Posts: 239
Threads: 40
Joined: Jun 2011
Stephen King's definition:
:' "If you wrote something for which someone sent you a check, if you cashed the check and it didn't bounce, and if you then paid the light bill with the money, I consider you talented'' '
Agree? Disagree? More pithy one? Your own? 
Posts: 1,325
Threads: 82
Joined: Sep 2013
Stephen King also said:
Quote:Talent is cheaper than table salt. What separates the talented individual from the successful one is a lot of hard work.
Stephen King
He must think a lot about this stuff.
Quote:The real issue is not talent as an independent element, but talent in relationship to will, desire, and persistence. Talent without these things vanishes and even modest talent with those characteristics grows.
Milton Glaser
billy wrote:welcome to the site. make it your own, wear it like a well loved slipper and wear it out. ella pleads:please click forum titles for posting guidelines, important threads. New poet? Try Poetic DevicesandWard's Tips
Posts: 848
Threads: 231
Joined: Oct 2012
Talent is subjective and the subject of pretense, Mr King implies we have a measure for it so maybe earning enough money to pay for electricity from a given talent is a good enough yard stick as any, after all even Mr Ripley was said to be talented.
If your undies fer you've been smoking through em, don't peg em out
Posts: 378
Threads: 8
Joined: Mar 2013
I would say that of two people starting at the same point, the one who works the hardest is probably more likely to be perceived as talented in the future, regardless of whether or not they were perceived as the more talented of the two at the beginning.
Of course it is probably equally as unlikely that that will always be the case, but even Chopin worked his butt off, and probably had equal measures of both supporters and naysayers during his development.
It would be easy to say that history is the yardstick, but we know that even that isn't always true. And how much unrecorded talent have we missed? Not even time will tell.
Posts: 239
Threads: 40
Joined: Jun 2011
(09-16-2014, 08:08 AM)trueenigma Wrote: I would say that of two people starting at the same point, the one who works the hardest is probably more likely to be perceived as talented in the future, regardless of whether or not they were perceived as the more talented of the two at the beginning.
Of course it is probably equally as unlikely that that will always be the case, but even Chopin worked his butt off, and probably had equal measures of both supporters and naysayers during his development.
It would be easy to say that history is the yardstick, but we know that even that isn't always true. And how much unrecorded talent have we missed? Not even time will tell.
just mercedes
Unregistered
I had a check from Amazon last week, and paid the phone bill with it. Some of the phone bill.  Does that count?
Posts: 378
Threads: 8
Joined: Mar 2013
(09-16-2014, 12:13 PM)just mercedes Wrote: I had a check from Amazon last week, and paid the phone bill with it. Some of the phone bill. Does that count?
I believe it does.
Posts: 378
Threads: 8
Joined: Mar 2013
it has to count for something anyway.
just mercedes
Unregistered
Thanks true. I don't think Ed was totally serious with his question so I was even less so with my response.
Posts: 1,568
Threads: 317
Joined: Jun 2011
You're talented if I say you're talented. End of story.
It could be worse
Posts: 2,354
Threads: 229
Joined: Oct 2010
Talent is more of a knack, without hardwork I think it's mostly overrated.
Oh, yeah and if Leanne says you're talented you probably are. If you don't develop it though she goes all homicidal on you--believe it.
The secret of poetry is cruelty.--Jon Anderson
Posts: 1,568
Threads: 317
Joined: Jun 2011
Oh stop, Todd, I've already said you're talented -- there's no need to butter me up
It could be worse
Posts: 2,602
Threads: 303
Joined: Feb 2017
(09-16-2014, 01:31 PM)fogglethorpe Wrote: Stephenie Meyer sold over 100 million copies of her "Twilight" series. I'm sure she pays her light bill every month with the profits, though she is no Hemingway or Steinbeck. What gives?
In writing...if you are talented you are unaware of working in your endeavour. If you must work very hard you are unaware of any talent being involved. The end result may be the same and talentXwork may well be a constant.
Best,
phew, that was difficult,
tectak
Posts: 378
Threads: 8
Joined: Mar 2013
If you are a duelist, your talent is probably contingent upon the depth of your soul.
If you use the word depth a lot then you probably aren't very talented
if you think your writing has substance, other than maybe ink, then, depending on how you are defining substance, two out of three are probably talented and need an MRI; the third should probably look for a better noun. If the only suitable noun you can find is a metaphor, then you sous try your hand at poetry.
If you are saying probably a lot then you are probably talking about something that very abstract and probably doesn't have any definable parameters, and the probabilities are probably unknown.
Maybe we could attempt to isolate a talent gene, then debate nature versus nurture.
Posts: 5,057
Threads: 1,075
Joined: Dec 2009
i agree, as long as the person has read what you wrote before the cheque's cleared, and as long as it's not a relative and as long as it's a talented piece of work. i've read many a book where the author seemed to be lacking in talent, i never paid for it but someone must have.
why the light bill  what about if you pay for a hooker with the money....it'd be a hell of a lot cheaper and far more stylish don'tcha think 
(09-16-2014, 07:09 AM)abu nuwas Wrote: Stephen King's definition:
:' "If you wrote something for which someone sent you a check, if you cashed the check and it didn't bounce, and if you then paid the light bill with the money, I consider you talented'' '
Agree? Disagree? More pithy one? Your own?
Posts: 1,325
Threads: 82
Joined: Sep 2013
(09-16-2014, 09:22 PM)trueenigma Wrote: If you are a duelist, your talent is probably contingent upon the depth of your soul.
If you use the word depth a lot then you probably aren't very talented
if you think your writing has substance, other than maybe ink, then, depending on how you are defining substance, two out of three are probably talented and need an MRI; the third should probably look for a better noun. If the only suitable noun you can find is a metaphor, then you sous try your hand at poetry.
If you are saying probably a lot then you are probably talking about something that very abstract and probably doesn't have any definable parameters, and the probabilities are probably unknown.
Maybe we could attempt to isolate a talent gene, then debate nature versus nurture.
billy wrote:welcome to the site. make it your own, wear it like a well loved slipper and wear it out. ella pleads:please click forum titles for posting guidelines, important threads. New poet? Try Poetic DevicesandWard's Tips
Posts: 444
Threads: 285
Joined: Nov 2011
(09-16-2014, 07:09 AM)abu nuwas Wrote: Stephen King's definition:
:' "If you wrote something for which someone sent you a check, if you cashed the check and it didn't bounce, and if you then paid the light bill with the money, I consider you talented'' ' What's with the paying the light bill part?
If you pay a light bill, you're not a real writer.
Stephen King doesn't pay light bills.
Anyone who's talented doesn't pay light bills.
What's a light bill anyway?
a brightly colored fungus that grows in bark inclusions
Posts: 5,057
Threads: 1,075
Joined: Dec 2009
it's a bill that doesn't weigh a lot
Posts: 378
Threads: 8
Joined: Mar 2013
(09-19-2014, 04:54 PM)billy Wrote: it's a bill that doesn't weigh a lot
so. .. Does that mean it's you, because or your light demeanor? Or are we talking about a different bill, perhaps an anorexic bill?
Posts: 5,057
Threads: 1,075
Joined: Dec 2009
i think it can be either or
|
