Talent

(enlarge, you cant really see it if you dont)

you missed this

Exactly what i was thinking

I think this pertains to people who write books, not people who write abortions

Jesus fucking christ your grammar is awful. Were you drunk when you typed this?!

Oh shit that's me. And i was.

well lady gaga probably IS diamonds. literally

Im gonna write a song:
-Swear
-Make up words (mutha, mouf, etc.)
-auto tune the shit ot of it
-sell it to a recording agency
-???
-profit!

thats my boy!

**trolololer rolled a random image** mfw my source of fame

This is clearly the best day of my life. I lost my front page virginity, and soon after my real virginity. Then I come home, 2 more of my posts made the front page, with 4 more well on their way. Now I roll this epic image, and my band was just accepted to perform at a concert in front of a lot of people, no questions asked. Just got out of the shower, and this is what I did. (picture) And everyone was home. And no one saw me. SO MUCH WIN HAPPENED TODAY.

And I really guess this IS your source of fame! Look at that! 14 thumbs! :D (at this current moment)

**potatot rolled a random image** Try this instead.

**shangrula rolled a random image** This is what I'll make my sex tape with.

Justin Beiber isn't a musician hes a Richard Simmonsgot.

hes not a musician hes a Richard Simmonsgot

what movie?

Jay and Silent Bob Strikes Back !

shot bro, you've earned a thumb

**greatguygabe rolled a random image** what you look like

bitch plz

312

312?

Ah, I was hoping to get 1 thumb for my picture, so the number of thumbs could be 3,1,2 from the first picture downwards. Looks like it can be 3112 now!

I mean, 311112. Or smth. Or 311102.

What is that line supposed to be? Sorry, I may be retarded.

Line for musician. He's implying how crappy musicians get more fame than actual good ones.

I get it now: there's a arrow pointing from musician to that line.

Skill required, not skill acquired.

Either way I get/have both.

Shit forgot to sign it

Im Known For Being an Atheist

What are you talking about?
Scientist: Requires a LOT of training and a high IQ.
Author: Learning to be an author is nearly impossible. You need to be fairly intelligent and nobody gets far without a certain talent which they were born with. But, there's always 2 sides of the coin; Stephen King vs. Stephanie Meyer.
Musician: Define; musician? Justin Bieber is one of the most famous musicians in the world, but does he have a significant talent? I say NAY. Also, 2 sides of the same coin; Freddie Mercury vs. Justin Bieber.
Athlete: Everyone, except those with health issues, can become athletes. Maybe not world class, but being an athlete is mainly about training.
Actor: Some actors are genius and others are just charismatic. Morgan Freeman wasn't taught to have an incredible soothing voice; he was born with it.
Made a sex-tape: No comment. Obviously.

Nobody in the entire world can do what Usain Bolt can do, not a single person. Nobody in the the world could do what Micheal Jordan used to be able to do. Saying that everyone who runs is an athlete is like saying everyone who can build a volcano for the science fair is a scientists. It takes immense inborn talent and years of training to become world class. Same with musicians, Lots of people can play an instrument but talent like Jimmy Hendrix or Micheal Jackson are a rare occurrence. Being an author to me takes skill but it takes luck more than anything. Once you have the technical skills down you are a good writer. Being a good author depends on the current climate. If J.R,R Tolkien wrote the lord of the rings in this day in age it would not be popular. He was lucky to be born in a time period where his writing was appreciated. I think there are probably thousands of writers like that, they are good put people in their time period don't like their ideas. Morgan Freeman isn't a good actor because of his voice, it just makes his acting more noticeable. If the only thing you got from Morgan Freeman's performance in the shawshank redemption was, " he has a cool voice" then you are really missing out.

Everyone who can run isn't necessarily an athlete, but check the definition of the word (which I have pasted below). You have only confirmed what I already stated; everybody can become an athlete. I didn't say everyone could be the world champion.
And, yes. Everybody can be a scientist; once again, check the definition of the word.
You are generalizing athletes, musicians and scientists, by saying that they all obtained their skills through genes and not training. Of course there's a limit of how much skill one can obtain through training, but the graph doesn't tell the difference between skill and inborn talent, but rather skill and fame. Therefore the graph AND your statement are both very inaccurate generalizations, if not entirely untrue. Justin Bieber is more famous than Jimmi Hendrix ever was, but is he more talented? No. Definitely, no.

About authors: you clearly don't appreciate literature enough to immense the greatness of an author. One can not simply become a great writer. Yes, it takes years of practice, but an author must have a talent that he/she was born with. Sometimes writers gets lucky and writes a popular book, but there's always exceptions to the rule.
Funny that you should mention The Shawshank Redemption; Stephen King, as I used as an example of a great author, actually wrote that book. He also wrote "The Green Mile", "The Shining", "The Dead Zone", "It" and "Mile 81".
And, I love Morgan Freeman. But, his voice and charisma makes him unique; not his acting.

NB Definition of athlete: "A person possessing the natural or acquired traits, such as strength, agility, and endurance, that are necessary for physical exercise or sports, especially those performed in competitive contexts."

NBNBDefinition of scientist: "One whose activities make use of the scientific method to answer questions regarding the measurable universe. A scientist may be involved in original research, or make use of the results of the research of others."

I'm actually minoring in american literature, which is part of the reason why I have come to my conclusion. Stephen king is not a better technical writer than Dean Koontz or Richard Matheson, but he is more famous than both because his books happen to appeal to a larger amount of people. Is he a more skilled writer, I don't believe so but but his books sell more and he will be remembered for a lot longer. I simply meant that there are many authors who are great writers, creatively and technically, but are not well known and probably won't ever be well known because they don't appeal to the current climate.

How is Justin Beiber more famous then Jimmi Hendrix? Unless he evolves significantly as a musician he is going to be all but forgotten in 10 years. I assure you, 50 years from now, if you grandchildren decide to take up the guitar, they will know Jimmi Hendrix's name. 10 years ago the spice girls were the best selling female group in the world, now I doubt you can find ten people under the age of 20 who can name one. That isn't real fame, that is fleeting popularity. I believe the music industry is an industry were the talented stay famous and the untalented fall into Obscurity

I stand by my statement, Scientist, musicians and athletes are the only things on the list you simply can not have lasting fame in unless you can do something which no one else besides you can accomplish.

Stephen King have a talent for writing novels that no other man alive has. Famous athletes and writers have a lot in common IMO; they are both born with the potential to become something big, but they have to train to fill out their potential.

Justin Bieber is more famous than Jimmi Hendrix because he is more renowned than Jimmi Hendrix ever was. Mainly because the media is much more effective at promoting celebrities now, but that doesn't change the fact that he IS more famous than Jimmi Hendrix. And, neither does the fact that one would presume that he is easily forgotten. Being famous is not a synonym with having a high popularity.
The music-industry is always changing. And with the youth we have today, who knows if Jimmi Hendrix or even Mozart's fame will survive another generation or two. I can't though.

Do I have to tell you the definition of fame? Fame means renowned and/or recognized. Even though there is a word for bad fame (infamous), the definition of fame can still mean negative recognition.

Name one what? member of the Spice Girls? I don't know about where you live, but people here still know who they are and can probably name one or two.

"Those three are the only ones on the chart you can't teach, you have to be born with." and "Scientist, musicians and athletes are the only things on the list you simply can not have lasting fame in unless you can do something which no one else besides you can accomplish" isn't the same statement. I can agree with the second one, but not the first.

I don't think you understand what I'm saying... Justin Beiber is more Famous NOW, in twenty years he will be all but forgotten. In twenty years more people will know who Jimmi is than Justin, because Jimmi's Fame is lasting. Their have been people like Justin periodically for decades. Oh and I live in New York and people don't know who the spice girls are let alone who is in the band, I actually used them because of a conversation I had in class earlier in the week where no one knew there name.

The two are similar statements, you are taking the phrase "can't teach" to literally. I suppose I should explain better. If you took one of Stephen King ideas and gave them to 50 trained literature graduates most if not all of them would write a great book. It might be a different piece of work than his but the book itself would be well-written and would probably sell if there weren't 50 other similar book. His creativity is what makes him good not so much his skill. The same can not be said for the three I mentioned. You can tell an athlete Usain Bolt's run time but he won't be able to do it. You can tell a band the exact lyrics to bohemian rhapsody but they aren't going to make the song legendary. Scientist had been studying nature for centuries but it took one to figure out the theory of evolution. It took unique people utilizing talent no one else had. That is what I meant by "can't teach". No matter how much you pound the basics of basketball into someone, they aren't going to break Micheal Jordan's records, no matter how much music lessons you give someone they aren't going to write a symphony the caliber of Beethoven or Bach, and no matter how much you pound the scientific method into someone they aren't going to be able to use it to change the world.

You are from New York and study american literature? I have a hard time believing that. How old are you? And, yes, I do understand what you are saying. The problem is that you need to express yourself better - knowing what the words mean would be a start.
It's hard NOT to take "can't teach" too literally. If you gave Stephen Kings ideas to those 50 students, then they would probably write some great books. But, it's still Stephens ideas and the students versions would NOT be as good, if we presume they are of average skill.
Your comparison makes no sense - you can't compare a run time to the idea behind a book. A run time is just a number, while the idea behind a book is the very foundation of the books plot line. THAT'S what makes Stephen King an extraordinary author. And, IF you took 50 athletes and told them to run, then they would probably have some great run times, but they would still not beat Usain's - like the students wouldn't be as good as Stephen no matter how much they trained.

I think you are taking the art of writing literature a little too easy, bro...

And, Darwin was more lucky than extraordinary. He was simply the first to have the courage to stand up against the church. There have been people before him, but they have been hunted down as heretics.

I'm not from New York I'm from California but why would that make a difference? Are you saying people from New York won't study literature? Oh and I'm 19, still not sure why that matters.

I think I conveyed my meaning pretty well, I seem to have gotten a reasonable amount of thumbs so people must have understood what I was saying even if you didn't. The insults are a little uncalled for man, no need to be rude. Anyways, I guarantee that if I took an excerpt from a stephen king short story and an excerpt from a short story of a grad student writing on a similar subject you would not be able to tell the difference. In fact I would bet my account on it if you have the time. I'm assuming you, like me, have nothing better to do considering we are arguing on the internet on a Saturday night. I'll take about 20 pieces from students and 4 from Stephen and separate them up 5 to 1. If you can get 3 out of 4 right I'll delete my account or something. The point behind the exercise being even though the athletes in your hypothetical would have some good run times, you would always be able to pick out Bolt's because his would be the fastest. If King is like the Usain Bolt of the literary world you should easily be able to pick out his writing. Of course you could always cheat and google King's work but whatever I'm a gambling sort of man.

Because you made an unreasonable amount of typos for an American student.

If I sounded rude sometimes, then I'm sorry. I'm from Denmark and while writing in English, I focus more on avoiding typos than being nice. But, you are still my bro, bro. It's 6 AM and I'm totally crashed, so I won't be able to do much more today. I don't know if I have the patience to read all that. I don't know if King is like Usain Bolt on literature, but he's definitely one of the best authors alive IMO.

And, I did understand what you were saying... but, I still think that you need to have an inborn talent to be able to become a skilled writer/author...

Good night. Or good morning here. I've enjoyed this discussion and once again, sorry if I was rude.

Okay that makes sense. I just read over my posts and yeah I made a lot of errors. I normally read over my posts but I'm tired and lazy today. Whatever, good talk.

It's not like they have been practising their whole lifes too, right? In denmark we have plenty tall black guys on our basketball teams imported from the USA, and despite the fact that they have been playing basketball every day since they were little, they are not "famous." It takes at least the same amount of skill to become a famous athlete as it does to become a famous musician. Maybe even more considering how bad most famous musicians are today.

While it is easier for bad musicians to become famous today, it takes no skill whatsoever. Good musicians probably have the same amount of skill as athletes, its just hard to compare since they're different things.

FUCK ME YOU ARE AWESOME I LOVE DRAGONFORCE!!!!! xDDDDDDDD Oh btw i can play through the fire and flames. I'll post a video of me playing the solos and shit on youtube soon, and when I do that, I'll upload it to FJ as well! If you wanna watch it, subscribe! I think I'll be able to post it within a week or two. I really hope! >.<

Or the Actor...

depends in what kind of athlete