hear, hear. but then, while I’ve seen bits of cricket games many many times through british shows/films, I can’t say I’ve tried too hard to wrangle a succinct & helpful-to-me explanation…

Justine: ” “best movie ever made” is rather a large category. … Claudette Colbert”

isn’t it just? ooh, on Claudette Colbert, do you like “It Happened One Night”? that’s currently my favorite for her. ^_^

*fades back into lurkerdom*

Though I have no argument with describing that pom (or really any upper class pom) as poncy. Spot on, Claire!

Point of fact: the Ashes does not pass back and forth between Australia and England. Firstly, those bastards claim the urn is too fragile to travel and will barely let us get a squiz at it. It certainly never leaves England. And secondly, for the most part the Ashes have (in spirit) been in Australian hands since we have won it way, way, way more than they have.

Now that you have pointed out my duty to me, I promise to research and answer any questions you ask. Iffin they arise from this blog, that is.

by the way, i finally figured it out: cricket isn’t actually that complicated, it’s just that cricket aficionadoes are constitutionally incapable of explaining things simply. for example, y’all could’ve explained the ashes thing thus:

“some poncy brit a hundred years ago lamented the loss of a cricket game to australians by printing an obituary to english cricket in which he stated that the body (of english cricket) would be cremated and the ashes delivered to australia. in later years they actually got some ashes by burning wooden cricket equipment, and now pass them back and forth whenever australia plays england.”

i think only cricket aficionadoes need the 1700-word essay that includes the the lyrics to the songs immortalizing this … uh … immortal episode, dates and circumstances of the marriage proposals of all the major players, and the racial background and future occupations of their wives.

Read this.

Yup in the bar at WisCon—me and Scott’ll act it out for you.

Some time (next WisCon?) when we’re in a bar together, Claire, I shall explain cricket, using glasses and coasters. In the meantime you could go here to learn all about it.

i still stand by trying to get your work out there as a facet of talent. it doesn’t necessarily have to be publication (or attempted publication.) it can be doing readings, publishing a zine or webzine, starting a writers group, joining a workshop, etc. something, anything, where your work might actually be READ, so you can get feedback, so people can respond to it with their own writing, or through discussion.

i’m sure that (very occasionally) work written in a vacuum can be brilliant, but i’m a lot less sure that a writer who has always written in a vacuum could ever become brilliant. even dickenson and barrett (pre browning) published and corresponded with people. even salinger, whose hide nor hair have been seen on public paper in forty years, had a very active publishing career before he went all hidey.

i don’t think it’s just a mechanical issue. i think the ability to relate to other people intellectually and emotionally is necessary for good writing. and this ability is exercised not just in writing so that other people can understand you, but in presenting your work as a form of discussion with other people so that they can respond — and so that their response can teach you how to write more effectively.

boy, i’ve really gotten off track here, haven’t i? by the way, just because i don’t comment, doesn’t mean i don’t lurk. i haven’t been commenting because i’m still trying to figure out what ashes have to do with batting a ball around, and why what seems to be a serious championship is called a “test”.

Claire: Welcome, stranger! Long time no read. Yup, pretty much what you said. There’s much mystical crap written about “talent” and the “muse” and blah blah blah. But there are always writers who start out crap and get a lot better.

For example, a friend was in despair about the accepted submissions for a writers workshop s/he had to teach. They were the worst s/he’d ever seen and yet at the end of the workshop three of the students had blossomed and learned and gone from shithouse to impressive. If asked after reading their initial submissions my friend would have said they were talentless nohopers. S/he was wrong.

The only part where I differ from you is your last paragraph. I’m not convinced that you’re not a good writer if you’re not trying to get published. There are still those for whom writing is a hobby. And sometimes I think people try to get published too early. I know I did.

But then to contradict myself I’ve become a much better writer since getting published. It’s amazing what being professionally edited does for your writing learning curve . . .

but the tougher part is enjoying the euphoria of new ideas and surviving the equally stupid self-lambasting without succumbing to either. and then coming back to the work with a persistence and a genuine confidence in your own ability to make it good.

everyone takes it as an article of faith that “talent” is just this mysterious and mystical gift that you have or don’t have and if you don’t have it, there’s nothing you can do to ever become good. likewise, “talent” is also something that people who never finish anything or never show anything to anyone might have, i.e. “wasted talent” or “tragically unrecognized talent”.

i agree with lauren and justine and go one farther: both notions are bullshit. there’s inborn facility with words and ideas, and there’s intelligence and creativity, and there’s a personality conducive to the writing life, but just these aren’t talent. talent to me includes blazing love for what you’re doing (whether you’re good at it or not), confidence or delusion enough to continue even when you’re sure you’re crap at it, stamina enough to improve yourself even if you start out good, and then the ability to put it out there when it’s done and pester people until they take notice.

writing is language, it’s communication. if you’re not finishing or putting it out there, then you’re not communicating, it’s not complete, and you’re not a good writer. and talent isn’t inborn. you don’t discover that you have talent. you DECIDE that you have talent.

Self-doubt just goes with the territory. I worry about writers who are wholly confident that everything they write is perfect. They’re either lying or delusional.

there are people who think gaiman can’t write?? who are they? lead me to them and i will fix that

Lauren: Absolutely! What you said. Imagine how much easier writing would be if there was a novel inside ready to be vomitted or shat out.