Some are born, some are made.
>>23541544made
>>23541544born
>>23541544Both, singular and plural.
>>23541544the question presupposes that, one, these two are mutually exclusive, and that two, this question's given answer is an accurate way of viewing writers. addressing my first point, it is possible that someone could have some intractable characteristics about them that makes them a good writer, but this does not matter if they are never taught to write due to some invidious circumstances. It is also possible that someone could spend their entire life writing, but lack the characteristics that are seen in great writers. Their "essence" simply isn't imbued with those abstract sensibilities. That is okay however, everyone isn't meant to do everything. What we can take away from this is that both parts are important in creating the greatest of art. Furthermore, it's important to be circumspect about such truisms since you could be missing out on great literature by viewing the world through such unquestioned simplicity.
>>23541608This is a made writer. I can tell.
>>23541613This is a made retard. I can tell
>>23541627That's simply not true—I was born one.
>>23541632I was trying to give you some benefit of the doubt
>>23541544Both. To be great at anything you need natural talent and all the studying in the world won't move you past an unimpressive ceiling. That said, you also need something interesting to say to write anything of value which seems to largely depend on experience.
>>23541608You are a woman.
>>23541544Writing talent is like genetics in bodybuilding or really talent of any sort You need to have it in you but you also need to pull it out
Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and others have greatness thrust upon them.
>>23541608I respect the effortpost but fuck me anon a simple "bit of both" would have sufficed perfectly fine.
>>23541582>>23541590Duality of woman.
>>23541544Considering how most stories and books are edited, rewritten and corrected by author at some time during its development, so maybe you can say that it was made.But not everyone can composes prose like joyce, or capture the nature essence in a poetry like frost, so its fair to say that they're born with that talentsThus making the answer: books are made and writers are born
>>23541544Hmm I would say made, just because most skills take time to write. Sure you could maybe be gifted but you still have to grind to get gud.
Great writers will have an inherent affinity for writing that other people do not. Believing that just anyone can be a great writer is cope.
The best writers tend to be of two types. You have the Nabokovs and Faulkners who are honestly pretty normal people aside from the immense literary talent, and then you have guys like Burroughs, Dostevsky, and Salinger who are clearly fucked up in the head and write cause they've got something they need to sort out. Generally, they all pretty much knew they had considerable literary talent by before they were thirty, and many of them began writing because they literally needed money and didn't want to work some shitty fucking job. So I guess the difference between them and everyone else is they literally put their money where their (metaphorical) mouth was, and started publishing. They were confident enough in their skills to risk it, and I'm going to totally level with you, very few of them started writing with real literary ambitions. Instead, what binds them is a practical confidence in their ability to write, and a deep and abiding interest in past authors.
>>23543532So to answer your question, I think if you suck at crafting a decent sentence worthy of literature, that's not a talent you're going to be able to find. However, if you have a knack for expressing yourself with the written word, and more importantly, you PICK SOMETHING UP when you read past authors and start gaining more technique and richness, try emulating them and finding that it amplifies your own prose, then you might have a future. But writers generally know they've got some talent, and while they nurse those questions of legacy and import surely, they also keep their feet on the ground. Dostevsky in particular was notorious for procrastinating and then writing to stave off gambling debts. I think the ability to write with rhythm is inborn, an ear for what sounds good and what sounds shit. But the ability to amplify this talent by accruing more methods of communicating your soul, and skillfully weaving them together into a unique texture over a novel, that's what makes a great writer.Everyone sucks Cormac McCarthy's cock for his prose in Blood Meridian... but he learned a lot of those arcane and recondite words by reading letters left behind from souls of the time. The Bible, Faulkner, and the people who peopled that untamed West.
>>23541544Name one writer that was never born.
>>23543550God, the author of the Bible
>>23543562Holy based
>>23543562.
>>23541544Please let this be a tranny, I love that face too god damn much to not humiliate it with a brutal dicking down.
>Please let this be a tranny, I love that face too god damn much to not humiliate it with a brutal dicking down.
>>23541544I accidently read>are writers born or male.Well, they're male... i mean made.
