Can anyone do it, if they work hard enough?

[Lin2412]

Originally Posted by crich70

Anyone can learn to write I think. The difference is in the fact that some have the ability to write well and some don't. Just as some are able to become concert piano players and some are average players who perform at parties. Which isn't to say there isn't a place for both. For every Mozart there are probably many who are skilled enough to make a living at writing music but who aren't as well known to the public.

Yes, I agree. Most of us would need passion or willpower to drive us to do things. But I like that life is simply being complicated by always defying rules such as "practice makes perfect". I also agree with one comment wherein if we practice the same error, we won't really improve because we are only perfecting our mistakes. lol

Daffyd:
My kung fu Dai Sifu would lay a trap waiting for a new student to respond, "Practice makes perfect."
He would pounce and impress, "No... only perfect practice makes perfect."
In other words, if you don't repeat "it" perfectly (whatever "it" is) and consistently, you are only perfecting your mistakes.
I can see how games like chess improve by repetition, but I think you'd need to be playing against someone who was a better player.
As far as getting to the top (whether it's work, sport, property, investing or whatever), "Timing is everything".
And if you don't have timing, you need leverage.

[Ninjalawyer]

The idea that practice makes perfect plays completely into North American stereotypes - the idea that we're all equal in every respect and the only differentiator is how hard we've worked. It lets us be completely satisfied by your accomplishments, since they were all due to our hard work afterall, and also look down at people that didn't accomplish those things (obviously because they're lazy).

When I read Malcolm Gladwell's book, Outliers, I was totally captivated by the 10,000 hour rule. Why, the only thing that separates me from Bill Gates is the amount of computer time! Too bad he based that on an extremely limited study of high performers, and even misrepresented that. Unfortunately, it turns out that practice, even perfect practice, won't always make perfect.

That said, with writing I think anyone can vastly improve with practice. Not everyone will be a James Joyce, most will plateau far earlier than that no matter the hours they dump in, but I also think that that's okay; I need need to be perfect, just good.

[Fiat_Lux]

Originally Posted by gmw

Not that the study denies the rule that you have to work hard to get good at something, but it would seem to suggest that you should work out whether you have whatever else it takes before you start.

You can learn the absolute basic fundamentals of any field in twenty hours.

Improvement requires constant increase of:

• Auxillary Knowledge;
• Constructive Correction;
• Emotional Support;
• Encouragement;
• Practice Time;

To be an expert additionally requires growing:

• Extensive Social Network;
• Good Communication Skills;
• Independent Wealth/Financial Support;
• Socio-cultural Approval;

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Fiat_Lux

You can learn the absolute basic fundamentals of any field in twenty hours.

Improvement requires constant increase of:

• Auxillary Knowledge;
• Constructive Correction;
• Emotional Support;
• Encouragement;
• Practice Time;

To be an expert additionally requires growing:

• Extensive Social Network;
• Good Communication Skills;
• Independent Wealth/Financial Support;
• Socio-cultural Approval;

I have issue with just about every word of that post.

What constitutes the "absolute basic fundamentals" of brain surgery, for example?
Might as well say you can learn the "absolute basic fundamentals" of any field in 30 minutes by reading a Wikipedia article.

While the "improvement" list certainly has some useful items on it, the "expert requires" list is patently untrue.
Ask any autistic savant.
That list contains welcome advantages at most, not requirements.

[Nabeel]

I take an irrationally democratic view of this: I think anyone can become a writer IF they apply themselves and IF they find the right form of writing for them.

One problem with the discussion so far is that it assumes that there is just one singular thing, 'the writer', perhaps like Tolstoy. In reality, there are many different types of writers, different sorts of books and therefore also different types of craft.

Most of us will never be Tolstoys, but we are still capable of producing - for examples - perfectly reasonable history textbooks.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Nabeel

I take an irrationally democratic view of this: I think anyone can become a writer IF they apply themselves and IF they find the right form of writing for them.

One problem with the discussion so far is that it assumes that there is just one singular thing, 'the writer', perhaps like Tolstoy. In reality, there are many different types of writers, different sorts of books and therefore also different types of craft.

Most of us will never be Tolstoys, but we are still capable of producing - for examples - perfectly reasonable history textbooks.

Tolstoy, Stephen King, Joss Whedon. I think we're in agreement, but you phrased it irrationally democratic, I phrased it artistic elitist.

[cromag]

I think anyone can become a skillful writer with hard work and practice. But the term "writing" covers a lot of ground: advertising copy, press releases, business information, etc.

But "authoring" goes beyond technical competence. If you have to come up with plots, develop characters, etc. -- well, I believe that practice will help anyone develop their talent and reach their individual potential, but not everyone has the potential to write great stories.

[Nancy Fulda]

To the many insightful comments in this thread, I'll add two more thoughts:

1) When it comes to aspiring writers, as opposed to the general population, there's a powerful pre-selection bias at work. If you love stories, if you dream of stories and long to write them and can't manage to stop inventing them even when you ought to be doing something else... Well, that's probably because you're one of the people who already has innate talent.

2) 'Innate talent' is not the same thing as 'easy learning curve'. If Felix Klieser can learn to play the French horn without arms, then a talented aspiring author can learn to create awesome fiction despite severe grammatical handicaps. It's a matter of recognizing one's limitations and working around them.

...which is all just my way of saying that if you want to write fiction, do it! Don't worry about whether you fall into the 'talented' category or not. Or at least, not until you've spent a few years learning your craft.

[Fiat_Lux]

Originally Posted by ApK

What constitutes the "absolute basic fundamentals" of brain surgery, for example?

Typically, "absolute basic fundamentals" refers to a 100, or maybe 200 level course. In some fields of research, it is a 500 level course. However, in those instanaces, one needs a fairly solid foundation in other fields of knowledge. If one has the suitable knowledge foundation, then even a college freshman could sign up for that 500 level course.

A 3 semester hour course typically requires 45 hours of class time. The anecdotal data suggests that more than half the time spent in a classroom is wasted time. Hence, if you want to learn the fundamentals of something, you can do so in twenty hours.

Minesweeper Consultant and Solitaire Expert certificates exist to prove why knowing something does not mean one has the ability to do tha tthing. A lesson that HR refuses to learn.

[Pulpmeister]

Short answer to OP: No.

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

The idea that practice makes perfect plays completely into North American stereotypes - the idea that we're all equal in every respect and the only differentiator is how hard we've worked. It lets us be completely satisfied by your accomplishments, since they were all due to our hard work afterall, and also look down at people that didn't accomplish those things (obviously because they're lazy).

When I read Malcolm Gladwell's book, Outliers, I was totally captivated by the 10,000 hour rule. Why, the only thing that separates me from Bill Gates is the amount of computer time! Too bad he based that on an extremely limited study of high performers, and even misrepresented that. Unfortunately, it turns out that practice, even perfect practice, won't always make perfect.

That said, with writing I think anyone can vastly improve with practice. Not everyone will be a James Joyce, most will plateau far earlier than that no matter the hours they dump in, but I also think that that's okay; I need need to be perfect, just good.

Interesting post. It explains the thought process behind the arrogance of some successful people.

On another note, I never saw what all the fuss is about Joyce, nor Yeats for that matter.