Writing talent or just plain stubborn?

[Nateskate]

When I was a kid I was really slow to get coordination. I hated gym class. And I'd watch these kids climb the rope to the ceiling, while I had trouble just getting up one notch- then the gym teacher would inevitably roll his eyes. "Get out of the way so that the other kids can climb." Nate walks away in shame. Lol. It's funny now and great foder for a novel.

But I became a scholarship athlete. Determination helped me overcome lack of talent in so many areas. I do realize that I'm playing catch-up. But the saving grace is that people love my story. It's just a matter of working my writing up to the same level.

Are you a natural or just plain stubborn enough to fight to make this work? It may take me ten times as long to write this book (series), but I'm determined to make it work.

I'm just curious how you see yourself?

[Cranky]

When I was a kid I was really slow to get coordination. I hated gym class. And I'd watch these kids climb the rope to the ceiling, while I had trouble just getting up one notch- then the gym teacher would inevitably roll his eyes. "Get out of the way so that the other kids can climb." Nate walks away in shame. Lol. It's funny now and great foder for a novel.

But I became a scholarship athlete. Determination helped me overcome lack of talent in so many areas. I do realize that I'm playing catch-up. But the saving grace is that people love my story. It's just a matter of working my writing up to the same level.

Are you a natural or just plain stubborn enough to fight to make this work? It may take me ten times as long to write this book (series), but I'm determined to make it work.

I'm just curious how you see yourself?

Personally, I think it's a little bit of both. I have some natural ability, I guess (let's not get too much into the ego thing, lol), but without a lot of hard work, it's not much more than having the potential to be successful.

The harder I work (natural ability or no), the better my chances for success. Sharpening the blade, as it were...

[Fox The Cave]

I believe 1% or less of good writing is talent.

[CaroGirl]

Me? I believe I have some natural facility with language. I have also worked hard at learning and perfecting the craft over the past several years. I send out short stories and novel queries hopefully (albeit somewhat less hopefully than I did when I began).

I believe I'm a good writer. What I don't know is whether I'm good enough.

[Bluestone]

I hope I have some natural writing ability, or I'm deeply delusional! But I think ability goes beyond actual writing expertise - perspective, listening and watching for good material, becoming immersed in a scene, getting into our characters' heads, encapsulating a pivotal moment, weaving plot, managing arc, sustaining interest, avoiding excessive info dumping and backstory. In other words, the natural or developed ability to write a story that has a better chance of becoming something publishable.

And taking advantage of the forums on Absolute Write to answer questions or sort out a dilemma.

After that, finishing, editing, hard work, perseverence, luck, timing, more hard work, editing and perseverence, polishing and getting it out there.

And not being so attached to my words that I can't take criticism and advice from people I've actually asked to read my ms and take the time to give me feedback, criticism and suggestions!

[Phaeal]

I believe I have a natural facility, but the years have taught me that talent is nothing without hard work and perserverance. I wasted a lot of time wishing for the writing life to be easy. Only now that I've embraced the difficulty am I seeing any progress.

[maestrowork]

I have to think I'm coasting on whatever I have -- I don't know if I'd call it talent, but I'd saying there's something that tells me I can be good at this.

But am I stubborn? No. If I were stubborn and as hardworking as I should be, I would have written 20 books by now.

I'm also not stubborn when it comes to something I KNOW I'm not good at: I will never be an astronaut or physicist or football player. That much I can assure you.

I am very lazy, actually.

But when I don't know something, I want to learn. That's one of the biggest driving force for me. So, I didn't know much about fiction writing; I learned. I didn't know anything about publishing; I learned. I didn't know much about writing thrillers; I'm learning. I really like learning new stuff, and that's part of what moves me forward.

[Williebee]

Some talent. Some imagination. A large desire to learn new things. But, mostly it's the willingness to work at it.

[Feidb]

I have some natural writing ability. I can put sentences together better than the average third grader, and apparently a hell of a lot better than some of the writer's I've seen published. I guess that doesn't really matter though.

I write because I love it. I'm still trying to get published because I have determination and a stubborness to not give up. Some of you already know my track record, which is in my signature block, so you can see this is not an easy task to get published unless you are super good (which may or may not matter) or are just super lucky (I think 99% of what's out there now falls into that category).

So, I have a little bit of skill (talent?), a bit if stubborn attitude, and a hell of a lot of patience.

[virtue_summer]

Both. A natural inclination toward storytelling and some natural ease with expressing myself with words but I don't believe I would write anything worthwhile without having taken that inclination and run with it, getting in lots and lots of practice and constantly trying to improve.

[kuwisdelu]

I'm pure talent (in my opinion...) bolstered by a ton of practice. I never really had to work at writing well....I just started so early, by the time I hit high school, I already had years of practice writing stories. I swear, relying on my innate abilities for everything will be the end of me one day.

[Lyra Jean]

Me I'm just stubborn but I think I'm getting better. People who have read my latest short story draft said it wasn't predictable. Unlike my other short stories which they said was good but knew how it was going to end before halfway through.

[DeleyanLee]

I think there's a talent for writing, a talent for story telling and the determination to be the best I can be. I know I have talent--even back before I had skills and techniques, people liked the stories I had to tell, and if 30+ years of writing isn't determination, I don't know what is.

I also believe that you need both skill and talent to make it work. One without the other is like speghetti without the sauce.

[IdiotsRUs]

Not talent

Just the fact that I never shut up and I don't want my husband to go deaf so I write it down instead.

[Charlie Horse]

My theory is that successful writers become so through attrition. The process of writing novels is so damn frustrating that most quit before they're driven to drink, drugs, or insanity, whichever comes first. My plan is to keep at it until everyone else has either quit or is in rehab. Then they'll have to publish my work, won't they?

Please say yes.

[willietheshakes]

I am but a mere conduit through which the muse weaves her ageless spell...

Or I'm a persistent hack. Or somewhere in between... I'm really not sure.

[Mad Queen]

I really really REALLY like this story I'm working on.

[Telstar]

I think I learned the craft around high-school time, and I'm still improving it. I think you never stop learning.

But If I didn't have enough talent and I would struggle to write a few thousand words in a day, I wouldn't attempt being a novelist. I would cultivate other hobbies.

[Danthia]

I think that talent is a small part of writing. I think it breaks down like this:

50% is learnable technique. Anyone can study and learn to craft a sentence and put words together.

30% is storytelling skill. You have to know how to weave events together to build toward something larger.

I think anyone can get to this 80% with training, though some have it naturally. That last 20% is trickier.

10% is voice. This can't be taught. You either have it or you don't.

5% is raw talent.

5% is that intangible something that makes a book sing.

I feel you need to hit at least 90% to have a chance at publication. How you make up that 90% varries though. Anything above 90% determines how big a success the book could be. A strong writer, natural storyteller with a great voice who has raw talent and a fantastic premise (hitting 100%) is likely to really take the book world by storm. Someone with everything but raw talent, can also do well with a great idea. You get the idea.

I also feel that some of these skills come more naturally to people than others, which gives them an edge. But if you're a bad storyteller, even if you have raw writing talent, chances are you won't make it. A novel IS a story and you need that skill, no matter how good you are at other things. Same with having all the natural gifts but not learning the technical side. If you can't spell, use bad grammer and have no clue how punctuation works, all the talent in the world won't get you anywhere.

Writing has always come easy to me, but I've also worked hard my whole life to study and learn the craft. I believe in feedback wholeheartly and take my critiques seriously. I'm always interested in things that will allow me to grow and improve as a writer.

So yes, I think if you want it badly enough you can do it, even if you have no raw talent to write.

[Nateskate]

I hope I have some natural writing ability, or I'm deeply delusional! But I think ability goes beyond actual writing expertise - perspective, listening and watching for good material, becoming immersed in a scene, getting into our characters' heads, encapsulating a pivotal moment, weaving plot, managing arc, sustaining interest, avoiding excessive info dumping and backstory. In other words, the natural or developed ability to write a story that has a better chance of becoming something publishable.

And taking advantage of the forums on Absolute Write to answer questions or sort out a dilemma.

After that, finishing, editing, hard work, perseverence, luck, timing, more hard work, editing and perseverence, polishing and getting it out there.

And not being so attached to my words that I can't take criticism and advice from people I've actually asked to read my ms and take the time to give me feedback, criticism and suggestions!

Your comment covers so much. Indeed, more than one talent goes into writing. And there are variables- our mastery of this language, another language, history, psychology, anthropology.

I guess I was thinking of a pretty narrow gift- the ability to structure sentences, paragraphs and order them into readable pages.

I do believe we all have differening gifts and these vary in degrees. For whatever reason I have this propensity to write interesting but clunky sentences that need to be unscrambled. I can do it, but I don't realize I've done it until I come back and re-read it later.

Another thing I have is an overflow of ideas- and I'll see something I want to expand upon that makes more work for me. But each time I make such changes it adds layers of new edits.

[Nateskate]

I think that talent is a small part of writing. I think it breaks down like this:

50% is learnable technique. Anyone can study and learn to craft a sentence and put words together.

30% is storytelling skill. You have to know how to weave events together to build toward something larger.

I think anyone can get to this 80% with training, though some have it naturally. That last 20% is trickier.

10% is voice. This can't be taught. You either have it or you don't.

5% is raw talent.

5% is that intangible something that makes a book sing.

I feel you need to hit at least 90% to have a chance at publication. How you make up that 90% varries though. Anything above 90% determines how big a success the book could be. A strong writer, natural storyteller with a great voice who has raw talent and a fantastic premise (hitting 100%) is likely to really take the book world by storm. Someone with everything but raw talent, can also do well with a great idea. You get the idea.

I also feel that some of these skills come more naturally to people than others, which gives them an edge. But if you're a bad storyteller, even if you have raw writing talent, chances are you won't make it. A novel IS a story and you need that skill, no matter how good you are at other things. Same with having all the natural gifts but not learning the technical side. If you can't spell, use bad grammer and have no clue how punctuation works, all the talent in the world won't get you anywhere.

Writing has always come easy to me, but I've also worked hard my whole life to study and learn the craft. I believe in feedback wholeheartly and take my critiques seriously. I'm always interested in things that will allow me to grow and improve as a writer.

So yes, I think if you want it badly enough you can do it, even if you have no raw talent to write.

Lol, this makes perfect sense to me, but I still feel somewhat lopsided. Like instead of having 90 percent, I have like 60 percent. My novel is kind of like a beggars' stew. So much has been added over the years it finally is coming together, whereas it wasn't edible before.

[waylander]

"Two things get you there. Talent and persistence." - Peter Lavery, editorial director,Tor MacMillan(UK)

[NeuroFizz]

I think the question tempts us into quantification where quantification is not possible (Yogi Berra would be just as good a quantitative predictor as anyone else). Writing is such a different animal to each person, as is each person's experience (both in reading/writing but also in life exposures to storytelling and other forms of creativity). Talent isn't exclusively inborn, but can be developed, although some people have a greater propensity for certain types of endeavors so they develop what is considered talent extremely quickly (what we would call "natural talent"). But to me, talent is like that dirty word, "potential." As in, "He has such great potential." Every blossom my peach tree sets has such great potential, but not all of them are pollinated. Of those that are pollinated, as many as half are dropped before they reach thumbnail size. Some others fall later but before ripening, some are picked off by squirrels and birds, bugs get in some so they fall before full sugar. Only a relative few of the original blossom number reach the fully ripe state. This is not success through attrition, though, each developing peach independently faces the trials of survival.

So what are the writer's trials of survival? As a partial list, there is motivation and her twin sister, passion. There is "learning ability," the steepness of one's learning curve. There is experience, including all forms of learning and memory. And there is self-discipline. Despite all of this, the squirrels and birds of "real life" can still pluck the fruit before full ripening. Of all of these things, I see talent as a modulator, a behavioral state (like a motivational state, or arousal system in psychology/neurobiology) which biases all of the other factors toward success.

Despite all of this, I suspect there is still a very broad bell curve on any factor or set of factors (including perceived talent) in relation to success in fiction writing. I bet there are writers out there who have had success based on little more than damn hard work.

[Diviner]

Malcolm Gladwell in his essay "Late Bloomers," The New Yorker, Oct 20, 2008, addresses a similar issue, exploring why some creative people explode early and others work very, very hard before achieving significant work. Implicit in his article is that genius may be hidden for a long time before it is recognized.

Whether we acquire the tools to express ourselves in a meaningful and moving way early or not, without sustained work, most of us will never receive much recognition. A writer with a lot of raw talent (kiwi?) may have been working when he thought he was playing, which is the best way to work, but a facility with words, imagination, and a knack for storytelling don't necessarily add up to success or criterary acclaim. The only thing that works for most of us is work, continual, sustained, exploratory work. And even then, the audience of the day, like Melville's, may not be ready for us.

I don't think we can take a small talent and by working hard turn it into a big talent any more than we can take a small IQ and turn it into a big one, but we never really know the limits of our abilities until we have worked hard to explore them. For most of us, we have not yet plumbed our heigths and depths. Some of us start later than others, some of us peak later than others, some of us have to get a lot of writing, living, and reading under our belts before we have stories which excite others. For most of us it takes a lot of time and a lot of work.

[NeuroFizz]

As far as I can tell, no one has found a really accurate way to measure intelligence (including the IQ people) because it can take so many forms. The situation is even worse (in terms of quantification) for something like talent because it is not even close to a hardwired neuronal property.

[tehuti88]

Writing has always seemed natural to me. I was making up stories with my toy animals when I was little, and recording myself pretending to be different characters on audiocassette, then in school the other students always envied how I wrote. I learned grammar and spelling easily, then things such as POV and theme and characterization, and although I can't recall WHY things work, I remember that they DO. It's the same today in terms of ease--the words just keep coming and coming and coming--in fact I'm kind of embarrassed that I have stories that go on for hundreds of thousands of words, and hundreds of chapters, when most other writers seem to frown on such things. I can't help it. I have so much I want to say, and the stories just won't end.

I won't say that means TALENT, though. People say I write well but nobody wants to stick around and read a series that's running over 1.5 million words so far with no end in sight. Like I said, maybe this truly means I'm just a lousy writer constantly spewing out junk.

I'm stubborn in that I just keep writing and posting the stuff even with the perpetual lack of interest from readers. I keep hoping that'll change someday. It's hard when you have so much you want to share but nobody is interested or has the time.

[triceretops]

I believe the facility for writing talent starts at a very early age, by exposing you to reading and, at least, a sincere desire to put words on paper. The more you do, the better you get. To me, writing is a developmental craft that is learned, honed and perfected. I don't believe in natural ability, or at least that hasn't been proven to me yet, and I would be willing to listen about the subject.

Tri

[beautiation]

Great discussion :)


I'd say about 50% of good writing is talent, but 100% of great writing is.

I'm a bit of a romantic here. I do agree that people who work hard at writing for long enough can become very good without having much natural talent, but I also think the best writers have a genius, something extremely rare that is just beyond everyone else's comprehension or possiblilty. I think this genius is more important in the field of writing than nearly any other at distinguishing the very best from the good. Some of the best writers did their important stuff at a young age, or had less than impressive work ethics through their lives, and they did alright. Whereas how many lazy athletes prosper?

I just can't believe, reading their work now, that it was their hard work that made the Plaths or Dostoyevskys of this world so special. I think it was something more than human, because the greatest writing always does something new, something memorable that hasn't been seen before. At some point there has to be a leap of creativity that just cannot be learned. Practice and learning on its own can help bring this essential inspiration to the fore, but it can't put it in if it's not there.

[Clio]

For what its worth, for me it boils down to interest. I had a flair for English, History and - later - Classics and modern languages, and I loved those subjects in school/high school. I loathed Maths, Science, Geography etc., therefore I became lazy in those subjects. We'd say over here in Britain 'I couldn't be arsed'. I had to try harder in Maths because it didn't come easy to me, and there came a point where I just shut myself off and said - 'This is too much hard work, and I hate the damned subject anyway'. With writing and other subjects that I loved it was different. I would beaver away and put myself through hoops to learn better techniques. I am not the one to say whether or not I have natural talent, but I know I've loved putting words on paper since I was about 5 years old. Learning how to do it properly was born out of that love.

[Nateskate]

Great discussion :)


I'd say about 50% of good writing is talent, but 100% of great writing is.

I'm a bit of a romantic here. I do agree that people who work hard at writing for long enough can become very good without having much natural talent, but I also think the best writers have a genius, something extremely rare that is just beyond everyone else's comprehension or possiblilty. I think this genius is more important in the field of writing than nearly any other at distinguishing the very best from the good. Some of the best writers did their important stuff at a young age, or had less than impressive work ethics through their lives, and they did alright. Whereas how many lazy athletes prosper?

I just can't believe, reading their work now, that it was their hard work that made the Plaths or Dostoyevskys of this world so special. I think it was something more than human, because the greatest writing always does something new, something memorable that hasn't been seen before. At some point there has to be a leap of creativity that just cannot be learned. Practice and learning on its own can help bring this essential inspiration to the fore, but it can't put it in if it's not there.

I think there is something to this. And sometimes I think if people identify what area their strength lies, then they have a much better chance of writing something profound. For instance, a nurse who writes murder mysteries may find that writing them in a medical setting will multiply how convincing and real her stories seem.

But another thing about creativity is that if something comes easy to us, we generally aren't impressed unless its so obvious we've had that fact drummed into us. Great people often say, "It wasn't anything special...but I'm glad people liked it."

We can lose objectivity when it comes to self-analysis.

[blacbird]

The worst of all combinations is lack of writing talent + just plain stubborn. Trust me on this one.

caw

[Use Her Name]

I believe 1% or less of good writing is talent.


Talent is a whole range of things, including "stubbornness." It is not just whatever was bred into you through genetics. Talent is will, desire, stubbornness, practice, perfectionism, good positioning, drive, a kind of demented will at times. I think it takes 100% talent to write anything because my definition of talent is a lot broader. Most people who are considered talented, and who "make it" in some field are there because of talent.

99% of what is on the bookstore shelves is fluff which will be forgotten in 6 months. Remember that the majority of writers only make a few thousand for a book-- if they are even lucky enough to make it to the first printing. There is a statistic floating around this site that is the ratio of people who try to publish vs. those who get past the slush pile-- I think it is 5 or 10 percent. Only that small percent who show real talent actually are remembered past a year, and of those a fraction are remembered past 5 years. The reason that iota of people are remembered is that 1% that is so easily thrown aside as though it means nothing.

So I guess talent means something

[OremLK]

I think anyone can pound words onto the page in a readable way (which, in terms of style, is all you need to get published) if they read and practice writing enough. I wouldn't qualify that as "talent".

I also believe storytelling has rules that can be learned. Some people may have more of an intuitive grasp of these rules than others, but I think much of this, again, comes from reading stories. We're learning what works and what doesn't even if we aren't consciously thinking about it.

The one place where I think something like talent really comes in is when you get to the "more than the sum of its parts" thing. I think this relates to what kind of stories a writer naturally has in him--the ones he wants to tell. I think there are deeper things--I hesitate to call them "themes" because they're more firmly rooted in the psychi than anything an English teacher could quantify--that are communicated by stories. Some writers are unconsciously communicating the kind of deeper something that lots of people really hunger for. Is this talent? I don't know, I'm not sure it even relates to how well you do at writing... but those who have it seem to attract a vast, passionate readership who are willing to stand in line for an hour after midnight at Barnes & Noble to get the author's next book.

[blacbird]

I think anyone can pound words onto the page in a readable way (which, in terms of style, is all you need to get published) if they read and practice writing enough.

Obviously you've never read any of my stuff.

But, then again, nobody else has, either.

caw

[Stunted]

I think...maybe I had some natural ability to make characters, but it ends there.

[OremLK]

Obviously you've never read any of my stuff.

But, then again, nobody else has, either.

caw

You sound all right to me. :)

[blacbird]

You sound all right to me. :)

Obviously you've never read any of my stuff.

caw

[Liosse de Velishaf]

I'm not sure exactly how one would define writing talent. I was the person a lot of my classmates went to for help with an essay, or a story-- if they were bold enough to show one of those in public--but can I honestly say I'm talented? I don't know. I do know I can be stubborn.

[MagicMan]

Stubborn or talented. Hmmm.

For me, talent is related to enthusiasm. When I am interested and excited about a project, I can do it well. If I am not, I tend to do poorly. In writing or any other type of project.

Stubborn, I relinquish stubborn by finding the way to become excited, then I can learn and fail; learn and do alright; learn and do well. It is progressive and hard to maintain the level of enthusiasm over the learning curve. Hey, isn't that stubborn?

Smiles
Bob

[johnzakour]

I'm just plain persistent.

[Nateskate]

I'm just plain persistent.

Hi John. I'm glad you shared this, because you are a career writer. I think any career has talent. It takes talent to get multiple books published, even at the mid-level.

I want to incorporate answers from some other comments.

I think a talented writer can overcome a lack of passion and motivation if that's what it takes to write a novel. They have enough understanding of the components of a story, it's like making pancakes. They just have to set their minds to it.

I think a determined person can publish, and even publish a series. But I think that it takes so much more effort, they aren't likely to become a career writer. They need that passion and inspiration, two things that can't be summoned for every project. Besides, they'd shrivel if put under a time-line.

Lol, I think that's also why some people's first novels were their best. They took their time to craft something they were passionate about. But when they had to build from scratch under the pressures of expectations and time demands, they folded or pushed out something far less impressive.

For a career writer, I think it may take passion and inspiration to take novel writing to the next level, writing a classic, because then it's playing a longshot that will take far more effort and risk, this is just my conjecture, because I can't see through anyone elses glasses.

Then again, those who write classics, who feel they weren't talented and just determined, might have had latent talent and were a slow bloomer.

[Nateskate]

Talent is a whole range of things, including "stubbornness." It is not just whatever was bred into you through genetics. Talent is will, desire, stubbornness, practice, perfectionism, good positioning, drive, a kind of demented will at times. I think it takes 100% talent to write anything because my definition of talent is a lot broader. Most people who are considered talented, and who "make it" in some field are there because of talent.

99% of what is on the bookstore shelves is fluff which will be forgotten in 6 months. Remember that the majority of writers only make a few thousand for a book-- if they are even lucky enough to make it to the first printing. There is a statistic floating around this site that is the ratio of people who try to publish vs. those who get past the slush pile-- I think it is 5 or 10 percent. Only that small percent who show real talent actually are remembered past a year, and of those a fraction are remembered past 5 years. The reason that iota of people are remembered is that 1% that is so easily thrown aside as though it means nothing.

So I guess talent means something

Good answer. I do have a specific idea when I speak of talent. I was a scholarship athlete, but I wasn't a natural athlete. I had to work constantly, whereas some people could just lace up their sneakers and do far more.

They call some athletes "Gym Rats", meaning they're constantly perfecting skills. Natural athletes don't need as much time in a gym or a weight room.

The Natural has more potential, but the Gym Rat may wind up the better player- especially in team sports.

A natural writer simply has an ability come up with ideas, with elegant phrasing. Their writing is never clunky or awkward. They can see it done once, and mirror the technique.

I imagine that a determined person with less talent can write a better book, but they have to have passion and patience. It will take them longer and require far more effort.

Of course, they will need a certain level of talent to succeed. So it is really speaking of a matter of degrees, rather than someone with no writing talent.

[Lyra Jean]

I don't see myself as a natural talent but obviously if I had no talent for it then I wouldn't be doing it.

As much as love the idea of making discoveries using science I suck at math so bad I can barely do basic math. So I didn't go into that field.

[Devil Ledbetter]

"Good writing" is really just good self-editing.

[riteideas]

"Good writing" is really just good self-editing.

"To write is human. To edit is devine." Stevie King.

I don't like most of King's stories. But when it comes to what it takes to be a writer his book "On Writing" hits the nail on the head. You must read this book if you're wondering where you stand as a writer. (Get it? Stand. no body gets me.)

[Nateskate]

"To write is human. To edit is devine." Stevie King.

I don't like most of King's stories. But when it comes to what it takes to be a writer his book "On Writing" hits the nail on the head. You must read this book if you're wondering where you stand as a writer. (Get it? Stand. no body gets me.)


I think King is a very good storyteller, because he can cross Genres and still translate into a great movie. But I don't like his darker stories. When I thumb through his books his writing itself doesn't spark inspiration or jealousy.

I'm intimidated by Dead Writers, Tolkien, Twain, Dumas, Dickens. Some modern writers are excellent, but the ones I most admire dwell beneath a gravestone. Perhaps it's just that they had an advantage of capturing a moment in time that lent itself to a more magical feel.

[eyeblink]

Both are needed. I know (but won't name obviously) some wonderful writers who lack application and seemingly ambition, and some mediocre writers who have got where they have through hard graft.

[Nateskate]

Both are needed. I know (but won't name obviously) some wonderful writers who lack application and seemingly ambition, and some mediocre writers who have got where they have through hard graft.

I believe this happens. I guess tt's kind of like that scrappy who makes the football team and through hard works does great vs that lazy athelete who doesn't practice and just shows up.

[OremLK]

"To write is human. To edit is devine." Stevie King.

I don't like most of King's stories. But when it comes to what it takes to be a writer his book "On Writing" hits the nail on the head. You must read this book if you're wondering where you stand as a writer. (Get it? Stand. no body gets me.)

Tangential essay ahead:

I'm not a big fan of On Writing. Some of his prescriptions in it bother me. I'm not saying they don't work for him, but I think they're more a discussion of method as opposed to The Rules.

For example, he comes close to forbidding plot. It seems to work out okay for his novels, but most of the published authors I've read advice from have mentioned (or even prescribed) outlining a plot, and I know I could never finish a novel without doing so.

His recommendations about editing also strike me as situational. He suggests that the goal of editing should be to remove 10% of your manuscript. The underlying assumption he seems to be making is that your manuscript has an excess of words. But how do you know? Maybe he tends to run long, to be too wordy or explain things too much--but other authors may have the opposite problem, and may not be including enough detail. I have this issue myself--I'm constantly in a big hurry to get the story out, so when I come back and rewrite I have to force myself to slow it down and ground my scenes with more detail, invariably adding more than I take out.

Then a lot of what he discusses is language. He suggests killing all of the adverbs you can, for example. I don't like strong prescriptions of style much in any case, because I believe good style is mostly intuitive, a function of voice picked up through reading and writing. In this case in particular I don't like his prescription at all; adverbs are an official part of English grammar for a reason. They are tools for communication. Some authors who are considered to have strong style use them often; Bruce Sterling, for example. They are a useful part of language and should not be dismissed out of hand. Neither should they be overused, as with any purely descriptive word, but there is no need for a strong bias against a normal part of the English language.

Okay, rant over.

[VisionScript]

Are you a natural or just plain stubborn enough to fight to make this work? It may take me ten times as long to write this book (series), but I'm determined to make it work.

I'm just curious how you see yourself?

I'm a long, but steady study. I might not seem to be getting it, but I come quickly to the finish line. When you have a love for something, you have a gift. You nurture that, and it comes into season.

Allow me a biblical analogy: The desire to write is a talent the lord gave us. Shall we multiply on it and offer him fruit, or do we sit on it, so he can be displeased and give it to someone who knows how to make more out of what they had? Well, it's the same with writing. Writing is a chore and a glory. You have to be determined to go from start to finish. You have to stay with that novel for years, labor with it.

Another analogy: So, shall we take this cup half full? or wait for it to fill completely. I'm reminded of the bible again: Let patience have her perfect work that you may be full and entire, wanting (for) nothing.

Allow me to digress: My ballot went in the mail today.

What would Jesus do? He would say, John, my friend, you keep lying. You said you don't know anything about the economy, now you say you do. You have people paying to get you into office who would need to be paid back, you would have been a puppet, your only glory a line item veto on pork barrel spending. And shame on you, John, for the way you lie on Barack Obama. And you chose Sarah Palin. She's a dear, but you and I know she isn't qualified. Why'd you put her in that position, John? John, I love you. I'll always love you.

[VisionScript]

Tangential essay ahead:

I'm not a big fan of On Writing. Some of his prescriptions in it bother me. I'm not saying they don't work for him, but I think they're more a discussion of method as opposed to The Rules.

For example, he comes close to forbidding plot. It seems to work out okay for his novels, but most of the published authors I've read advice from have mentioned (or even prescribed) outlining a plot, and I know I could never finish a novel without doing so.

His recommendations about editing also strike me as situational. He suggests that the goal of editing should be to remove 10% of your manuscript. The underlying assumption he seems to be making is that your manuscript has an excess of words. But how do you know? Maybe he tends to run long, to be too wordy or explain things too much--but other authors may have the opposite problem, and may not be including enough detail. I have this issue myself--I'm constantly in a big hurry to get the story out, so when I come back and rewrite I have to force myself to slow it down and ground my scenes with more detail, invariably adding more than I take out.

Then a lot of what he discusses is language. He suggests killing all of the adverbs you can, for example. I don't like strong prescriptions of style much in any case, because I believe good style is mostly intuitive, a function of voice picked up through reading and writing. In this case in particular I don't like his prescription at all; adverbs are an official part of English grammar for a reason. They are tools for communication. Some authors who are considered to have strong style use them often; Bruce Sterling, for example. They are a useful part of language and should not be dismissed out of hand. Neither should they be overused, as with any purely descriptive word, but there is no need for a strong bias against a normal part of the English language.

Okay, rant over.

He has an interesting concept there, I think...no plot, no adverbs, then cut ten percent, lol. It might work for him and what he's doing, but it wouldn't work for me, either. I understand the part about cutting out most of your adverbs. Finally, a light came on. But sometimes, they're needed. If you want to reader to understand the just so of it.

I didn't think that I would be able to cut any of my novel, but when my standards changed, I started cutting away. I went from 140K to 118K. And counting. I'm just about to go through with my adverb slicer.

As far as plot goes? I started out with no plot. It's weird. As an artist, some of my best work was done spontaneously. I think that my project is more literary because of it. The plots and subplots just manifested themselves. But I was writing it as a screenplay part of that time. The subplots start to grow and work themselves out in a way, but that's tricky. (and a screenplay is like a gigantic outline). There's almost a magic to it, but that's how it's really done, isn't it? We come up with an idea, write it from beginning to end, then embellish on it. I perceive that there's a thin line between what he is saying and what you're saying (and possibly a different type of novel).

[HeronW]

You have to be stubborn and love what you're doing.

[Raynfall]

Should I be insufferably arrogant and say natural talent? No, I don't think I shall, because in all honesty it's not natural talent. The ability to write well has no bearing on writing a novel. It's dedication and determination. It's sitting down every day and typing, typing, typing.

[stormie]

Are you a natural or just plain stubborn enough to fight to make this work? It may take me ten times as long to write this book (series), but I'm determined to make it work.

I'm just curious how you see yourself?
I see myself as someone who just needs to write. And I like it. But I had to check about twenty books on writing out of the library to make it work. Then scour the Internet on anything to do with writing. That was nine years ago and I'm still learning and trying my best at writing.

Yep. I'm determined.

[benbradley]

I must be stubborn. I think I'll have to be a lot more stubborn to get a short story published and/or write a novel, and no telling what it will take for me to write a novel that gets published.

Just from hanging out around here (and a humble submission to SYW), the more I learn, the less I know more I find out there is that I don't know.

[Nateskate]

Personally, I think it's a little bit of both. I have some natural ability, I guess (let's not get too much into the ego thing, lol), but without a lot of hard work, it's not much more than having the potential to be successful.

The harder I work (natural ability or no), the better my chances for success. Sharpening the blade, as it were...

Lol. I think that it's really hard to get into the ego thing- but not impossible. There are just so many pitfalls that begin with trying to finish the story and then trying to market it- and then trying dealing with countless setbacks.

I think we almost need to share- because the process is so grueling. And that includes sharing hopes and good news, as well as setbacks. Maybe not always on an open forum.

Lol, even if all my dreams come true, once the story is in the public domain, there may be critics that rip me apart, demean my writing or whatever.

I remember my son began to proof my story. He got this sour look on his face- "You stole that from Tolkien!!!"

Lol. I have no elves, dwarves, dragons, orcs, trolls. I try not to take comparrisons to Tolkien as an insult, but the way he said it was accusatory, as if I ripped my story off- and that was just the first twenty pages. For the record, I began my story before I ever read one word of Tolkien or saw the movies.

Heck, he may have invented a time machine and went in the future to rip me off- all authors like to believe the story began with them.

Back to the point- It's probably impossible for an author not to offend someone. Name any famous author and there are people that dislike them, and make that known in public- on chat boards.

[Nateskate]

I see myself as someone who just needs to write. And I like it. But I had to check about twenty books on writing out of the library to make it work. Then scour the Internet on anything to do with writing. That was nine years ago and I'm still learning and trying my best at writing.

Yep. I'm determined.


Lol, when I was a kid I was given a bike with training wheels. My mom reminded me how I took them off the first day I got the bike because I wanted to ride like the other kids. Time and again I'd crash into the bush by the front porch. But by the afternoon I was able to ride.

Another memory- I never said "Uncle" if I got on the bottom in a fight. I'd purse my lips and wiggle like crazy while getting pounded, but I'd wear out the other guy until they gave up. But when they let me up, I'd go on fighting. Stubborn with a large "S".

[Telstar]

I'm intimidated by Dead Writers, Tolkien, Twain, Dumas, Dickens. Some modern writers are excellent, but the ones I most admire dwell beneath a gravestone. Perhaps it's just that they had an advantage of capturing a moment in time that lent itself to a more magical feel.

It is funny, but the writers I admire the most are still alive and 90+ :)
I'm mostly talking about style. More recent writers write better plots but the style...oh well maybe i'm retrò.

[Nateskate]

It is funny, but the writers I admire the most are still alive and 90+ :)
I'm mostly talking about style. More recent writers write better plots but the style...oh well maybe i'm retrò.


Don't get me wrong, I do like modern writers, but I love novels that take me to another place and time. I like sci-fi, but I prefer fantasy worlds than futuristic ones. Tastes may have a great deal to do with my outlook.

I love Twain's Prince and the Pauper. It's fascinating because it's more than a story, it's a time machine to a different world, where laws and norms differed.

[maestrowork]

Don't get me wrong, I do like modern writers, but I love novels that take me to another place and time. I like sci-fi, but I prefer fantasy worlds than futuristic ones. Tastes may have a great deal to do with my outlook.

I love Twain's Prince and the Pauper. It's fascinating because it's more than a story, it's a time machine to a different world, where laws and norms differed.

I think a contemporary story or realistic drama could do the same thing. It can transport us to a different time and place as well, even if it's something we may be familiar with. 1996 in Paris, for example. I wasn't there. I didn't know these characters or the circle they were in. I understand some people need to escape or be transported to a different time/space/alternate universe, but it doesn't have to be a "made up" time/space either.

That's what I'm trying to do with my WIP, which is set in Indochina during the Pacific War. I wonder how many people were actually alive then and living in that part of the world. And even if they were, how many actually lived through what my characters did? And that's why it's so fascinating to me, to create that world and hopefully transport my readers there as well. And there's something really rewarding, too, to realize it's set in something relatively real, albeit a different time and space. Being grounded in reality would hopefully give the story certain emotional weight...

:)

[Nateskate]

I think a contemporary story or realistic drama could do the same thing. It can transport us to a different time and place as well, even if it's something we may be familiar with. 1996 in Paris, for example. I wasn't there. I didn't know these characters or the circle they were in. I understand some people need to escape or be transported to a different time/space/alternate universe, but it doesn't have to be a "made up" time/space either.

That's what I'm trying to do with my WIP, which is set in Indochina during the Pacific War. I wonder how many people were actually alive then and living in that part of the world. And even if they were, how many actually lived through what my characters did? And that's why it's so fascinating to me, to create that world and hopefully transport my readers there as well. And there's something really rewarding, too, to realize it's set in something relatively real, albeit a different time and space. Being grounded in reality would hopefully give the story certain emotional weight...

:)

Hi Ray. Your novel took me to China. I've never been there, and for the most part, China is a mystery to me. And so that adds to the fascination of the story within the story.

[scheherazade]

I think natural ability is still very important. I have terrible self-confidence and little determination, and if I didn't keep feeling like I was designed to be a writer, I would have given up on the dream a long, long time ago. Writing is a terrible mistress and certainly not one a rational person would choose. You have to have at least a little natural talent or else be crazy (though it helps to have both) in order to be willing to invest so much time and energy into something with such uncertain (and most likely minimal) return.

That said, even with talent, you need determination to keep writing and figure out how to use your gift. Even "natural athletes" benefit from years of childhood spent running, jumping, playing, and otherwise developing their gifts so that that first day on the rope they can pull themselves up easily. I think if you haven't developed some aspect of your gift yet (for example, a teen wanting to play a sport may not have mastered balance or built the muscle, or may have to contend with the problems of a growing body) then you need to work on that before you can be great. But I don't think a person without at least some level of natural talent at something can ever hope to be great, no matter how long they practice.

[Nateskate]

It does take resilience and persistence to be a writer, but there's smart and foolish ways to go about seeking the dream.

I'd say that some people are stubborn, but in a foolish way. They don't seek input. They simply want an audience to find them.

I think it's wise to take the advice of authors willing to share their experiences, and to implement them.

They talk about basics, a "Hook", "Pacing", "Start with the story",

There are reasons why some people don't get published. It's not for lack of creativity or a storyline, it's because they won't listen to wise advise, and keep tryint to get others to come to their way of thinking.

I've made many changes in my stories, and if I didn't, I'd still be marketing a door stop.

So, stubbornness has to include a receptive attitude. People give advice for a reason. And although much advice is subjective and open to dispute, some is essential to getting published.

[Alpha Echo]

Hmmm...good question. For me, I think that my natural talent, if you want to call it that, is a love for romance. And I don't necessarily mean the kind of romance like "boy meets girl. boy falls in love..." I mean...a romance in the way words are used, the way they sound, and the images they conjur for the individual reader. That's what I have a "talent" for - the LOVE of words and romance.

The rest is determination. I WILL find an agent. I WILL get published. I just will. The only question is when. :)

[Layla Nahar]

I used to think I was a natural, but am rapidly being disabused of that notion. I hope to succeed in being merely stubborn

[Kaylee]

I am still trying to figure out that question myself.

Life is what happens, while you're busy making other plans. -- John Lennon

[Nateskate]

Hmmm...good question. For me, I think that my natural talent, if you want to call it that, is a love for romance. And I don't necessarily mean the kind of romance like "boy meets girl. boy falls in love..." I mean...a romance in the way words are used, the way they sound, and the images they conjur for the individual reader. That's what I have a "talent" for - the LOVE of words and romance.

The rest is determination. I WILL find an agent. I WILL get published. I just will. The only question is when. :)

So well put. There is a romance with the process of writing, at least for me. Even in reading, when I find inspiring pages I just connect.

Lol, when I read how Tolkien describes Mordor, I'm fascinated how a mind can think like that; but that stubborn side of me will then hold that up as a standard when I write about some part of my world. I'm no longer satisfied with less. There has to be shades of darkness, roiling, boiling, churning with vicious malevolence.

Can I ever achieve that??? It's hard to say how another will read the current chapter of book three "Into the Darkness". The situation is much different than Frodo and Sam going into Mordor, but trying to capture that kind of atmosphere- worse really- is a challenge and fun at the same time.

A few years ago I simply couldn't do it. Now I can't wait for reader's opinions.

[Aschenbach]

Nateskate, your original question must resonate deeply with pretty much everyone on this board. Because we could probably give a different answer each day, and still really mean it.

Wild fluctuations in self-belief are, I guess, normal for all writers, especially the as-yet-unpublished ones (like me). It can be emotionally exhausting when one day you think you are wasting your time with writing, the next day that you are definitely making progress.

There are so few sources of industry feedback (apart from a rare personalised rejection, or even rarer acceptance), it can become impossible to gauge how good one's writing is. It has kept me awake on more than a couple of nights!

[Ray Dillon]

I'm stubborn and I completely relate to your story, Nate. I was a really fat, poor kid with not a lot of options and not a lot of natural talent as an artist living in the middle-of-nowhere Kansas. I'm now a fit, fairly successful artist with a wonderful family and it was all because of determination. I still live in the middle-of-nowhere Kansas, but it's worked to may advantage and I've seen the whole country and soon I hope to see the rest of the world.

I'm tackling writing this way, too (though, I'm still in the early stages). It's something I love and I want to get good and be successful with it. So, I'm at the writing table whenever I get a chance and I won't quit until I get where I want to be.

[Nateskate]

Nateskate, your original question must resonate deeply with pretty much everyone on this board. Because we could probably give a different answer each day, and still really mean it.

Wild fluctuations in self-belief are, I guess, normal for all writers, especially the as-yet-unpublished ones (like me). It can be emotionally exhausting when one day you think you are wasting your time with writing, the next day that you are definitely making progress.

There are so few sources of industry feedback (apart from a rare personalised rejection, or even rarer acceptance), it can become impossible to gauge how good one's writing is. It has kept me awake on more than a couple of nights!

Ashenbach, thanks for your comments. At times I believed in my writing, and at times I thought I had a fatal flaw that could never be overcome. If not for comments by Beta readers, my novels would likely have ended up in the trash. I was fortunate to have people tell me I had to go through with this.

However, getting the writing to where it would appeal to an agent/publisher was frustrating. Friends might stick with a novel where it bogs down, as long as they like the rest. They might hate the battle scene, but love the rest.

Overcoming each weakness takes such resilience, that at some point we must believe in our story, that it's worth fighting to make it work.

I believed in my story before I believed I could write it. At points I felt so overwhelmed. And yet, I knew if I didn't write it, nobody else would.

[Nateskate]

I'm stubborn and I completely relate to your story, Nate. I was a really fat, poor kid with not a lot of options and not a lot of natural talent as an artist living in the middle-of-nowhere Kansas. I'm not a fit, fairly successful artist with a wonderful family and it was all because of determination. I still live in the middle-of-nowhere Kansas, but it's worked to may advantage and I've seen the whole country and soon I hope to see the rest of the world.

I'm tackling writing this way, too (though, I'm still in the early stages). It's something I love and I want to get good and be successful with it. So, I'm at the writing table whenever I get a chance and I won't quit until I get where I want to be.

Kudos! It sounds like you have that kind of determination that's needed in this field. Can't wait to hear your progress.

[Starby]

I believe it's a totally individual thing. Some people can go to writing classes, learn the craft and put together a decent book or story, but arguably weren't born with the ability to do it. Other people clearly have a natural affinity with words and masses of natural talent and have had from day one. Either way, it's essential to work at it. Any ability needs exercising and honing over a long term period.

[Nateskate]

I believe it's a totally individual thing. Some people can go to writing classes, learn the craft and put together a decent book or story, but arguably weren't born with the ability to do it. Other people clearly have a natural affinity with words and masses of natural talent and have had from day one. Either way, it's essential to work at it. Any ability needs exercising and honing over a long term period.


So many times in my life I was surrounded by people far more talented than me, in whatever field. In fact, I wondered at one time if I was any good at anything.

I think we have this sense of proportion; like when I heard someone giving a report and thinking, "I never would have thought of something so clever!"

That's probably where a dream is so important. It's kind of like the rabbit and the tortoise race; sometimes sheer determination makes the difference. I do have some sense of proportion, that so many writers are more gifted than I am. However, I just have that stubborn turtle thing going.

[Cranky]

Lol. I think that it's really hard to get into the ego thing- but not impossible. There are just so many pitfalls that begin with trying to finish the story and then trying to market it- and then trying dealing with countless setbacks.

I think we almost need to share- because the process is so grueling. And that includes sharing hopes and good news, as well as setbacks. Maybe not always on an open forum.

Lol, even if all my dreams come true, once the story is in the public domain, there may be critics that rip me apart, demean my writing or whatever.

I remember my son began to proof my story. He got this sour look on his face- "You stole that from Tolkien!!!"

Lol. I have no elves, dwarves, dragons, orcs, trolls. I try not to take comparrisons to Tolkien as an insult, but the way he said it was accusatory, as if I ripped my story off- and that was just the first twenty pages. For the record, I began my story before I ever read one word of Tolkien or saw the movies.

Heck, he may have invented a time machine and went in the future to rip me off- all authors like to believe the story began with them.

Back to the point- It's probably impossible for an author not to offend someone. Name any famous author and there are people that dislike them, and make that known in public- on chat boards.

Sorry I'm late with the response. *blush*

I'm always a little bit afraid of being derivative, but I've found that it's pretty much impossible to write a truly original story. The only thing we've got to hang our hat on these days as a writer, I think, is our unique voice, our point of view. We view the world through a unique prism, and that can give us a different way of telling a story that seems original, but is still familiar enough to not freak people out. LOL

And as Uncle Stevie says (paraphrased), if you're a writer, your days of being considered polite company are over. If you want to write, and write well, you have to tell the truth. And the truth is often an uncomfortable, even offensive thing.

So that takes a strong ego, I guess. You have to be able to withstand the slings and arrows of criticism from a lot of quarters. Even from yourself.

[neotank]

Well, I would say that the very best writers out there have natural talent. It's like anything, there are certain people who are just really darn good at something. I could spend two years locked in a room perfecting a 2000 word short story, and Stephen King could walk in and in twenty minutes write his own story that would smoke mine.

With that being said, I think most people that want to write, or need to write, have some form of natural ability. Because most poeple just suck at creative writing and story telling. Most people I know, if you asked them to think of a story, would be totally clueless.

It takes a certain type of person to want to sit in front of a keyboard after a long day's work and create a cool story.

[Thrillride]

"To write is human. To edit is devine." Stevie King.

I don't like most of King's stories. But when it comes to what it takes to be a writer his book "On Writing" hits the nail on the head. You must read this book if you're wondering where you stand as a writer. (Get it? Stand. no body gets me.)

I get you, riteideas! :D Really.
And if you have been reading Kings stuff that has been written after his accident. Stop doing that. Go back in King's prime...and read "Gerald's Game".
I like some of his stuff, but you're right about his book, "On Writing", I found it incredibly useful. He also let's you in on some very personal stuff. He's a master of the craft, for sure.

[Nateskate]

Sorry I'm late with the response. *blush*

I'm always a little bit afraid of being derivative, but I've found that it's pretty much impossible to write a truly original story. The only thing we've got to hang our hat on these days as a writer, I think, is our unique voice, our point of view. We view the world through a unique prism, and that can give us a different way of telling a story that seems original, but is still familiar enough to not freak people out. LOL

And as Uncle Stevie says (paraphrased), if you're a writer, your days of being considered polite company are over. If you want to write, and write well, you have to tell the truth. And the truth is often an uncomfortable, even offensive thing.

So that takes a strong ego, I guess. You have to be able to withstand the slings and arrows of criticism from a lot of quarters. Even from yourself.

Tolkien's own essay on faerie stories was saying that Lore/Story Telling is like a beggar's stew, where each one comes to the same pot and adds a little more to it.

He used creatures that already existed in mythology. But he made that his own.

In a sense, I believe that ancient writings had far more impact on my creative process than anything recent. But since that is where Tolkien got his ideas, there will be parallels. And I've come to accept that.

In creativity, I guess there's this fight for legitimacy. One of the worst insults, besides just plain stinking, is being a copycat. I decided "not" to change my horse's name because it was used in another book. It can be a ridiculous to try to avoid all commonalities.

[Chris Huff]

I believe 1% or less of good writing is talent.

Quoted for truth.

Also note: I believe 1% or less of published writers are talented.

[Nateskate]

Quoted for truth.

Also note: I believe 1% or less of published writers are talented.

The strange thing is that I read book openings for a hobby, regardless of Genre, just to see why people think "So-and-so" is good. If I didn't do so, I'd never believe your statistic.

I'm not saying they aren't talented at all, because they have to be to get published, but very few books make me think, "Wow!!!"

I have this thing with dead writers- not because they're dead but because they didn't seem to be so contrived. I loved the opening to Oliver Twist. I couldn't imagine a modern day writer stringing together so many great lines in one opening.

In fact, many famous writers bore me with their openings. One of the greatest feelings is to open a book, read the first page and have my jaw drop- "I've got to buy this!"

Honestly, in the last year I think I read far more Rock Star bios than my favorite Genre.

[ganymede_elegy]

I've always wrestled with this issue, not knowing whether I could be said to have "talent" with writing or just a burning desire for it. I'm not even sure how to define the concept of talent; all I know is that it encompasses the ability to make people (readers, in this case) feel something. Talent moves people, it manifests itself in memorable work; I agree with what Use Her Name said upthread, about talent really being a variety of things (including stubbornness) and that those writers who are *remembered* possess talent. (Although I suppose some could be remembered for other, less flattering reasons... really bad work can be memorable too!)

Stephen King has come up a lot in this thread; he was one of the first authors I really loved (even though it's questionable whether or not one should allow their 10-yr-old to read "It" or, say, "Gerald's Game" as I did... lol). "Pet Sematary" is a book that always grabs me, and just devastates me, every time I read it. It's not perfect; the very end could have been done better, I think; and it's so damn unsettling, because it's a book about death and coping (or failing to cope) with it- but this book is one of my favorites. This book reaches me in a way many others haven't, and in it, King's talent really shines through.

[C0g]

I'd say in maybe 95% of cases talent doesn't really apply, at least in terms of who can publish a book. With enough study and dedication, most people can probably write publishable prose. However, this means the market will always be inundated with stale ideas, cliched characters, etc. But when a book from the other 5% comes along, people do take notice. Can an untalented writer create a truly good book? Maybe. But I'd say the very best writers do have that intangible quality that makes their stuff stand out.

[Nateskate]

I've always wrestled with this issue, not knowing whether I could be said to have "talent" with writing or just a burning desire for it. I'm not even sure how to define the concept of talent; all I know is that it encompasses the ability to make people (readers, in this case) feel something. Talent moves people, it manifests itself in memorable work; I agree with what Use Her Name said upthread, about talent really being a variety of things (including stubbornness) and that those writers who are *remembered* possess talent. (Although I suppose some could be remembered for other, less flattering reasons... really bad work can be memorable too!)

Stephen King has come up a lot in this thread; he was one of the first authors I really loved (even though it's questionable whether or not one should allow their 10-yr-old to read "It" or, say, "Gerald's Game" as I did... lol). "Pet Sematary" is a book that always grabs me, and just devastates me, every time I read it. It's not perfect; the very end could have been done better, I think; and it's so damn unsettling, because it's a book about death and coping (or failing to cope) with it- but this book is one of my favorites. This book reaches me in a way many others haven't, and in it, King's talent really shines through.

I think many of us have latent talents that we are unaware of. So it may be that some are just quicker out of the gate- they have the ability to write a well written verse with ease. But those with a dream, who will devote a great deal of energy to perfecting their work, may surpass them.

One of the documentaries with LOTR extended edition, makes comments about Tolkien's unorthodox writing style. It took him over ten years to make Lord of the Rings a coherant work. It was far from instant. My own work has greived me at times, because it has been such an uphill fight. But there are times when I just see "it", where I have hope that an audience will love the story.

Still, I'm knee high in edits, since it is a multi-book WIP and I haven't even gotten my editors corrections yet. Lol, if they want me to add or remove sections, now it's going to have a domino effect, because I'm almost done with edits to book three, and will soon be into book four.

[Nateskate]

I've gone to writers groups for the fun of it. Depending on the group obviously, I think that most people will never finish a book unless someone more imaginative and disciplined siddles up and co-writes with them. At one time I would have agreed that it was only a matter of determination, but I've realized how hard it is for some people who enjoy writing as a hobby to actually stay with the project.

With only a relative small portion of writers that actually complete a book, let alone fail to find an agent, I think that anyone who submits a full ms has done something incredible. Someone who finds an agent has done the marvelous. Someone that gets published by a legit publisher is in a fraction of the world population, even if that book sells, and they should be proud.

However, the reality is that I think that deep down we all want the golden ticket, a book or series that far surpasses getting into print. But we only realize that once the first dreams are realized: finishing the book, finding an agent, getting a publisher- we're satisfied only temporarily. Then we want the "more" that we didn't dare dream before.