Can anyone do it, if they work hard enough?

[gmw]

I thought this article might be of interest here: Practice Doesn't Always Make Perfect

Leading paragraph:

It takes many thousands of hours of hard work to get to the top—yet time alone is not enough if you lack the other attributes necessary in your discipline, according to a study published online in July in Psychological Science.

It's one of those things that I think may not surprise people - that there's more to many disciplines than simply hard word - but it's curious to see studies appear to confirm that. After all, it is common in writing advice circles to cite the 10,000 hour rule. (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.)

[crich70]

It makes sense. I mean an olympic champion doesn't just take up whatever event he/she is interested in and go on to get a gold or silver medal as a matter of course. There is a lot of hard work involved and the same goes for any other endeavor worth the time to pursue.

[cromag]

My daughter's karate instructor used to say, "Practice doesn't make perfect -- perfect practice makes perfect."

Obviously, you also need some talent for storytelling and skill in grammar to succeed as a writer, but the "highly talented failure" is so common it's a cliche. You have to have drive and faith in yourself to persevere in the face of rejection, since very few successful writers make it big right out of the starting gate. But you do need a bit of luck, as well.

Of course, the more you work at it, the more likely you'll be to encounter that little bit of luck.

Which brings us back to "practice."

[pdurrant]

One only has to look at a TV show like Strictly Come Dancing. (Dancing with the Stars in the US).

Some people start off badly, but with the intensive practice and training become really good. Some people start off badly, but even with the intensive practice and training never become more than barely competent.

It's hard to distinguish between the two in the beginning. It's only after they've put in the hard work that one finds out whether someone will be one of the ones who becomes really good or not.

So, I suspect, is it with writers, or any other skill. Some can become good or great with practise, others will never become more than barely competent no matter how much they work at. But you won't know which you are unless you give it a go.


tl;dr: No, not everyone can become a good writer, no matter how hard they work.

[gmw]

I'm reminded a bit of my school days: watching students work their hearts out trying to learn subjects - and when that failed, to memorise enough to get past the exams. Meanwhile other students seem to breeze through exactly the same subjects.

I suppose the most common situation is that if you never get comfortable with a subject or discipline, or whatever, that you won't enjoy it so you won't try to spend 10,000 hours trying to become an proficient at it. You will, presumably, find something for which you have more aptitude, before committing such time.

[Dr. Drib]

No.

Let me say that again: No.

Some people, as Harlan Ellison probably said, need to stay away from writing. Those types of people need to get another job.

Although.....Like 'Groundhog Day' (if you had an eternity in which to achieve perfection), then one might be able to write a good sentence...or two.

[mr ploppy]

I don't think practice alone would do it in the case of writing, someone telling you what you are doing wrong is more important. Otherwise you'd just be spending 10,000 hours writing crap.

[pendragginp]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

One only has to look at a TV show like Strictly Come Dancing. (Dancing with the Stars in the US).

Some people start off badly, but with the intensive practice and training become really good. Some people start off badly, but even with the intensive practice and training never become more than barely competent.

It's hard to distinguish between the two in the beginning. It's only after they've put in the hard work that one finds out whether someone will be one of the ones who becomes really good or not.

So, I suspect, is it with writers, or any other skill. Some can become good or great with practise, others will never become more than barely competent no matter how much they work at. But you won't know which you are unless you give it a go.


tl;dr: No, not everyone can become a good writer, no matter how hard they work.

This is a perfect illustration.

[pendragginp]

Originally Posted by gmw

I'm reminded a bit of my school days: watching students work their hearts out trying to learn subjects - and when that failed, to memorise enough to get past the exams. Meanwhile other students seem to breeze through exactly the same subjects.

I suppose the most common situation is that if you never get comfortable with a subject or discipline, or whatever, that you won't enjoy it so you won't try to spend 10,000 hours trying to become an proficient at it. You will, presumably, find something for which you have more aptitude, before committing such time.

And this.

Of course it's also a fact that an awful lot of dreck is published and consumed, and an awful lot of people seem to really like it.

So there ya go.

[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.

[GeoffC]

If it were that easy, we'd all be doing it ! (given the time )

[ApK]

Originally Posted by cromag

My daughter's karate instructor used to say, "Practice doesn't make perfect -- perfect practice makes perfect.""

Hmm, you're in NJ...I wonder if we have the same sensei. That sure is one of his lines.

On the topic, there are many chestnuts on the order of success being 10% talent and 90% hard work. (10% inspiration, 90% perspiration, etc)

But I think too many people interpret that as discounting that 10%.

An atom is 99% empty space, but that doesn't mean the other 1% is anything less than vital.

Writing is an art and a craft.

The 90% that is Craft can be learned by anyone.
I think that any person with normal cognitive and verbal ability can learn to be an above average writer if they work at it, regardless of talent.

That's probably enough to give anyone a serious advantage in writing reports, memos, letters, arguments, grant proposals, etc, compared to a lot of the competition.

The 10% that is Art? I think that has to be in there somewhere already for it be brought out by any amount of work.

ApK

[Penforhire]

I think with all crafts it takes a certain amount of work to get to where you understand just how far you have to go. Some people will push on and achieve an objective level of greatness while most are stuck in mediocrity. One melodramatic take on this was Salieri's view in Amadeus.

Almost anyone can achieve a workman level in a craft. I do not believe that everyone can go beyond that. It takes a blend of inspiration, perspiration, and something intangible to transcend the ordinary.

It also takes more than raw talent. I had a friend who I thought was an amazingly inspired mixed media artist. His visual ideas were clever, creative, and generally outstanding. But his preparation level was near zero. If something didn't turn out right the first time he'd just drop it. So his actual skill was weak. His work was always sloppy and missing fundamentals. He would never be a great artist. I always supported his efforts (e.g. fronting money for a tee shirt run) but I ended up seeing a pattern that never changed. He would always be a mediocre artist, and tortured soul.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Penforhire

It also takes more than raw talent. I had a friend who I thought was an amazingly inspired mixed media artist. His visual ideas were clever, creative, and generally outstanding. But his preparation level was near zero. If something didn't turn out right the first time he'd just drop it. So his actual skill was weak. His work was always sloppy and missing fundamentals. He would never be a great artist. I always supported his efforts (e.g. fronting money for a tee shirt run) but I ended up seeing a pattern that never changed. He would always be a mediocre artist, and tortured soul.

Sounds like he didn't put in enough of the other 90%....

[crich70]

I think part of the mystique of writing comes from the fact that people expect it to be easy. I.e. I'll just sit down and type/write out a piece of fiction/article and mail it off tomorrow. Of course just like any art form a lot of work goes into the finished product that we buy at the ebook store and many just give up when they find it isn't that easy as they think it will be.