Is writing a matter of talent or practice?

>>8826708
Both.

>>8826711
/thread

>>8826711
I think it's talent.

it's literally the Muse

>>8826743
the muse won't visit you unless you've been practicing on a regular basis, and you need to have a muse in the first place which you could call having 'talent'.

File: YinYang.jpg (22KB, 261x260px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 261x260px

>>8826722
No, it's both.

Nature vs nurture scenario here. It's always both.

>>8826743

It's the daimon, you idiot.

Could you flush out your question?

>>8826936
>he doesn't even have genii loci

>>8826708
Both, but since practice is usually assumed, it ends up coming down to talent.

>>8826708
Of course it's both, plus a third element--experience.

I think becoming a good writer is like:

-25% innate, god given talent. There are certainly just some who have that certain something and some who don't.

-25% life experience

-50% practice, hard work, the grind.

Both, but more the former than the latter.

>>8826708
>true ease in writing comes from art, not chance, as those move easiest who have learn'd to dance.

Both, but more practice than talent. If you're willing to write a decent amount everyday and read a shit ton of classics, eventually you will write something decent.

>>8826932
This. Talent is refined from practice, there is no real dichotomy.

well you can develop the talent with some practice, but all practice and no talent wont take you anywhere. non-honed talent wont do much either.

>>8826708
It is without a doubt both.

You'll never be a good writer without practice, but you'll never be a great writer without talent.