NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #18/NN_1992_18.iso/spool/misc/writing/2583

Text File | 1992-08-17 | 4.7 KB | 98 lines

Newsgroups: misc.writing
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!csn!cherokee!dakota!ken
From: ken@dakota (Kenny Chaffin)
Subject: Re: "Wow, You're a Writer!"[long]
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Radio Free Boulder)
Nntp-Posting-Host: dakota.advtech.uswest.com
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 16:31:29 GMT
Lines: 85

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Perry Morrison (Dr)) writes:
>[e-mail] (MacGyver) writes:
>
>: That's not true. With enough training, while you may not be able to
>: come up with new sounds, you can certainly entertain others by playing
>: existing music.
>
>No. I can't believe that people who do not have any sense of rhythm
>or who are tone deaf can ever be trained to the point that what they
>produce is entertaining to others (except maybe 3 year olds). That's
>like saying that someone without depth perception, eye-hand
>co-ordination or good reflexes can drive a car. Certainly they couldn't
>
>I think we have to face the fact that writing does require some basic
>skills and inherent ability. I guess we differ on the extent to which
>we believe that this is innate or able to be developed.
>
>: Writers, like any other profession, have good writers, average writers,
>: bad writers, etc etc etc. Telling people that you are a writer doesn't
>: imply that you are a GOOD writer, nor does it imply you have the
>: capacity to enterain others with their writing.
>
>Well, as I noted in my original post, I have no objection to people
>calling themselves whatever they want-writers or musicians or whatever-
>regardless of their true ability. I simply maintain that some abilities
>cannot be taught. Some people for example cannot construct dialogue. They just
>cannot hear it. Some people cannot devise a plot no matter how many
>are dissected for them and no matter how much practice they get.

    Stuff about not understanding engines deleted

>
>The difference is, to continue my mechanical analogy, that my father
>(without any formal mechanical training) can take ANY engine--one
>he hasn't even seen before---even using technologies he hasn't heard of

    He has a gift for doing this and that's okay it makes him better at it.
>
>Now, I can call myself a mechanic (and why not?). But I don't delude
>myself that I have the skills to survive in a commercial environment
>and I don't believe that any amount of training will overcome my
>innate lack of mechanical ability. To some extent it might help, but it
>would be pitifully robotic and inadequate compared to the ability
>level of my father.
>
>On the other hand, I believe that I do have some capacity to write
>(which my father does not). I believe that I have some sense in
>choosing words and constructing paragraphs etc. I don't know why I
>sense that something should be said in a certain way, nor do I know
>how my father knows that rotating that thingy upside down and to the
>left would probably make it fit. He just does and so do i.

    It seems as if you've bought into the Literary School of You-Have-
To-Have-a-gift-to-write paradigm which is absolutely false. Writing is a
craft just like anything else--music, mechanicing etc.

>
>I don't think those semantics are very important. What is important
>is that I recognise that I do not have sufficient mechanical aptitude
>to engage in commercial mechanical work, just as my father will never
>make a dollar from writing anything (nor does he want to).
                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^Which is more to the point.
Anyone who has the desire (i.e. who _wants_ to) can learn to write and
even make a living at it--if that is their desire. There is no magic. It
is simply a matter of desire and willingness to learn the craft.
    If you _wanted_ to I'm sure you could become a diesel mechanic, but
likely you dont want to and subconsciously (and even consciously apparently)
you seen no need to be able to understand the theory of engines etc. and
that's okay. It depends on what you want.

    I believe publication can be a good indicator of a real(tm) writer but
that's not necessarily true either. Writers write. They write stories, poems,
songs, novels, manuals, books and plays. Some are good and some are bad and
most are somewhere in between. But they are all writers and if they write
they have the right to call themselves such. It is not up to you or me to
say what they are based on our judgement of their work.

>
KAC


Kenny A. Chaffin                      {...boulder}!uswat!ken
U S WEST Advanced Technologies         [e-mail]
4001 Discovery Drive  Boulder, CO 80303         [phone]