From: macgyver@bluegill.cis.ohio-state.edu (MacGyver)
Subject: Re: "Wow, You're a Writer!"[long]
Organization: The Ohio State University, Department of Computer and Information Science
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 13:29:13 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.053027.4524@nuscc.nus.sg> swkmorri@nuscc.nus.sg (Perry Morrison (Dr)) writes:
>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). 

Ok, I'll agree that someone who is tone deaf would have probably
producing entertaining music. But I think people who have absolutely
NO sense of rhythm or people who are just totally tone deaf are a
minority. That's why I think for most people, with enough practice and
hardwork, they can play existing music to the point that's
entertaining to others.

>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.

I do agree with you that this is where our difference lies. I too
believe that writing does require some basic skills & abilities.

...[deleted]
>again. How do I know that with sufficient training and practice I
>could not become a commercial mechanic? I know because I look at a part 
>and cannot understand how it works and why it should go where it does.

Training and practice is quite different than looking at a part and
understand how it works. Engine is quite complex, and I think most
people don't learn how it works but just looking at the parts and try
to understand why it works. There are some basic skills and knowledge
you must acquire before you can understand the functions of various
engine parts. And to say that you can't be a commercial mechanic
simply because you looked at some engine parts and don't know how or
why they worked is like saying someone who understands some simple
Math, and then looked at Calculus, and say "I have no hope of being a
Math professional because I've looked at some equations of Calculus,
and I have no idea how or why they work."

>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
>and quickly figure out where a part goes and why. He does it easily
>and intuitively. He can't understand why I can't see what he sees
>(and I wonder why too). It's simply a fact.

The difference here is merely that your father has the talent for
being a mechanic, while you don't. That still doesn't imply that with
enough training and knowledge you can't be an average mechanic.  Sure,
your father has much better chance of becoming a great mechanic. But I
think you can learn enough to survive in a commerical environment.
Yes, it might be pitifully robotic and inadequate compare to your
father. But that's what happens when you compare an person with
average skills to someone with superb skills.

>The alternative is to argue that every sparkplug replacer is capable
>of learning how to rebuild a V-8 and that every grocery list writer
>can produce a trilogy. I think the only difference is that the V-8
>rebuilder can objectively see that his work is dismal (even if his customers 
>don't tell him) while the trilogist relies on the vagaries of publishers' 
>opinion.

This is what happens when you take a generalization to an extreme.

>but IMHO the best index that someone has a rudimentary ability to write is 
>the simple fact that someone somewhere has published them and/or paid them
>for it.

Well, as they said, "it may not be the best system, but it's the only
one we got."


-- 
Wilson MacGyver                      |"I do like a road, because you can be 
Internet:macgyver@cis.ohio-state.edu | always wondering what is at the end
=====================================| of it."
Disclaimer:All opinions are mine only|=======================================