I love reading. And as far as my memory can take me back, reading has always been a huge part of my life...

Lately I have been thinking about writing myself. Tho I am not so bad at expressing myself with words, when I think about writing stories of my own -- I fear I may lack talent in that area.

What I am wondering is, is writing for publishing a matter of talent or of practice? And where is a good place for a novice to start?

Think you have a story in you? Just start and see where it takes you.

Some people outline, others go at it in what seems to be a hap hazard way(this is me). Try both ways.

Writing is a path and each person needs to find the map to their path.

Try starting with a character or scene and see where it leads you.

1. You have to need to write (I don't think loving the idea of writing or loving the idea of getting published, for instance, will serve as a substitute)
2. You have to do a lot of writing, in a way that allows you to gather feedback and get better. OSC said at one point that he thinks every writer has a certain amount of not-so-great writing they have to get out before the good stuff starts flowing (my clumsy paraphrase), so the more you write, the sooner you get to the good stuff. The thing about feedback is my personal belief: If you don't get good information about what is and isn't effective about your writing, you'll progress more slowly (more sub-optimal writing to get through).
3. Sooner or later you have to start sending your work out, and when it gets rejected, you have to just send it out again to another market.

But there may be other things a person needs: I don't know who could answer the talent question itself, because who's to say whether a person isn't getting published because they haven't done enough writing yet (or haven't learned enough yet), or whether there are some basic characteristics that a person needs to be a good writer? Probably someone could answer that with a careful, really well-engineered study of aspiring writers who either later "make it" or don't.

Fortunately, it's possible to sidestep the entire question (says I), because either you have to write, so you will whether or somebody judges that you have talent, or you don't have to write, in which case you shouldn't (unless as a recreational activity). So if you can give up the idea, probably that's what you should do, and if you can't, go for it.

My two cents. Hope it was helpful.

Until you are a well established author, the idea of a lack of talent will always prevail. It does for me and a few other people. You _must_ dismiss this in your mind while you write.

Pick up Steven King's book, "On Writing". It is an excellant reference on what it means to be a writer and the work he put into the craft.

To become a writer you must do these things. First have the desire to write. It is a lonely, time consuming lifestyle where satisfication comes in small doses over a long time period.

Then you must study the rules of writing. Get ahold of a good website or book, ("Elements of style"), and learn everything you can about the rules so you can use and break them to fit the pace of your story.

Read as much as you can. Fill your head with words, phrases and stories so you know what to do or not to do.

And most important, writing equals butt in chair. Write. Write. Write. Find _your_ best method of producing and then drive it for all you have. It is the only way you can get better. When you write your first stories, they may not be very good, but think of them as game film where you can go back and look at them to find the weaknesses of your story so you can work on it.

Hope that helps,
(consumes his own advice)

It always comes down to what you know about yourself. If you know you can write well, then you will write well. If you know you can't write to save your life, anything you write will suck. And yet it'll still be you in each case, because it's a matter of truthful confidence. Richard Bach said it best in his book, [u]Illusions[/u]-- Argue for your limits, and sure enough, they're yours.

You can always decide what to believe about yourself.

Shasta

P.S. And about where to start-- start in the genre you like the most, and do something just for fun. Fun is the most important thing in the whole wide world, especially when you're learning something new.

Science bears this out - the more we use a particular skill, the more deeply embedded in our neural pathways that skill becomes -
So, recognition of a talent is a first step. Through persistent use, the talent deepens/broadens -

I've made this point before, but it won't be the first time I've repeated myself. No one thinks that they can pick up a violin and start playing, without practice, training, and/or some sort of talent. No one thinks they can paint a picture without some sort of talent. But a lot of people think they can just type some words onto paper and suddenly they're a writer. It doen't work that way. Just because you know English (or whatever your native language is) and are a good speller dosen't make you a writer.

It irritates me that people think that it doesn't require some sort of skill or talent. What I do and what I want to do for a living is not easy. NOT everyone can do it!!!!!! I think saying that writing doesn't require talnet diminishes the trade of being a wordsmith. I think those on this thread who don't believe they have a talent that not everyone poseses is either A. Not a writer or B. selling themselves sort.

Just MNSHO.

JOHN!

No, I can't play the violin. I don't have any training. But I am told that I'm as talented with visual arts as I am with writing.

To them I say, poppycock! All I'm doing is having fun and doing my honest best. It's all anyone can do. And you'd be amazed to see what anyone-- anyone at all-- can create when they let down the barriers and do just that.

Maybe I need to clarify what I mean about talent - I think of it as a god-given gift. A gift that will disappear if it is not used.

I don't think it is enough to have talent - or a calling, or a desire to write well. I think it needs to be coupled with hard work and persistence. I believe numerous people have said something similar many times - a great work of literature doesn't appear over night - it takes continuing hard work - dedication to a goal, a dream.

And of course, just having the ability to persist does not make for a great work of art. I think that comes from someplace deeper - however, that conversation was thoroughly hashed out in an earlier discussion.

DragynGide claims not to believe that "talent" is necessary to paint or play the violin well. This is, on the face of it, perfectly true. Any competent person that is willing to put in the effort can learn to play the violin or paint quite well, from a simple techincal perspective. Meaning that they can understand and to some degree apply most of the techniques of either art.

The same is obviously true of writing. The techniques can be learned by anyone with sufficient intelligence and will. That's why they are called "techniques", meaning "methods and procedures", or "a series of defined steps to follow."

Again, the audience--not the artist--determines whether art is "Great", but by definition, just achieving art (or "Art") is more than a matter of techniques.

So what is "talent"? How do you define it? Is it merely the native advantage that some individuals will derive from better hand-eye coordination, intelligence and memory, higher fast/slow twitch muscle ratios, and so forth? Is it some inner drive that sets the artist apart from the technician (lest any of you doubt which catagory I belong to...well, I think that most of you understand by now that I'm a high level technician, and only an aspirant to artistry)? Or are we talking about the internalization and seamless utilization of techniques to express a unique creative impulse?

Well, I used to paint, and paint well I am told. My mother has things of mine hanging onn her walls that people have asked--WOW who did that? In school I had things featured in art shows.

Then life interfeared and I did not paint for years--know what? I can't paint worth a darn anymore.

Writing---lol go back and read something you wrote ten years ago. I recently did this, in my last move. Good grief---the stuff I thought was good! Trash total trash.

So talent is there but if we don't use it, like an unused muscle it goes away.

If that is the case, then I believe I know exactly what "talent" really is. It's the result of a person's willingness and ability to let their truthful inner self flow out into their work. Everyone has it, and everyone should ideally be able to use it equally well. However many people inhibit themselves by false beliefs of talentlessness, false beliefs of their own lack of ability or worth, lack of bravery in opening themselves to the world, or simple lack of technical ability in their art of choice. That's why some people are regarded as "talented" while other people are not. People who seem to be "without talent" have just as much to give as the next person-- they just lack the ability to give it effectively.

That, just like any other skill, can be learned. But as it is an ephemeral skill that very few people in this world are adept at teaching, it becomes essential for one to know it's there before it becomes fully accessible.

So "talent" as a "certain something" that some people have and others don't, that can be lost but can never be conciously gained, does not in my opinion exist. Everyone's truthful inner self is beyond value, and everyone has that to give. It's just a matter of knowing how to give it.

I would say that 'talent' is not what you begin with, but, rather what you have in the end.

That is, when everything is all said and done, what have you produced?

I guarantee that at the age of three, all of our written works looked exactly the same. Until the age of 16-18, in fact, I would say that the calibre and relative quality, if we were to have put in equal effort, would be the same.

You don't just 'have it', you create it. Nobody just 'finds' talent, rather, it comes to them after some event (ex. Hemingway and 'The Sun Also Rises')
that moves a person in a way that inspires them to write.

I suppose this is because writing is probably the most 'human' of the humanities, and what I mean by this is that no great writer ever lacked experiences. Mediocre writers, maybe, but not great ones.
You can have an 'idiot savant' in almost any area of human learning; a person who is intellectually crippled in every aspect but one, but in which they are brilliant. You never find writers like that (or, at least, I have not. Nor have I ever heard of them {not that I'm the end all, but..}), and I think this is due to the fact that to write, you must be, for the most part, a complete person. You must be able to absorb then regurgitate the human condition in new and exciting ways.
We're all human, yes? And we all can experience the great human condition? I think so. Thus, I see no reason why almost every person on the planet is not capable of being a 'great' writer (most awkward sentence....EVER)

Anywho, that's just my idealistic opinion.

(p.s. Don't go see the new Bond movie. WORST FILM EVER)

I do NOT believe that a prerequisite for good writing is a great breadth of human experience. I've seen too much good writing that would strongly suggest otherwise.