Quote:
Originally Posted by gmw
"necessarily imply", no. Usually implies, yes. But I keep forgetting you use a different dictionary to me. 
Perhaps naively, I like to think of talented as an unbiased description. To allow for my own bias I am forced to admit other people's opinions, so - for example - if you tell me author x writes what you think are good stories then I am satisfied that the author is talented whether I agree the stories are good or not. I am not naturally inclined to use the phrase "good story teller" except as a subjective description. But if you did mean "Some writers are simply good story tellers." in an unbiased (as far as this is possible) sense, then yes that fits with talent better than voice (as I understand those terms).
But with "Some writers are simply good story tellers" as a synonym for talented we are then forced to discuss whether natural talent can be improved upon. I am on the side that thinks it can be (wishful thinking, perhaps  ), so it's no longer "simply good story tellers" it is "have learned to be good story tellers". Can anyone learn? Maybe not, but I think some can. |
Of course, one has to improve on natural talent. It doesn't matter how good of a natural musician you are if you don't learn how to make music and practice. That's the craft side of talent. If you read the story of how To Kill A Mockingbird came about and how different the final version was from the original transcript, one sees how even a gifted story teller needs craft.
Can some learn to be a good story teller? I would argue that not everyone can, thus the story teller gene, but many can learn to be an adequate story teller by honing your craft. I'm a reasonable guitar player, but no matter how much I practice, no one is ever going to mistake me for Mark Knopfler. I can write lyrics well enough to put out some amusing songs for the company Christmas show, but not much past that.