilarious.

>> No.4581733

>>4581714
Okay, that makes sense. But are saying it's purely how he was raised? If he was adopted by a family totally uninterested in the arts but still gave him adequate opportunity to do what he wanted, wouldn't he still gravitate towards visual performance, or at least art? I don't know enough about genetics to make a claim but on some level isn't personality and behavior dictated, at least partially, by the genes you've inherited? I'm thinking specifically of hereditary personality disorders

>> No.4581744

>>4581733
>wouldn't he still gravitate towards visual performance, or at least art

The answer to that is a resounding maybe. But the more pertinent point is that he almost certainly would not have developed into the actor he is today without his parents.

The key thing here is motivation. Internalised, to be precise. Think of Tiger Woods, whose success is traced to his father. Mozart's too. The thing about these incredible performers is that their childhoods are such that they gravitate towards an activity THEMSELVES - not because they are forced into it, but because they love it, and are gripped by a drive to excel in it.

I really recommend you have a look at the Polgar sisters. They smash any of this "talent" shit to pieces. Children actually born and raised to prove the practice point.

>> No.4581750

>>4581727
everything that a human is capable of is genetic, you are arguing that all humans are on a level playing field and I am arguing against that. You must be a minority like an Aborigine or something; inferiority complex much bro?
citation, lol. your method of an argument is the other guy brings up a point and then you sya nope and probably don't even refute, that is why you said it would be easier for the other guy to just name a talented person for you to nope to. you are an idiot.

>> No.4581754

>>4581750
And again you have no citations. I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of your post. There is literally no scientific grounding for your "writers are developed genetically" theory and you are simply fooling yourself by pretending there is.

>> No.4581760

>>4581744
Is a rapist who never had the opportunity to rape someone not a rapist. I still count him as a rapist; your logic has been wrecked.

>> No.4581763

>>4581760
It hasn't. I hope you had fun though.

>> No.4581774

>>4581683
We write well (?) because our brain allows us to do so. How is our brain not an "obvious physical disposition"? Why can't some people have a brain made for writing, like other people will have legs made for running or jumping?
Now look at what Mozart's elder sister wrote about him as a child:
"He often spent much time at the clavier, picking out thirds, which he was ever striking, and his pleasure showed that it sounded good.... In the fourth year of his age his father, for a game as it were, began to teach him a few minuets and pieces at the clavier.... He could play it faultlessly and with the greatest delicacy, and keeping exactly in time.... At the age of five, he was already composing little pieces, which he played to his father who wrote them down."
This is called natural talent in an obviously favorable environment. But natural talent nonetheless. If you think every four years old child can play faultlessly and compose classical music with ease, I invite you to actually have children and give them a good teacher, to see how they perform. (Hint: probably bad.)

>> No.4581772

>>4581754
>refusing enlightenment
that's why you will never be a writer, you pig-headed bitch

>> No.4581775

>>4581744
Alright, I'll check that out. But I'm still curious what you would say about personality disorders?

I'm really convinced that there is a mix of nature and nurture that goes into it. In my own experience, part of my family left Ireland three generations ago, one part to Canada and one to the US, with most remaining in Ireland. Until recently we lived entirely different from each other and have had no contact. At a family reunion we discovered that in all three countries we have family members with moderate success as musicians. Is this a wild coincidence?

>> No.4581785

>>4581760
A rapist is someone who has raped someone you fucking clown.

>> No.4581791

>>4581785
only someone capable of rape believes that.

>> No.4581792

>>4581774
>Why can't some people have a brain made for writing, like other people will have legs made for running or jumping?

Do I have to refute this? Really? I'm so very, very tired.

Thank you very much for bringing up Mozart btw. Mozart's father was one of the foremost pedagogues of music teaching of his generation. He ensured the boy had clocked up an obscene amount of hours of practice in playing and composing before he'd even hit double figures.

Do you know that Mozart's actual development dovetails almost perfectly with Anders Ericsson's 10,000 hours (rough numbers) theory of practice? Probably not, but I do thank you for bringing him up as he's pretty much the paragon of "practice over talent" theory.

>> No.4581800

if we define talent as a set of intuitive abilities that can't be 'taught', then yes, you probably need some talent to become a good writer. but i doubt you need much.

>> No.4581803

>>4581791
I hope you're fucking around and you don't actually think that way.

So you think that you could correctly describe a group of people as "criminals" the way you'd describe a group of people as tall or short?

>> No.4581804

>>4581792
your beliefs are so firm, why are you so anti-talent? you seem biased.

>> No.4581806

>>4581792
Your rhetorical answers are not refuting anything.
Why was Mozart already good at the age of 4? Why was he better than many children of his age?

>> No.4581808

>>4581727
Differentfag here.
>Writing is not a normal function of the mind, it is the bringing together of many different parts of the mind.
Writing is speech channelled onto paper. Obviously there's a manual dexterity aspect of it which differs from that of normal speech (though you'd probably be surprised how complicated producing speech actually is), but that relates to penmanship and not actual writing ability; writing ability is much more to do with someone's understanding of language, ability to learn vocabulary (though vocab is more to do with effort and exposure to new words, two people wouldn't necessarily have the same size vocabulary despite the exact same amount of effort and exposure because of, for example, ambient dopamine level dictating retention -- differing abilities to learn) and verbal reasoning and comprehension skills, coupled with the creativity to play with language, create interesting plots and imagery, and in many cases an observational ability to gain psychological insight, to understand other people. These are factors that are influenced by genetics. You can't flat out disregard the possibility for a proclivity to be skilled with language; even if practice is more important, which I believe is the case, there are still genetic factors involved which influence someone's writing ability.

I would argue that talent isn't (merely) superior intrinsic ability, but superior intrinsic potential. Potential that has to be developed, and potential that may, and often will, not be achieved.

Also, you didn't cite anything you said either, and you were the first to bring up genetics so you can hardly complain about the other guy not citing his points.

>> No.4581809

>>4581775
Always an interesting feature of talent. Consider this though. Your family has a "predisposition" (i.e., a history of musical ability which in turn is passed on in the form of internalised motivation to children) for music. The family members who emigrated, regardless of their distance or what have you, will have passed this on to their children in their upbringing. Again the temptation in people is to ascribe a genetic development for this musical ability - falsity. The development of abilities such as comprehension, understanding and creativity are entirely situational and individual to the person and their upbringing and motivation. Genetics simply does not figure in this argument.

>>4581804
Are you still here? Jesus, go away you utter bore. I'm arguing it because it's a falsity that I have studied, but idiots still whinge about it existing when it absolutely does not.

>> No.4581810

>>4581803
yeah, duh
>what are niggers

>> No.4581814

>>4581808
>Also, you didn't cite anything you said either, and you were the first to bring up genetics so you can hardly complain about the other guy not citing his points.

Actually, I wasn't. Genetics do not figure in this debate at all. Only talent proponents even attempt to bring them up, and they never ever have any evidence for it because none exists. Read the posts back again.

>> No.4581825

>>4581808
>superior intrinsic potential

The potential chestnut. You were going brilliantly too - I agree entirely with the idea of a very mild advantage for a person with respect to another in a certain activity, I utterly dispute the idea of this advantage ever being utterly decisive.

Potential is a word used with reference to a ceiling that doesn't exist. And writing is more a process of periodisation (i.e. the bringing together of a series of very complicated processes into one very fluid process) than a process reliant on chemicals. This kind of chemical theory you're bringing up has a mild influence on only one of the many, many processes which influence writing.

It's much like the minutae of a brilliant golf swing.

>> No.4581834

>>4581825
you are smarmy as fuck. jee whizz you must have 10,00 hours under your belt of acting like a pompous douchenozel you fucking expert, you.

>> No.4581840

>>4581834
I understand that your ego was hurt some 15 posts ago, but you can leave now.

>> No.4581858

>>4581840
at least i'm a bit witty with my replies

>> No.4581859

>>4581810
okay 9/10 you got me

>> No.4581864

>>4581858
You're not.

>> No.4581871

>>4581859
thanks, man. i appreciate it.

>> No.4581888

>>4581871
I meant as a troll, you rused me, 9/10, congratulations. If this was part of it pat yourself on the back you are a 10/10 rusemaster, feel free to hang this on your fridge.

>>4581809
> Genetics simply does not figure in this argument.

I always assumed they were an important part of it, but like I said I really don't know anything about them aside from what I learned in high school Biology. And I know some people, like this poster:

>>4581750

think that level of knowledge gives them the qualifications to debate about a science that they treat like mysticism.

I'm interested though, you mention:

>I guarantee you I have studied this shit way, way more than you have or will

What kind of field are you in that you specialize in this?

>> No.4581899

>>4581888
Psych. Though I have a huge personal interest in this subject and all the lies and feel-good pop-psych that surround it, and the biology of it.

I remember asking one of my old professors about it back when I was first year in college, and he told me the only reason people held a disdain for it was that Malcolm Gladwell book on the subject.

And no, genetics don't have anything, anything at all, to do with abilities beyond lending an obvious physical advantage in the case of sports.

>> No.4581898

>>4581888
>I guarantee you I have studied this shit way, way more than you have or will
the guy that i was arguing with said that, not me

>> No.4581910

>>4581899
lol says the "psychologist"

>> No.4581912

>>4581910
Well, yes. Was that not clear from my post? Besides, I thought you left after this post:
>>4581834

I think it's time to let your anger go and move on. For your own sake.

>> No.4581923

>>4581912
i am genetically predisposed to troll you, debate me

>> No.4581930

>>4581898
I know I was asking him that's why I quoted him and not you.

>>4581899
Okay, just wondering. Obviously I'm not going to just accept this as fact without learning it on my own, but good talk anyway you made some good points

>> No.4581935

>>4581923
Yes, I felt very trolled when you got so angry you remained in the thread just to respond to all of my posts.

>> No.4581938

>>4581935
this was fun, but it seems you and I are the only ones left in the thread; I can't really keep it going without new blood so... so long friend

>> No.4581945

>>4581938
I'm not your friend, you moron.

>> No.4581946

>>4581945
love you too; you give me much dopamine fun time

>> No.4581990

>>4581419
1. You need both talent AND hard work. Even the most talented writers need to practice and perfect their craft.
2. At least fairly smart.
3. Read, write, read, write, repeat.

>> No.4582004

>>4581596
What if talent is just the drive and patience to put in the handwork necessary to become great.

>> No.4582169

>>4581520

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_burn_centers_in_the_United_States

>> No.4582187
File: 10 KB, 224x224, 1377371897529.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4582187

>>4581638
>being this /pol/ on /lit/

>> No.4583999

>>4582004
That's relatively accurate. Most people who say they're really intelligent, they're just lazy are just of average intelligence with no ambition.

>> No.4584012

It takes practice and expression interesting enough to be written down. It's like any other form of art.

>> No.4584042
File: 27 KB, 200x200, 1391384917946.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4584042

>>4582187
/pol/ is everywhere. /pol/ is eternal. Embrace the future.

>> No.4584050

>>4581638
I truly wonder how such contemptible dilettantes manage to find their way on the literature board.

>> No.4584078
File: 24 KB, 607x600, 1390560005138.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4584078

>>4584050
By clicking /lit/.

>> No.4584100

>>4582004
that's some deep shit

>> No.4584303

>>4581558
>So, you're claiming that talent doesn't exist

Where did I claim that? I'm assessing the mindset of one who claims talent does or doesn't exist. I made no judgement as to the actual existence of talent myself, but for my use of the term for the sake of simplicity.

>> No.4584326

Talent may or may not exist, but people who believe they fail because they don't have it are always losers trying to justify their failures.

>> No.4584366

>>4581638
>>4584042
What a dull existence it must be to automatically dislike certain people because of their heritage. There are so many wonderful people who you have, and shall, miss out on for the most arbitrary of reasons. I pity you, I sincerely do.