There are writers like Mary Shelley, who devised an imaginative plot at the age of 19 and published it by the time she was 21. Then there are writers like Bram Stoker, who debut in their 40s and only find recognition or popularity after they are 50. What does it tell us? Are writers made or born?

Much has already been said on this topic. Most of us know Jack Kerouac’s popular take on this subject. In his essay, he speaks of talent and genius, concluding that talent imitates genius because there is nothing else to imitate. In this well-articulated essay, it becomes clear that Jack Kerouac favours the God-gifted. However, I can’t help but disagree. Did Mary Shelley contrive Frankenstein in her dream because she was meant to as a genius, or was her subconscious inspired by her experiences, observations of scientific experiments, and lectures of Humphry Davy?

Could Mary Shelley have concocted this terrifying creature without her experiences and observations? Could all the experiences in the world inspire her to write this novel without her imagination? So, was she born with it or did her circumstances influence her?

Nature vs Nurture

/

Jack Kerouac’s straightforward conclusion sounds too simplistic and even presumptuous. It reminds me of an old but ongoing debate – nature vs nurture. Are genetics superior, or does the environment build our character? To be able to side with Jack’s conclusion that geniuses are born and every talent after them is just an imitation, we first have to conclude that nature is superior to nurture.

The recent research debunks the entire “versus”. Nature and nurture do not compete. They are interconnected and engage in a feedback loop, becoming a dynamic influence that shapes our characters and personalities. Contrary to Jack Kerouac, who essentially said genius is born, modern scientific consensus says that a genius is neither purely born nor entirely made. Genius emerges and evolves from a consistent interaction between genetic predisposition and environmental influences.

Mary Shelley may have been born with a predisposition to be able to write an exceptional, mould-breaking novel but her circumstances are what illumined it. Without the experimental lectures on the animating powers of electricity and her mother’s life experiences, would she have found the inspiration? I think not. She was an avid reader and heavily inspired by Goethe and Voltaire. To believe her writing talent was original would also be far-fetched. Her genius was the imagination but her writing was a talent.

All Art is Imitation

The next argument that Jack Kerouac’s essay makes is that all talent merely imitates the one true genius. Is that true? Great philosophers, Plato and Aristotle, believed in the theory called mimesis, meaning all art is imitation. According to Jack Kerouac, only geniuses were the originals (nature), but for Plato and Aristotle, life was the true original (nurture). So, which one is it? Is everyone who couldn’t write a coherent paragraph till they were middle-aged inauthentic? Is their talent mere borrowed genius? Maybe.

Genius invents, and talent facilitates a skilled execution of the invention while operating within the framework set by the genius. When Bram Stoker drew inspiration from Carmilla, the idea of the vampire, its characterisation, and the narrative structure remained the same but everything from the plot to its execution differed immensely. However, while Carmilla predates Dracula by 25 years, Dracula is still considered the groundbreaking novel, becoming the quintessential vampire archetype that essentially defined the genre. While it was a borrowed idea, Dracula introduced (invented/refined) several vampire tropes like garlic and sunlight aversion, bat transformation, and a more elaborated mythological background on vampires. Wendy Doniger described Dracula as vampire literature’s “centrepiece, rendering all other vampires BS or AS”.

What I am trying to say is that maybe Jack was right. There might just be one genius and every talent following in its footsteps, nothing but imitation. But, even so, assuming that genius will forever supersede its imitation would be too presumptuous of us. Hence, in the end, it might not matter who came first but whose impact lasted longer. In that case, writers are made, not just born.

However, this leaves one final lingering doubt in my head – does recognition decide genius?

A Gnawing Doubt

Sure, Carmilla was the original genius and Dracula the prodigious talent. The latter improvised on the original idea perfected it, and garnered much more praise and credibility, thus becoming a more celebrated work of literature. Despite being a better and more important literary milestone, it was still – I dare say – an imitation. So, does that mean, between genius and talent, made or born, recognition is what makes writers? The reader is what makes writers. I am not saying it is or has to be the primary motivation for anyone to write but if no one sees your genius, does it matter if you are one?

One outlandish, original idea alone could not make me a genius. I take inspiration from all the authors that have written before me. There could be a far greater mind working its magic in a daydream right across the street that has never laid an eye on literal words and yet has a knack for coming up with imaginative storylines to keep the mind entertained. But I have readership and that person doesn’t. So, does the reader make a writer?

I think I am going on a tangent because common sense would say that the written word is what makes a writer. That said, writers are made – by the written word. A badly-written novel will make you just as much of a writer as a genius genre-inventing novel. I conclude Jack Kerouac’s bumptious essay is false, overconfident and arrogant. You don’t need me or Jack to tell you if you are a writer. Just ask yourself if you have written anything – a story, a prose, a poem, or even a journal – if you have, you are a writer in your own right.