Browse: Home / / Talent: Overrated Or Underrated?

Talent: Overrated Or Underrated?

By Robert Swartwood on December 14, 2009

A couple weeks back I saw this piece on GalleyCat asking whether writers are born or made. Geoff Colvin — senior editor-at-large (as opposed to editor-at-small) for Fortune magazine — has a book out called Talent Is Overrated: What Really Separates World-Class Performers From Everybody Else. Basically, he thinks we “overvalue talent in our culture, arguing that writers are shaped by teachers and practice — not innate talent.”

This is one of those things where I agree but disagree. Yes, writers (just like all artists) learn their craft after much instruction and practice. We learn to write and, if we’re lucky, we learn to write well. But some writers just have a gift. It’s hard to pinpoint exactly what that gift is, but when we read a book by a certain writer who is no doubt talented we feel something in the words.

Now I haven’t read Mr. Colvin’s book, so I have no idea what it’s really about, but my assumption is he thinks talent is overrated in terms of commercial success. And I think he’s right. Look at writers like James Patterson and Dan Brown. They are hugely successful. But are they talented? I don’t want to be a hater and say neither man has no talent whatsoever, but I can think of countless other writers who have more talent but who are, unfortunately, not as successful.

Personally, I think talent is underrated in our culture.

Major publishing houses nowadays don’t seem to care much about a writer’s talent. They care about whether or not they can market that particular writer, and how much commercial appeal that writer’s book has. If that writer happens to be talented too, well, that’s just an added bonus.

A talented writer is someone who understands the need for teachers and practice; they use those to their benefit, and while commercial success may never come, their talent still shines through in their work.

Other writers may not have the same level of talent but can still succeed as long as they work hard enough at it … not to mention get lucky here and there.

Ultimately, what does this mean? Nothing really. Writers shouldn’t worry about whether or not they have an innate talent for words. They should just worry about writing.

So what do you think — are some writers born naturally talented or not?

Posted in | 5 Responses

  • Tom L

    I would agree that some people are born with certain sets of skills and abilities which we can refer to as talent. But I have yet to see anyone come out of the womb with those talents fully formed. If they were, then these people would be brilliant from their first effort, and while it is popular to suggest there are such things as overnight successes, the truth is that success usually takes longer than most people might suspect.

    I would also disagree with you (in part) when you say, “A talented writer is someone who understands the need for teachers and practice; they use those to their benefit, and while commercial success may never come, their talent still shines through in their work.” Yes, writers need practice and need to study their craft. And if a good teacher can be found, so much the better. BUT, I am mistrustful of teachers who have not had continued success as writers. And most teachers make capital of one or two books that usually did not sell. My belief is that the only real test for a writer comes from the response of those who read their work. If no one reads it, the writer has little perspective as to the merits of their work.

    I have just finished reading a very useful book, “The Art of War for Writers” by James Scott Bell. He makes a very good argument that a writer can be as talented as any writer could be, but if what they write is not marketable, it matters not. I agree with him. For example, I know someone who lives in a small town in Tuscany, Italy. He has one of the oldest hand-run mills in Italy, but since the 1960s everyone has gone industrial to meet the demands of the modern world. Many people acknowledge that his methods turn out the best grain for polenta, but no one uses him because his methods take so much time. Ergo, he may have talent, but no one wants to buy it.

    People say we have decreased attention spans (I agree). But I believe this is because publishers catered to the TV program style of writing which amounts to “easy reads,” as opposed to publishing books that contain good stories with solid characters and solid but economical writing. I also believe that much of what is said to be literature is, essentially, quite dull and lackluster and those who continue to dismiss “popular fiction” continue to be far too arrogant and filled with self importance. Most people seem more interested in a GOOD STORY as opposed to pointing out issue of grammar or following the “rules.” But many a good book is dumped because of such errors and I believe this is a very short-sighted approach. The old adage “no one knows anything is quite true, and I for one applaud writers, like Michael Connolly or Agatha Christie, who dump the rules in favor of good storytelling, interesting characters and interesting plots. Anyone can pick up a book about grammar and make corrections to the text. But if the story stinks and the characters are flat, there’s not much point of doctoring it.

    The publishing world is a business and has always been guided by monetary considerations, and the business of good writing is a serious one. But good writing is not just about writing well, at least not if a writer craves success. A writer must know their target audience, understanding what the world of publishing is about and how it all works, and set firm but realistic goals.

    [Reply]

  • http://www.plottopunctuation.com/blog Jason Black

    There is talent: having an instinctive sensibility towards producing art in a particular medium, that is genetic or god-given or whatever you want to call it.

    There is skill: the ability that comes through learning and practice to use one’s talent to fullest effect, to produce the highest levels of craft in your art.

    And then there is marketing savvy: the ability to turn your craft into money, which in turn requires a sense for what the audience wants, what is marketable, what is “over the line,” et cetera.

    To be successful these days, a writer needs the trifecta.

    Fortunately, these can offset each other to some extent. Great talent can overcome deficiencies in skill. Hard work and diligent study can build up skill to overcome deficiencies in talent. Robust skill and talent can produce a work that overcomes deficiencies in marketing savvy. And obviously, Patterson and Brown as prime examples, marketing savvy can overcome deficiencies in both skill and talent.

    [Reply]

  • http://charlesgramlich.blogspot.com Charles Gramlich

    I tell my students that some folks are probably just better at it than others, but that almost everyone can learn to write professional material with effort. I do believe there is talent, though. And I agree, our culture doesn’t seem to appreciate it.

    [Reply]

  • Robert Swartwood

    Tom — let’s then say this: everybody has the ability to write well (after practice, practice, practice), but only a few are naturally born storytellers. One of my favorite writers is T.C. Boyle. He didn’t start actually writing until college. He’d had no desire before then and tried it out and found it liked it — not to mention excelled at it! And he is, to me at least, one of the most talented writers out there. PLUS he has had commercial success … not to mention he also teaches full time. And I guess those are the teachers writers should strive to find — those in MFA programs who are indeed talented and want to share their knowledge with students.

    Jason — good points. I really like the idea of the trifecta.

    Charles — I think it’s true that some talented writers may not be as good as they could be because they don’t strive to perfect their work. They think their talent will carry them without continued practice, and unfortunately they’re wrong.

    [Reply]

  • http://throughaforestofideas.blogspot.com/ Harry Markov

    It’s a complicated matter, but yes there is talent. For some there is something else behind the passion that seems to propel their writing into higher leagues so to say, while there are others that achieve their goals in life with passion and a lot of hard work. Not that I am saying that talented writers don’t sweat, it’s just that they can imbue their work with that something else sparkle that captivates you, touches you in more ways than one, and they do so with relative ease, while others have to work quite hard to get to that stage and most of the times don’t like Dan Brown as per your example.

    Talent is always unappreciated, not just literature, but music and acting [not so sure about art] these days and it’s frightening to a degree.

    But then again writers have to worry about writing. :)

    [Reply]