Innate Talent vs Monkeys on Typewriters

[Meadow337]

Ok so I know I think of some weird questions at times and this is one of them. I use an onscreen 'subliminal' message system with positive affirmations and, after a fashion, it does have a positive effect. And this morning, now in fact, I was staring at the screen when I wondered if one had to program it (or other similar program) with positive affirmations about one's writing ability, if in fact, any one could write well/better if they believed they could (monkeys on typewriters theory) or does good writing come from some innate talent which can be improved by self belief and practice ('cos she does indeed make perfect) but not created?

What do you think? Can just any one write and given enough time and practice become 'good' (by whatever subjective or objective criteria one might define that) or do you need a basic innate talent which can be honed?

 

[sparkchaser]

Firstly, I think that the positive effect you are enjoying is more the placebo effect than a subliminal message, but hey, if it works, then why stop?

Answering you question, I think the answer lies in Malcolm Gladwell’s 10,000 Hours of Practice Theory. Of course, innate talent always helps and jives with Gladwell in that it reduces that 10,000 hours by a significant amount. On the flip side, some people will never be a successful/proficient no matter how much time and effort they spend.

 

[Meadow337]

10 000 hours of practice at any given endeavour will indeed improve your ability. I would counter that with what you believe is what you get.

I mean take for example the child who trots out a reasonably good sentence much to the pride of his/her parents who tell them 'you have an AMAZING talent. wow so wonderful' etc etc Do they have an innate ability to write or was it because they BELIEVE they do because of the positive affirmation? And the 10 000 hours practice that they were now motivated to actually do made them good?

 

[pontalba]

I have to vote for the placebo effect. Which is not a bad thing. Whatever works.

meadow wrote....Can just any one write and given enough time and practice become 'good' (by whatever subjective or objective criteria one might define that)

Well. I've heard "never say never", however, I doubt it seriously. Seriously doubt.

meadow wrote.... do you need a basic innate talent which can be honed?

If there is no spark to fan, there will be no fire. IMO

sparkchaser wrote.....On the flip side, some people will never be a successful/proficient no matter how much time and effort they spend.]

Have to agree.

 

[Meadow337]

I'm inclined to agree that if there is no basic talent to start with calling a lemon wonderful isn't going to make it great, but I also know that belief is a powerful motivator of reality. Take for example the various indigenous tribes who literally will themselves to death if they believe a curse has been placed against them.

An interesting example of the power of the placebo affect was a orthopedic surgeon who used to do two different knee surgeries but didn't know which was better, and wanted to find out, so a colleague suggested he do controlled study. And so he did a series of surgeries with one group receiving one surgery, another group receiving the other surgery and a control group receiving no surgery but 3 incisions to make it look like they did. The control group recovered as well as the other two groups in terms of reduction in pain and improved mobility and function.

Conclusion - belief is as powerful as surgery.

So yeah - its an interesting question to ponder. Would for example Tiger Woods or the Williams' sisters be world class athletes if their respective parents hadn't told them they were at very young and impressionable age? (all were started in their respective sports under the age of 5)

 

[Peder]

Depends what one means by "good" or "improving." In literary writing (however one defines that) there is clearly a wavering standard. I think Walt Whitman's poetry is a good example of work which moved from dissed to admired during the passage of time, all without changing a single word. If one means writing a clear expository sentence, then Faulkner is obviously hopeless and still hasn't learned.

 

[pontalba]

........Would for example Tiger Woods or the Williams' sisters be world class athletes if their respective parents hadn't told them they were at very young and impressionable age? (all were started in their respective sports under the age of 5)

Yes, they were all started very young, and that is the key to their success.

I'm not saying they are not talented. But tennis and golf, as is any sport, a training of muscles, strengthening of muscles, complete knowledge of what muscle does, what and how, and how to control them. If someone trains that early, and that strenuously and is pushed as those (mentioned) parents were........the outcome is practically inevitable.
It would take a strong minded and recalcitrant child/person to resist that parental push.

 

[Meadow337]

Depends what one means by "good" or "improving." In literary writing (however one defines that) there is clearly a wavering standard. I think Walt Whitman's poetry is a good example of work which moved from dissed to admired during the passage of time, all without changing a single word. If one means writing a clear expository sentence, then Faulkner is obviously hopeless and still hasn't learned.

I would add Shakespeare to the list of 'great due to the passage of time'.

 

[Meadow337]

Yes, they were all started very young, and that is the key to their success.

I'm not saying they are not talented. But tennis and golf, as is any sport, a training of muscles, strengthening of muscles, complete knowledge of what muscle does, what and how, and how to control them. If someone trains that early, and that strenuously and is pushed as those (mentioned) parents were........the outcome is practically inevitable.
It would take a strong minded and recalcitrant child/person to resist that parental push.

I couldn't think of a similar example from literature to use. Many artists also picked up brush or chalk when very young but I'm not convinced that the basic eye for colour and shape and form can be taught or brought into being with practice. Its like music - if you are tone deaf no amount of practice is going to change the fact you will never sing a note.

However good sentence construction can be taught, as can the way to construct a story etc and is imagination sufficient a requirement to be regarded as 'talent'? If you have ever had a day dream you have sufficient imagination to write at least a passingly good story which polished by a good editor could be regarded as 'good enough'.

 

[pontalba]

I couldn't think of a similar example from literature to use. Many artists also picked up brush or chalk when very young but I'm not convinced that the basic eye for colour and shape and form can be taught or brought into being with practice. Its like music - if you are tone deaf no amount of practice is going to change the fact you will never sing a note.

However good sentence construction can be taught, as can the way to construct a story etc and is imagination sufficient a requirement to be regarded as 'talent'? If you have ever had a day dream you have sufficient imagination to write at least a passingly good story which polished by a good editor could be regarded as 'good enough'.

Agreed. Mostly.

I do wonder though, about "good enough". Maybe, maybe not.
AIE: if an editor has to polish it that much....it isn't yours anymore. ??

 

[Peder]

Some day I will.
I will! I will!!

 

[Peder]

I would add Shakespeare to the list of 'great due to the passage of time'.

I think reading his predecessors makes that a hard statement to defend. At least IMO.

 

[Meadow337]

I think reading his predecessors makes that a hard statement to defend. At least IMO.

LOL I had an epiphany when I read Colin Wilson's opinion of Shakespeare.

AIE: if an editor has to polish it that much....it isn't yours anymore. ??

Well ... that is a slightly different discussion isn't it? How many books bear that close a resemblance to the first copy sent in? By the time it has gone through the mill of editing, making it marketable, etc I think there is a considerable change. Don't go into publishing if your attitude is 'this is my baby'.

Some day I will.
I will! I will!!

Change that to 'I know I can' and you have a shot at it! Just like the Little Engine that Could .... I know I can, I know I can, I know I can!

 

[pontalba]

Well ... that is a slightly different discussion isn't it? How many books bear that close a resemblance to the first copy sent in? By the time it has gone through the mill of editing, making it marketable, etc I think there is a considerable change. Don't go into publishing if your attitude is 'this is my baby'.

True enough.

 

[Sparhawk]

I think that you need a basic talent for writing. It is a bit like (to use meadow example) being an artist. Anyone can learn to draw a perfect circle, however it takes talent to make it INTERESTING.

 

[Lovecraftian]

No.

As long as by ‘good’ you mean ‘a really well-crafted first draft that would turn an agent’s head’. Some folks just cannot spell to save their own lives, and they write terribly no matter how hard they try. It’s the same reason I can’t do more than elementary math: I’m just not cut out for it.



But I believe that someone who has a little talent can work and make that talent grow. You just can’t make a football player out of a basketball star.

 

[Conscious Bob]

Self belief gets a lot of writers through the tough times and rejection is a part of the process. I don't think sportspeople are a good comparison though, their achievements are not subjective to consensus.

 

[Meadow337]

No.

As long as by ‘good’ you mean ‘a really well-crafted first draft that would turn an agent’s head’. Some folks just cannot spell to save their own lives, and they write terribly no matter how hard they try. It’s the same reason I can’t do more than elementary math: I’m just not cut out for it.

But I believe that someone who has a little talent can work and make that talent grow. You just can’t make a football player out of a basketball star.

I'm inclined to agree with this however still feel the power of belief shouldn't be dismissed so lightly because it is true to say that a person of talent, no matter how great, is never going to realise that talent if they believe themselves to be useless.

Self belief gets a lot of writers through the tough times and rejection is a part of the process. I don't think sportspeople are a good comparison though, their achievements are not subjective to consensus.

I agree, I just couldn't think of any writers who had started writing as a child to use as a suitable example. I wasn't really trying to draw a comparison but give an example of what I meant.

 

[sparkchaser]

I can think of one budding writer who probably did indeed put in 10,000 hours and he still sucks.

I think praise and boosted self-confidence will only take you so far. At a certain point, if you never had the talent for it, you will plateau.

 

[Meadow337]

I can think of one budding writer who probably did indeed put in 10,000 hours and he still sucks.

I think praise and boosted self-confidence will only take you so far. At a certain point, if you never had the talent for it, you will plateau.

well given the awfulness of some books that get published - that may well be 'good enough'.