Naomi said -

most of the classics would not be publishable today - the prose is just too 'old fashioned'

But most of the classics are publishable today - they're being (re)published, over and over! And don't we all read 'the classics' (or books published in previous centuries) with pleasure, enjoying the prose?

Frances

Okay, I'll see if I can clarify. I don't believe any one of us is born a gifted writer, just as no-one is born being a gifted football player, artist or musician. However, the combination of the preferences/leanings/personality traits we have quite early on and the influences that surround us during childhood produce adults who are better at some things than others and, now and again, produce child prodigies who grow up to be exceptionally talented at something. The latter are the exception, however.

There are some people who, with their first ever adult work of fiction, produce exceptional work at a young age. Zadie Smith and David Mitchell would be likely candidates in this cetagory, imo. But I don't believe either of them were 'born' gifted or that their talent for writing is entirely nartural. The combination of their genetic inheritence and the environment they grew up in managed to produce people with an outstanding talent for writing.

Not all of us are as fortunate. Some people may well, if they work hard, practice and put in plenty of study of writing, eventually write something as "good" as Smith's or Mitchell's first novel. Some people may work just as hard but never be able to produce something of a publishable standard. And others will fall into all the possible positions in between those two.

I think it's a very complex subject, which is why I tend to disagree with any argument that tries to over simplify it. So I can't agree that anyone is simply 'born a talented writer' and neither can I agree that anyone who works hard enough and puts in enough practice will "become a talented writer". As I see it reality is somewhere inbetween those two extremes.

Yes, that sits more or less with my own outlook. If people could put their finger on what natural talent is, we'd all be doing it, wouldn't we?

JB

Sarah, thanks for the link. As you probably know, I have a lot of respect for Jeff Vandermeer. He was the stand-out guest writer at Odyssey last year, mainly because he worked us hard at being more flexible, going deeper, stretching our prose. I liked this from him on style:

Some styles cannot multi-task. This is not a function of the simplicity or complexity of the prose, but a function of the simplicity or complexity of the layering the writer wishes to achieve; some writers have no choice but to operate at a simple level, while others can create simple and complex layering as they choose. Sometimes, the inability to multi-task is due to the banality of [the] writer’s worldview. Sometimes, it is due to audience pandering. Sometimes, the writer hasn’t yet matured to the point where his or her style can carry the weight (or carry it in an effortless fashion).

JB, I think this is very true:

I read so much that abides strictly to the 'rules' and it has 'university degree' written all over it. It doesn't matter what's being written because it's kind of flat and lacks spark. Then I read stuff that's all over the place, wild, but it keeps you glued to the page. I don't think the real deal can be synthesised, not really, as hard as people try.

And it's fascinating that this talk has moved to the discussion of talent as an ingredient of good prose. I think learning can take one so far, and can produce immaculately worded prose; but it's that wildness of talent, of a writer who takes chances with the stuff of his imagination and life, makes lateral leaps into the unknown, which really makes for memorable prose.

Apologies to footy-haters, but it's like Gascoigne's goal against Scotland in Euro 96:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaNThXSn1E0

There is no way that can be coached. I'm sure he didn't know himself that he was going to do it until the last moment. The tragedy is that he wants to be a coach but it's impossible--he just doesn't have the discipline, psychological insight and understanding to be able to transfer what he did to others.

A footballer like Gascoigne can have a brilliant but short career; but is that possible for a novelist? Or does a writer have to have talent and structured intelligence?

Terry

PS Taking a first stab at 'What is talent'? I think it's a combination of passion, early total immersion, discipline to build the skills platform to release that passion (not necessarily technical at an early stage), persistence, self-confidence and an all-consuming desire (in our case) to tell great stories that elevate the reader.

Yes, the French call it je ne sais quoi don't they? That certain something that just can't be easily defined.

I hastened to add that I wasn't taking a pop at those who do degrees in writing or study the craft that far. Just now and again, to my mind, I come across work that is clearly a result of technical skill and very little soul or none at all. You can add all the right ingredients and stir it round and round, but it does not necessarily a Stroganoff make, that's all.

JB

But most of the classics are publishable today - they're being (re)published, over and over! And don't we all read 'the classics' (or books published in previous centuries) with pleasure, enjoying the prose?

My poiint was, Frances, that if you or I wrote something in the style of Shakespeare it would be unpublishable. Just as, if I, as a children's author, wrote anything in the style of Enid Blyton, it would be unpublishable, despite Blyton's continued popularity today.

- NaomiM

<Added>

Shakespeare and Blyton have pretty much cornered the market in that style of prose - even Tom Stoppard, in his screenplay for Shakespeare In Love conceded that shakespearian-style dialogue would never have washed with the audience.

<Added>

oops in their styles of prose

I'd say the style of Blyton is very similar to J K Rowling's.

As for 'naturally talented writers' I think there is a danger of them 'pushing the boundaries' of their prose to the point of them becoming unintelligable to the majority of readers - Will Self is a case in point.
Just as Woody Allen is a naturally funny screen-writer/Director, who has made a conscious effort in his recent films to strip out the humour and ther viewer has found there is nothing else to his talent.

I'd say the style of Blyton is very similar to J K Rowling's.

You're getting me back for that Crystal thing, aren't you, Terry

Woody Allen is a naturally funny screen-writer/Director, who has made a conscious effort in his recent films to strip out the humour

Yes, inspired humour makes for great films and likewise prose. Sarah quoted Terry Pratchett earlier - his prose is often a bit careless, but also often unmatchable.

Naomi, I did understand the point you were making about the classics.

Frances

Naomi, sorry, I also have to say that I think you're point about referring to more modernistic styles was a good one, in terms of seeking publication. Wasn't Pride & Prejudice recently rejected by an agent or something? Ok, that may have been a stupid prank, but even successful works that are apparently written in an 'old style' (I'm thinking Jonathan Strange here) are actually a lot more modern than the actual writing of the period.

JB

Some interesting things have come up on this thread, though it always depends what you mean by 'good', of course, but it's too long to review, though this caught my eye:

even successful works that are apparently written in an 'old style' (I'm thinking Jonathan Strange here) are actually a lot more modern than the actual writing of the period.

Yes, of course. Each generation of hist fic writers has to find the voice which seems authentic for their readers as being of the period they're writing about. It isn't, of course, it's a construct, sleight of hand, a conjuring trick, and the further back in history your characters, the harder it is to straddle the gap between the times. But anyone who doubts it can be done hasn't read, for example, Burgess's Dead Man in Deptford, about Marlowe.

Hist fic hugely enlarges the possible voices available to a writer, as Byatt says, not entirely flippantly: we can write in long sentences. I'd never claim my prose as anything other than contemporary with the early 21st century, though. I'm one of the writers for whom words and sentences did come first, before all the other building-blocks of fiction: the sound and weight and and pace and rhythm of prose, the absolute precision and control of language, the images and metaphors buried or clear or drawn out. Story-telling and structure I learnt much later, round about novel number four, and I still struggle with character, pace and plot...

Emma

it's a construct, sleight of hand, a conjuring trick, and the further back in history your characters, the harder it is to straddle the gap between the times.

This is true.

I always think Anne Rice gets round this brilliantly - e.g. in 'Pandora' when she suggests that Latin is actually very like contemporary American English - and tells us so with such assurance that we are bound to believe her?

She has a lot of fun - because her characters span so many centuries - she can have them speak however she likes - and the reader is more than happy to buy into the illusion?

Sarah

I've never read any Anne Rice, but I really must, if that's her bag. Stumbled across the movie of Interview with a Vampire and was very impressed, mind you.

Having just been reading Angela Carter's take on Puss-in-Boots - as much Beaumarchais as Perrault, and pure Carter - I've been reminded just how much FUN fantastically, extra-ordinarily wonderful writing can be.

Emma

What did you make of Fragile Things Emma, out of interest?

I've read quite a bit of Anne Rice and yes, she does have that knack of 'modernising the ancient', in the Vampire Chronicles especially but her take on the Mummy was also quite good in a Victorian, 'faint at the sight of muscles' kind of way. I also admire Susanna Clarke's ability to make you think you're reading an Austen-era work. Very clever.

JB