If you are a true writer you would not care about wheather others care to read it or look for attention. if you are good at what you do it is because you do it for yourself and if you are a good, cofident writer then others will read what you write becuse, well it will be good and real. No one ever became a good writer by asking others how to do it, you either are born with a talent and have to do it because your mind wont let you not do it or you are not blessed with it and will only become moderatly tolerable if you practice each and every day. Writers are born not made. Pith
It is fine to have that opinion. I am not saying that it is imposible but I cant hit a 95 mph fastball and doubt I would be able to even if i practiced for 8hrs a day every day why do you concider writing to be any different. Some people can do it, some people just cant. Pith
And some people give up because the practice is too hard, or too consuming. I think you were right on with the baseball analogy, pith. It follows that some people just aren't physically suited for baseball, just as some people are not mentally suited for writing. But a writer's brain must be as developed and sophisticated as a baseball player's body -- even if someone has talent, there are still ways for that person to improve and refine his or her craft by practice.
two completely different sections on the grid of life. i guess you could though, seeing as how you can always improve your athletic ability as well... thanks.
dude that sounds totally true; although i do believe everyone can improve their skills with time, we just start at different levels. this whole quote describes why i have yet to post in this forum ...until now DUM dum DUMMmm
it depends on what youre writing... if it couldnt be taught then they wouldnt have it at school. naturallly ive always been able to write poems and short stories, but there are a lot of 'rules' in writing. After studying how to write, now im much better at puting together a story or essay
pith, I think you're talking about confidence, not talent. On the whole I agree with you, but I also understand that many people lack the confidence to take such a stand. As a result, they need feedback or else their natural talent will wither. Examples: Mary Shelley Emily Dickinson Vincent Van Gogh All these people were naturally talented, but without the intense support from loved ones, they would've probably quit. So, sure, if someone needs some positive support/advice/criticism, why not help em out?
I love helping young writers or any one who writes. I do belive that people can become good writers with practice. But I still belive that just like everything else, to be great you need to be born with the inate ability to whatever it is you do. I can play the bass but no matter how much I practice I will never be able to play like Phil Lesh. I am however blessed with the gift of writing. I dont think that that is an arogent statement because everybody is born with in inate tallent for something they just have to find what it is.
I think Van Gogh and Dickensen are examples of the opposite--their families either disapproved or didn't know about their art. Dickensen wrote alone in a room and kept all her poetry in a trunk--almost unread until after her death.
I think that the basics of writing can be taught but that inner passion for the written word is makes a true writer. My question is: Is there a difference between a writer and an author? Cinnamom of the hippiestead
"My question is: Is there a difference between a writer and an author?" Hmmmm.... I suppose there is. An author maybe completes something that has meaning, and maybe a writer just writes whatever. An author has something to say, and works at it instead of just releasing it. I think most people are writers.
I agree with you on a certain level but I don't believe that all people that share their work aren't true writers. When I finish a poem or story I get very excited and want to share it with others. I just have a great urge to share what I've done with others. I am confident with my writing and when I think (not what other's think) it's finished then I'm happy with it. I know that it seems that I'm taking it personaly but I'm not. I was just using myself as an example. A true writer is someone who has emotion for their work. Every piece is like a child. Even if that child is unloved by the world, the writer will always have a place in their heart for it.
I agree and I don't. As Casper says, it depends on why you show your work. Being a musician whenever I write a good song I feel strangely compelled to show absolutely everyone, for no apparent reason. If someone says it's crap then I tell them I'm sorry it they didn't like it and not give their opinion much of a second thought. Plus it's not unhelpful to get feedback - if you write something and you feel that there's something not QUITE right about but can't pinpoint it yourself then it's nice to show it to someone and they'll say "I liked it but it could do with more references to the senses" and then you say "THAT'S IT, THAT'S EXACTLY IT!" Besides, if you show your work to people then generally the princible of favourability makes people say "I love it" to your initial work and this gives you confidence. I would agree that some people can just do it and there are some people who just can't; but there are also many shades of gray. Blessings Sebbi
Hmmmm, I think it's the opposite. When I think author, I think of the people who churn out books using the same formula every time, where you read the book knowing what the basic plot is going to be; you only read it to see where the author changed it. I see a writer as someone who releases inner passion and the flow comes naturally; it will say something because it is part of the writer's heartsong.