writing strengths and weaknesses

[pelwrath]

Is the following true in writing? If so why or why not?

A study from 2016 found that we tend to see weaknesses as more changeable than strengths—which means we're more inclined to try to improve where we're weak. But various studies have shown that when we focus on developing our strengths, we grow faster than when trying to improve our weaknesses.

[RAVENEYE]

Interesting twist on self-improvement. Why not do both simultaneously? When it comes to writing, my mindset has been "Improve. Improve everywhere I can." This is a never-ending process -- one is never finished learning how to write better -- so there ought to be time enough for both.

In other words, ignoring the improvement of one's weak spot in the craft of writing may well leave a glaring hole in one's skill. Examples:

"I know where to put every comma without error, but my plots are stale."
"My characters are dynamic, realistic, and unique, but proper grammar is beyond me."

This is like a carpenter who likes to stain and lacquer the wood but doesn't learn how to use nails, or can use a lathe but doesn't bother measuring properly, so that the table wobbles. Either way, parts are pretty, but over all it's unusable.

So it's reasonable to assume that any such issue like this will see one's stories repeatedly rejected. Learn the tools of the trade. Improve everywhere you can.

[Alatariel]

I think it can be encouraging to work on making our strengths stronger, it's a good way to start when you feel discouraged. It's kind of like when you feel overwhelmed with all the tasks you have for the day/week and you make a different list with tasks you've already completed or easy tasks. That way it feels good to cross things off and give you the encouragement you need to tackle the harder things.

[slbutler]

I can certainly see the truth in this. Especially on a societal level. Human societies flourish on having specializations in various areas.
So while there is certainly some truth to this statement and we should absolutely keep developing our strengths, that does not mean we should ignore our weaknesses. It might mean we take a different strategy in managing them, and rather than spending stupid amounts of time developing a skill that offers minimal ROI, perhaps that is something we instead focus on developing a general understanding and then outsourcing the work.

For example - I recently started doing some short courses on cover design and have since spent a bit of time developing a better understanding of graphic design theory. While this does not mean I am going to devote huge amounts of time becoming a master cover designer, it does mean I have a better understanding of it as an art form and a clearer idea of what I might like and want in a cover for my own books. My weakness then is no longer a hindrance to my strength.
Alternatively, some weaknesses might justify the expense of time in developing the skill. Especially if the ROI is something particularly valuable. Editing and proofreading for example in my case. While these are skills related to writing they were not particular strengths for me early on. But over time and with practice, research, and learning I have become quite good at it. The ROI on this one was easy for me. Namely, do some short courses, understand the theory and how the different stages of editing work, then do some jobs for friends and for myself to help master the art.

Ultimately all skill development is about ROI or returns on investment, in this case, your investment might just be time but often there are financial costs as well. Your return can mean different things, it might just be the satisfaction of mastering a skill you are passionate about like drawing or painting. Or there might be a financial CBA at play particularly if you are a writer and you are trying to develop skills related to it that might 1) save you money, or 2) save you time in the long run.

[HDSimplicityy]

Learn what you are strong at. See where you are weak. Improve all that you can; weaknesses aren't so weak.
Then new ones come up when you experiment.

At first thought, the thinking was pretty logical. Reading these responses, well, made me realize I am wrong.

[pelwrath]

Thank you all for such interesting and helpful responses. Learning isn't a one thing experience. While working/ concentrating on one thing, say character arc, you'll also end up working on other aspects of writing. Things like show, dialogue, action beats, etc.

[pelwrath]

As I see my strengths are at shorter pieces, stories and poems, especially within a time frame. This provides me the opportunity to spend fairly equal amount of time on story and the more technical parts of writing. I see myself as a storyteller who writes in a sea of writers who tell stories.

[rippy]

That's cool... idk, really. I'm in the same boat as the others that you can't just work with what you're good at, but I can see why that would be a thing. You already have an talent towards something you're good at so maybe you'll grow in leaps when you really commit yourself to it? Maybe just knowing you're good at it makes you want to be even better, because being bad at something to start is a terrible motivator to continue trying.

So, in regards to writing, since the craft is so tied in with so many aspects like you mentioned, yeah, I can see how working on your strengths can grow your weaknesses a bit. But, focused training will probably help them out more, imo.

[Octagon]

I don't agree with your first post at all. I was weak with clarity, as I refused to use precise verbs and adjectives all the time instead of using an excess of nouns. I did this for the sake of rhythm, but if I wanted to write with rhythm, I should have written a rough draft applying this principle and revised afterward, preserving my meaning as carefully as I could. So, I focused on my weakness, and reduced it, improving the way I communicate in writing.

Style: Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace -- it is a good book. An author of other books, not the author of this books, the author of the other being Richard Lanham, though he is very fond of playing with language, has much to say about preferring a verb-based style, which he finds much better for clarity. Unfortunately, I can't read his book on this, because the book costs more than I can afford, but I'm sure many of you can afford it.

It is better to eliminate as many weaknesses in your writing as you can, rather than to focus only on improving your strengths. If you do the contrary, you will continue a weak writer, according to my opinion.

[Octagon]

My writing was weak in many other areas as well, but I improved it by correcting that issue.

[RAVENEYE]

Dec 3, 2021 3:08:42 GMT -6 Octagon said:

I don't agree with your first post at all. I was weak with clarity, as I refused to use precise verbs and adjectives all the time instead of using an excess of nouns. I did this for the sake of rhythm, but if I wanted to write with rhythm, I should have written a rough draft applying this principle and revised afterward, preserving my meaning as carefully as I could. So, I focused on my weakness, and reduced it, improving the way I communicate in writing.

Style: Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace -- it is a good book. An author of other books, not the author of this books, the author of the other being Richard Lanham, though he is very fond of playing with language, has much to say about preferring a verb-based style, which he finds much better for clarity. Unfortunately, I can't read his book on this, because the book costs more than I can afford, but I'm sure many of you can afford it.

It is better to eliminate as many weaknesses in your writing as you can, rather than to focus only on improving your strengths. If you do the contrary, you will continue a weak writer, according to my opinion.

Yeah, honestly, I've always approached it from this angle too. 

Here's a link to the Style: Ten Lessons book you mention. Adding it to my "get" list. Dang, why's it so expensive? That's dumb.