From: swkmorri@nuscc.nus.sg (Perry Morrison (Dr))
Subject: Re: "Wow, You're a Writer!"[long]
Organization: National University of Singapore
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 05:30:27 GMT

macgyver@turtle.cis.ohio-state.edu (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
drive at the level that would entertain others (unless people were
amused by watching them die!).

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.

: >It is my sincere belief that just as some people are tone deaf, others
: >are deaf to dialogue, plot, characterization or basic structure of
: >writing (of any kind) despite having the mechanics of reading and
: >writing. Such people may call themselves writers (and why not?) or
: >anything else, but that does not mean that they have the capacity to
: >entertain others with their activities or produce something that others
: >(publishers or readers) will buy.
: 
: 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.

I think the following confession of my own limitations illustrates
my point. Briefly, I am a mechanical ignoramus. Some roadside things 
I can fix- like flat tyres, blocked carburettor jets, wet distributors
and stuff. But I cannot take an engine apart and put it back together
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.
No matter how much i try.  Sure, give me an engine of a fixed type and with 
a few months I could probably learn by parrot/monkey fashion how to take
it apart and put it back together---just as someone might learn how to
write a short story with fixed characters and plot.

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.

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.

Now, my father might write out the grocery list and believe he is a
writer and I might change my flat tyres and call myself a mechanic.
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).

Of course, publication of one's work and receiving money is not a
water tight indication of writing ability (just as many backyard
mechanics rip off people for shoddy work), but on a consistent
basis I think it does reveal an aptitude for writing. The writing
may not be great. It may disappear in time and a lot of people might
even hate it (there are exceptions to everything), but it is probably
the best index we have that someone does have an aptitude for writing
of some kind.

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.

Oh...and I do understand that some great work will never be published
until literary fashions change and that some current "great" work will
disappear and that many great works were self published or rejected
3 zillion times. I also understand that there are any number of other
reasons why people cannot get published and I do not deny that many of
them also have the ability to write. It's an imperfect world out there,
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.

Does anyone have a better index?

perry morrison
(a modestly published/paid person





: 
: >On reflection, I think the statement I quoted- "Anyone can write...it's
: >just that some of us choose not to..." actually reflects a kind of
: >jealosy or bitterness amongst some publishing staff---many of whom
: >are frustrated writers or writers who have temporarily or permanently
: >stopped writing.
: 
: Perhaps so, people like that certainly exist. Again, perhaps they are
: saying that anyone can writer average stuff, or some of the trash in the
: slush pile which the publisher gets everyday. 
: 
: 
: -- 
: 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|=======================================