Technique vs. Talent

[Honey123]

Funny, I'm having this same conversation with MyNeuroticSnail via PM.

He/she basically doesn't think I have it...talent and/or technique.

but, what I write, I write for me...

I never claimed to have the talent nor the technique.

 

[Belegon]

Funny, I'm having this same conversation with MyNeuroticSnail via PM.

He/she basically doesn't think I have it...talent and/or technique.

but, what I write, I write for me...

I never claimed to have the talent nor the technique.

*cough* Bullshit *cough*

http://english.literotica.com/stories/showstory.php?id=209610

http://english.literotica.com/stories/showstory.php?id=164019

http://english.literotica.com:81/stories/showstory.php?id=236921

 

[neonlyte]

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.' )

Technique kills me. I can learn it, but it can stifle what I'm trying to tell. Most of the comments on AH on technique go way over my head, I concentrate on what I want to say and try to find the right 'voice' with which to say it. I started writing a scant three years ago, before that, the last serious writing I did was at university thirty-five years earlier. Mab's critiqued the first thing I wrote. Ignorance is bliss, as a lurker and reader I was, and remain, in awe of Mab's and asked him if he'd read my scribble, he was supportive, encouraging and suggested a couple of changes. he expressed some shock that I'd not written anything previously. On my last story, amoungst other things, he said 'The maturity and understanding makes this one much more than just porn. This is erotic literature as it should be, and I'm really awestruck.' Yet I'm sure he knows, as well as I do, that the writing is technically flawed. What he and others saw, is the story transcending the technical imperfections. It is not a trick, or a subvertive technique, it is the way I write. I know I'm breaking rules, I shouldn't have the experience or authority to break rules, but I do.

Someone once criticised me mildly for writing a sentence in a story with 193 words, on another story the same person commented, 'it was like walking a high wire', and that is what emotion portrayal is for me, it is high wire act, you don't stop to think, or pause, or take a deep breathe, stop, start over. You're intent on the moment, trying to capture that in words means, for me, that I will break the rules. At least people notice.

If people are taught to put 'soul' into their writing, it is, in my opinion, just another technique, an application of keywords, structure, 'voice'. It may find a home with the majority readership Mal talks about, and hell wouldn't we all like to do that; but I am comforted by reading Jeanettte Winterson last night, re-reading Written On The Body a wonderful passionate emotional tale where the writing breaks every rule made by those who teach writing.

 

[Recidiva]

Funny, I'm having this same conversation with MyNeuroticSnail via PM.

He/she basically doesn't think I have it...talent and/or technique.

but, what I write, I write for me...

I never claimed to have the talent nor the technique.

You have a personal troll! That's so sweet

I'm jealous.

 

[3113]

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

Oh, GAWD! I hate that. Right there with ya, Dawg!

It's almost like someone said to such writers, "When in doubt, have someone kick a puppy. Your audience will cry and think you're brilliant!"

Somehow, making a reader sniffle is all that's need to trick most of them into thinking a story is good. I've read some badly, badly written stuff that got cheers and standing ovations from readers for doing nothing more than making them shed a tear.

Though I suppose it's pretty hypocritical of me to condemn such. I've got some weepy stories posted in the Romance section right here...but I swear (and here we get to technique), I'd never put out anything so sloppy or mechanically sappy as some that I've seen. I'll happy and knowing tug at heartstrings (and maybe, to another writer's eyes, transparently so), but my pride would suffer if I ever put out anything that didn't do so on a professional level, and with some surprises and twists.

 

[gauchecritic]

Application of technique is also a talent.

There are various techniques which a writer can be taught but can only be shown their application. Someone might say "This story needs a love scene" the author then (having decided to accept the advice) has to choose where, how intensely and for how long the love scene lasts.

Plot devices, imagery, alliteration, echoing, backstory are all techniques, the talent is having them appear magically whilst you're writing, without volition and without forethought to enhance the story.

Having thought about it, application probably is the talent.

 

[3113]

Someone once criticised me mildly for writing a sentence in a story with 193 words, on another story the same person commented, 'it was like walking a high wire', and that is what emotion portrayal is for me, it is high wire act, you don't stop to think, or pause, or take a deep breathe, stop, start over. You're intent on the moment, trying to capture that in words means, for me, that I will break the rules. At least people notice.

The question is "Do you know the rules"? It's fine to break the rules if you know what you are doing--if that makes the high wire act work and keeps you balanced up there. It's quite another to grab the wire and go hand over hand because you don't know the rules and all you want is not to fall.

You don't splatter paint on a canvass and call it art until you first know how to paint a real picture--thus making that splatter intentional, breaking the rules for a purpose and an important one at that.

 

[Honey123]

You have a personal troll! That's so sweet

I'm jealous.

Curious as to why I was picked out...I'll have to ask when he replies to my PM.

I don't mind the criticism...I mean, if I want to write better, all criticism helps, right?

I'd quote what he/she wrote, which makes sense....but not without permission...I'm nice that way

 

[3113]

Which, I believe can be taught.

You misunderstand. Talent is in being able to extrapolate. You can teach people basics--how to say, "I feel angry," when they're angry rather than saying nothing. But that doesn't mean that they know how to express other emotions unless you teach them that, too. Or that once you teach them, that they can expand and develop on what they've learned.

ONE does not lead to the other. Just like my bother showing me how to answer the homework questions didn't lead me to being able to answer the test questions. Now if I'd had some latent talent for calculus, his showing me how to answer the homework questions could have made me go, "OH, wow! I get it now!" and suddenly I'd be off and running.

But no matter how many times he showed me how to do answer those homework questions--and I could do them on my own once he showed me the first one--nothing ever caught fire. I had not the TALENT to extrapolate beyond that basic learning.

Ditto with tapping into your experiences and emotions. You can be taught to reach back in your memory and describe what you remember and know: "Everyone spoke with this flat dialect." But that doesn't mean you can write: "The local accent is barbed with a praire twang." (From: In Cold Blood by Truman Capote).

That instinct, knowing what words will not only bring the twang to people's ears but give them a feel that there is a barbed wire to it which seperates out who belongs and who does not...that's not something that can be taught. No more than Mozart could be taught exactly how the Queen of the Night needed to sing her song in "The Magic Flute" to get across her character, or Van Gogh could have been taught the right way to create brush swirls so that his "Starry Night" captures both the feel of that night as well as the landscape.

You can teach Dr. Watson to be more observant but you can't teach him how to be Sherlock Holmes.

 

[Recidiva]

Curious as to why I was picked out...I'll have to ask when he replies to my PM.

I don't mind the criticism...I mean, if I want to write better, all criticism helps, right?

I'd quote what he/she wrote, which makes sense....but not without permission...I'm nice that way

Probably why they're your personal troll.

You're too sweet.

I wouldn't be

 

[neonlyte]

The question is "Do you know the rules"? It's fine to break the rules if you know what you are doing--if that makes the high wire act work and keeps you balanced up there. It's quite another to grab the wire and go hand over hand because you don't know the rules and all you want is not to fall.

You don't splatter paint on a canvass and call it art until you first know how to paint a real picture--thus making that splatter intentional, breaking the rules for a purpose and an important one at that.

We may be talking about different rules. Or interpretation. The rules I become hung up on are largely tense/person orientated. I write in ignorance of a detailed understand of that class of 'rule'. The person who pulls me up on it is my wife, English is her second language, classically taught, and from a Latin language background, she is a stickler. I can only remember one comment out of three hundred story comments on Lit who found problems. The rules I tend to break are within the structure of sentence and the use of language, isolated and with purpose, the trick is to make sure you're standing on the wire and not dangling from beneath.

Art is whole other kettle of fish, the conventional procees to experimentation with visual art is precisely as you say, I could argue that first experiment with a new (to the artist) visual form involves tearing up the rule book and starting over. Many artists who dramatically change visual style also change medium, you can see this in any major retrospective of a twentieth century artist where the opportunity for experimentation in new media became open to them. Basic rules apply, technique can be, and often is, entirely different. My wife is a sculptor, following major wrist surgery she can no longer work in the medium of sculpture and has changed to video as a medium.

 

[zeb1094]

Probably why they're your personal troll.

You're too sweet.

I wouldn't be

I have one of those! We emailed back and forth for a while. The problem was he wasn't critiqueing my writing, he was commenting on my story line.

Told him to fuck off!

 

[Honey123]

Probably why they're your personal troll.

You're too sweet.

I wouldn't be

You're right, sweet and stupid...if someone were saying something bad to or about me, I'd really have no clue... !!!


but as for technique in writing? I think it is learned. Just like anything else. You learn from your mistakes...you learn from reading and well, in this case..writing.

Also, a good editor helps.

I can honestly say, that I read others works and some of the poetry is way over my head. I look at the PC's and say.."what am I missing..what am I missing" I read it again and sometimes again....

Is it that I am soo blue collar I haven't a clue? Is it that I lack the technique...the talent? Or is it just that what they are trying to conveny hasn't affected me but it will others? Do I slam it? NO!! I hit the X on the box and then sit at my seat thinking that my stories/poems are simple.

Does being simple mean there is no talent? Does winning a contest here mean that you have special talent or technique...or just lots of friends who admire what you do? Does not winning mean your work sucks and that your friends here think your writing is shitty?

Do I want my friends here tojust give me 5's...because they are my friends? NO ~ my friends would PM me and give me advise...help me learn the "technique" I am not using.

I'm sorry the rant....

 

[Recidiva]

You're right, sweet and stupid...if someone were saying something bad to or about me, I'd really have no clue... !!!


but as for technique in writing? I think it is learned. Just like anything else. You learn from your mistakes...you learn from reading and well, in this case..writing.

Also, a good editor helps.

I can honestly say, that I read others works and some of the poetry is way over my head. I look at the PC's and say.."what am I missing..what am I missing" I read it again and sometimes again....

Is it that I am soo blue collar I haven't a clue? Is it that I lack the technique...the talent? Or is it just that what they are trying to conveny hasn't affected me but it will others? Do I slam it? NO!! I hit the X on the box and then sit at my seat thinking that my stories/poems are simple.

Does being simple mean there is no talent? Does winning a contest here mean that you have special talent or technique...or just lots of friends who admire what you do? Does not winning mean your work sucks and that your friends here think your writing is shitty?

Do I want my friends here tojust give me 5's...because they are my friends? NO ~ my friends would PM me and give me advise...help me learn the "technique" I am not using.

I'm sorry the rant....

It's okay, I understand. I do listen myself, and have made changes based on feedback I've gotten here, negative and positive.

I mostly mean that since I'm not being paid to do writing here, the attitude that I owe anybody anything, isn't something I buy into.

Sure, constructive is great. However, if I'm not for you, feel free to not read.

 

[tolyk]

Application of technique is also a talent.

There are various techniques which a writer can be taught but can only be shown their application. Someone might say "This story needs a love scene" the author then (having decided to accept the advice) has to choose where, how intensely and for how long the love scene lasts.

Plot devices, imagery, alliteration, echoing, backstory are all techniques, the talent is having them appear magically whilst you're writing, without volition and without forethought to enhance the story.

Having thought about it, application probably is the talent.

Okay, you just said exactly what I wanted to say but couldn't think how You're too damn smart Gauche

I was also going to go into how it's the old story teller vs author discussion. Some people have talent for the story itself, some have talent for the words. It's rare that you find a person with talent for both.

ETA: Oh, and I do believe talent can be taught, or inspired at the very least. It might not be an awe-inspiring talent, but it can be sparked into existance. Most of us walk through life just thinking, "Well, I can't do that, I don't know how." and I'm of the opinion that each and every one of us can do anything we attempt and truly put our minds too, or our hearts.

 

[Honey123]

It's okay, I understand. I do listen myself, and have made changes based on feedback I've gotten here, negative and positive.

I mostly mean that since I'm not being paid to do writing here, the attitude that I owe anybody anything, isn't something I buy into.

Sure, constructive is great. However, if I'm not for you, feel free to not read.

Yes! I agree on that account ~ but that doesn't mean I won't try my best

 

[damppanties]

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.

Oh yes, I know!

I was also going to go into how it's the old story teller vs author discussion. Some people have talent for the story itself, some have talent for the words. It's rare that you find a person with talent for both.

Put very nicely.

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.

We're not talking about getting one part perfect and the complete lack of another. At least, I'm not. Lol. I'm assuming that as authors here, we all do have the very basic skills. The majority of the AH at least.

 

[3113]

ETA: Oh, and I do believe talent can be taught, or inspired at the very least. It might not be an awe-inspiring talent, but it can be sparked into existance. Most of us walk through life just thinking, "Well, I can't do that, I don't know how." and I'm of the opinion that each and every one of us can do anything we attempt and truly put our minds too, or our hearts.

Sparked to life, yes. Developed/nutured, absolutely. But my definition of talent requires that something be there. I'm sorry. That's just how I define it. You can teach someone how to play basketball, but that doesn't mean they're going to be on a professional team let alone be Kobe. That takes talent. You can teach them to paint and they can do nice pictures at home--but that doesn't mean they're going to get a gallery showing or be Picasso. That take talent.

And just about anyone can post a story here and even get props for it. But that doesn't mean that they're Shakespeare, Dickens or Tolstoy.

Talent means that people keep coming back to a story or a picture or a score of music. That it does more than just give people a moment of entertainment--thought that's nice and if that's all the artist wants, it's fine. Talent takes something a step further. Maybe a little step, maybe a big step, but it doesn't just echo what's been done.

If there is nothing more to talent, if it can be taught, then why is Shakespeare so special? Why is Jane Austen still read while Mrs. Radcliffe is not read--or only read to be laughed at? Mrs. Radcliffe, not Jane Austen, was the bestseller of her time.

Success doesn't mean talent. Some very talented people succeed late or even postumously. But they do not succeed--last and keep people reading, keep even one story they wrote in people's minds and hearts--without talent. And whatever that is, i really don't think it can be taught. If it could, there would be nothing special at all in having it. Anyone at all could do it.

 

[Guest]

Okay, you just said exactly what I wanted to say but couldn't think how You're too damn smart Gauche

I was also going to go into how it's the old story teller vs author discussion. Some people have talent for the story itself, some have talent for the words. It's rare that you find a person with talent for both.

ETA: Oh, and I do believe talent can be taught, or inspired at the very least. It might not be an awe-inspiring talent, but it can be sparked into existance. Most of us walk through life just thinking, "Well, I can't do that, I don't know how." and I'm of the opinion that each and every one of us can do anything we attempt and truly put our minds too, or our hearts.

I don't know that "talent" actually is the word -- we have been tossing that word around a lot.

I do believe that most people can be taught the basic skills for any art or science, phyiscal or mental, but that a "talent" isn't necessarly going to emerge. Of course, we tend to think of things like writing as somehow more egalitarian than, say, dance or playing an instrument, or being an ice skater or playing basketball. We point to someone who does those really well, well enough to rise to the top, and when someone asks "Why is he so good, when everyone around him has the same training, the same skill, the same drive" we answer "Talent." Talent is the ghost in the machine, the thing we can't get hold of.

But writing? Writing gets little respect Everyone who can type can write, yes? (that's rhetorical, I swear!). Sure, anyone who can string words together can write. But can they write well? and what is "well"?

Like anything else, ya know it when ya see it. James Joyce is aclaimed as a genius of literature, a giant in the canon. But few people read his work for pleasure anymore. Hell, outside of school, few people read him, period. Genius us not always accessible to ye old common man.

So what are we really talking about here? Who has talent? That is subjective, depending very much on who is looking and who is being looked at. Success does not mean talent -- Van Gogh, we all know, made nary a dime, while Thomas Kinkaid is showing up on plastic serving trays. And I can't stand Kinkaid's work. Bleargh. Which doesn't mean he lacks talent, at least in the eyes of some.

Now, Technique -- I spend a lot of time there, because I want it. Every time I write something, I use the technique -- not as in "Oh, here I can use a first person limited point of view but there I'll move out to limited third person omniscient" but to anwer questions -- how do I get this idea across? How can I make this story bend in the direction I want, so the reader can see this point I'm making or understand this character? How do I make a character walk and talk? How do I create a scene for a reader so real they stop seeing words and see my world?

That is, for me, technique. Talent -- I don't know if I have it. If I do, it's the stuff that happens when I'm not looking, the fact that stories often occur unbidden and flow onto a page without any work on my part, whole and complete like I was taking dictation. If I have talent, it's in the cracks of my creations, the glue that holds together the blocks, the steady earth under the stones. Technique comes in afterwards, when I realise this thing, whole and complete, really loses its way in the middle and I've dropped a character in chapter three who was very important and yet gets suplanted by this other character. I carve and shape the blank stone with it. Talent tells me what I want to create. Technique tells me how to use a chisel and hammer. Talent says "the face should have a slight smile that speaks of secrets". Technique keeps me from knocking the lips off.

I dunno. I think we may be all chasing around the same tree.

I'll add this. Technique is hard won, while talent feels -- to the talented -- like the most natural thing in the world. Technique is studied and fought for. Talent just is. But both of them are more about what others say about us than what we can say about ourselves.

 

[Guest]

I dont know if I got any talent and stuff but my boss says I got lots of talent but hes just talkin bout my boobs and stuff but thats ok cause I know I got skills for writing and stuff cause I know where all the keys are and if you just press the key for the letter you want it just appears on the screen like magic or somethin but its not like rocket science and stuff cause you dont even have to like mix chemicals or nothin just hit push the right key and there it is.

Debbie

 

[impressive]

Technique is hard won, while talent feels -- to the talented -- like the most natural thing in the world. Technique is studied and fought for. Talent just is.

*nods*

 

[damppanties]

Now, Technique -- I spend a lot of time there, because I want it. Every time I write something, I use the technique -- not as in "Oh, here I can use a first person limited point of view but there I'll move out to limited third person omniscient" but to anwer questions -- how do I get this idea across? How can I make this story bend in the direction I want, so the reader can see this point I'm making or understand this character? How do I make a character walk and talk? How do I create a scene for a reader so real they stop seeing words and see my world?

That is, for me, technique. Talent -- I don't know if I have it. If I do, it's the stuff that happens when I'm not looking, the fact that stories often occur unbidden and flow onto a page without any work on my part, whole and complete like I was taking dictation. If I have talent, it's in the cracks of my creations, the glue that holds together the blocks, the steady earth under the stones. Technique comes in afterwards, when I realise this thing, whole and complete, really loses its way in the middle and I've dropped a character in chapter three who was very important and yet gets suplanted by this other character. I carve and shape the blank stone with it. Talent tells me what I want to create. Technique tells me how to use a chisel and hammer. Talent says "the face should have a slight smile that speaks of secrets". Technique keeps me from knocking the lips off.

Sigh. You've just told what I was struggling to say in response to your earlier post. And so beautifully.

I dunno. I think we may be all chasing around the same tree.

I'll add this. Technique is hard won, while talent feels -- to the talented -- like the most natural thing in the world. Technique is studied and fought for. Talent just is. But both of them are more about what others say about us than what we can say about ourselves.

Again, salute.

 

[tolyk]

I'll add this. Technique is hard won, while talent feels -- to the talented -- like the most natural thing in the world. Technique is studied and fought for. Talent just is. But both of them are more about what others say about us than what we can say about ourselves.

But what if ones talent is the natural gift for technique? A natural understanding of the language and how to use it to their best. You're right when you say talent doesn't seem like the right word, but that's because we were all being lazy and saying talent instead of writing talent, or storytelling talent. It's a very broad word when used alone. There is also talent for technique.

This entire discussion brings back to mind a story I worked on a few years ago. My editor always loved it, he felt the emotions of the character and just thoroughly enjoyed the story. However, I always found it to come off as rather childish/sloppy writing, so I redid it, and I applied more technique and just tried to make it better, in my eyes. I liked the new version, but my editor couldn't stand it. He told me later on that I seemed to have misplaced my passion, the heart of the story was gone. So, I have no talent for technique but apparently I'm a moderately decent story-teller with a basic grip on the english language.

 

[rosco rathbone]

It's a false dichotomy; at least in the way you present it.

That said, I'm more interested in verbal pyrotechnics. I'll take David Ohle over Dave Eggers any day.

 

[Guest]

But what if ones talent is the natural gift for technique? A natural understanding of the language and how to use it to their best. You're right when you say talent doesn't seem like the right word, but that's because we were all being lazy and saying talent instead of writing talent, or storytelling talent. It's a very broad word when used alone. There is also talent for technique.

One starts learning technique when one learns to speak. One learns technique when one learns to read. Where is the "natural" in that? You may be born with physical grace and strength, and supurb hand-eye coordination, but to sink that basket (or putt, or make that goal) takes practice. To make it almost every time takes a LOT of practice.

I don't intend to belittle your point, but it is as if you are saying someone can pop out of the womb with "a talent for technique" -- from where? In what language or skill? how does one translate, for instance, a "talent" for composition into a talent for taking pictures -- putting composition into a frame, with light and color, balance and texture. Where does it start? And why is it not everyone can do it?

I'll use this example. I cannot take a photo worth a damn. It's rare when I can manage a snapshot. Yet I'm constantly pointing out to ABG -- who has trained as a photographer and artist -- something I want him to photograph. The photos are usually pretty good, and sometimes especially good. BUt if I take the same camera and try to photograph the same thing, it will not be good. And he might not take the photograph I'm pointing out if I weren't there to point at it. So, which is technique? Which is talent?




This entire discussion brings back to mind a story I worked on a few years ago. My editor always loved it, he felt the emotions of the character and just thoroughly enjoyed the story. However, I always found it to come off as rather childish/sloppy writing, so I redid it, and I applied more technique and just tried to make it better, in my eyes. I liked the new version, but my editor couldn't stand it. He told me later on that I seemed to have misplaced my passion, the heart of the story was gone. So, I have no talent for technique but apparently I'm a moderately decent story-teller with a basic grip on the english language. [/QUOTE]