Do you think there are two types of good writers?

Question

One may be able to whip up a story within minutes if they have to and that is commendable. but i think a true writer writes from the heart and it has to be inspired. some people can just write good stories when asked. but i think the better writers are the ones who can't do it on command. they need inspiration and the right mood.

what are your thoughts on this?

Answer 1

The best writers are the ones that write from the heart, write something personal that they feel invested in.

The person that just whips up a story may not create as interesting prose.  

Then again some people need a prompt in order to write something...

Answer 2

i agree!

Answer 3

I think talent is talent.

Why should it really matter how they write, as long as they are good?

I understand your point, it's a passion vs. talent issue. I prefer authors that have both, but if I had to choose, I'd choose passion.

Answer 4

I think that surely I would be impressed by the writer who could compose a story on command; in my opinion such a talent is inherent, the result of an "ability-to-write" gene which the person has inherited.  However, I believe that the same ability holds true for the writer who is  apparently inspired from within and composes a novel over a lengthy time period.  A real writer, though, is very possibly able to do both.  To produce a lengthy novel will require time, naturally, but prolific authors follow a formula very possibly and can produce "product" with great speed (James Patterson is a primary example; he can apparently write books "on command" and has thereby created for himself a supremely lucrative career.  Are his books classics, though?)  My concept of successful writing is to produce writings (a la Shakespeare, for instance) which will be relevant in a thousand years!  Does the modern writer desire to become wealthy or to achieve critical renown?