On Teaching...and Learning...How to Write

[Peg Herring]

In response to my comment yesterday (on voice in writing) that nobody can teach how it happens, Jon made the point that he does, and I have to yield on that one. Otherwise I'd be forced to admit that I spent 30 years wasting time in my English classes. Writing can be taught: the elements, the recognition of good writing, the practices that lead to improvement, and even the terminology that helps us discuss the process intelligently.

However, I contend that writing is a lot like singing. I love to sing. I know all the notes, I can learn the phrasing, the words, the dynamics; I can practice and do scales and warm-ups and proper breathing, and I'll get better. After years of practice, on a good day I can make a melodious sound. But I won't be Barbra Streisand when all is said and done. That combination of talent, instinct, showmanship and experience that combines to raise a person above the herd doesn't come to every student, no matter how good the instruction or how willing the pupil. It's a factor that we teachers can polish but can't create. That's what can't be taught.

[I. J. Parker]

I don't think true talent is that narrow a group. If I were more familiar with King's work I might venture a guess about him. It seems to me to hinge on being able to break through to providing moments of true insight. Even the the famous literary writers do not always achieve this, but they generally achieve it on occasion.

[Dana King]

King's idea of great writers ("geniuses, divine accidents, gifted in a way which is beyond our ability to understand, let alone attain") includes "the Shakespeares, the Faulkners, the Yeatses, the Shaws, the Eudora Weltys." He doesn't say where he is, but based on the above comment ("...beyond our ability to understand...') I'd say he considers himself good, not great.

[Jon Loomis]

I've seen hard work, good training and a certain amount of competitive drive really do amazing things for young/aspiring writers who didn't, at first glance, seem to have big-time "talent." I've also seen kids that seemed to have considerable innate ability with language fizzle and flame out through inertia or mental illness or addiction. That said, we do see some truly gifted writers here--maybe one or two a year--and it's always a pleasure to wrap them up and send them off to Iowa or Columbia or UVa. You never know, though, which kids will go on to have careers as writers--in my experience, the driven second-tier kids do about as well as the "talented" kids over the long haul.

I wonder in which of those categories Stephen King would place himself? And who he would consider a great writer?

[I. J. Parker]

Yes, I think that's probably correct. You tend to go into this writing business very tentatively, and years are spent just learning to be better and waiting to see if perhaps the elusive gift is there after all.

[Dana King]

oops. Observed.

[Dana King]

Stephen King says there are four levels of writers: Incompetent, Competent, Good, and Great. A competent writer can, with work and education, become a good writer. An Incompetent writer may be able to become a competent writer. A good writer cannot become a great writer. That's where talent, the unteachable element, comes in.

I spent the first half of my adult life as a musician. King's observation fits well with what I have abserved.