What makes a writer gifted?

If you are talking about spiritual gifts, they are manifested by edification to others. So if you are talking about "gifted" in a divine sense, then the evidence is that they glorify God and edify believers.

If you are simply speaking in a carnal sense, for example, as "gifted" athletes or "gifted" speakers then that is determined by comparison to others and majority opinion.

 

Usually, a good editor and editorial process makes a writer gifted.

Good writing creates vivid and created compelling images and understanding in the minds of the readers.

The best writing is done in community, where there are at least two people who are working on a text - one as the primary creator of the narrative, and one who is objectively reviewing what has been produced, eliminating and rewording clumsy passages and focusing the narrative to its essentials. The best writing is generally lean, with rarely an extra sentence or word that does not contribute to the whole of the book.

For instance, if you look at one of the classic American novels like "To Kill A Mockingbird," you will notice that there is not a single scene or sentence that does not support the characterizations, message or plot of the book. Yet it didn't start out that way at all. A couple of years ago, the publisher released the original version of the novel, "Go Set A Watchman," that Harper Lee had intended to write. Her editor pointed out that the most interesting part of that book was the flashbacks to childhood of her main character, and suggesting that she rewrite the novel based on those childhood memories. That's made for a completely different - and far superior novel - than the original, even though many of the settings and a number of the character names were the same. The existence of "To Kill A Mockingbird" was provoked by an editor who discovered a better story within the pages of a manuscript and was willing to push an author to develop it.

One of the worst things that can happen to a writer is that they get so successful that they eventually do not submit to the guidance of an editor. For instance, Tom Clancy's early novels were quite strong and were "page-turners." I lost a lot of sleep reading the first four or five Clancy novels because I just couldn't put them down and go to bed. His later novels became bloated (they were literally huge) and were generally more difficult to read, not because of the language or subject, but because there was a lot of excess and unnecessary material in them. I slept well when I read those novels and it took me weeks to work my way through them. They were not terribly enjoyable, and if that had been my first exposure to the Jack Ryan character, I would not have continued reading them. It got to the point where I completely stopped ready Clancy novels.

 

I believe it was Stephen King who said that there are no good writers, only good editors. His philosophy was to write as much as possible, and then take out what he didn't like.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

Wow. What a leap. I used a quote by one of the most prolific writers in response to your question about writers. Any assumptions from there are pretty made up from you.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

Are we talking fiction or explanatory/commentary?

 

How about relevance?

 

Those who make plethoric use of the thesaurus, congeneric to Dean Koontz.

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo.

 

Indubitably.

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo.