Talent vs Training

How much talent do you need, and how much can training hone that talent?  This is the quintessential question regarding what makes a good writer, similar to questions about whether talent for chess is rooted in intuitive play or the memorization of various movement patterns.

I think the obvious answer is that there is a combination of the two that is required.  However, I also tend to believe that a certain level of talent is necessary or no amount of training and practice can achieve greatness.  As a comparison, I can practice basketball all day long for years, and I’ll never reach the level of a Steph Curry or James Hardin(I intentionally selected those players and not someone like LeBron because LeBron is a physical freak, whereas Curry and Hardin could be mistaken for “regular guys” if they weren’t in the NBA).  Therefore, innate talent must be a part of any great writer.  Good writers may be able to be produced through training, but practice will not overcome a dearth of talent and create greatness.

Of course, there are lots of decent writers out there who don’t get that training and practice are necessary components.  Raw talent undeveloped will similarly not reach greatness.  Sure, there might be the occasional Mozart or Akiane Kramarik, but those are rare indeed.  To reach greatness, most folks of talent will need to find ways to hone their craft.  Unfortunately, there can be a stubbornness to getting better since such people usually were able to get by and stand out among their peers simply by being born with more talent.

Now here’s where you’re going to say I’m contradicting myself – you can overtrain.  There can come a point where you change technique through training so much that your natural talent is subsumed.  Is this a contradiction?  I don’t think so – what I’m calling for is balance, not elimination.  The sweet spot of great writing is figuring out how to balance talent and training, how to balance ego and humility.  When you figure that out, you can achieve greatness.