BUT…I disagree with you on the talent part (though perhaps calling it talent isn’t exactly right. Perhaps “natural inclination” is more accurate?). I think some people have an ear for music that others don’t, just as some have an ability to speak 10 languages fluently while others struggle despite studying hard. Some can grasp the subtle points of quantum physics while othes barely get the concept of gravity. Our brains all function differently, and some things match up with the way our brains work while others don’t.

The flaw with the Juilliard study, and the reason I reject it as proof that talent is myth, is that the students were all above-average musicians at that point. You don’t get in that school unless you have something special compared to others. So at that level, yes–all other things being equal, practice will make the difference. But if they weren’t already something “more” compared to the masses, they wouldn’t have been there to start. So the study was flawed, because it was too limiting of a sample. They excluded all the third clarinet kids who practiced their fingers off and just never could keep accurate timing, and the kids who played violin every day and were technically good, but whose notes sounded wooden instead of like a voice singing.

Yeah, that’s the science geek in me slipping out.

Mozart is someone who proves this for me–from a very young age, he was able to write almost error-free music compositions, because he heard the music in his mind and somehow knew how to get it out onto paper. Studies have shown that listening to Mozart improves information retention in students. Why? Because Mozart wrote more than just music; he wrote something that actually changes our brainwaves and thought patterns and aligns them in a way that makes us remember better. He basically wrote down his own mind, and was able to do that from an age when it wasn’t possible that practice could have been the only factor. It’s something that was instinctive to him, that was built-in from birth. Just the way his mind worked. A natural inclintion, or ability or talent, that was all in the wiring.

That doesn’t mean I think great writers (or any other professionals) are born great–they still need to practice and hone their craft. They need to work on the mechanics of expression, basic grammar, what have you. I’m still practicing and growing as a writer, and I know that. I will be practicing and getting better until the day I stop, published or not. But that doesn’t stop me from wondering if I’m the kid in Juilliard who just isn’t practicing as much as the other students, or the kid with wooden fingers who can hit the notes, but not sing the song.

I get over it. I write on. And I keep believing that inside me there is something that can sing. It’s just timing and all the stuff you listed above about quantiy and demand. Someday maybe my timing will be right.

(BTW: have I mentioned that I love it when you comment? It’s like being back in college, having all those deep debates in the coffee shop about life, the universe, and everything)

“Talent,” the study suggested, is a term that people use to convince themselves that human gifts derive from something innate, rather than long hard hours of work. The myth of talent gives us excuses for our lack of success.

Problem is, when our hard work isn’t recognized, if we believe in talent, then it suggests that there’s something inadequate in us, and that’s a punch in the face.

But writers occupy a field that’s powerfully driven by quantity and demand; if an agent says “the publishing industry is flooded with X and needs more Y,” then that agent will reject you if you’re pursuing X and take an interest if you’re pursuing Y. X and Y can be subject matter, mood, perspective, etc.; one agent told me that the reason she was rejecting my work was that there were too many first-person novels on the market right now. And that has nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of the book or the innate “talent” of the author.

To make it worse, this kind of anticipating-the-interest-of-the-market is questionable at best. No one really knows if the abundance of X suggests there’s too much X, or if it means that people currently have no interest in Y. The small publisher who reluctantly published Harry Potter is on record saying he didn’t think there would be any market for that kind of story; he published it as a kind of favor for his daughter. Now he’s a billionaire.

So, write the best book you can, and continuously look for ways to improve. It doesn’t hurt to keep an eye out for what you see as coming trends, but only if they correspond with stuff you’re authentically passionate about.

Anyway, have a great night!

am

Where I’m unsure about the idea is, if I’m understanding it correctly, a protagonist who committed suicide. I’m not sure how you could create a convincing character who would be willing to face a conflict rather than surrender, if they’d already surrendered once before. Of course, there are probably solutions you can find to that storytelling problem, and if you’re lucky, those solutions will lead to more problems for you to solve, until you’ve created a milieu that practically generates stories by itself.

Go for it, I say.

The sin in question is suicide. Let’s face it: despite being self-murder and thus a sin, it’s something you can’t repent after the fact because, you know, you’re dead. But mass murderers and serial killers who are alive can repent and be saved? ‘m picturing an odd mashup between Dante’s “Inferno” and “The Picture of Dorian Gray,” with a dash of Miss Marple and Nancy Drew.

Yeah, it’s a mess, lol. But kind of an intriguing idea…

Genre-bending has caused me trouble too.

I want to to thank you for ones time just for this wonderful read!
! I definitely appreciated every part of it and i also have you book marked
to check out new things on your blog.