Technique vs. Talent

[damppanties]

Recently I've been thinking about which is more important. I've read stories where I sat back and admired the author for the perfect word used or the way the sentences were put, the editing, the flawless delivery, a turn of phrase and other such tricks, but at the end of it, that was all the story could be admired for. It's like the author concentrates a lot on the words, and in doing so, forgets about the story.

And then there have been stories that were written very simply - no big words, simple sentences, okay dialogue, but were full of feeling and emotions. They moved me by the time I came to the end, and when I thought back, there was nothing special about the writing. Thinking more about it, these stories could be refined by using a good editor, but putting some soul in your story or making the reader 'feel', could that be taught or is it more a matter of being born with talent?

If you could have one or the other, which would you choose - writing a technically perfect story where you could dazzle the reader with well-chosen words and perfect writing or a story that wasn't very great writing-wise but affected your readers emotionally?

 

[Typo Fu Master]

Assuming there weren't many, if any, spelling mistakes, I'd rather be in the second category. I want my reader to really get in to the story, and if I had created a flawless masterpiece that made everyone go "ho-hum" it would be very disappointing.

My writing style is aimed at people who don't want to go to the dictionary every couple of paragraphs just to keep up with the plot. Sure, there are more eloquent ways of expressing the same thought, but sometimes (and in my opinion a lot of times) it isn't necessary.

 

[Recidiva]

I'd rather have talent.

Take dancing. I would rather watch someone with a sheer joy for it, than someone who is technically brilliant. Too much brilliant can often mean glaring and cold.

 

[damppanties]

Assuming there weren't many, if any, spelling mistakes, I'd rather be in the second category. I want my reader to really get in to the story, and if I had created a flawless masterpiece that made everyone go "ho-hum" it would be very disappointing.

My writing style is aimed at people who don't want to go to the dictionary every couple of paragraphs just to keep up with the plot. Sure, there are more eloquent ways of expressing the same thought, but sometimes (and in my opinion a lot of times) it isn't necessary.

No spelling mistakes at all. The second category is a place where you write satisfactorily. But the focus is on the story, not the writing. I hope you're getting me. There are no mistakes in the writing (that's why I mentioned editors). It's just that no one ever gets jealous of you and says, "Damn! I wish I could have used that word to put that thought across exactly that way" after reading a sentence, as it would happen with the first category authors' stories.

 

[Guest]

Recently I've been thinking about which is more important. I've read stories where I sat back and admired the author for the perfect word used or the way the sentences were put, the editing, the flawless delivery, a turn of phrase and other such tricks, but at the end of it, that was all the story could be admired for. It's like the author concentrates a lot on the words, and in doing so, forgets about the story.

And then there have been stories that were written very simply - no big words, simple sentences, okay dialogue, but were full of feeling and emotions. They moved me by the time I came to the end, and when I thought back, there was nothing special about the writing. Thinking more about it, these stories could be refined by using a good editor, but putting some soul in your story or making the reader 'feel', could that be taught or is it more a matter of being born with talent?

If you could have one or the other, which would you choose - writing a technically perfect story where you could dazzle the reader with well-chosen words and perfect writing or a story that wasn't very great writing-wise but affected your readers emotionally?

I would hope that I have at least alittle of the former but I want without a doubt that latter....
I want the reader to fall in love or hate or something with what I am writing...
I put my heart into what I am writing, my soul follows... I want something wild and wicked, dreamy and breathtaking... but because of the story not the fact that I can use fifteen dollar words

 

[Guest]

.....

 

[FallingToFly]

I'd want the talent, tempered with the technique. Here and there I've managed to grab the coattails of one or the other for a short ride, but for the most part, I fall somewhere in the middle.

Of course, I could never pick just one - greener pastures over the fence and all - but I've had people compliment me on both, but the compliments I appreciate the most are the "I loved this, because what you wrote ws what my heart was trying to find a way to say." The feedback emails I've gotten for "The Heart of the Matter" are that kind of thing, but in reading it, there's nothing technically brilliant about it. It's a very simple, and very sad letter, and although I have trouble remembering the specifics of writing it, I can read it, and that moment suddenly becomes crystal clear in my mind and heart.

So... eh, I have the talent, at times, and sometimes I have the techniques. I'm blessed to have a little of both, and if I ever get them both in the same place at once, watch out!

 

[angelicminx]

My dream is to make the reader laugh out loud...or cry heart wrenching tears...or have to turn on every light in the house-and turn on everything that makes noise- ... sometimes all within the same story.

Oh, to have the reader become one with my words... the ultimate gift.

I have read several novels which accomplished that task for me, and let me tell you, upon review of their 'technical' skill I found it to be just a little above average. But to look back on the authors whose skill is flawless, yawn. While the stories may be good, there is nothing to remember and nothing to make me wish the story never ended.

The 'phenomenal' writers are the ones who make me react to their tale, no matter where I am. If I am in the middle of a physician's waiting room and am so involved in a story I forget where I am...heaven. I am a very self-conscious person, I am almost always aware, and almost always able to control my reactions. (PMS an exception )

Can it be taught, good Lord I hope so. Shanglan? I'm ready for my lessons. I have found no one better, here on Lit. I have found a few who are close, but IMO Shanglan surpasses them all. Don't get me wrong, there are excellent authors here, but Shanglan has what I look for in a phenomenal read (and has the 'technical' skill too ).

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Recently I've been thinking about which is more important. I've read stories where I sat back and admired the author for the perfect word used or the way the sentences were put, the editing, the flawless delivery, a turn of phrase and other such tricks, but at the end of it, that was all the story could be admired for. It's like the author concentrates a lot on the words, and in doing so, forgets about the story.

And then there have been stories that were written very simply - no big words, simple sentences, okay dialogue, but were full of feeling and emotions. They moved me by the time I came to the end, and when I thought back, there was nothing special about the writing. Thinking more about it, these stories could be refined by using a good editor, but putting some soul in your story or making the reader 'feel', could that be taught or is it more a matter of being born with talent?

If you could have one or the other, which would you choose - writing a technically perfect story where you could dazzle the reader with well-chosen words and perfect writing or a story that wasn't very great writing-wise but affected your readers emotionally?

Ever since I was a little girl, I enjoyed drawing, and I was damned good at it. From kindergarten to high school, I always aced on art classes, top marks all around. My colleagues and family loved my drawings and paintings, my teachers wrote notes to my parents recommending that I should pursue a degree in arts. I was talented.

By the time I got to university, everyone in my class was equally talented - or else we would never had made it there. We had all grown up as the finest artist of our circle of friends, many had even picked high schools with specially prepared advanced art classes.

On our first year at uni, we had a compulsory drawing class - considered one of the more complete and demanding in Europe. It took as all less than a fortnight to realise we could have had all the talent in the world, but we really couldn't draw shit. All we knew was instinct, and while instinct and practise is enough to draw good pieces, emotional pieces, dazzling pieces, it would never be enough to draw a masterpiece.

After two years in that class, each of us could look back on what we had drawn until high school and have trouble recognising it as our own. That's how much difference technique can make.

The same thing applies to writing, I believe. Having talent is paramount to being a good writer. If you have excellent technique and no feel for thing, you can probably reach a level similar to the talented one without technique. More likely, though, you'll be able to fool people into believing you're way better than that: good technique includes the know-how to make stories feel alive, even if they're not. But I seriously doubt anyone can write something really good, I doubt anyone can write a masterpiece without a heavy dose of both talent and technique.

 

[impressive]

If you could have one or the other, which would you choose - writing a technically perfect story where you could dazzle the reader with well-chosen words and perfect writing or a story that wasn't very great writing-wise but affected your readers emotionally?

If I had to choose, I wouldn't write at all. Both are necessary, at least in some measure.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Technique can be larned. Talent can not. You either have the imagination to weave a spell binding story or you do not. If you do, you can apply yourself to learning the skills you need to sharpen the telling. The reverse is not true. If you have the skills, but lack the imagnitive adaptability you just can't go and make yourself learn to imagine.

So i would choose the talent and then apply myself to mastering the techniques.

 

[S-Des]

The grass is always greener

I doubt anyone would classify my writing as technically brilliant (I'm not even sure about the talent part, but I know it's better than my technical ability). However, I have received a number of comments from people telling me how moved they are by one of my stories. To me, that's the highest compliment I'm going to get.

On the other hand, I'm incredibly envious of the writers on this site who understand the subtle art of crafting a story with details, insightful dialogue and just the right amount of character developement. Lauren's comment was very good. I wish would have understood when I was younger that I would come to enjoy this. I would have tried to work on the technical aspects in college and probably be a much better writer. Since that's not the case, I'll enjoy what I can do and admire what I can't.

 

[Goldie Munro]

Talent is always the best thing to have but I think you have to be talented with creaitivity and technique - one without the other really just wont work. Although, I think a creative talent will always shine through regardless of the technique - a talented technique without the creativity would be boring!

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Ever since I was a little girl, I enjoyed drawing, and I was damned good at it. From kindergarten to high school, I always aced on art classes, top marks all around. My colleagues and family loved my drawings and paintings, my teachers wrote notes to my parents recommending that I should pursue a degree in arts. I was talented.

By the time I got to university, everyone in my class was equally talented - or else we would never had made it there. We had all grown up as the finest artist of our circle of friends, many had even picked high schools with specially prepared advanced art classes.

On our first year at uni, we had a compulsory drawing class - considered one of the more complete and demanding in Europe. It took as all less than a fortnight to realise we could have had all the talent in the world, but we really couldn't draw shit. All we knew was instinct, and while instinct and practise is enough to draw good pieces, emotional pieces, dazzling pieces, it would never be enough to draw a masterpiece.

After two years in that class, each of us could look back on what we had drawn until high school and have trouble recognising it as our own. That's how much difference technique can make.

The same thing applies to writing, I believe. Having talent is paramount to being a good writer. If you have excellent technique and no feel for thing, you can probably reach a level similar to the talented one without technique. More likely, though, you'll be able to fool people into believing you're way better than that: good technique includes the know-how to make stories feel alive, even if they're not. But I seriously doubt anyone can write something really good, I doubt anyone can write a masterpiece without a heavy dose of both talent and technique.

Your art school experience reminds me of what my husband tells me about when he went to art school... little fish in a big pond... and of course, hours and hours and hours of drawing, practice practice practice...

writing is no different, actually... it takes doing it, day after day after day... and you can lose skill, after a while, if you don't use it... it comes back, but it can take time...

 

[Guest]

I'm afraid I find the question asked one of those questions that can't really be answered. I find the two exist in tandem -- one is useless without the other, although they rarely exist in perfect balance. No darkness without light, no sound without silence -- all of one and none of the other isn't really possible or desireable. It's like nature vs nurture -- putting the two into opposition is more specious than useful in creating understanding of either.

There are many successful, well read authors who are, after analysis, gifted with only a little of what is usually called talent. They have technique and skill, and that carries a long way. They will never be geniuses. They will be competent writers. Sometimes that's all a reader wants. A little talent can be spun into good writing (or art, or music, or dance or most anything else) by dedicated application of technique.

There are many geniuses who, because they do not take time to perfect the nuts and bolts of their chosen art, will never be recognised. Their great talents come forth in occasional bursts but are lost on most, or simply vanish altogether. A little technique, however, can help all that genius take form, to bloom and blossom.

And technique does not always mean flashy word useage, complex expressions, or a flowery writing style, or even anything one would notice as "technique". Sometimes the real technique is in writing so that one's writing is transparent, and just the story shows through, in the same way that some painters would rather you notice the image they present over the method they use to present the image. Those stories you read that you find to be "without technique" might simply have a very subtle -- and very carefully crafted -- technique.

So, as one other very wise woman here posted, if I had not both, I'd prefer neither (which, according to some, may be the case!)

 

[3113]

Every single answer you get is going to be either:
1) Talent
2) Both Talent and Technique

There's no a single writer on this forum, unless they're a fool, who's going to say, "I take just technique." That simply means you can write clearly and well enough for the reader to understand and be engaged, but not, as you define it, be emotionally involved. And I don't think there's anyone on this forum who is not ambitious enough to want to engage their readers emotionally, to make the story stick in their minds...not just have SOME of them go, "Hm, what a clear and well-put together sentence."

Honestly, it's a foregone conclusion.

But here's the rub....There are books on the best sellers list that have neither. Cardboard characters that don't engage, cliché plots, flat settings, no talent, no technique. And that's the real question to ask: how does a lack of talent and technique still manage to succeed, sometimes overwhelmingly?

 

[TxRad]

Technique vs. Talent

Sometimes being a hack is it's own rewards.... You don't have to worry about such things.... I just write and let my editor clean up the mess.... she has a big dust pan and broom with my name on it....

I'm a story teller and since my education is lacking in some areas, mostly in the English language area... I'll have to go with the Talent part....

 

[Guest]

But here's the rub....There are books on the best sellers list that have neither. Cardboard characters that don't engage, cliché plots, flat settings, no talent, no technique. And that's the real question to ask: how does a lack of talent and technique still manage to succeed, sometimes overwhelmingly?

Oooo! Ooooo! Can I answer, Mz 3113? Pick me!


Mediocrity sells.


No, really, I'm not being flip. The middle of the road is a wide strip. Those who hang on the edge on either side stand a chance of being offensive or incomprehensible to some extent to the larger portion of consumers. You gain a larger audience if you aren't too challenging, too likely to stir up animosity, too likely to make people think things they aren't going to want to think or feel what they don't want to feel. You aren't going for a true "wide appeal -- having large numbers of people think you are the ultimate, best thing. You want a large number of people to think you aren't AWFUL. You don't want to be great -- great is a narrow spot on which to stand. You want to be just adequate.

There's also some built in lowering of standards. Face it, once upon a time, what was great literature was decided by an elite minority who had the time, interest and power to select what met their very stringet standards. We no longer approve of elitism. It's a bad thing. The common man is the target, and the common man (whatever he is, and I suspect we don't really know) likes common things. Common things are things most anyone can access, perform, do...

Thus, common fiction.

It's the only explanation I can come up with to explain fast food, commercial television, best seller lists, Top 40 radio, and fashion.

 

[damppanties]

I'm afraid I find the question asked one of those questions that can't really be answered. I find the two exist in tandem -- one is useless without the other, although they rarely exist in perfect balance. No darkness without light, no sound without silence -- all of one and none of the other isn't really possible or desireable. It's like nature vs nurture -- putting the two into opposition is more specious than useful in creating understanding of either.

Oooh. You said nurture vs. nature. That's one of the thoughts I had when I asked this question. Another was - the whole is more than the sum of its parts.

I'm not saying you have to choose one at the cost of the other. You'd be good with one and great with the other with whatever you choose. I'm aware that both are important, but which do you think is more important?

Also, the earlier, related question that so many are missing is - can putting soul in your writing be taught?

I notice that most of us concentrate more on technique here. Most of the feedback or critique that I ask for and receive from authors here is about technique. Does that mean people in the AH generally assume that there's talent and it doesn't need to be nurtured? (Or is it impolite to say, 'you could never make it, you don't have it. Stop writing.' )

And technique does not always mean flashy word useage, complex expressions, or a flowery writing style, or even anything one would notice as "technique". Sometimes the real technique is in writing so that one's writing is transparent, and just the story shows through, in the same way that some painters would rather you notice the image they present over the method they use to present the image.

Too true.

Those stories you read that you find to be "without technique" might simply have a very subtle -- and very carefully crafted -- technique.

Not the case here. I have specific people in mind when I started talking about this, but please, I won't name them because they probably wouldn't want to be dissected. Friends, they don't know much about the language, leave alone trying to 'craft' a story. But what they have is raw talent that shows through with whatever they write and you forgive them their little typos because at the end of the story you're in love with the characters or crying for them or railing about the injustice done to them... and not raving about the way they put it across.

 

[damppanties]

Every single answer you get in answer to this is going to be either:
1) Talent
2) Both Talent and Technique

There's no a single writer on this forum, unless they're a fool, who's going to say, "I take just technique." That simply means you can write clearly and well enough for the reader to understand and be engaged, but not, as you define it, be emotionally involved. And I don't think there's anyone on this forum who is not ambitious enough to want to engage their readers emotionally, to make the story stick in their minds...not just have SOME of them go, "Hm, what a clear and well-put together sentence."

Honestly, it's a foregone conclusion.

*grin*

Yes, I realised that. But you know, as I pointed out in the response to malachiteink, in the AH, we rather go gaga over technique most of the time. Trying to jump through hoops or do trapeze acts rather than write a decent story that engages readers emotionally. Why do you think that happens? Or am I just not seeing the other bit?

 

[damppanties]

Mediocrity sells.


No, really, I'm not being flip. The middle of the road is a wide strip. Those who hang on the edge on either side stand a chance of being offensive or incomprehensible to some extent to the larger portion of consumers. You gain a larger audience if you aren't too challenging, too likely to stir up animosity, too likely to make people think things they aren't going to want to think or feel what they don't want to feel. You aren't going for a true "wide appeal -- having large numbers of people think you are the ultimate, best thing. You want a large number of people to think you aren't AWFUL. You don't want to be great -- great is a narrow spot on which to stand. You want to be just adequate.

You know, this paragraph reminded me of a newsletter I used to get. It was supposed to encourage you to write a novel and publish it, and the great advice being given was --
1. Decide on the category you want to write in. Eg: Horror, thriller, sci-fi, romance, etc.
2. Go to your nearest bookshop and pick up a book of the same genre that said 'Bestseller' on its cover.
3. Buy it. Take it home. Copy the plot. Just the plot.
4. Change something in it. Eg: If the story in the book happened in the 1960s, make it happen in 2060 in your book.
5. Write it and send it to a publisher.
...and you have a bestseller on your hands. The logic was - what worked once will work again. Publishers are looking for the same kind of material and rarely go for untested storylines, blah blah blah...

 

[Guest]

Oooh. You said nurture vs. nature. That's one of the thoughts I had when I asked this question. Another was - the whole is more than the sum of its parts.

I'm not saying you have to choose one at the cost of the other. You'd be good with one and great with the other with whatever you choose. I'm aware that both are important, but which do you think is more important?

That's what my point is -- either they both are, or neither are. I just can't get behind the idea that one is more important than the other, based on my own experience (which is all I have by which to judge).

I notice that most of us concentrate more on technique here. Most of the feedback or critique that I ask for and receive from authors here is about technique. Does that mean people in the AH generally assume that there's talent and it doesn't need to be nurtured? (Or is it impolite to say, 'you could never make it, you don't have it. Stop writing.' )

I think you've answered your own question in that. What can one do about talent? What does it mean to "nurture" talent? Isn't that just nature? How can you do anything about what you were born with (or not born with!)? Technique is perhaps the only thing in the writing equation that that can be worked on and improved through application, practice, study, and getting feedback from others.

Not the case here. I have specific people in mind when I started talking about this, but please, I won't name them because they probably wouldn't want to be dissected. Friends, they don't know much about the language, leave alone trying to 'craft' a story. But what they have is raw talent that shows through with whatever they write and you forgive them their little typos because at the end of the story you're in love with the characters or crying for them or railing about the injustice done to them... and not raving about the way they put it across.

Again, your experience exceeds mine. I've never -- I say that without doubt, in caps, NEVER -- run across a story that moved me that didn't display some manner of craft, even if simple and basic. Chances are that I won't wade through something that makes me work too hard to cypher out meaning.

Honestly, I'm not a huge fan of stories that try to grab me by the emotion without engaging my mind. I don't like them and they tend to get the wall treatment from me. I've read plenty of books that excited me, angered me, elated me, made me cry or made me laugh -- but that wasn't all that was going on.

It might also be a problem in the definitions of "talent" and "technique". For me, a talent is less definable. It's the ability to do something surprising and do it with ease (which may be a misnomer -- there's every indication that even geniuses suffer and worry over their art). Technique is not necessarily something one studies in class, but that one might absorb through extensive reading and perhaps less consiously incorporate into writing.

It all gets at least a little metaphyiscal around this point, and definately into the hard-to-talk-about area here. How about this?

I attended a writing workshop all day on Sunday, at which several poets read. I enjoy poetry and read a lot of it. Of the three poets, all got raves from the other authors for their "emotion". I didn't feel it. I DID see some transparent attempts to MAKE me feel certain things, but I was not engaged enough to share those feelings. There were gooey images of a little girl and a dying baby bird, a starving mother and baby, etc -- things calculated on their surface to make me react, and to which I did not because they were so obvious -- no technique, you might say. One poet, however, did that for me, and she did it by going for both my head and my heart. She presented images that were NOT automatically emotional triggers, and she put them in a particular context that made me think about them so that, once I touched on them *poof* out came the emotion. But she didn't demand it from me, in the foot stamping, tantrumy way the other two did.

So does that illustrate anything other than I'm a hardhearted intellectual?

 

[Liar]

If I only had one, I would do something else with my time than write.

Because one without a reasonable amount of the other will make what I write unreadable or pointless anyway. And if you don't have basic skills,chances are you won't even know you have storytelling talent.

And yes, storytelling talent isn't smething you're born with IMO, but something you learn. It's not taught by reading instructions in a textbook, but by experience. Listen to and read a lot of stories. Make an effort to observe the world around you. Be on a lookout for the unusual in every situation you encounter. And tell our own tales. Practice and practice. i believe everybody has that talent to communicate through stories, and it's those that are raised to nurture that, (plus learn good technique) that become great storytellers.

 

[3113]

I notice that most of us concentrate more on technique here. Most of the feedback or critique that I ask for and receive from authors here is about technique. Does that mean people in the AH generally assume that there's talent and it doesn't need to be nurtured? (Or is it impolite to say, 'you could never make it, you don't have it. Stop writing.' )

It can't be taught because it involves tapping into yourself and your experiences. You have to have a sense of how you feel and think and experience first--then you can be taught how to express such feelings. But if you have no insights into such things, and want no insights into them, then how can you communicate them?

Here's a story--doesn't involve writing talent, but I think all talent for all things comparable: my brother's a math whiz. A natural math talent. He always has been. I took a college caculus class--I could not make sense of the homework. Figuring out how to solve them was a complete mystery to me. I'd show them to my brother (still in high school) and he'd say, "Oh, that's easy, obvious," and show me how to solve them. Once he showed me, it was "obvious," and I could do it.

Which was fine until I took the test at the end of the week. Then the problem presented looked nothing like the homework, because the teacher wanted to know if we REALLY understood how to solve these problems...not just the homework.

I failed. Every time. And I'd bring these tests home to my brother who'd say, "It's easy...."

That insight he had was one I didn't have. Like Sherlock Holmes, he had a talent for seeing what I could not. And I could be taught to examine a crime scene as he did and start to pick out things in that crime scene--but when given a new crime scene, I was at a loss. That talent he had to almost instinctively know where to look for answers in the problem was not something I had. He could help me see what he saw, but he couldn't give that sight to me.

I gave up on calculus and switched to literature. I remember the day my brother found a lit assignment of mine on the kitchen table: "How did you manage to write twenty pages on a fourteen-line poem?" he asked me, utterly bewiltered.

"It's easy," I said.

We each have our talents. And we can give others glimpses into it--but in the end, we can't give it or teach it to them, not if they don't have some hint of it as well.

 

[Liar]

It can't be taught because it involves tapping into yourself and your experiences.

Which, I believe can be taught.