Technique vs. Talent

[neonlyte]

It's the be-all and end-all of most popular literature But those of us here usually want something more.

Most on Lit or most on AH?
I'm happy to confess to wanting more, for my own pleasure if for no one else. I think Rob said it, 'I do alright', it's not glib, it's recognising the reward from peers by applying yourself.

 

[drksideofthemoon]

Then am I correct in assuming that the only reason anyone here reads anything is for the emotional buzz?

Is that the be-all and end-all of literature?

That's a rather simplistic assumption, but in my case, it's probably pretty close to the truth. I read for two reasons, to be entertained, or to learn something.

What you would consider "good literature" I would probably consider plodding and ponderous.

There is a time and a place for most every type of writing.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

When I write, I use that philosophy. I try to write well and often spend hours on a single conversation in a story to try to tell it better. In the end, virtually every positive comment I've received has revolved around my storytelling and ability to evoke an emotional response, never my descriptiveness, command of dialogue, or ability to poetically describe eroticism. It's just not my thing. I'd like to think I'm not just mediocre, but if that's how another author sees it . . . so be it.

See, that to me - spending hours to get a part of a story just right - is a technique issue. You already know what the story is and what's going to happen in the scene. What you're working on is the way you make it happen - the style, the rhythm, the imagery and the language. All those are exactly what I mean by technique and why I think it's so important.

A man and a woman make love. Maybe he "shoves his scumbone into her oozing cooze", or maybe he "parts her womanly petals with his rampant manhood", or "joins his flesh to hers in incandescent rapture". The way you describe it and the word choices you make are technical issues. They determine the impact and flavor of the story.

Maybe it's partly that I don't really read for emotional content. Not in the sense of the Big Emotions - joy and sadness (I especially avoid sad ones. I just don't enjoy them.) I think most of us are looking for more than pure emotion from a story, otherwise we'd all be bathing in pure sentimentality stuff, and we don't, or at least most of us don't. We expect more from a piece of literature than emotion. We expect insight, and grace, and magic and meaning.

Maybe I'm alone in this, and that's okay - to each his own - but I grew up reading Sci Fi and horror and comic books which are not really concerned with the big emotions (well, maybe Romance comics are, but I didn't read those), and to this day I love being in an author's head and seeing things through his or her eyes, watching their imagination at work and seeing what they make of the world. Some of my favorite books - "Catcher in the Rye" comes to mind, and "Desolation Angels" - are almost devoid of grand emotion or any emotion at all, but they're beautiful, fascinating books to me because they show me a new vision of the world.

So when I write, I'm not really concerned with communicating the big emotions or necessarily getting a big emotional reaction from my reader. I'm happier with those stories that kind of sneak in through the intellect or imagination and give the reader a different way of seeing things, that kind of expand his perception. That's really why I read, and I guess that's what I try to do when I write.

Maybe it just has to do with being a more intellectual than emotional writer. Maybe that's why I'm so enamored of those big words.

 

[McKenna]

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?

While I think the truly brilliant manage to do both, I would choose technique over talent. I think that's the technical writer in me speaking, though.

 

[rgraham666]

While I think the truly brilliant manage to do both, I would choose technique over talent. I think that's the technical writer in me speaking, though.

So says an enormously talented writer.

 

[rgraham666]

To me, I've succeeded at writing a decent story when a reader loses themselves in the story. When the words stop being words, become instead images, feelings. When the story becomes real.

Those require both talent and technique.

But I'm drubnk. So take what I say with a grain of salt.

 

[S-Des]

You're right

See, that to me - spending hours to get a part of a story just right - is a technique issue. You already know what the story is and what's going to happen in the scene. What you're working on is the way you make it happen - the style, the rhythm, the imagery and the language. All those are exactly what I mean by technique and why I think it's so important.

A man and a woman make love. Maybe he "shoves his scumbone into her oozing cooze", or maybe he "parts her womanly petals with his rampant manhood", or "joins his flesh to hers in incandescent rapture". The way you describe it and the word choices you make are technical issues. They determine the impact and flavor of the story.

I was writing as I was getting ready to leave and left off a sentence. What I meant to say was that I try my best to do my best at technical writing because I understand the importance. I admire it very much in other people's stories when it's combined with the right amount of emotion for me. However, no matter how hard I try, I'm not nearly as good at it as some of the other excellent authors on the site (and my reader's comments reflect that fact). I'll keep trying to improve, but it will never get to where it should be because of my time constraints with job, family, hobbies, etc...

I think the thread should have started out (and please forgive me for correcting anyone, this is just how I would have stated the question) . . . Since everyone has some level of talent and technique, which would you prefer to excel in?


I'm happy with the way I write, although I always strive to improve. I listen to my editor, my author friends, the chats on the BB, and read other author's stories. I hope that people who read my stories will see my growth and appreciate the effort I put in (because I'm definitely not getting paid enough).

 

[damppanties]

'Tis what they do, threads. They run. Herd it back into the fold, or run merrily along.

I'm going to let it follow its own destiny.

 

[damppanties]

Since everyone has some level of talent and technique, which would you prefer to excel in?

Thank you. I've been trying to say just that ever since the first post.

 

[elsol]

I choose perseverance.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[drksideofthemoon]

Thank you. I've been trying to say just that ever since the first post.

I would think talent is what I would wish to have more of...

 

[McKenna]

So says an enormously talented writer.

It takes one to know one!

 

[rgraham666]

It takes one to know one!

Thank you. *HUGS*

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Just so we know what we're talking about here, could someone give me a literary example of talent without technique and technique without talent?

And by "technique", I don't mean just mechanics and spelling. I mean the way in which a story is communicated through writing.

Seriously. I'd like to see what we're talking about.

EDITED TO ADD: Okay - I just thought of an example of technique without talent: Bulwer-Lytton. ("It was a dark and stormy night...")

Now I want to see talent without technique.

 

[BlackSnake]

Just so we know what we're talking about here, could someone give me a literary example of talent without technique and technique without talent?

And by "technique", I don't mean just mechanics and spelling. I mean the way in which a story is communicated through writing.

Seriously. I'd like to see what we're talking about.

EDITED TO ADD: Okay - I just thought of an example of technique without talent: Bulwer-Lytton. ("It was a dark and stormy night...")

Now I want to see talent without technique.

http://www.barnburnermag.com/art/pow.jpg​

 

[Liar]

Just so we know what we're talking about here, could someone give me a literary example of talent without technique and technique without talent?

And by "technique", I don't mean just mechanics and spelling. I mean the way in which a story is communicated through writing.

Seriously. I'd like to see what we're talking about.

EDITED TO ADD: Okay - I just thought of an example of technique without talent: Bulwer-Lytton. ("It was a dark and stormy night...")

Now I want to see talent without technique.

Since people here seem to draw the line between talent and skill at different places, I suspect you might get anwers that you wouldn't agree with.

By your (and my) definition of technique, this would only be a synopsis. By other definitions it would be a fully functional piece of prose, but without any eye-catching poetic devices.

 

[Liar]

http://www.barnburnermag.com/art/pow.jpg​

Nice technique there.

 

[BlackSnake]

Nice technique there.

grabs the reader's attention and holds it until the end.

 

[drksideofthemoon]

Just so we know what we're talking about here, could someone give me a literary example of talent without technique and technique without talent?

And by "technique", I don't mean just mechanics and spelling. I mean the way in which a story is communicated through writing.

Seriously. I'd like to see what we're talking about.

EDITED TO ADD: Okay - I just thought of an example of technique without talent: Bulwer-Lytton. ("It was a dark and stormy night...")

Now I want to see talent without technique.

This was written by Miss Edith Josie of Old Crow, Yukon. Miss Josie has been writing a newpaper column called "Here Are the News" for the best part of 40 years. Her column has appeared as it is in papers throughout Canada, the US, and around the world. If you go to Amazon, you can find a collection of her work.

I would say that her writing has very little technique, she writes as she speaks, English with Gwi'chin phrasing. I had the privelege to meet her when I worked in the Canadian Arctic.

Here are the news from Old Crow, the weather is cold wind last week but now it starts to be warm. People think it was going to be flood but it is not, the ice went good and smooth, many thanks to our god, he protect us good every day. Right after ice go, the caribou start to cross the river and some of the boys got few out of it. Nice to have fresh meat and we start to make drymeat. People glad to see caribou because we can’t wait to eat meat. The elders got to have caribou meat all the time. After we make drymeat and start to eat drymeat with caribou marrow, gee it really taste good. Not only meat, we use the skin for sewing and also caribou leg skin. Also the fat to make grease to fry meat with it.

The school is busy everyday, the teacher are nice to kids and teach them for everything, the school kids clean the street last week, it look very nice. The teacher really work hard with the class and take them out in bush and the kids like it very much. The parents should teach their kids and take them out in the bush. The father could teach their son about caring and mother could teach their daughter how to sew beads and how to make drymeat and also how to keep house clean and do the laundry, wash clothes to help their mother. Everybody are busy everyday working and also work at new school so it was busy. The school are busy and also Yukon College but nobody come to school so just Miss Josie come to school. There are some boys and girls could take a good learning in Yukon College but nobody care for it. They have to take a good training for job around their village.

Nobody go to Crow Flatts this year again, just Dr. Ellen Bruce and her sister Lydia Thomas and her grandchildren and daughter, Dorothy and her husband Ronald Frost, just take the kids out how to work with muskrats. I think the kids they enjoy out in Crow Flatts, stay in tent and a good fresh air. This is what some parents should do to their kids or grandchildren.