Technique vs. Talent

[drksideofthemoon]

I agree with Daniellekitten, I would soon have someone tell me that what I have written touched someone, than to have someone compliment me on my technical, and spelling skills.

 

[Aurora Black]

I would soon have someone tell me that what I have written touched someone, than to have someone compliment me on my technical, and spelling skills.

Emotional feedback is much more satisfying to me than anything else.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I think we're using an absurdly silly definition of "technique" as meaning "machanically perfect," that is - correct spelling and punctuation. The question of whether you'd rather have someone be emotionally moved by your story or admire your punctuation is kind like asking, "Would you rather have someone admire you or your clothes?"

You know, A man and woman fell in love, then she died and he felt awful.

That's a story.

The way you turn that into an emotional or intellectually stimulating experience, that's technique.

At least, that's the way I think of it.

 

[Guest]

I think we're using an absurdly silly definition of "technique" as meaning "machanically perfect," that is - correct spelling and punctuation. The question of whether you'd rather have someone be emotionally moved by your story or admire your punctuation is kind like asking, "Would you rather have someone admire you or your clothes?"

I disagree. I've read work by people that have been touted by others as being profound and perfect, and while I've been awed by the masterful turn of a phrase or the structure of a sentence, it wouldn't affect me the same as something written that might hold meaning to me, say the loss of love, or the death of a friend written in a way that may not be as literarily pleasing but in other ways says more.

 

[BlackSnake]

I think we're using an absurdly silly definition of "technique" as meaning "machanically perfect," that is - correct spelling and punctuation. The question of whether you'd rather have someone be emotionally moved by your story or admire your punctuation is kind like asking, "Would you rather have someone admire you or your clothes?"

You know, A man and woman fell in love, then she died and he felt awful.

That's a story.

The way you turn that into an emotional or intellectually stimulating experience, that's technique.

At least, that's the way I think of it.

I agree, and those techniques can be learned, in my opinion. I think talent is the flavor added to the techniques. Spelling and punctuation are mechanics, to me.

 

[drksideofthemoon]

Well, there are a lot of people who would like you to be impressed by their designer clothing.

I have read some work on this site where the technical aspect of the writing has been excellent, but the work is devoid of any soul. I find myself reading these stories but, instead of being drawn in to the story I only see words on the page and I find my mind wandering to the more mundane aspects of my life.

I would sooner read a story where the plot fuels my imagination than to read a story where the writer tries to impress me with their mastery of the English language.

 

[BlackSnake]

Well, there are a lot of people who would like you to be impressed by their designer clothing.

I have read some work on this site where the technical aspect of the writing has been excellent, but the work is devoid of any soul. I find myself reading these stories but, instead of being drawn in to the story I only see words on the page and I find my mind wandering to the more mundane aspects of my life.

I would sooner read a story where the plot fuels my imagination than to read a story where the writer tries to impress me with their mastery of the English language.

*Standing Ovation*

 

[Aurora Black]

*Standing Ovation*

I second that. There have been a few stories that I've read that were highly recommended and described in glowing terms by everyone and their mother, but when I went to read the pieces for myself... I felt nothing.

 

[BlackSnake]

Hey, my opinion here is not to say that I don't think that using correct spelling and punctuation is important (leaving out grammar on purpose, its subjective). Sometimes, if we only comment about what we are passionate about, some may believe that we are against the other.

 

[Aurora Black]

Sometimes, if we only comment about what we are passionate about, some may believe that we are against the other.

I'm not against technique; on the contrary. I just rank it slightly lower on the importance scale than the actual story.

 

[drksideofthemoon]

I'm not against technique; on the contrary. I just rank it slightly lower on the importance scale than the actual story.

I quite agree with you. I knew a guitar player once, he had been a child prodigy. He could play anything with technical a precision that was amazing but, there was no feeling, no soul in what he played. So in the end, it was just a collection of notes played perfectly and precisely. I knew a second guitar player at the time who had very limited knowledge of music theory, but when he played, you could feel the torment of a thousand lost loves, he would take the listener places.

I want to write like the way the second guitar player played.

 

[Aurora Black]

I want to write like the way the second guitar player played.

Sometimes there's a better time to be had watching the street musicians perform than sitting in box seats at the elite opera house.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

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?

 

[Aurora Black]

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?

We're not saying that, but you can't deny that the most widely-acclaimed novels in all of history have touched their audiences in one way or another.

 

[neonlyte]

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?

No, to the first part. Absolutely No to the second part.

The work, no matter how laboured a conception and execution, and let us not pretend it is otherwise, is ultimately judged by the reader, and readers come in more shapes and sizes than the writer can accommodate.

Writing to an audience is but one aspect of a craft, the tone and timbre of a piece of writing will resonate with some and not with others. What we chose to read is mood, attitude, desire, dependent - even favourite authors let readers down, sometimes with a thump.

Readers of porn presumably are looking for a certain emotional response, writers can and do give it to them, but it comes in more shades than Dulux (name you best known paint company here), and that is just as well, so do the readers. My philosophy for Lit is to recognise who you are writing for, and see how far the boundaries can be stretched. I know many don't agree with that approach, but I'm not going to change,not while I'm doing it for free. I will experiment, along with a number of other writers, and push at my boundaries to learn how to improve my craft.

 

[damppanties]

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?

Noooo! The kind where you're playing with the language has it's own place. I do enjoy that immensely too. While I'm reading it, I'll stop and take note of a particular phrase or the particular way something is said. I'm not totally putting it down. There is a different kind of pleasure in seeing words used to their full potential, differently, surprisingly, delightfully. It has it's own high. I'm only trying to say that in my opinion, the stories that affect you emotionally are the ones I remember and go back to.

For me, it's a mood thing, Doc. Sometimes I want superb language and to lose myself in it. Other times, I want to laugh, cry and fear for the characters in a story.

And again, it is not a question of either or. I think most authors have both to a greater and lesser degree.

 

[S-Des]

Drkside has this nailed

I quite agree with you. I knew a guitar player once, he had been a child prodigy. He could play anything with technical a precision that was amazing but, there was no feeling, no soul in what he played. So in the end, it was just a collection of notes played perfectly and precisely. I knew a second guitar player at the time who had very limited knowledge of music theory, but when he played, you could feel the torment of a thousand lost loves, he would take the listener places.

I want to write like the way the second guitar player played.

I teach music and this discussion comes up often. When I was younger, I studied every neo-classical guitarist out there and could play them flawlessly. I was often told after shows that I was "the best player" or "why are you playing with that band". I never understood why I wasn't going anywhere. About a year after Stevie Ray Vaughn died, I heard his instrumental version of 'Little Wing' on the radio and immediately understood.

The man is one of the most revered guitar players among famous guitar players, but everything was from the gut (talent). His technical skills were adequate, but nothing impressive. 100 years from now, people will still listen to his music, long after I've faded away. I learned that lesson and improved as a musician and a teacher.

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.

I recently read a story that had an amazing level of detail, but had no emotional impact on me. The author received a number of positive comments, which I understood, but I felt like I had wasted my time. Is he a 'better' writer than me? It's an irrelevant question. Like music or painting, there is no way to quantify quality. You just write what you feel and see what people think. Like drksideofthemoon, I want to play (write) like the second guy.

 

[Liar]

For me, it's a mood thing, Doc. Sometimes I want superb language and to lose myself in it. Other times, I want to laugh, cry and fear for the characters in a story.

Superb language should enhance the emotional weight of a story, not subtract from it. If it does, it's not superb language.

I agree with doc here about one important thing: The story is a simple beast. Ever written a synopsis? That's your story. Granted, to make a good plot takes skills and inspiration too.

What people so often seem to forget is that literature is communication. You need to delight and dazzle a little bt with your writing, or you won't keep the reader's short term attention and the channel open to communicarte the story you wish to tell.

That is what you use to make that story come alive to the reader. And that is 99% craft. Some are skilled at craft naturally, others can get there, by practicing hard.

Then there's art in deliverance. It's that last percent that separates the literary greats from the Dan Browns.

I also happen to believe that the way we idolize the literary greats as unreachable icons is pretty wrong. I think that for every Bach, DaVinci, Poe, Einstein and Welles, there are at least a thousand with just the same potential, whose paths turned elsewhere in life, that didn't get the opportunity to cultivate their potentional. Just look at the fact that almost all of those icons are men. Why? Because women historically didn't get the opportunity to create.

 

[Aurora Black]

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.

Exactly.

 

[Guest]

Superb language should enhance the emotional weight of a story, not subtract from it. If it does, it's not superb language.

I agree with doc here about one important thing: The story is a simple beast. Ever written a synopsis? That's your story. Granted, to make a good plot takes skills and inspiration too.

What people so often seem to forget is that literature is communication. You need to delight and dazzle a little bt with your writing, or you won't keep the reader's short term attention and the channel open to communicarte the story you wish to tell.

That is what you use to make that story come alive to the reader. And that is 99% craft. Some are skilled at craft naturally, others can get there, by practicing hard.

Then there's art in deliverance. It's that last percent that separates the literary greats from the Dan Browns.

I also happen to believe that the way we idolize the literary greats as unreachable icons is pretty wrong. I think that for every Bach, DaVinci, Poe, Einstein and Welles, there are at least a thousand with just the same potential, whose paths turned elsewhere in life, that didn't get the opportunity to cultivate their potentional. Just look at the fact that almost all of those icons are men. Why? Because women historically didn't get the opportunity to create.

Wow, now I wish I had said that...

I've read stories that have captured my imagination and my emotions...a necessary thing if I'm going to continue to read it. You have to have skill of some kind because, especially reading erotica, he said this, she said that and they fucked just isn't going to cut it with the readers out there.

 

[tolyk]

Superb language should enhance the emotional weight of a story, not subtract from it. If it does, it's not superb language.

I agree with doc here about one important thing: The story is a simple beast. Ever written a synopsis? That's your story. Granted, to make a good plot takes skills and inspiration too.

What people so often seem to forget is that literature is communication. You need to delight and dazzle a little bt with your writing, or you won't keep the reader's short term attention and the channel open to communicarte the story you wish to tell.

That is what you use to make that story come alive to the reader. And that is 99% craft. Some are skilled at craft naturally, others can get there, by practicing hard.

Then there's art in deliverance. It's that last percent that separates the literary greats from the Dan Browns.

I also happen to believe that the way we idolize the literary greats as unreachable icons is pretty wrong. I think that for every Bach, DaVinci, Poe, Einstein and Welles, there are at least a thousand with just the same potential, whose paths turned elsewhere in life, that didn't get the opportunity to cultivate their potentional. Just look at the fact that almost all of those icons are men. Why? Because women historically didn't get the opportunity to create.

You said exactly what I was thinking with your first line there Liar. As I read through this thread it kept coming to mind, "Why is it that everyone talks as if the two don't/can't exist at the same time?" Superb language should enhance, and if it doesn't, well then what's the point?


I'm very much enjoying this thread, it is a great discussion and is really making me think. Thank you for starting it Damp, even if it's not going quite the way you intended

 

[damppanties]

I'm very much enjoying this thread, it is a great discussion and is really making me think. Thank you for starting it Damp, even if it's not going quite the way you intended

Pleasure's mine entirely, and yes, as drkside told me yesterday, I seem to have a runaway thread on my hands.

 

[3113]

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?

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

 

[Aurora Black]

Something tells me that we're not just talking about "Technique vs. Talent" at this point, so I'm bowing out of this discussion before things get personal. It was fun while it lasted.

 

[Liar]

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