Question for fellow writers

Lot of good thoughts in this thread, and I guess the only definitive answer is: Every writer/artist's reasons are different.

Does someone become a writer because their early experiences marginalize them and make them observers rather than participants in events? Do people who are shy or in some way "different" become writers because they're unable to speak out and express themselves in other ways?

So, do you start out writing because you're on the outside looking and listening in? Maybe. But then once you start writing, I don't think anyone would disagree that you do become more observant, if only because you're studying the people around you for ideas and body language and dialogue that you can use in your work.

Does that necessarily make you a better judge of RL situations? That, too, depends on the writer. Not to pick on Norman Mailer, but after 14 major works of fiction and six wives, you'd think he might have learned a little something about human nature. That's not to even mention the John Henry Abbott affair.

Elaborating on my earlier post, I tested something.

Well, the original intent wasn't a test, but it was a very good example of something.

Regardless of what type of music a person listens to, there are songs that break the mold when expressing emotion. It's during specific moments that these words can mean more than any distaste you have for a genre of music.

I have a friend who DOES NOT listen to light rock. Not a fan of it at all. But we've had some serious issues over the past few months, and when I realized how little time I had left to make things right before I leave for Cincinnati, I decided to create something that would last beyond my stay.

I made a CD. Full of songs from genres she would never listen to on her own accord. But these songs have a way of pulling it out of you. In the right moment, you don't have to like a song to love it. To feel the emotion that it expresses.

I played a few songs. Carefully, in a certain order. I built it up.

First I played "Black Bird" by the Beatles. This opens up the feeling of independent freedom. But it has an underlying feeling of isolation, as well, which is the important part.

Then I played "Sad Lisa" by Cat Stevens. After a feeling of freedom, but also isolation, it pulls you back for a moment to remind you of what you have to leave.

Then I played "She's Always A Woman To Me" by Billy Joel. This pulls out of the person the CD was meant for, and into the person that made the CD. A good transition song. It's direct in the writer's feelings about the subject, and those feelings were identical to my particular situation, so it fit very well.

Then I played "If I Could Change The World" by Eric Clapton. Now we're in my mind. I've had a history of trying to fix everything around me. Being a bit of a martyr for others, and sometimes even a doormat. So I felt this song was quite appropriate.

Then I played "Wild World" by Cat Stevens. Time to start saying goodbye. Gives that feeling of "sorry about what happened, but I can't stop you from leaving." Hope things go good for you. But I was playing on that underlying "never see each other again" tone.

Then finally, the tear jerker (that worked, by the way), "Have A Little Faith In Me" by John Hiatt. I can't even really explain why it's perfect. Why it ended the CD so well. Basically, I said "Things can work. You've seen it before. Just open up again."

Point of this post being, it can become proven fact that certain lyricists are undeniably better than others. And those lyricists are the ones that have created timeless songs that can pull a heavy metal queen to tears.

Yeah. She listens to hard rock and metal. And she cried over "Have A Little Faith In Me."

To me, this is proof enough that regardless of general taste, certain artists are undeniably masters of their trade. And the proof is in how well they capture emotion in themselves, but also in others.

Based on

1) the loose definition of writer
2) knowing plenty of bad writers who make a good living
3) plenty of good writers who are still poor observers of human nature
4) and knowing I've been an excellent observer of human nature and detail, but only after some 20 years of work, sweat, blood, and tears did I come to believe I'd finally become a good writer,

the answer is, no.

The vast majority of professional writers are mediocre, and a good amount are hacks with no clue as to human nature.

Even the best professional -- those who make good money -- writers are average in understanding human nature (see any of Turtledove's dialog when it doesn't advance the plot, or every two of three national columnists).

I don't think understanding human nature and being a good writer are linked at all. Some of the best writers are recluses, or don't bother trying to recreate human interaction.

Storm sighting!

It doesn't make you a better judge, but a writer has one advantage over the non writer- a better grasp of language. The average person isn't as articulate and therefore can be misconstrued.

I started wondering from that same point of observer versus judge. Judgement would imply enhanced social skills, which aren't typically associated with authors.

No, I think that a writer becomes familliar with the archetypes that work best for her or him. These can be applied to the real world afterward as the people that characters are based upon transforms that observation into the people are then likened to characters...