Or five percent, or twelve, or whatever arbitrary percentage you’d like.
What magic percentage am I talking about? It’s that thing, you know, “It.”
There’s a hot-button word that, in the writing community, gets a similar hair-raising, fervent reaction that the word “luck” does.
Talent.
Mention it and someone automatically has an opinion--not usually about the context it was used in, but about the existence or non existence of this thing we mean when we say “talent.”
Usually when talent is mentioned two major factions (on message boards, blogs, etc.) arise: There are those that believe you don’t get anywhere unless you’ve got this undefined thing called talent, and those who believe talent is a mental roadblock to success and nothing more.
I’ve seen professional writers say, “No one ever told me I was good at this when I was young, and look at me today, I’m making my living at it, therefore talent doesn’t exist.”
I’ve also seen professionals say, “You’ve either got it or you don’t.”
And, of course, newbies just pick whichever opinion appeals to them and then parrot it back to the masses.
I simultaneously agree and disagree with both camps.
When talking about talent, no one ever tries to define what they’re arguing about. Talent seems to be an untouchable, mystical concept. Some attempt to give it a fuzzy outline by calling it the ever more ambiguous “it-factor” and the like, but no real meat is ever put on this skeletal definition. This is a problem.
Then they apply the concept to the mechanical act of writing; the physical placing of words on a page. This is also a problem.
I believe talent has about as much to do with the physical act of writing as it has to do with a baby walking or a bird flying: none.
Anyone willing to learn can be taught to communicate, and to do it well. Some have to work harder at it than others, but that has more to do with aptitude than talent--no, the two aren’t synonyms in my book. Your level of aptitude can change over time. Your level of talent cannot.
So, how do I define talent?
Well, first, let’s get out of our Writer Heads. Things always get clouded when you’re too close to the subject.
Let’s pretend we’re all taking art 101, Basic Sketching Techniques. Sure, some students show more initial aptitude than others, but the professor can show each of us over time how to see the lighting in a scene separate from the objects, and how to create texture, and how to compose a balanced picture.
Sketch artists are taught to see the world around them and use technique to reproduce it. Just like a writer is taught how to put words to paper in a compelling order that makes a complete story.
Our art professor can teach us how to see the world in front of us. What s/he can’t teach us is how to see the worlds that aren’t in front of us.
No one can teach you imagination. And that’s where talent comes into play.
Yes, it can be honed and exercised, but it’s not a technique someone can give you. They can teach you rhythm, effective ways to use different POVs, plotting, thematic enhancement, punctuation, why not to use “ly” words every chance you get…
But they can’t teach creativity. Either you have a uniquely creative mind, or you don’t.
That being said, the most imaginative people are not automatically moved to the head of the to-be-published line.
Why?
Because hard work and practice matter!
I don’t care if you’ve got the most creative mind on the planet, if you don’t apply yourself and learn the nuts-and-bolts of properly communicating your ideas, you’re not going to make it anywhere.
And that’s why even people without super-duper-spanking-awesome imaginations have a real shot at seeing their writing dreams come true too. It’s all in the execution.
Talent is like the frosting on the cake: It’s a sweet thing to have, but without a solid foundation, its just fluff. In the end, readers need meat and potatoes to sustain themselves--great writing, great mechanics, great composition.
Talent certainly doesn’t make you “the chosen one,” but if you’ve got a strong work ethic and a great imagination, you might just have the edge it takes to rise above the rest.
So, it’s not really magic, and it’s not really a percent. It’s more like a piece of a probability equation. Are you more likely to get published if you’re “talented?” Well, that depends on if you have the real “it-factor.” And I think you know what that is.
~Marina
P.S. Totally my opinion, you're welcome to state yours too!
Number of rejections, goal of 100: 6
If we assume that everybody is a roiling mass of neuroses shaped by their biology and environment, than we can also define a "talent for X" as "having a mass of neuroses favorable to enjoying doing X".
ReplyDeleteThat is to say, if I happen to enjoy isolating myself and tapping out words from my fickle dreams for hours on end, it's more likely that I'll decide that's a good thing to engage in hard work and practice at.
On the other hand, if I enjoy standing in a field for hours on end progressing a ball into a net, hoop, hole, endzone: I might focus more on that.
Smart Work and Practice is still almost certainly the key factor, but the groundwork is a favorable environment.
Totally agree with this, Marina.
ReplyDeletePeople get very upset about this subject, but I think that's largely because of how polarized the matter is -- as you put it, that talent either exists or doesn't.
I think skills like writing and observing the world are just that -- skills, which one is born with. Creativity, on the other hand, is likely fostered at a much younger age. I know for me, personally, my imagination developed a great deal -- or so I've always believed; perhaps I'm just arrogant and ignorant -- at a very young age because of specific circumstances. The grade school teachers I had, my parents, and the things that interested me very early on in life (LEGOs, Star Wars, drawing) all pointed to an innate desire to be creative.
Whether or not these kinds of things _are_ innate or not is certainly something worth debating, but I think I always had a sense that there was some reason why I could draw well, and build impressive LEGO creations, at an extremely early age. People told me I was creative, and I guess I've always believed them -- which has led me to feeling confident that I have a shot at being successful as a writer.
So, maybe, it's really confidence that's important.
Murky waters, certainly, but I think they're worth exploring.
Both of you make very good points.
ReplyDeleteEnvironment: I'd definitely call it a factor. And desire-- though I think people's desires most often reflect their abilities (I'm not very good at math, ergo I don't care for it). Or, at least, what they perceive to be their abilities.
Confidence in your abilities is a must.
And then there's the question of what part of it really is nurture and what part is nature. For example, say your parents like sci-fi, so you like sci-fi, but do you like it because they taught you to like it or because it's in the genes they passed on to you? Is liking Sci-fi nature for some and nurture for others?
This probability equation's got quite a few variables.
Greetings! I wanted to come over and say "hi" to another scifi writer. Congratulations on the WoTF finalist spot! Have you heard yet?
ReplyDeleteI've been enjoying your blog, I feel that we sometimes think alike. Your questioning of whether love of scifi comes from nature or nurture (just above) made me laugh. What would you call it when someone likes scifi despite their parents not? In their blood from a recessive gene, or nurture from the wider environment? I'm teasing, of course.
I'm very much of the opinion that, while you might have a natural inclination towards something, hard work and the honing of your skills make up for the bulk of it. Nearly everything is nature AND nurture, and you're right that people get too worked up over where to draw the line.
Anyway, I just wanted to introduce myself, and you're welcome over at Science Fiction Mommy. It looks like we know a few of the same people. Best of luck with your rejections goal! I only count for individual pieces so I have no idea what I'm at. I've made one sale, but it's semi-pro payment and in the "waiting for the anthology to appear" stage. Good luck!
Hi there! Glad to e-meet you.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the congrats. Nope, no word yet. I got the call on the 27th or something of July, so it's been a while. Long enough that I've stopped stressing about the results, that's a plus :-)
I like the idea of sci-fi as a recessive gene!
I'm glad you're enjoying my blog (yay, people read something I write, lol). I'll head right over to check yours out :-)
Here's a couple perspectives on talent that I'm partial to:
ReplyDelete1) The "hand of cards" theory, wherein all writers get dealt a few cards that they're naturally good at -- say, characterization and prose -- and they have to work to collect others, like world-building and plot structure (first articulated by Elizabeth Bear, I believe)
2) "Talent" isn't the skill itself so much as the ability to learn the skill. Talent affects how fast you learn how to write, but talent and hard work are effectively interchangeable -- it's possible to get by with one or the other, but most people use a combination of both.
Ah, "hand of cards," I like it. I think that describes people--and their abilities in general--very well.
ReplyDelete