Stephen King has similar thoughts in "On Writing," when he says there are four types of writers (bad, competent, good, great) and that writers are only able to move from competent to good. Because, in his view, writing talent is inherent, if you're a bad writer you'll always be a bad writer, and if you're merely a good writer you'll never be a great writer. To be great you have to be born with something special. I don't necessarily agree with this because it discounts a person's ability to work hard, learn, and practice discipline (as Serling notes). I appreciate that Serling recognizes that studying, whether it be in the observation of people or by studying great works of art, can help a writer to improve. I think that people are pretty malleable creatures when they're open to it, so learning to be great is a possibility as long as the effort is there and your perspective is right.

Interesting, Chris, never heard that take from Stephen King: Bad, Competent, Good, Great. I wonder how he would respond to one-hit wonders, writers who out of nowhere just knock it out of the park... just one time. Are they great because they were born with that talent? Or are they good and somehow miraculously attained greatness for a flashing moment in time? Maybe they were competent or even bad, but the Muses decided to reach down and imbue the poor bastard with a transient period of genius. I think of "The Confederacy of Dunces" which in my view is one of the greatest comic novels of all time. Written by John Kennedy Toole, it is IIRC his only book. His mother brought this mangled manuscript to Walker Percy after her son had committed suicide. Percy read it and was instrumental in getting the book published. Was Toole "great"? A momentary flash of genius? Is greatness determined by a career or can it be by a handful or even one noteworthy story? I do like this: The idea of moving from competent to good. That seems a worthy way to think of one's daily writing practice. Incremental steps through writing routine and study. I know from my own experience and working with literally thousands of writers as my students, people can and do improve. It's demonstrably provable in comparing the work of writers I've worked with, the type of writing they exhibited when we first intersected versus where they are at the end of a course or workshop. And then there are the dozens and dozens of writers who have taken classes with me and followed the blog who have broken into the business. That said, while it may be of some value to look back on one's writing life and assess if it has been worthy of the accolade 'great' or not. Not so sure how valuable it is when one is at the front end or middle of a writing career. If one were to feel greatness has in some way been predetermined by a combo plate of Nature and Nurture, that might have a stultifying effect. Better to think we MAY have greatness within us, always aspiring to find, tap into, and nurture it into fruition, yes?