And I don’t even mean fantastically great writers either . Just the ones who seem to be able to throw together a likeable story and get it published for the masses. The likes of Grisham, Steele, Conelley, King etc.
Are the majority of these types of writers born with the ability to put pen to paper (finger to key) and just churn out popular fiction, or is it, like most things, a process where you work and work and work until you perfect your art?
I’m sure there are some prodigies out there who just have a natural gift, but what about the majority of author’s sitting on the fiction shelves in the local Book Barn?
A little bit of both. To become a writer, IMO, you must enjoy telling a story. That guy at the dorm, who always embroidered what happened during the weekend, cutting some corners to spin a good tale. That kid in 3rd grade who, when talking about the homework, goes on and on and on…
Some people are just like that. In some contexts they’re called gossips, in others they’re liers. When sitting with Word and cranking out bestsellers about idealistic young lawyers caught in a web of lies, they’re called John Grisham.
If you’re born with that ability, then it’s just a matter of honing it. The craft of writing can be learned, but if you have nothing to say, it won’t matter a bit. You can take classes in creative writing till the end of your days and you’ll never get published, anyway.
A third cathegory are those with the ‘Demon’. The people who have to write or they’ll explode. Some of these turn out great art. Others become Dean Koontz.
I write reasonably well, though we will have to wait 20 years to see whether I become John Grisham or not (god forbid!).
My experience reflects The Gaspode’s WAG. I don’t know if I was born with it, but I enjoy telling stories, I’ll make things that aren’t stories into stories, and on the technical side of things, I’m interested in words and what they do and how they go together. I’ve almost always written stories, but they only really got good once I started paying attention to the craft.
Unfortunately, I don’t know whether my writing ability was born or made. I know I’ve had the potential for as long as I can remember, but even that may have developed from my parents fostering a love of reading and words from a young age.
I’m not sure whether you could coach someone with no ability as a writer to be a great writer. Then again, I think good writer’s are just people with lots of ideas who know how to put those ideas well. And anyone can be taught to write an idea well. Could someone who isn’t brimming with ideas be taught to become a great writer?. Surely a head full of ideas is just a sign of mental liveliness?
I’m even less sure of an answer than when I started writing this response.
Both, definitely. Even in high school I was told I had potential. In a continuing education class called, “Writing Fiction For Profit,” the author who taught the class told me I’d be published some day. He only said that about two of us, and the other woman (whose writing was very, very good) didn’t seem interested in publishing professionally.
That was years ago, and I’ve yet to have any fiction published, though the gap is slowly closing. See, even though I had potential, I still have to work at it. I’ve learn a lot in the last few years, and every book, article and game review I’ve written has only taught me more. When my first book is published, it will be because I worked hard to get there.
And I’ve read some stuff from people who will truly never, ever learn how to tell a story well, no matter how much they try. They just don’t get it.
P.S. Don’t listen to The Gaspode. Dean Koontz is a brilliant writer. I’ve been a fan of his for 17 years.
Some people have such remarkable talent that they don’t need to work too hard at it. But sitting down to write every day still takes disipline. You still need to learn the rules of your art.
Some people work so hard at it they are able to start with little talent and develop skill - which isn’t the same, but with a little luck will get you published.
I have friends in both categories. One of my close friends is definately in the second category. Tor is supposed to be publishing a novel of his and he has had several short stories published. But when he started he was completely talentless, he just had an incredible amount of drive.
On the other hand, another friend has had less success getting published, has a hell of a lot more talent (which may be what is hindering him - he stuff tends to be less mainstream) and works his butt off.
Reading. If you don’t read you’ll never learn to write. Reading is programing the computer. So if you program the computer with Danielle Steele, that’s what the computer will generate. If you program the computer with the daily paper that’s what it will generate. If you program it with the best minds remaining on the library shelves, then it can generate anything.
Learning to remember the audience. You don’t write for yourself. You write for someone else. That’s the person who matters. Whatever you are writing, you must remember who is reading it. That’s why all those love letters you wrote were never answered. Because you didn’t write them to the girl of your desire, but to yourself.
Listening. Hearing yourself. Having the guts to say “that sounds stupid”. “Suzy will never get turned on by that.” Damn that’s a good idea.
If you have a little talent it might help. But that’s only necessary if you want to be an artist. The question was whether or not you could create a “good” writer.
You can make yourself into a competent writer by hard work and diligence. However, there is only so much you can do. I, for instance, can sell the occasional story with over 20 years of experience writing professionally. Ted Chiang started publishing when he was 18 (I mention Chiang because he’s one of the more recent people to do so – and his first sale was to Omni, the top paying market in the field). All my practice won’t make me as good as Chiang.
So there’s definitely an innate element involved. You aren’t necessarily prevented from publishing because of your talent, but everyone has a top level that they can achieve. And a lot of talent doesn’t necessarily mean success if you don’t have the discipline (the best example I know was a relative of a friend who submitted something to The New Yorker and got a signed, personal rejection. Nothing could make her understand that this was a terrific sign and that with a little work, she could probably sell to them or elsewhere. She just saw the rejection and quit writing).
I’ve seen the high school or other early work of writers who today are acclaimed. The work is bad. Not hopelessly, illiterately bad, but completely undistinguished, without many signs that they would later win awards left and right.
Some people have a touch from an early age, but the vast majority work hard to get better. Even the work of most star writers who sell at an early age becomes deeper, wiser, more penetrating with age.
And I know people who have been working at the game for 40 years and they are still not much closer to selling than they were at the beginning. Some iminimal internal spark of talent is required.
Dean Koontz is a brilliant writer. I’ve been a fan of his for 17 years.