# Can creative writing be taught?



## The Real McCoy (Oct 8, 2010)

As a writer I do a lot of library talks and one of the most asked questions is: Can creative writing be taught? My answer is always the same. Only in a way that singers can be taught to sing. First you need a voice. All the teaching in the world won’t give a person a singing voice nor will it give them a writing voice. Creative writing is born in you and will come out whether or not you’re taught. Teaching will only serve to refine what you already have. This is a true story. 

1875 England. Two travelling actors, Richard Edgar and Polly Richards had sex during a drunken evening backstage, an incident Richard was too drunk to remember nor did he ever know that he’d made Polly pregnant. Polly was so ashamed of her pregnancy that she ran away to London where she gave birth to the son the world would come to know as Edgar Wallace.

In 1878, Richard Edgar, totally unaware that he was already a father,  got married and, in 1880, had a legitimate son, Marriott Edgar, who grew up to be a talented performer, poet and script writer. Richard would die never knowing of his first son’s existence.

In 1995 Edgar Wallace, who’d had numerous jobs, joined the army and went to South Africa. He was eventually transferred to the Press Corps where he found his metier. His writing career began. He would go on to create King Kong, write many books, including The Four Just Men, and become the most read British author of the early 20th century.

In middle-age Marriott Edgar teamed up with Stanley Holloway, (who played Alfred Doolittle in the film My Fair Lady, but was better known in the UK for his comic monologues which were written by Marriot Edgar). In 1930, Stanley and Marriott  went to Hollywood and met Edgar Wallace who had just been told by a niece that he had a half brother who was also in the States.  The meeting came in Los Angeles at a time when Marriot was writing Stanley Holloway’s most famous monologue, The Lion and Albert ― the one that begins, “There’s a famous seaside place called Blackpool,” and goes on to tell of the Ramsbottom family  going to the zoo where they meet a “great big lion called Wallace”.

Just a joke between two genetically talented writers, the sons of the same father, both of whom  made it to the top without knowing of each other’s existence  for 50 years.


----------



## Randy Kadish (Feb 24, 2010)

I believe in the power of technique. Yes, technique can't make a story, but it can bring out the best in it; and so I also believe much of creative writing can be taught. All the great golfers study technique, so why not writers?

Having said that, I believe technique is only part of the story. I believe that we writers must have something to write about and, therefore, should live life by going out into the real world, and then drawing upon what we've lived and seen.

I didn't get published until after I studied and practiced the techniques of writing.

Randy


----------



## Whatever (Feb 21, 2011)

The more important question is whether people are willing to learn.  78% of American believe they can write a book.  But a very low percentage of them even try.  And those that do try, only a low percentage think they have to learn anything.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

It's just like anything else, it can be taught. But not everyone has the aptitude. You can teach people physics, but even if they have learned something by the end, only some of them are going to be physicists. Football coaches teach players to be the best player they can be. But the best they can be might not be all that good. There is a long history of art schools and dance schools. All of these require some aptitide, and writing is no different.

It depends on what you mean by taught, none of these, writing included, can be taught in the vocational sense. Compare house painting to painting a picture. No one is ever going to gather to watch look at a housepainter's work, but they might gather to look at an artist's painting. If you're good as a house painter, no one notices, it's only when you're bad at it that people notice.


----------



## Bob Mayer (Feb 20, 2011)

The craft of writing can be taught.  To get to the level of artists requires something more.  The biggest thing is that a person has to be self-motivated.  No one is going to for a writer to learn or write. 
In over 20 years of teaching writing and tens of thousands of students, the biggest problem is an unwillingness to change.


----------



## evrose (Jan 7, 2011)

I don't know if it can be taught SUCCESSFULLY, but looking up on the wall of my office I can't help but notice that my first degree reads, "B.A. English (creative writing)". One of my professors in college was TC Boyle http://www.tcboyle.com/ - and yes, he was amazing at teaching fiction writing.

Of course, I later ended up in Medical School, and am now a doctor... so that should tell you what the value of that degree is... haha.


----------



## James Everington (Dec 25, 2010)

If someone has natural talent then it can be sharpened, either by teaching or the old-fashioned (it seems) route of just reading and writing a lot...

James


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

I'd agree with you, TRM. I think classes, books, and all the rest can improve almost all writers, but there is a limit and a wall for most of them. There is an inherent spark in truly great writers that can't be taught or instilled. _Fortunately_, a writer doesn't have to be a genius to be quite good and worth reading. _Unfortunately_, it's hard work. 

I do think some people are truly ill-matched to the craft of writing and all the work in the world won't advance then to more than mediocre -- that's still an improvement though.


----------



## caseyf6 (Mar 28, 2010)

I asked my brother once how he learned to take such amazing photographs.  He said you can learn framing, composition, and the physical aspects of color and light, but that a lot of it relied on magic.

I feel the same is true of writing.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

I'm not sure how much spark there really is. One trait that people who are good at something have is that they have spent a lof of time doing it. Ted Williams is regarded as having a lot of natural talent, but he spent hours and hours and hours practicing hitting a baseball. No one steps up to the canvas for the first time and produces great art. There are people who can produce great writing without formal training, but they also have to write and write and write all on their own. There are plenty of people who could be good writers, or good ball players or good artists, if they decided that was what they wanted to do and were willing to put the effort into it.

There are "colleges" that operate out of strip malls, they aren't going to be able to do a thing for you. They imply that you take a class with them and they will have you ready to do some creative activity or another right away, but it doesn't work like that.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

QuantumIguana said:


> I'm not sure how much spark there really is. One trait that people who are good at something have is that they have spent a lof of time doing it. Ted Williams is regarded as having a lot of natural talent, but he spent hours and hours and hours practicing hitting a baseball. No one steps up to the canvas for the first time and produces great art. There are people who can produce great writing without formal training, but they also have to write and write and write all on their own. There are plenty of people who could be good writers, or good ball players or good artists, if they decided that was what they wanted to do and were willing to put the effort into it.
> 
> There are "colleges" that operate out of strip malls, they aren't going to be able to do a thing for you. They imply that you take a class with them and they will have you ready to do some creative activity or another right away, but it doesn't work like that.


Malcolm Gladwell, much?


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

MichelleR said:


> Malcolm Gladwell, much?


I'm assuming you have a point. Or is having a point one of those things that can't be taught?


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

QuantumIguana said:


> I'm assuming you have a point. Or is having a point one of those things that can't be taught?


My point was to say it sounded like what Malcolm Gladwell, and a few other writers, have written about in recent years. It's a concept I find very interesting, and one I believe in, while still thinking there's something more to it. By implication, I was asking if you had read Gladwell. However, you seem to be angry at me for having expressed a different take on things upthread and are not of the "if you don't have anything nice to say" school of thought. Since I wasn't aiming to offend you or anyone else when I responded to the OP, and since I wasn't rude in my opinion, I'm pretty sure there's nothing I could have done other than have not shared my opinion in the way that you shared yours and I sincerely hope others give you the respect you did not give me. I have to say, I've come to take a much friendlier tone for granted on KB and an assumed respect for the exchange of ideas.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Michelle, I think perhaps he, like me, was mystified by your reference. His response didn't seem angry to me.  Let's move past this one.

I think creative writing can be taught, as a technique, but creativity cannot. 

Betsy


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

"Or is having a point one of those things that can't be taught?"

...reads as angry to me and in mocking response to my post to the OP. I can't see it any other way, but of course I'll move on and just think twice (three times?) before engaging with the poster. That's my problem though.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

MichelleR said:


> My point was to say it sounded like what Malcolm Gladwell, and a few other writers, have written about in recent years. It's a concept I find very interesting, and one I believe in, while still thinking there's something more to it. By implication, I was asking if you had read Gladwell. However, you seem to be angry at me for having expressed a different take on things upthread and are not of the "if you don't have anything nice to say" school of thought. Since I wasn't aiming to offend you or anyone else when I responded to the OP, and since I wasn't rude in my opinion, I'm pretty sure there's nothing I could have done other than have not shared my opinion in the way that you shared yours and I sincerely hope others give you the respect you did not give me. I have to say, I've come to take a much friendlier tone for granted on KB and an assumed respect for the exchange of ideas.


I had done nothing other than to respectfully disagree, and at that, I only disagreed slightly. I reread it to see if there was anything I had written that seemed angry, if so, I can't see it. Where it often seems that some people have an inherent spark that others lack, it's quite often a matter of having put invested a great number of hours. Yes, there are some people who will never be able to write a good book no matter how much education they have, or how many hours they pour into it. But people seem to think that art school or dance school is worthwhile, is writing so different?


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

QuantumIguana said:


> I had done nothing other than to respectfully disagree, and at that, I only disagreed slightly.


It just seemed to me that your response directly to me might have been disagreement, but it doesn't appear to me to be respectful at all.



> I'm assuming you have a point. Or is having a point one of those things that can't be taught?


You seemed angry and, because I don't recall having talked to you before, it took me aback, since my post directly to you was joking and playful. The only thing I could attribute it to was my previous post in the thread and it seemed odd to me that you were that put out when my comments were never meant to offend anyone.

I mean, it's not a big deal. I know that. I am on a lot of boards where the order of the day is sharp exchanges. It just surprised me here. I don't know how to read your response as anything other than you calling my post pointless. I think, before Betsy beats us with a hat, we should move on though. Perhaps we can agree on that?


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

QuantamIguana sent a very nice PM and we're cool, having accepted key points where we both went wrong. 

Interpersonal communications can be taught, day by day.  I'm sorry for my part in making this "a thing" and for not taking into account that QI doesn't know me well enough to get my tone. I should have said it better. 

Moving on...


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Thanks to you both and remember the emoticons are there for a reason. 

Betsy


----------



## Guest (Feb 22, 2011)

I've heard that all it takes to be a genius is the willingness to put in the time. MichelleR's point about a ceiling resonates with me though. Writing is no different than tennis, piano, painting, web design, cooking, quilting, producing cheese, practicing medicine, in that they all require a massive amount of time to master.


----------



## Andre Jute (Dec 18, 2010)

I can make anyone who is willing to put in the time a publishable novelist, in the same sense that anyone who is willing to put in the time can be made a low-handicap golfer or a proficient ballroom dancer. But the amount of work required will, in the absence of at least some inborn talent, be excessively large in relation to the reward.

But I won't even try with some people.

HERE ARE SOME GOOD SIGNS OF PEOPLE WHO CAN BE TAUGHT TO WRITE A NOVEL

Constant reader. People who want to write a book but don't read in the genre are hopeless. Wide reading is a better indicator of who can be a novelist than even a good quality education.

Women are good because by and large they are more disciplined than men, and writing a novel is very largely about discipline. Even when you've mastered everything else, discipline remains the one constant.

Well spoken or at least possessed of a scrupulous regard for the language.

More interested in technique than in posturing as "an artist".

It is a good thing for the aspirant to be suspicious of induced "creativity". Creativity is the result of perspiration at your craft, not something that is mechanically taught.

Calm people with their minds in gear are good. Also a sense of humor. There are many obstacles to overcome in a writer's life, and an intense outlook coupled with the essential loneliness will soon turn the humorless into manic depressives.

Loners are more likely to stick it out than the ultra-gregarious. A writer spends a lot of time with only his mind and his characters for company. A Room of One's Own is more than a spatial aspiration.

AND SOME NEGATIVE INDICATORS

Specialist profession requiring huge amounts of technical reading, leaving no time for reading fiction. Yes, I know there are exceptions. I'm by training a psychologist, and I've spoken to thousands of writers. In my opinion, most of the writers from the specialist professions are misplaced in the specialist profession in the first instance. I was; but I walked out on my first day as an intern.

An unsophisticated belief that a publishable novel can be made by the teacher sharing some "tips and tricks". There aren't any tips and tricks.

An overly mechanistic mind, easily spotted as over-reliance on the plot rather than on the fuel of fiction, the characters.

A jerk-up personality, a claim of personal sensitivity (these are usually the most insensitive, rude people you can hope to meet!), a belief that an aspirant is an "artist" before he has produced any art, and a great many other such detractors from discipline, are all serious contra-indicators. Such people may produce a novel or even several but they will all be at the level of the first, and are rarely books large numbers of people want to read. In any event, the reward of trying to help such people is marginal.
***

Ah, perhaps I should say that I'm the author of several best-selling books of instruction for other writers which are well regarded by professional writers and by the hundreds of writers they have helped to publication. One of them, WRITING A THRILLER, is in the process of being edited for the Kindle in a slightly enlarged 4th edition, and in a year or eighteen months, when the ebook market has settled down, it will be revised again, so these things matters have been in my mind, especially after experiences with the indies. If you're interested in such matters, my blog Kissing the Blarney is loosely organized around the creation of the next but one edition of WRITING A THRILLER; please join me at http://coolmainpress.com/ajwriting/archives/133
***

"Good novels are not written, they are rewritten. Great novels are diamonds mined from layered rewrites." - André Jute/p83 of WRITING A THRILLER


----------



## Bob Mayer (Feb 20, 2011)

One of the problems I see is that MFA programs are teaching students how to be teachers of MFA program rather than writers.  The vast majority of MFA program won't allow their students to write 'genre' fiction.  So a 22 year old is trying to write the Great American Novel.  Right.  Let them cut their teeth on mystery, romance, scifi.  
Your tenured faculty at these programs make their living teaching, not writing.  That about sums it up.  I teach at the Univ of WA and have been working full time as a writer for 20 years.  The fear of the writing instructors at colleges towards writers who have actually made money writing is shocking.  They have to protect their turf, but in doing so, do their students an injustice.  Publishing is a wide open field right now and authors who can write and understand the business can succeed.  Unfortunately, most MFA program ignore the business end, simply because their teachers aren't really in it.


----------



## Shelia A. Huggins (Jan 20, 2011)

All very interesting comments. Unfortunately, I'm probably only a hundreds of hours into the practice of writing, and I think Gladwell spoke of 90,000. Here's a question, how much better is the person with 90,000 hours in the practice of writing compared to the person at 80,000 hours in the practice of writing. And since most people like different types of writing, how do you determine what good writing is anyway. I've read writers that I know were paid quite a bit of money. Yet I didn't think the book was that great. But that's just me.


----------



## mima (Jul 16, 2009)

Shelia, I think quality will always come up when people start talking about definitions of "author" and "writer". 

I'm a teacher as well as a writer. And every single year I teach 6, 7, and 8 year olds the basics of creative writing. They all can do it naturally because we are a story-literate society, albeit graphically. With my instruction, they do it better. With classroom teachers that direct them to continue practicing they do it even better. The ones that continue to do it on their own over the summer are fantastic. But that's not to say I haven't seen first attempts by the youngest that I considered publishable. Is that raw talent? Luck? 

I come down on the side of yes, it can be taught. Success is a very fluid state and a whole 'nother issue.


----------



## Mrs. K. (Dec 31, 2010)

The Real McCoy said:


> As a writer I do a lot of library talks and one of the most asked questions is: Can creative writing be taught? My answer is always the same. Only in a way that singers can be taught to sing. First you need a voice. All the teaching in the world won't give a person a singing voice nor will it give them a writing voice. Creative writing is born in you and will come out whether or not you're taught. Teaching will only serve to refine what you already have. This is a true story.


Singers can be taught to sing if they have a voice, acting can be taught, writing can be taught. Yet many talented writers/artists/actors aren't all that successful...I think the difference is what's known as stage presence...that attention-getting unique quality you can't define, teach, or pay for publicity to obtain. Sure, the talent has to be there, but something _more_ must also exist.


----------



## Adler_James (Feb 17, 2011)

Bob_Mayer said:


> The craft of writing can be taught. To get to the level of artists requires something more. The biggest thing is that a person has to be self-motivated. No one is going to for a writer to learn or write.
> In over 20 years of teaching writing and tens of thousands of students, the biggest problem is an unwillingness to change.


Hey Bob - I agree with you there... let me ask you, since you mentioned you were/are a teacher... what type of change do you find people most resist?


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Perhaps because of the audience we have here, most of the responses here seem aimed at the student being able to write a novel.  Is that the goal of everyone who takes a creative writing course?  (Pardon my ignorance.). I know not everyone who takes a quilt class, not even an art quilt wants to be a professional quilter....

Betsy


----------



## Tom Schreck (Dec 12, 2010)

I think just about anything can be taught. However there is a difference between being competent and being entertaining.

I've tried for years to play the guitar and though mechanically I've improved, my ear and rhythm don't seem to ever gain. i suspect writing is similar.

Explaining how someone writes a brilliantly entertaining first novel seems to defy Gladwell's principles too.


----------



## horse_girl (Apr 9, 2010)

From reading all the responses, there seems to be a large agreement that while something can be taught to a highly technical degree, a good writer must already possess something inside to take them beyond that.

I could make the analogy about horses: There are a lot of good horses already possessing a talent through breeding for a specific discipline who can do wonderful things with the right training, but the great horses have that special presence that makes them stand out above all others. Training can only do so much, just as natural talent can and any horse can be good. But the greatest have something more that can't be defined and when they're trained in the discipline that suits them best, they leap ahead of all the others against which they are competing (ie Zenyatta and Secretariat in racing, Moorlands Totilas and Ravel in dressage, Hollywood Dun It in reining, etc.)...yes, there's a reason I chose horse_girl 

Writing is a lot like that. We can have the discipline and the training, but great writers have an innate knowledge of the human condition expressed in their stories which resonates with readers on a deeper level than most writers can dream. We all know who they are and aspire to be like them, but not all of us can be. I'll admit that I'm not one of them, but I've worked hard to learn the craft and put out the best I can. Unfortunately my best is not as good as I wish it was, but I keep trying.

(Btw, Bob, love Area 51.)


----------



## calmriver (Feb 23, 2011)

The Real McCoy said:


> As a writer I do a lot of library talks and one of the most asked questions is: Can creative writing be taught? My answer is always the same. Only in a way that singers can be taught to sing. First you need a voice. All the teaching in the world won't give a person a singing voice nor will it give them a writing voice. Creative writing is born in you and will come out whether or not you're taught. Teaching will only serve to refine what you already have.


I have to agree with you, McCoy. As a student of Creative Writing at university, the course serves to inform about numerous styles of writing from Shakespeare to the romantics to 20th century modern. Like you say, it teaches us to use the tools we already have. I think the best way creative writing can be taught is through reading, and lots of it.


----------



## Edward W. Robertson (May 18, 2010)

Shelia A. Huggins said:


> All very interesting comments. Unfortunately, I'm probably only a hundreds of hours into the practice of writing, and I think Gladwell spoke of 90,000. Here's a question, how much better is the person with 90,000 hours in the practice of writing compared to the person at 80,000 hours in the practice of writing.


I think Gladwell's number is 10,000 hours, so at least it's not quite that intimidating.

This is a hard question to answer. Mostly, I wouldn't think the gap between someone with 9000 hours and 10,000 would be that great, but I see the potential for it to make a critical difference. Um.. too-long post ahoy:

I started learning kung fu a few years back, and pretty quickly, I realized it had a lot in common with my experience practicing writing: after just a few weeks of practicing every day, I thought I was awesome, that I could have been a supporting character in _The Matrix_; six months later, I realized I really wasn't very good, but was rewarded by knowing I was visibly better than when I'd started and could actually make my hands and feet do what they were supposed to be doing; a year after that, I was very comfortable in the dojo, picking up concepts in minutes that would once have taken me hours.

Two years in, I still had a long way towards "mastery," but when I practiced with my instructors, guys with 20 years of training apiece, I was capable of scoring the occasional hit, of surprising them, of holding my own--for a moment, anyway, and then they'd destroy me. But in some ways, I think there's a bigger gap between those with no training and those with two years of practice than between those with two years and twenty.

Not in all ways, though. Most of the time, my progress was too slow to notice--the difference between, say, 300 hours of practice and 400, let alone 300 and 330, wouldn't necessarily seem all that great. But now and again, I'd have a legitimate eureka! moment that changed the way I thought and practiced on the spot. My abilities made a clear jump in literal minutes; everything I did after was more effective. It's possible the person who's spent 10,000 hours training understands kung fu on a completely different level than someone who's "only" put in 9000 hours.

But in kung fu, these leaps don't happen without the foundation laid by practice. It's hard to concentrate on footwork before your blocks and strikes come automatically, without thought. Every day you practice, you get that much closer to being ready to make a breakthrough that could elevate everything you do. Where does that readiness come from? Through "kung fu," "skill through effort."

I suspect writing is very, very similar.


----------



## mima (Jul 16, 2009)

calmriver, i have to disagree. reading has nothing to do with writing. people can read till the cows come home and it won't improve their writing. all it does is refine an indiv's taste and help them recognize "it" when they see it. 

betsythequilter, many people who take creative writing courses want to be writers, but not all. in academia, there are (of course) many specialties, and novel writing is only one. but in terms of someone becoming a writer, you certainly don't have to take a creative writing course. you just have to be willing to analyze, to edit, to seek out information to explain that indefinable dissatisfaction you have over a particular chapter... basically you have to work at it. for some this means joining a group, or doing professional reading, or taking a workshop. and all of that is variation on "being taught".


----------



## purplepen79 (May 6, 2010)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Perhaps because of the audience we have here, most of the responses here seem aimed at the student being able to write a novel. Is that the goal of everyone who takes a creative writing course? (Pardon my ignorance.). I know not everyone who takes a quilt class, not even an art quilt wants to be a professional quilter....


Having taken a few creative writing courses in my day and being involved with several area writers' groups on and off, I have to say that in my experience, not everyone takes a writing class in order to write a novel. As with other areas of study, people take writing courses for a variety of reasons: fellowship with other people engaged in the same activity, honing of existing skills, learning new skills, receiving critiques from fellow students and the instructor, etc, etc. Some people do take writing courses as a way to spur them to write, which includes novel writing.

I think the reason people tend to focus on a novel being a writer's ultimate goal is that in the fiction market, novels far out-sell short story collections and poetry, and people in our culture tend to value things that can turn a quick profit. An anecdote to illustrate my feelings about this: Both my parents were highly talented, self-trained artists. My mom focused on creation for creation's sake. Not to say she wasn't interested in making money--she supported us with her pottery for several years before her health went downhill. However, she got so much joy out of the act of creating something, and that joy was her ultimate goal, not the money. My dad, on the other hand, had been born during the Depression to a poor farming family, and as a consequence, spent his whole life worried about whether an activity he did was financially profitable or not. As art often doesn't turn an immediate profit and sometimes sits on the shelves collecting dust for years before someone buys it, he spent his life being disappointed with his artwork, even when it was selling. This makes me sad to think about--my father was a great man, and I wish he could have taken more joy in his God-given talent instead of worrying about whether it would make any money or not. After all, if all artists worried about was profit, none of us would know who Vincent Van Gogh was.

And neither Dickens nor Shakespeare had an MFA. They were self-taught. If you really want to do something and do it well, you'll figure out a way to learn it, whether that learning takes place in traditional settings or not. I think it's drive that makes a writer, a burning desire to express to the world what's inside. If you have that, you'll figure out a way to express it and express it well so that other people will read and enjoy it.


----------



## Bob Mayer (Feb 20, 2011)

Internally motivated change is incredibly hard and what a writer needs.  No one is forcing you to write.  If you are blesses and can write from the womb out, you don't need to change.  The rest of us mortals do.  5% of people are capable of internally motivated change, which is why teaching creative writing is so hard.  The vast majority of students I've seen over the years simply switch deck chairs on the Titanic, but they don't really change.  I've been writing professionally for 20 years and just today had a huge moment of enlightenment (first step of true change) about my work in progress.  I've realized the first 80,000 words I wrote were backstory.  Bye-bye.  
You know how long it takes to write 80k?
But the bottom line is it makes the book better.
The 5% rule is not popular.  I had to stop my consulting in the Fortune 100 world because of it.  Small teams, start-ups, etc. like it.  Big corporations, nope.  
But being willing to accept the way I've been doing something isn't working and change, is the only path for me.


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

calmriver said:


> I have to agree with you, McCoy. As a student of Creative Writing at university, the course serves to inform about numerous styles of writing from Shakespeare to the romantics to 20th century modern. Like you say, it teaches us to use the tools we already have. I think the best way creative writing can be taught is through reading, and lots of it.





mima said:


> calmriver, i have to disagree. reading has nothing to do with writing. people can read till the cows come home and it won't improve their writing. all it does is refine an indiv's taste and help them recognize "it" when they see it.
> 
> betsythequilter, many people who take creative writing courses want to be writers, but not all. in academia, there are (of course) many specialties, and novel writing is only one. but in terms of someone becoming a writer, you certainly don't have to take a creative writing course. you just have to be willing to analyze, to edit, to seek out information to explain that indefinable dissatisfaction you have over a particular chapter... basically you have to work at it. for some this means joining a group, or doing professional reading, or taking a workshop. and all of that is variation on "being taught".


I don't believe a cookie-cutter create-a-writer assembly line style approach will work for all authors. No two writers approach the craft exactly the same way. There are too many varying degrees regarding talent vs. discipline to say that what works for one writer will necessarily work for the next. I agree with Calmriver that reading makes an enormous difference in writing ability. There is more to reading that merely scrolling one's eyes over the text of a book. Part of it simply has to do with the understanding the process of communication between writer and reader. There are two competing schools of thought processes here. Either a writer acquires his skills (mostly) by writing, or by reading the works of others who have mastered the craft and borrowing the techniques they use to successfully tell their stories.

I don't personally believe that you have to be formally taught in order to learn to write. But an author who doesn't learn technique either through reading (a.k.a: studying) or writing on their own does so at their own peril. The ability to effectively apply fiction techniques such as foreshadowing, character development, dialogue, and Point-of-View cannot be underestimated.


----------



## KMA (Mar 11, 2009)

Creative reading can be learned, no question. Taught?

Honestly, as I continue to teach music and unschool my children, I begin to think that our society is far too focused on teaching. We treat it as something huge and intimidating when it is as simple as, "hey, show me how you did that!" If someone wants to learn and is willing to work, they can make tremendous progress. If someone is not engaged, no amount of "teaching" is going to make a difference.


----------



## Jon Olson (Dec 10, 2010)

You can learn technique, you can teach technique, you can say what's interesting and what's not, but to learn it you have to do the work, and not everybody cares enough about it to put the time in.


----------



## The Real McCoy (Oct 8, 2010)

One of the reasons I brought up this topic is that I do quite a few library talks. There are writers' groups at many of these talks and I will be l asked for tips on how to become a published author. In fact I'm doing a libary talk in two days. That question will be asked and the answer I would like to give them is this: 'Your potential writing ability is already within you and you are either a writer, or not as the case may be. It's what I call having the voice. If you have the voice all you need to do is hone it. If you have the voice you'll be writing to a publishable standard within a few months. The most difficult part is to convince an agent or a publisher of this. That requires tenacity and self-belief.

Remember I said  "the answer I would like to give them. In my audience there'll be people who've been studying creative writing for years with no chance (in my opinion) of ever getting published. I'll give them a few handy tips and tell them to keep plugging away. I've got no right to dishearten them if they enjoying what they're doing, because maybe I'm wrong.

Don't think I am, though


----------



## TrevorBloom (Jan 29, 2011)

I think passive reading has little to do with effective writing but active reading can help enormously. Just reading and hoping you will absorb a writer's style and technique by literary osmosis is not going to work. But studying how a writer achieves a particular effect, analysing how different writers build characters, create tension, establish motive, deliver credible conflict, engage our emotions can be very instructive. But deconstructing a piece of writing so that you know EXACTLY how the writer has achieved the effect s/he wanted is hard work and requires will-power and determination.

The best way is to read a novel twice: once for the story and the enjoyment and then again (more quickly, more selectively) to find out how it worked. It's the second read that gives you the learning, ie it shows you the duck's feet paddling under that serene above-the-water impression.

And no, hard work doesn't guarantee literary success. Not everybody can be a writer and very few are blessed to be great writers. But if you have the basic talent, you can learn (and be taught) to become a good writer, ie to be competent within yr field/genre.

authentic end of Roman empire historical fiction



US The Half-Slave
UK The Half-Slave


----------



## Renee Adams (Mar 14, 2011)

I'm a technical writer by day, and to be honest, when we hire people, I take those who know how to write over people who understand the technology. In my experience, good writing is the harder thing to teach. Technology can be taught in a matter of months, but good sentence flow, clear writing, grammar, punctuation, and that sixth sense about which words fit best just can't be taught in any amount of reasonable time.

I do think that there has to be some natural talent there. I, for one, would never try to become a singer because I have absolutely NO talent there (my voice is average at best - and even that's being generous). No matter how much I practice, my voice will never rival the greats. The same goes for athletes, inventors, and many other professions (especially those requiring physical attributes or creativity). Yes, you can do the job maybe, but you'll never be exceptional without the talent.

I think it's the same for writing. The knack needs to be hardwired into you.


----------



## The Real McCoy (Oct 8, 2010)

Don't know whether this is true or not but I was listening to the radio a couple of days ago and caught a discussion about publishing over  in the States. Someone mentioned that publishers over there wouldn't look at any new authors unless they had a degree in creative writing. If that's true I'm a has-been before I was a was-one.  I'm actually a builder who took up writing about 12 years ago when I bought a computer. I thought Microsoft Word was a thing of magic that printed out my words in a professional manner I never thought possible. With no formal teaching I've had 14 books published in hardback, paperback, large print, and audio, plus one as an ebook. Since the invention of the word processor a lot of writers have come out of the woodwork and blossomed into print. Love him or hate him we writers are indebted to Bill Gates.


----------



## Malweth (Oct 18, 2009)

To some extent, I disagree.

Are we talking about writing the "Great American Novel," learning enough to write a best seller, or learning enough to master the art? These are very different things. Can anyone do the first? No. The second deals as much with luck as with ability. What of the third? Not all, but in my opinion, many.

This has nothing to do with writing.

All people have different strengths, different weaknesses. We also have different drives and interests. Creative writing may not be one person's forte, but given interest and practice they could certainly find themselves in one or all of the possibilities I mentioned. Certainly there are some who would find it very difficult or even impossible to reach their goal, and it's good to know your limits, but the only way to know for sure is to make the attempt. Hopefully there is some mentor to help the student realize whether the attempt is fruitless.

I'd hate to see someone discouraged because they don't see the "spark" in themselves. That spark is rare and hardly a requirement in any field of interest.


----------



## Jenni (Feb 20, 2011)

I teach creative writing and while I think you can teach people how to write, you can't teach good storytelling.


----------



## Renee Adams (Mar 14, 2011)

Malweth said:


> I'd hate to see someone discouraged because they don't see the "spark" in themselves. That spark is rare and hardly a requirement in any field of interest.


I never intended to imply that a natural knack for writing is *necessary* to write. All I'm saying is that natural talent can help separate the "superstars" from the rest. I prefer to hire tech writers who are writers because it's easier to teach months of technology than years of English classes (usually a much more complex topic).

It is by no means the only qualification for being a successful author either. Many great authors are simply never recognized at all because they lack the marketing know-how, for example. They go on forever relatively unknown because they are happy writing and want nothing to do with marketing.

Yes, luck is a factor as well. I'll never deny that.

What I am saying though is that some people have the natural ability which can take them a cut above others. Other people can learn to write competently, certainly, but some people just have this talent for it that goes above and beyond the norm.


----------



## Dan Ames (Feb 8, 2011)

Techniques can be taught.  Pure creativity cannot be taught.  Can books be written and succeed with only one?  Sure.  The great ones, however, have both.


----------



## James043 (Mar 10, 2011)

Bob Mayer said:


> One of the problems I see is that MFA programs are teaching students how to be teachers of MFA program rather than writers. The vast majority of MFA program won't allow their students to write 'genre' fiction. So a 22 year old is trying to write the Great American Novel. Right. Let them cut their teeth on mystery, romance, scifi.
> Your tenured faculty at these programs make their living teaching, not writing. That about sums it up. I teach at the Univ of WA and have been working full time as a writer for 20 years. The fear of the writing instructors at colleges towards writers who have actually made money writing is shocking. They have to protect their turf, but in doing so, do their students an injustice. Publishing is a wide open field right now and authors who can write and understand the business can succeed. Unfortunately, most MFA program ignore the business end, simply because their teachers aren't really in it.


So too is it for art in academia. Not that I am against modern art, or abstract works, but rather I am against laziness trying to be schlocked off for genius. Sometimes I believe it would be the case that a huge amount of education may dampen an initial seed that could have blossomed into something amazing. The hardest part is trying to find when enough is enough, when to come back and get some more, and when to venture out into the wild on one's own.


----------



## Brian Lindenmuth (Mar 3, 2011)

Here's my odd pennies thrown in.

The question of the thread is Can *creative* writing be taught? I say strike the word creative and, for purposes of this discussion, add the word fiction. The answer is yes. Fiction writing can be taught and a final product can be attainable. Levels of quality and popularity are not guaranteed but it's doable.

Long before Gladwell said anything about tens of thousands of hours Ray Bradbury said something about millions of words. The latter's quote is more helpful here.

The million words in action and something that ties in with other thoughts here is this recent post by Frank Bill which I think everyone should read.

http://frankbillshouseofgrit.blogspot.com/2011/03/its-been-long-road.html


----------



## Aaron Pogue (Feb 18, 2011)

Bob Mayer said:


> One of the problems I see is that MFA programs are teaching students how to be teachers of MFA program rather than writers. The vast majority of MFA program won't allow their students to write 'genre' fiction. So a 22 year old is trying to write the Great American Novel. Right. Let them cut their teeth on mystery, romance, scifi.


For what it's worth, this is exactly what the Master of Professional Writing program at the University of Oklahoma gets right. It's _all_ commercial/category fiction, straight down the line.

And the funny thing is how many students object to that! They want to write the deep literary fiction, intensely-character driven pieces without overt antagonists or such superficial trappings as "plot."

I say all this as a student in the program, but one who was absolutely thrilled to find their focus in the right place. I think the craft has to be learned at the commercial level. The "high art" should always come later.


----------



## mscottwriter (Nov 5, 2010)

> One of my professors in college was TC Boyle http://www.tcboyle.com/ - and yes, he was amazing at teaching fiction writing.


I am *SO* jealous!!! He's one of my very favorite writers. Lucky you : )

I teach creative writing at a community college, and get students from all levels in the course. In my class, I try to do two things: (1) get people to really pay attention to how they use their words and (2) give them all the helpful feedback I can so that they can apply these ideas to their own writing.

Some students really want to learn while others are just there to fulfill a writing requirement, so in the end it's really up to them. I'm just giving them tools to use later on.


----------



## StephanieVoid (Mar 11, 2011)

Creative writing can be taught, though not all teachers know how to teach it. I learned more about creative writing from Writer's Digest books and Holly Lisle's website articles for writers than I ever did in my college creative writing classes. It has to be taught as a skill ( "here are some ways to add suspense" or "this is how you make a viewpoint character sympathetic") instead of an art form. There's a technique to it that can be mastered.


----------



## scottnicholson (Jan 31, 2010)

Yes, it can be taught--get my kit for only $9,995.95...

Seriously, as a freelance editor for years and a writer far longer, I've come to believe that if you can write a clear, competent sentence, the rest can be learned. If you can't, then you ain't got da music in your bones.

Scott


----------



## StephanieVoid (Mar 11, 2011)

To clarify: I'm not knocking all teachers of creative writing by my comment. I'm sure there are good ones out there, but none I've met seem to care about making students successful. Clearly, unfortunately, I'm not alone in this observation.

Well put, Scott.


----------



## The Real McCoy (Oct 8, 2010)

Telling a story and making it interesting is pretty much the same as telling a joke and making it funny. 
Two people can tell the same joke, one can make people laugh, the other can't, no matter how hard or how long they practise.
Two writers can tell exactly the same story. One might sell a million books, the other won't even get published.

You can analyse it all you like but there's no great mystery to it... It's the way you tell 'em!


----------



## Beatriz (Feb 22, 2011)

Whatever said:


> The more important question is whether people are willing to learn. 78% of American believe they can write a book. But a very low percentage of them even try. And those that do try, only a low percentage think they have to learn anything.


Everybody thinks they can write a book until they try, then they realize what a task it is to face a blank piece of paper and breathe life into it. In my opinion you've got to have the talent and some people just don't, I've seen brilliant lawyers struggle for hours writing memos and I had to stop myself from helping them because I knew I could do it in a minute. I can write but I couldn't sing if my life depended on it. I think we're all creative in different ways and finding your gift is your ticket to happiness because many people die frustrated never realizing their potential. I believe you could take all the classes in the world to learn how to write but if that's not where your talent lies, your work will have no magic.


----------



## Javier Gimenez Sasieta (Feb 18, 2011)

Absolutely. Creative writting CAN be taught. But sometimes CAN´T be learned.


----------



## Joseph Robert Lewis (Oct 31, 2010)

"Writing" can most definitely be taught, by teachers or by yourself. But creativity? I mean, you can teach the conventions of fiction and storytelling, but I don't know if you can teach someone to invent strong characters and plots. Or can you?


----------



## tim290280 (Jan 11, 2011)

Someone once said that talent is merely the product of hard work and dedication.

Van Gogh was sitting in a coffee shop with a colleague and drew a quick sketch while they were sitting there. His colleague remarked at how lucky he was to have all that talent and ability. Gogh retorted that his colleague hadn't seen the endless years of practice and dedication he had spent honing his "talent and skill" to produce the supposedly easy sketch.


----------



## brianrowe (Mar 10, 2011)

I think courses in creative writing can definitely help a writer who's trying to find his voice, but I agree with most that you either have the skill and ambition and joy to tell stories, or you don't. Writing is tough, and you have to love it more than the air we breathe to stick with it.


----------



## mscottwriter (Nov 5, 2010)

> To clarify: I'm not knocking all teachers of creative writing by my comment. I'm sure there are good ones out there, but none I've met seem to care about making students successful.


Like I said, I'm a creative writing teacher, but when I read your post, I was nodding in agreement. I had taken a number of creative writing courses before I taught mine (in fact, I have my MFA), but it was rare for me to gain any insight from the classes I took. Part of it is that a lot of writers (good writers) just can't put into words what makes a book/story good. Someone said talking about writing was like dancing about architecture. I'm not sure that I'm the best creative writing teacher, either, but I'm hoping I can help my students out.


----------



## Aaron Pogue (Feb 18, 2011)

mscott9985 said:


> Someone said talking about writing was like dancing about architecture.


I love that. I don't even think I agree with it, but I'll probably start using it anyway because it's such an evocative little aphorism.


----------



## patrickt (Aug 28, 2010)

Writing is a craft and like any craft it can be taught. Being creative isn't a craft. It can't, in my opinion, be taught. A creative writer who hasn't learned his craft is a waste and a creative writer who has learned his craft but isn't creative is a pity.


----------



## Mehryinett (Feb 19, 2011)

Can people be taught to write publishable fiction? I think so. Can people be taught to write ground-breaking, innovative, great literature? Well, I think knowing how to write (and what the greats have written) is a prerequisite.


----------



## Beatriz (Feb 22, 2011)

brianrowe said:


> I think courses in creative writing can definitely help a writer who's trying to find his voice, but I agree with most that you either have the skill and ambition and joy to tell stories, or you don't. Writing is tough, and you have to love it more than the air we breathe to stick with it.


absolutely. It's a hard, lonely undertaking. Creative writing helped me in the sense that it gave me the confidence to do it but I found my own voice through blood, sweat and tears as the cliche goes.


----------



## Kathleen Valentine (Dec 10, 2009)

I think people can actually be taught to be more creative in their writing. For years I taught a writing class in which I used guided visualizations/meditations to get people's imaginations fired up and I was astonished (and so were my students!) at how creative a lot of them were when they had the right "push". I remember once doing a visualization about "your first day on your first job". One of the women was writing away furiously with tears running down her face, sobbing as sh wrote. I asked if she was OK and she said she was having a wonderful time -- the memories were just so great but she had forgotten all about them.

I still remember the story she shared and it was lovely. She went on to do a lot of writing after that. I think people just have to be guided gently into a place where they feel safe to really write from the inside out.


----------



## AnneKAlbert (Dec 7, 2010)

Great discussion. Can creative writing be taught? Yes. 

In degrees and stages. But ultimately the desire to write, and to learn how to write better, has to be within the person from the very start. 

FWIW, I have zero desire to be a ballerina. My body shape, mental and physical discipline (or lack of), plus a host of other things are all wrong for that art form. But as a writer...well, hey, that's what I was meant to do! The desire comes first. The practice, blood, sweat and tears follow.


----------



## Kathleen Valentine (Dec 10, 2009)

AnneKAlbert said:


> FWIW, I have zero desire to be a ballerina.


Funny you should say that -- I'm writing book about a ballerina....


----------



## AnneKAlbert (Dec 7, 2010)




----------



## tim290280 (Jan 11, 2011)

tkkenyon said:


> First: raw material. Smart, rich, successful men who marry merely trophy wives have beautiful, somewhat dumb kids. Sometimes, the raw neurological material isn't there. I'd say, to write a decent novel, you need to be in the upper 50% of the population, brain-wise. Note, this does not mean formal education. Just raw intellect. You need to be able to organize your thoughts and maintain concentration over a significant period of time.
> 
> Second: flexibility and the willingness to learn. Whether it's from a program or autodidact, you have to want to change and improve. If you join a group and argue with people while they're critting, you're not willing to learn. These people don't want to become writers; they want to publish what they've managed to write.
> 
> Third: 10,000 hours. I'm a Gladwell devotee. It takes 10,000 hours to become world-class at anything. If you're naturally, amazingly brilliant, top 1%, you only have to put in 9500 hours. It's the _time_. It's reading with a pen and a notebook. It's typing.


I have to agree. Intellect and drive aren't something everyone has and I know a lot of people that work really hard just to stand still. Add in that will to achieve and get better and you have a good package. I don't disagree with Ericsson and Gladwell's hypothesis that talent takes a lot of work, but there are several flaws in the "10,000 hour rule", not least of which is the idea that it is a completely arbitrary figure.


----------



## Malweth (Oct 18, 2009)

tim290280 said:


> I have to agree. Intellect and drive aren't something everyone has and I know a lot of people that work really hard just to stand still. Add in that will to achieve and get better and you have a good package. I don't disagree with Ericsson and Gladwell's hypothesis that talent takes a lot of work, but there are several flaws in the "10,000 hour rule", not least of which is the idea that it is a completely arbitrary figure.


The use of 10,000 is not entirely arbitrary. The number is used to mean "very many." It comes from the Oriental study of the arts (Martial and otherwise). In Eastern languages, 10,000 can mean "very many" or "infinite." Unfortunately many people take it as literal.

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10000_(number)


----------



## The Real McCoy (Oct 8, 2010)

I'm not the world's greatest author by a long stretch, in fact I'm probably only marginally better that Dan Brown (that's me being self-deprecating) I didn't spend 10,000 hours learning how to write to a publishable standard. Perhaps I should have, but I didn't. I didn't actually spend any hours learning how to write. In fact I had no ambition to write a book. OK, it might have crossed my mind from time to time, but the thought of spending months writing something that was unlikely ever to be published was a bit too much to contemplate. I had better things to waste my time on. All this changed in January 1998 when I bought my first computer and on it was Microsoft Word. I sat down and began doodling; writing a short story to see what it looked like all professionally typed out. I knew I had an aptitude for story telling because I'd been doing it semi-professionally for many years, mainly as a humorous after dinner speaker. Still do it. I've even taken my act into the theatre and on TV. 

The short story turned into a long story and eventually, after three months, I'd written a book called the Fabulous Fox Twins. I sent it to a London agent, the excellent Judith Murdoch, who agreed to represent me and encouraged me to write a different type of book for which there was a market. I did as she asked. That book, Cobblestone Heroes, was published by Piatkus (Little Brown) in October 1999. All in all I've done eight for Piatkus, plus six more for other publishers. The Fabulous Fox twins was published in 2002. The ebook you see here is in addition to those. 

I sometimes feel that I should improve my writing by taking a creative writing course, but then I tell myself that it might ruin whatever writing voice I have. Or is that just an excuse to cover up my general laziness? Maybe I just started this thread to justify me not learning my craft properly. It seems that most of you agree with me, so that's OK.


----------



## tim290280 (Jan 11, 2011)

Malweth said:


> The use of 10,000 is not entirely arbitrary. The number is used to mean "very many." It comes from the Oriental study of the arts (Martial and otherwise). In Eastern languages, 10,000 can mean "very many" or "infinite." Unfortunately many people take it as literal.
> 
> see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10000_(number)


I'm afraid it is rather arbitrary. There have been a number of studies done and 10,000 is not a number that comes up in many. The work that Gladwell cites was done on concert pianists, which is not a representative sample and the breakdowns of practice hours arbitrary, as the top 1% didn't even equate to the 10,000 hours rule (~9,000). But what about the pianists actual stature? It wasn't reported whether the best pianists had closer to 10,000 hours or if they were scattered. It doesn't account for the pianists who have amassed the 10,000 hours but are either unrecognised or still suck. It doesn't account for efficiency of practice either. I could spend years making the same mistakes over and over before conquering them, whereas someone else addressed their flaws directly and progressed sooner.

See this paper by Walter Schneider for more (sorry it is a photocopy version): http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA148574


----------



## Malweth (Oct 18, 2009)

tim290280 said:


> I'm afraid it is rather arbitrary. There have been a number of studies done and 10,000 is not a number that comes up in many. The work that Gladwell cites was done on concert pianists, which is not a representative sample and the breakdowns of practice hours arbitrary, as the top 1% didn't even equate to the 10,000 hours rule (~9,000). But what about the pianists actual stature? It wasn't reported whether the best pianists had closer to 10,000 hours or if they were scattered. It doesn't account for the pianists who have amassed the 10,000 hours but are either unrecognised or still suck. It doesn't account for efficiency of practice either. I could spend years making the same mistakes over and over before conquering them, whereas someone else addressed their flaws directly and progressed sooner.
> 
> See this paper by Walter Schneider for more (sorry it is a photocopy version): http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA148574


I'm not quite sure you read my post. "10,000" is not equal to 10,000.


----------



## JamesGrenton (Mar 17, 2011)

It's a mixture of natural and acquired skill. I'm definitely a believer in the power of training and learning. If you put your mind to it - and if you have a certain amount of natural skill - you should be able to reach a good level of writing. There are some excellent creative writing courses out there, such as those run by the Arvon Foundation. Definitely worth trying one.

Nick Sireau

_--- edited... no self-promotion outside the Book Bazaar forum. please read our Forum Decorum thread._


----------



## SuzanneTyrpak (Aug 10, 2010)

Writing techniques can be taught. As some have said, extensive reading indicates an aptitude for writing, but the illusive quality of voice cannot be taught. It can be discovered, honed, brought forth. Voice flows out of a writer providing a unique point-of-view, a unique way of creating/telling/revealing a story.

As in any art, too much reliance on technique can kill the creative process. The result may be skilled writing devoid of passion. Beautifully constructed sentences alone won't move a reader. The movie, *Black Swan* explores this topic--a highly technical dancer has to tap into her passion, and step out of her own way, so that passion can flow into her performance. Technique is important, but, ultimately, technique must be transcended (even broken), to allow creativity to flow. I believe that illusive quality, that flow of creative energy, constitutes the difference between skilled craft, dependent solely on technique, and art.


----------



## SimonWood (Nov 13, 2009)

The Real McCoy said:


> Telling a story and making it interesting is pretty much the same as telling a joke and making it funny.
> Two people can tell the same joke, one can make people laugh, the other can't, no matter how hard or how long they practise.


I've been using this example too. 

Personally, you can't teach someone to have an imagination, but you can teach someone the craft and technical side of writing.


----------



## Bob Mayer (Feb 20, 2011)

It's not about the teacher.  It's about the student.  My experience is so few students are truly willing to learn because it requires surrendering what we believe we know.  I've learned, and teach in Warrior Writer, that anything that pissed me off, is a truth.  That's why it's a truth.  It's hitting me deep.  Dan Millman, Way of the Peaceful Warrior, helped teach me that long ago.


----------



## Christopher Meeks (Aug 2, 2009)

Bob Mayer said:


> The craft of writing can be taught. To get to the level of artists requires something more. The biggest thing is that a person has to be self-motivated. No one is going to for a writer to learn or write.
> In over 20 years of teaching writing and tens of thousands of students, the biggest problem is an unwillingness to change.


I'm with you, Bob. I've been teaching it sixteen years three different ways: to undergraduates, to graduate students, and to students at UCLA Extension. The undergraduates tend to be the most open to trying things, and they consistently surprise me. The graduate students work the hardest and some of them are true artists--but boy do they compete with each other. Some of the feedback can seem like the shootout at the OK Corral, and I have to interrupt and remind them that it's important to point out what's not effective but do so in the right tone. They are they to support others not cut them down.

The Extension students tend to be wonderful except the occassional one who tells me to "be ruthless" yet can't stand anyone pointing out any problem areas. The point with all is that if you talk, write, and breathe story, things can be taught and learned.

I agree with you in a point elsewhere in questioning why isn't genre taught and examined in more writing programs? I think it's in part the students who want to create art and they don't see "art" in genre. It's there. I use "Silence of the Lambs" as an example.


----------



## The Real McCoy (Oct 8, 2010)

I suspect that many writers who've had a university education in creative writing might well consider themselves to be writers of literary fiction and their work will be instinctively aimed at people who appreciate such writing. And no doubt such readers will be able to appreciate the profound prose, the skilfully crafted plots and the fascinating three dimensional characters found within such books. However these books require  readers who instantly understand what's on the page without having to think about it before moving on. 
Most writers of crime, drama, romance, chick-lit, humour etc - books unfairly lumped together as pulp fiction - simply write with a flow that comes from within. They're the true story tellers. They're the people who can  stop you putting the book down and make you sad when it comes to an end. 

If you over-analyse creative writing you might well stifle whatever creativity is within the student. 

If it's there inside you, all it needs is a bit of tweaking. The rest you can do yourself.


----------



## Christopher Meeks (Aug 2, 2009)

The Real McCoy said:


> I suspect that many writers who've had a university education in creative writing might well consider themselves to be writers of literary fiction and their work will be instinctively aimed at people who appreciate such writing. And no doubt such readers will be able to appreciate the profound prose, the skilfully crafted plots and the fascinating three dimensional characters found within such books. However these books require readers who instantly understand what's on the page without having to think about it before moving on.
> Most writers of crime, drama, romance, chick-lit, humour etc - books unfairly lumped together as pulp fiction - simply write with a flow that comes from within. They're the true story tellers. They're the people who can stop you putting the book down and make you sad when it comes to an end.
> 
> If you over-analyse creative writing you might well stifle whatever creativity is within the student.
> ...


Ken, well said--and I love your book's cover.

The heart of the matter is "true storytelling." It's about having an instinct--or at least an awareness--of what the reader wants to know. I told my own graduate students to read Harry Potter and discover what had people willing to stand in line for a day for the release of her next book. "Wouldn't you want people standing in line for your book?" I've asked. Part of Rowling's success is the genre she choose, yet it's more than that. She's a storyteller, and if you can write a compelling story that's also literary, more power to you.

One thing I try to get across to my students is to write "the truth." They should infuse their stories with the way they see people interact and with a sense that this is life. If they write to the truth of their characters, then subtle things fall in place. It works for everything: comedy, mystery, thriller, and more. When I was in grad school, I thought the serious story was everything, and I yanked out the comic things that naturally fell into my work. I had lifeless stories. Now I let the comic flow, even though, at heart, my stories are still serious. It's just the way I see the world.


----------



## TadVezner (Mar 23, 2011)

Guess I'm a little worried about whether it can be unlearned. I've been in the newspaper biz for about a decade, and find myself hesitating to write creatively, compared to when I first started. When you get enough "ledes" dumbed down for the average reader, and your style is constantly changed into a reverse pyramid, perhaps you try a little less hard. "Just the facts" leaves little room for play. That said, I write a lot of 80 to 100-inch opuses for my paper (that's roughly a page and a half of newspaper copy), and I do get a lot of satisfaction out my job. But still...

My wife assures me that my worries are unfounded, that my writing is better now than it ever was. Then again, she loves me. But ten years ago I was able to reach what I pithily referred to as "the zone," a place where creativity really seemed to flow. That hasn't happened for a good year. Looking back, a lot of it was crap, sure. But it seems harder now to achieve light-headed happiness with something I just put on a page, as opposed to a simple, internal nod of satisfaction. 

I've heard from a friend that the solution is to simply write for myself several hours a day, either in the wee hours of the morn, or break out the midnight oil. Sure, he said, it's hard work when you've already been writing for hours. But if you really love it, that's what you gotta do. He's probably right.


----------



## tim290280 (Jan 11, 2011)

TadVezner said:


> Guess I'm a little worried about whether it can be unlearned. I've been in the newspaper biz for about a decade, and find myself hesitating to write creatively, compared to when I first started. When you get enough "ledes" dumbed down for the average reader, and your style is constantly changed into a reverse pyramid, perhaps you try a little less hard. *"Just the facts" leaves little room for play*. That said, I write a lot of 80 to 100-inch opuses for my paper (that's roughly a page and a half of newspaper copy), and I do get a lot of satisfaction out my job. But still...


Sorry, there are facts in newspapers? 

I actually think that most writing helps with creative forms of writing. As long as there is a skill being practiced then you are improving somewhat. Sure a newspaper article or forum post isn't exactly the same thing, but you do get used to conveying messages via the written word. Of course practicing creative writing is always superior, but other forms do help with skill development.


----------



## Christopher Meeks (Aug 2, 2009)

Writing for a newspaper is a plus. Many a great creative writer had a journalism background: Stieg Larsson (three books on the bestseller list now), Joan Didion and Thomas Thompson (both had huge careers at Life magazine at first) and Michael Connelly, whose "Lincoln Lawyer" is a film right now. Don't look at it as a hinderance in the least. I, too, started as a journalist, and my ability to write on deadline has helped in my fiction. I make my own deadlines and stick to them.


----------



## tim290280 (Jan 11, 2011)

Christopher Meeks said:


> Writing for a newspaper is a plus. Many a great creative writer had a journalism background: Stieg Larsson (three books on the bestseller list now), Joan Didion and Thomas Thompson (both had huge careers at Life magazine at first) and Michael Connelly, whose "Lincoln Lawyer" is a film right now. Don't look at it as a hinderance in the least. I, too, started as a journalist, and my ability to write on deadline has helped in my fiction. I make my own deadlines and stick to them.


Oddly enough I was speaking with a life-long journalist this morning who said most journalists make terrible authors. His point was that they think that there is no difference between mediums and as a result churn out an editorial rather than a story.


----------



## TadVezner (Mar 23, 2011)

tim290280 said:


> Oddly enough I was speaking with a life-long journalist this morning who said most journalists make terrible authors. His point was that they think that there is no difference between mediums and as a result churn out an editorial rather than a story.


I can see that, though I wouldn't overgeneralize. Most journalists I know try to publish non-fiction, rather than fiction, and I can see an instinctual tendency to try to remain ostensibly unbiased. Yes, we do, honest. Remaining unbiased in a fiction book is like ordering a chocolate/vanilla swirl ice cream cone, and posing with it. Sometimes readers just want you to stuff it in someone's face, or lick it off their belly.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Writers have a vested interest in mystifying the process of becoming a writer; writing teachers, doubly so.

I tend to discount a lot of this "talent can't be taught" line of thought, but allow me to explain what I mean by that.

"Talent" is an often-misunderstood term. Different folks use it, but they mean different things by its use.

Most commonly what is meant is that someone writes well. They have a gift for wording things carefully and the stuff they spill out on the page isn't in need of major surgery; it comes out relatively error-free. (At least until a more experienced writer gives them feedback.)

Another thing that can be meant by "talent" is that the writer in question seems to naturally understand the elements of story: the structure of plots, the balance of action and narration, the rhythms of building to peaks and coasting to valleys within the structure of a long work of fiction.

These and many other elements can play into what is meant by "talent."

And because there is so much to learn, and learn how to balance and do them all well, many folks just toss up their hands and say, "You can't teach talent. You can only refine it once it's there."

But I don't think it's an in-born gift in that mysterious, "Stephen King was born with loads of it, but Britney Spears can barely assemble a song lyric" sort of quality.

I think it comes down to a couple basic elements.

First and foremost, one must develop a love of story very early in life. This is most often accomplished by being blessed with parents who bother to gather a young child in their laps and read to them, from early on.

Sounds simple, I know, and not every writer who becomes a great writer has that experience... but very many do. Being read to as a child helps develop an early love of storytelling. Maybe it can be nurtured other ways; but this one seems to most natural and common.

Once that love of story takes root, the next step necessary to plant "the writing bug" in someone is this: a desire to "go ye therefore and do likewise" must take root in that young, story-loving child's life. At some point, they have to decide "I can do that," or "that's what I want to do."

Instilling a love of story, and a desire to tell stories, is something that can't be "taught" per se, because high school English teachers and college writing professors can't go back in time, take a prospective student on their knee and read to them every night if their parents never did that from the time they were born through early grade-school years.

Some folks may want to be writers because they hear about Patterson making $70 million or Hocking signing for $2 million... but just wanting to make good money does not produce a writer the level of a Patterson or a Hocking. If that were the case, I could have suddenly become the Minnesota Vikings QB for $30 million at the age of 25, when I actually started enjoying sports in general and football specifically. The fact that I can't, at age 25, suddenly play QB with no prior training is a nice parallel because football people would have explained my incompetence the same way... "You have no talent. Talent can't be taught."

But in both cases, what's missing is very similar: an early desire to do a particular thing, followed by a lifetime of learning how to reach that goal.

Listen to any professional QB, like Brett Favre, and you'll find out he wanted to play football (and probably QB) from the time he was old enough to throw one more than a couple feet. And you'll hear stories about that person's lifelong work ethic, how many hours of practice they put in, how they study film and tapes of how others play the game to learn its intricacies. Brett Favre didn't become Brett Favre when he was drafted by Atlanta and traded to Green Bay. He had probably dedicated at least a decade, and probably longer, to pursuing that goal and forming his entire life around getting there.

In the same way, you talk with any professional writer, and you'll find out they wanted to be a writer long before they even understood you could make a living at it. You'll hear about the long list of stories they wrote that they knew weren't good enough, the hundreds of books they consumed growing up to see how others write and write well. Patterson and Hocking didn't become who they are when their first books were published; they'd been at it for years, prior to that. (I think Amanda wrote her first novel in high school... maybe a bit earlier.) When she first published at the age of 26, she'd been at it for nearly 15 years at least, and formed a lot of her life around achieving that goal. I imagine something similar is true of Patterson, a one-time PR exec... (and I suspect Patterson went into PR initially for creative reasons balanced with earning a living.)

So I wouldn't use the term "talent" to define the quality that separates a Hocking or Patterson from the armchair hobbyist writer who might someday hack out one book and then never really do anything after that, once they realize it's real work.

The term I'd use is "desire," as in a lifelong desire to be a writer. Almost to the point of obsession. That kind of desire.

That's what you can't teach. Desire is not teachable. Someone either has it, or they don't. If they don't, once the work behind writing becomes obvious, they eventually drop out. If they possess it, they'll put up with all the work and the headaches of both failure and success (and yes, there are headaches to success) that come with being a writer, just for the ability to write for a living.

Desire, in my book, is "the unteachable quality" because in involves elements that can't be refined.

Once it's there, well... if it's there, then of course it will appear they have natural, in-born talent. But is it merely a mysteriously in-born talent? Or is it that, by the time one encounters them in high school, or college, or some other writer's workshop environment, they've already read so much good writing (and some bad writing along the way, to be sure) that their own writing is bound to be smoother than, say, Brett Favre's (who's too busy learning how to toss a football sixty yards downfield).

Of course they'll understand story structure, plot, character building and the like better than Brett Favre or Britney Spears. Because while Brett's been dedicated to football and Britney dedicated to, well... whatever she's dedicated to... writers have been dedicated to reading tons and tons of stories... they'd have to be idiots not to understand that stuff better than others.

So I think a lot of elements of being a writer CAN be taught, including some elements people write off to "talent." The only thing that can't be taught, I think, is desire. If one possesses desire to be a writer at the deepest levels, many things can be taught and refined.

Without it, all one can do is collect tuition from a person who'll never really "get there." But the difference isn't talent; it's desire, from the earliest ages. Oh, and I should mention "work ethic." That's the element that proves the desire throughout the rest of one's life.


----------



## Stephen T. Harper (Dec 20, 2010)

The other side of the "you can teach how to tell jokes but not how to be funny," or "how to sing but not how to have talent," school of thought (which I totally agree with, BTW) is that it depends a great deal on the reader.  

Think of it like appreciating wine.  There are 5 dollar bottles and 500 dollar bottles, but the first thing the soma-lier will tell you if you ask him to teach is "despite all the other stuff I just told you, the main rule of thumb is, if you like it, it's good."


----------



## tim290280 (Jan 11, 2011)

@ Craig: I think you hit the nail on the head!

Talent is often misunderstood. What most are referring to is years of practice and dedication.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

tim290280 said:


> @ Craig: I think you hit the nail on the head!
> 
> Talent is often misunderstood. What most are referring to is years of practice and dedication.


And in about 15 words, you summed up what it took me hundreds of words to communicate. LOL.


----------



## Steve Vernon (Feb 18, 2011)

I teach storytelling and writing workshops every year to school kids across Nova Scotia. I've met some very promising young writers.

I give them a smattering of technique, tricks and a couple of well chosen phrases.

I teach them what a story is supposed to "look" like - (ie story structure).

I teach them how to choose a voice.

Does any of this mean I've taught them how to write?

Nope. I've nudged their technique a little - but in the end writing will come from a passion. You need to have that inner fire, that urge to throw down words onto paper and have them make sense. Dedication and drive are what will pull you through in the end.


----------



## The Real McCoy (Oct 8, 2010)

Virtually every author I know will tell you that writing isn't really work, it's more of an addiction. Some keep rigid hours, others, (including me) write when they feel like it. Quite often I'll sit down at the computer just before turning in for bed with the intention of taking a last glance at what I've done that day. More often than not I'll think of an addition I must make while it's still in my mind, this will gave rise to something else and before I know it the clock in the bottom right-hand-corner of the screen is telling me I've been sitting there for three hours. I immediately check my watch knowing the clock must surely be wrong because it was midnight when I sat down and I've only been writing maybe half an hour. 
    Also, my stuff isn't just created while sitting at the computer. It's created in my mind while I'm standing in a queue at the shops, or walking down the street or maybe watching TV. The big give-away is that my thoughts translate themselves into silent words (talking to myself). My wife will always spot this and ask, 'What are you talking about?' This isn't so bad at home, but when I'm out and about I guess it must look odd. So, the next time you see some mad person wandering around talking to themself don't judge them too harshly, it's most likely a writer hard at 'work'.
    It might well be me.


----------



## Guest (Mar 28, 2011)

I've always said that you can teach a person to write properly. You cannot teach a person to write _well_. You can teach the mechanics of writing, but only a writer can teach himself to write well. As others have said, there has to be an aptitude already there to understand the nuances of writing. And there must also be a motivation to do it. Not motivation as in "I want to see my name on the cover of a book." But motivation as in "I want another human being to be moved by my words." A lot of people who claim they want to be writers really want to be celebrities. They look at people like Meyers and King and other bestsellers and think writing is the "easiest" path to celebrity-hood.


----------



## Bob Mayer (Feb 20, 2011)

You can show people the tools, even teach them the craft of using the tools.  Whether they can become an artists, is up to them.  In my consulting business based on Who Dares Wins: The Green Beret Way to Conquer Fear & Succeed, I've learned my program doesn't fit the corporate world.  It's good for small businesses, start-ups, sports teams, etc for one main reason:  the 5% rule.  I developed Warrior Writer out of that program specifically for writers and the 5% rule still applies:  5% of people are capable of internally motivated change.  If a person isn't capable of that, they can't be a successful writer.  I said that while consulting for a Fortune 100 company and it didn't go over well and I realized it would be like taking the entire Infantry in the Army and making them Special Forces.  Aint gonna happen.  Of the thousands of writers I've worked with over the past two decades, so few were willing to change what they were doing.  But the ones who were-- unbelievable how good they became.  For the rest, it was switching deck chairs on the Titanic.
The one thing I love is that now authors who are motivated and willing to work and adapt have the means to succeed.  We didn't really have that 10 or 20 years ago except by going through the corporate world of publishing.


----------



## caseyf6 (Mar 28, 2010)

While we're on this subject-- Bob, I was on Amazon the other day and I looked for your writer's toolkit.  For some reason, the hardback came up and it was not listed on Kindle.  However, obviously you have a link to your toolkit.  Just thought I'd let you know (and anyone else who was interested-- I am an unfinished, unpublished author trying to learn more so I can get these characters and their out of my head.)


----------



## EGranfors (Mar 18, 2011)

I learned a lot about the need for CONFLICT in my writing classes and how to go deeper into myself, let the real writing come out, shut off the inner critic.  You can't give people imagination or style, but teachers can teach others to quit describing the sunset.


----------



## purplepen79 (May 6, 2010)

Christopher Meeks said:


> I agree with you in a point elsewhere in questioning why isn't genre taught and examined in more writing programs? I think it's in part the students who want to create art and they don't see "art" in genre. It's there. I use "Silence of the Lambs" as an example.


I took a prose masters class a few years ago and there were only two writers in the class who were seriously writing "genre" fiction: myself and another girl who was writing mysteries. Everyone else was either writing memoirs or literary novels. Although I enjoyed the class for the most part and got some very valuable feedback, there was this tone a couple times from the other students and the professor about "genre" fiction--the professor even said at one point that she never read genre fiction, but that she enjoyed reading my fantasy novel, which was an interesting compliment. A week or so ago, one of my fellow students, who is writing a historical literary novel, posted this rant about how hard it is to get an agent on his blog. He stated that writing literary fiction is hard work, whereas these genre folks have no artistry, don't have to work hard at writing, and can just pump out novels that agents apparently snap up while the poor literary artists are left out in the cold. It's news to me--I've been trying to get an agent since high school for my fantasy books, and while I've had a number of promising rejection letters and nice e-mail exchanges with agents and publishers, it's not any easier for genre folks to get an agent or publisher than it is for literary folks. Nor do I see any less artistry in a well-crafted genre novel than I do in a well-crafted literary novel. In fact I think we should do away with such elitist distinctions, but that's my soap box. I sent my fellow student an e-mail, figuring he was frustrated as all of us get at times when we deal with rejection, and sent him a link to Algonquin Press, which takes unagented literary manuscripts. I also let him know that I spend a lot of time and effort crafting my fantasy series and that it isn't any easier for a "genre" writer like me to find an agent.


----------



## Bob Mayer (Feb 20, 2011)

I taught a course at the University of Washington last fall just to do it and also pad my resume:  Technical Writing.  I approached the creative writing department and was soundly rejected, just as I've been rejected at every creative writing department at every University I've ever approached.  Despite having over 45 books published.  Despite having an MA in Education.  Despite selling four million books and hitting all the bestseller lists.  
I don't have an MFA.  
And I found the academic world to be as closed off to outsiders as the publishing world.  The head of the creative writing department's focus was on something to do with poets in the 18th century.  Okay.  Great.  But their courses had nothing to do with teaching students how to actually be authors and, gasp, make a living as a writer.  Mostly I see MFA programs designed to teach them how to become teachers in MFA programs. 
And you're right.  Very, very few have any interest or promote genre writing.  Like a 22 year old can write the great American literary novel?
Let them cut their teeth on a mystery or scifi.
 There are exceptions.  But in the majority for writing, I have found the mantra true:  those who can't, teach.
I make my living writing.  I teach because I love teaching.


----------



## Mo (Mar 25, 2011)

purplepen79 said:


> Although I enjoyed the class for the most part and got some very valuable feedback, there was this tone a couple times from the other students and the professor about "genre" fiction--the professor even said at one point that she never read genre fiction, but that she enjoyed reading my fantasy novel, which was an interesting compliment.


This is one of the reasons why I have no interest in doing an MFA. I primarily read "genre" fiction, and it's what I write too. I dislike "literature" snobs, so I doubt I'd fit in.


----------



## The Real McCoy (Oct 8, 2010)

One of the things that kind of puzzles me, and perhaps contradicts my theory that most novelists are addicted to creative writing, is the large number of acclaimed authors who only managed to write one novel. Some had a good excuse, such as Margaret Mitchell (Gone With The Wind) who was knocked down by a car before she got the chance to write a second book, and Anna Sewell, who  wrote Black Beauty and nothing else before dying of hepatitis just a few months after it was published. Harper Lee had no such excuse. She won a Pulitzer Prize for To Kill A Mockingbird and did nothing else. JD Salinger only wrote one novel worthy of the name (Catcher In The Rye) and was so shocked at its worldwide success that it turned him into a recluse. Emily Bronte just managed the one, Wuthering Heights, before returning to her poetry; Boris Pasternak's one and only novel, Dr Zhivago, won him a Nobel Prize; Ralph Ellison wrote The Invisible Man and nothing else; Sylvia Plath wrote The Bell Jar and nothing else before sticking her head in the gas oven at the age of 30 and Oscar Wilde wrote just one novel, The Picture of Dorian Gray, before packing it in to go back to writing plays.

It's a good job we lesser writers keep battling on or there'd be nothing to read.


----------



## Malweth (Oct 18, 2009)

This seems to be a case of having something to say, saying it, and going on with one's life. I'm curious if the internet will reduce the number of really excellent, single book authors.

I understand that JD Salinger was quite prolific and could not get published (early in life) and did not want to get published later on. He has a number of short stories that are locked from publication for 70 years after his death (2010). I'm hoping "they" find more in his estate, but if those are also locked for 70 years it seems unlikely I'll ever read them! For the most part, though, it seems as though he was an author of short stories, which was more common in his day as the royalty from magazines was much better than today.


----------



## Steve Emmett (Mar 31, 2011)

If you have the ability to write within you, a good teacher can help you. But if you have no talent at all, no amount of studying will make you a good writer. At least this is what I believe. And not all courses have to be master degrees or even Uni based. I started out with an on line novel writing course with the London School of Journalists and took it from there.


----------



## Eric Pullin (Mar 31, 2011)

Of course creative writing can be taught just as singing can be taught. You'll put a lot of people out of work if you can prove differently.
Far too much emphasis is put on "natural talent" - the mind and the body can be trained in most things. 
Physical and mental attributes do, of course, play a part but what is more important is something that can't be taught - Dedication.
We are all blessed with an imagination. Life provides new experiences every day. These are the 2 main ingredients needed to be creative.
I spend much of my life running creative writing workshops in schools and colleges. Give me a pupil who is dedicated to learning and I'll give you a creative writer.


----------



## JMCornwell (Apr 1, 2011)

I think you're comparing apples and oranges. Creative writing is a technique, and that can be taught. Talent is something else again. You cannot teach talent, but you can hone the talent and the ability to express that talent changes with time, experience, practice and maturity. The technique of creative writing is something anyone who is motivated can learn, but the difference between someone who writes with exacting grammar, perfect punctuation and a workmanlike style and someone who writes with passion and may not follow all the rules is worlds apart. It's the difference between Edgar Allen Poe and someone who emulates Poe's style. One has the style and talent and the other merely mimics it.


----------



## gryeates (Feb 28, 2011)

I think the talent is innate and what is required as root for everything else to grow from. I would agree that every writer needs to learn technique and develop skills in the craft. How a writer goes about this depends on whether they work better in a group or alone. I fall into the latter category which is why I have read widely, studied other writers styles and concentrated on honing my own voice. Every writer's journey is an individual one and as unique as the literary voice they have inside them.


----------



## Ignacio Gimenez Sasieta (Mar 26, 2011)

Talent can´t be taught. Shakespeare or Cervantes didn´t ever take creative writing lessons, and their books are excellent.
In spite of this, I recognize that lessons DO IMPROVE author´s wrinting quality. If you are not a genious, take some classes!

El talento no se aprende. Shakespeare o Cervantes nunca recibieron clases de escritura y sus libros son excelentes.
A pesar de esto, reconozco que las clases de escritura MEJORAN la calidad de los escritores. !Si no eres un genio, apúntate a las clases! 

Ignacio.


----------



## JMCornwell (Apr 1, 2011)

Ignacio Gimenez Sasieta said:


> Talent can´t be taught. Shakespeare or Cervantes didn´t ever take creative writing lessons, and their books are excellent.
> 
> In spite of this, I recognize that lessons DO IMPROVE author´s wrinting quality. If you are not a genious, take some classes!
> 
> Ignacio.


No, but they read a lot. That shows, too. You cannot be a truly great writer unless you are willing to read and read and read.


----------



## Mehryinett (Feb 19, 2011)

Shakespeare lived at a time when every gentleman wrote poetry and people listened to plays rather than watched them. He is like an island in a sea which has dried up, leaving a mountain behind.


----------



## purplepen79 (May 6, 2010)

Bob Mayer said:


> I taught a course at the University of Washington last fall just to do it and also pad my resume: Technical Writing. I approached the creative writing department and was soundly rejected, just as I've been rejected at every creative writing department at every University I've ever approached. Despite having over 45 books published. Despite having an MA in Education. Despite selling four million books and hitting all the bestseller lists.
> I don't have an MFA.


Sorry to hear you've had this experience. Both my parents were successful, self-taught artists (mom a painter, potter, fiber artist, dad a wood sculptor--dad actually was born during the Great Depression and learned how to carve by making his own toys, little wooden boats that I still have stashed away somewhere.) It seems to me that it's easier for self-taught artists to become teachers than it is for self-taught writers. I realize there's prejudice in every field, but writing sometimes seems particularly stratified. Of course, that could be me on my soap box again  . The first question some people ask me when they find out I write is if I intend to pursue my MFA, and my response is often "Why?" As a fantasy writer, there are no MFA programs that would allow me to continue writing my fantasy series without a lot of silly flack. I can learn everything I need to know about writing by reading a lot, writing a lot, and then finding a good critique group.


----------



## JMCornwell (Apr 1, 2011)

purplepen79 said:


> I can learn everything I need to know about writing by reading a lot, writing a lot, and then finding a good critique group.


Andre Norton had somewhat the same experience. She had written from an early age and had her first book published when she was 17. She never went to college, but worked at a library and wrote more than 80 novels and hundreds of short stories. Today, there seems to be more focus on MFAs and writing programs than on actually writing. I wonder sometimes why writers believe that a formal education makes them better writers. There are as many good, and even great, writers who never went to college as there are writers who did. It is and should be all about the writing and not about how many lines of Beowulf one can recite extant.


----------



## jongoff (Mar 31, 2011)

The Real McCoy said:


> As a writer I do a lot of library talks and one of the most asked questions is: Can creative writing be taught? My answer is always the same. Only in a way that singers can be taught to sing. First you need a voice. All the teaching in the world won't give a person a singing voice nor will it give them a writing voice. Creative writing is born in you and will come out whether or not you're taught. Teaching will only serve to refine what you already have.


This is something with which I disagree, primarily because the comparison between singing and writing is a bad correlation. Some people have a voice, and they sound good when they sing. This is genetic and depends on factors such as lung capacity, which can be developed, and the length of their vocal cords, the size of their voice box, which give each of us the unique sound of our voice.

Writing, however, is something that can be learned. Just as anyone can learn to play the piano, anyone can learn to write well. Anyone can learn the theories behind story, characterization, and can apply it. Whether they will write with genius, is a matter of talent, but I am rather fond of the quote from Calvin Coolidge.

"Nothing in the world can take the place of Persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'Press On' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race."

Most good writing doesn't come with that moment of inspiration or insight, but by plodding along and putting something down on paper, then going back and revising it again and again until it's good. Persistence in this craft, along with taking the time to learn grammar, spelling, and the elements of story, will reward an industrious but poor writer with greater success than the talented genius who only writes when the mood strikes him.

As far as being able to teach creative writing, I absolutely believe it can be taught, but like the piano, while anyone can learn to do it, not everyone is going to be equal in technique and style.


----------



## Mo (Mar 25, 2011)

I think expressing our creativity is a learned skill, like most things. I'll bet everyone probably has some amount of creativity, but many people (probably most) are just not good at expressing it. One has to learn to think in certain ways, and that is difficult if one is not used to it through practice. Just because someone cannot express it, it doesn't mean they are not creative.

I don't think formal classes are necessarily the only or best way to learn how to write, they may be good for some people, but not for others. It depends on the person at the end of the day, probably.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Randy Kadish said:


> I believe in the power of technique. Yes, technique can't make a story, but it can bring out the best in it; and so I also believe much of creative writing can be taught. All the great golfers study technique, so why not writers?
> 
> Having said that, I believe technique is only part of the story. I believe that we writers must have something to write about and, therefore, should live life by going out into the real world, and then drawing upon what we've lived and seen.
> 
> ...


But athletic ability can't be taught. If you don't have the potential to be a great golfer, all the technique in the world won't make you one.

I believe in studying technique. There isn't a writer out there who isn't well served by reading (bleck, I wish they had the product-link-inserty thing from Amazon forums here) King's On Writing, Bradbury's Zen in the Art of Writing (not available on Kindle and should be), and Nancy Kress's Characters, Emotion & Viewpoint (also not yet on Kindle).

But the main thing a writer has to do is write. Read. Read. Read some more. And write.


----------



## The Real McCoy (Oct 8, 2010)

JRTomlin said:


> But athletic ability can't be taught. If you don't have the potential to be a great golfer, all the technique in the world won't make you one.
> 
> I believe in studying technique. There isn't a writer out there who isn't well served by reading (bleck, I wish they had the product-link-inserty thing from Amazon forums here) King's On Writing, Bradbury's Zen in the Art of Writing (not available on Kindle and should be), and Nancy Kress's Characters, Emotion & Viewpoint (also not yet on Kindle).
> 
> ...


----------



## Malweth (Oct 18, 2009)

JRTomlin said:


> But athletic ability can't be taught. If you don't have the potential to be a great golfer, all the technique in the world won't make you one.
> 
> [...]


My general thought is that anyone can do anything within reason. Can anyone become a great scientist? Of course not, it's well known that varying intelligence exists and great scientists need to have that born in them. Can anyone become a scientist (of any ability)? Absolutely.

The same holds true, in different degrees, with practically any learned skill.

The difficulty lies in profitability. Where does one draw the line in desire to perform versus ability to perform (and make it a career)? When it comes to the arts, especially, _should_ one draw this line? Many graphical artists were not well admired in their day (Van Gogh comes to mind) and if they were discouraged, and followed that advice, humanity would become stagnant.

Athletic ability *can *be taught, but nobody can be taught to be "great" at anything.


----------



## Mehryinett (Feb 19, 2011)

Malweth said:


> My general thought is that anyone can do anything within reason. Can anyone become a great scientist? Of course not, it's well known that varying intelligence exists and great scientists need to have that born in them. Can anyone become a scientist (of any ability)? Absolutely.
> 
> The same holds true, in different degrees, with practically any learned skill.
> 
> ...


I agree, but I think it's worth also pointing out that without teaching and training, no one will become great at anything. Mozart could play piano from a very young age. As far as writing goes, I'm always astonished at the sheer number of people who seem to be unable to spell or use basic grammar correctly. Shakespeare was taught to write and read and (must have) read the Greek and Latin classics, not to mention the fact that he practiced his art by writing large amounts, especially on his earlier historical plays. Not all of his writing is brilliant. Learning your craft has to be a prerequisite for becoming brilliant.


----------



## cindyvine (Jan 13, 2011)

I believe it is a skill that can be taught, but only a few people will develop it further and run with it to become successful authors.


----------



## amkuska (Apr 3, 2011)

This is a very difficult question to respond to. Please forgive me if this post lacks clarity. I am searching for words here that don't really exist. Yes, of course creative writing can be taught. All you have to do to see this is to look at the college courses available today. There's always at least one creative writing class, and it will teach you the basics of writing fiction.

I believe what the OP was actually asking however, is whether that deep magic some writers have can be taught. The magic that Jim Butcher has, for example. His magical scenes are so clear that until you shake the fog out of your head, you find it odd the world doesn't have magic. Stephen King is another great example. He has so much of that _something else_ I am talking about, that I don't read his books. It's not that I don't love his writing, it's just that I can't let go of the story after reading it.

Can that something else be taught? I'm not sure. I don't think anyone has ever really tried. I don't know if it's something you have or you don't. The only thing I'm sure of is that you have to have a driving passion for writing in order to bring it out.

I hope this makes sense, and I'm sorry if it doesn't. It's just my take on the matter anyway.


----------



## joanhallhovey (Nov 7, 2010)

I teach creative writing, and I think it can be taught, to a point.  Technique can go a long way to making a story a pleasure to read. Good characterization,  sensory detail, description, pacing and so on will let you turn out a publishable piece of work. But innate talent plays a major part. You can study and practice for years, and never reach the level of a Peter Straub, Margaret Atwood or a Sarah Gruen (Water for Elephants). But if you love books and read them voraciously, paying close attention to how the professional author weaves in all those elements, and you enjoy the act of writing, then I think you can do very well.  You can and will get better and better.  No question about it.


----------



## The Real McCoy (Oct 8, 2010)

The general consensus is that creative writing can be taught but it can only be absorbed by the student to the extent of their talent for creative writing. Although I've had many novels published the only education I've had in this field is from the authors I constantly read (and admire) and the odd creative writing session at various writers' conferences I attend. Trouble is I always struggled to maintain interest as I'm bombarded with the nuts and bolts of creative writing when all I'm waiting for is to pounce on that one rare jewel of information which will take my writing up to another level. I will keep on going to these sessions because I know that the rare jewel is out there. I just hope I'm awake when it arrives. 

Or maybe I'm just living in cloud cuckoo land.


----------



## Malweth (Oct 18, 2009)

The Real McCoy said:


> The general consensus is that creative writing can be taught but it can only be absorbed by the student to the extent of their talent for creative writing. Although I've had many novels published the only education I've had in this field is from the authors I constantly read (and admire) and the odd creative writing session at various writers' conferences I attend. Trouble is I always struggled to maintain interest as I'm bombarded with the nuts and bolts of creative writing when all I'm waiting for is to pounce on that one rare jewel of information which will take my writing up to another level. I will keep on going to these sessions because I know that the rare jewel is out there. I just hope I'm awake when it arrives.
> 
> Or maybe I'm just living in cloud cuckoo land.


I've always felt that someone with the drive and capacity for learning is able to teach themselves, whatever the subject. The caveat is that, without a teacher, learning comes more slowly and with greater effort. Furthermore, adequate resources must be available or the student may stall-out.

I'm not a fiction writer, but my impression is that writing is usually self-taught (after the high-school standard).


----------



## Bob Mayer (Feb 20, 2011)

True- pretty much every MFA program does not allow you to write genre.  As if writing something else is so much harder.  I challenge every head of every MFA program to write a genre novel and get it published.  Few would succeed.  Actually, since their paycheck comes from teaching, not writing, the reality is, they are not as well qualified to teach writing as someone who makes their living doing it.


----------



## The Real McCoy (Oct 8, 2010)

Being a genre writer doesn't restrict you to one genre. I've been published in three different genres: one humour, eight sagas (romance) and four crime ...five crime if I include GOOD LUCK BAD TEMPER which is only published as an ebook. I'm currently trying to find a publisher for yet another genre, true crime. If I don't get an offer by the end of this month I'm putting it on to Kindle. In fact this book is a biography so it covers two genres. It'll be my first and last non-fiction and I'll probably write no more humour books, but crime and sagas have a reader overlap to the extent that most of my saga readers followed me when I turned to crime. Well, not literally.


----------



## The Real McCoy (Oct 8, 2010)

Tomorrow (7th April) I'm going to a writer's luncheon where the topic of discussion is to be a combination of creative writing and ebooks. I'm currently scrolling through all your comments, many of which I will use in order to make me sound intelligent. Thank you all.


----------



## jherrick (Apr 1, 2011)

Personally, I believe creative writing can be taught but might not be necessary. Whatever technique works, I'd say run with it! More important than technique, in my opinion anyway, is if the story emerges from deep within the writer's heart. Does the writer make him/herself vulnerable? Is he/she willing to make him/herself uncomfortable in order to bring the characters to life? Readers are savvy and can sense whether a writer has shared his/her heart with them. And the flipside of that is a real positive: by becoming vulnerable in the writing, the writer forges a bond with the reader. They enter into a mutual commitment. The reader says, "I'm willing to spend time with your book." The writer (hopefully) says, "I don't take your commitment lightly. I'm willing to invest my heart in what I deliver to you."


----------



## Vegas_Asian (Nov 2, 2008)

I think to become a writer yes practice is keen, but reading is also important. My creative writing professor stress this after the group of girls that only read twilight (they confessed it. And showed in their writing). I believe it true. Reading teaches us the dos and don't. Like learning for the success and failures of others


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Malweth said:


> I've always felt that someone with the drive and capacity for learning is able to teach themselves, whatever the subject. The caveat is that, without a teacher, learning comes more slowly and with greater effort. Furthermore, adequate resources must be available or the student may stall-out.
> 
> I'm not a fiction writer, but my impression is that writing is usually self-taught (after the high-school standard).


I simply don't agree. I have a lovely granddaughter. She has no musical ability. After a couple of years her rather musically-talented mother finally gave up and admitted that the child is going to be a scientist. Not everyone has the ability to be a musician or, for that matter, a scientist or mathematician. The same is true of fiction writing. But if someone wants to, really wants to,they should give it their best shot.

My opinion is that their best shot is first with a book open--a lot of them--and then at a keyboard, not in a classroom because it seriously can not be taught. But you had also better read what some of the masters of the craft have to say. They can't teach you to write, but they can ease the journey some.

Any time someone asks me about writing, which they do, I say to read Stephen King's On Writing

One of the passages I've been known to quote is this one:



> You can approach the act of writing with nervousness, excitement, hopefulness, or even despair--the sense that you can never completely put on the page what's in your mind and heart. You can come to the act with your fists clinched and your eyes narrowed, ready to kick ass and take down names. You can come to it because you want a girl to marry you or because you want to change the world. Come to it any way but lightly. Let me say it again: _you must not come lightly to the blank page_.


----------

