Welcome to Literary Rambles! While you’re rambling around and exploring the site enter for a chance to win:
ELUSION/PANIC/HALF BAD/THE SHADOW THRONE through March 8th here
A SNICKER OF MAGIC through March 15th here
ROCK 'N' ROLL PRINCESSES WEAR BLACK through March 15th here
On the Potential of the Bad, Competent, Good or Great Writer
"...while it is impossible to make a competent writer out of a bad writer, and while it is equally impossible to make a great writer out of a good one, it is possible, with lots of hard work, dedication, and timely help, to make a good writer out of a merely competent one." (p. 136)
I don't know how I feel about this. The horde of hopefuls in my head want to beleive that, wherever I'm at talent-wise, I have a chance at becoming good or great. But then, I also don't see myself developing the talent of, say, Markus Zusak or Suzanne Collins—ever.
So I see what he's saying, and I think it comes down to how one defines or views such words as "good" and "great." A writer can improve greatly, for example, as I think many of us have, but will never be a [insert author that fills you with awe]. And yet, I still find myself balking at the idea that we have a built-in cap to our potential, and wondering if it really is impossible to cross these thresholds. Even if a good writer will never become one of the greats, does a bad writer really have no chance at becoming competent or good? I'm not sure. I find myself agreeing and then disagreeing in the span of two thoughts.
What's your take?
Posted by Casey Something on Friday, October 16, 2009