Elbow's bent

The assignment on Elbow touched me with a realization of two things. First, that I have not
been approaching writing in the way Elbow prescribes, based on his years of experience with, well,
failures and struggles. Second, I am game to try any method offered by someone with so much experience, yet refuse committing to any system as a type of panacea or final authority. I maintain
that application of any theory is worthy of test and if afforded enough time and diligence, may prove its
worth, that is for some or many...not for all. The analogies used in the book are very workable, indeed.
Growth of a living organism expresses Elbow's idea of change of word, to idea, regression,development, never skipping stages as a living organism would practice, all are very sensible and might I say refreshing in comparison to ways in which, I am sure, most of our class have learned the entire writing and composition process. But again, I believe that all are different—writers that is. Content varies to
the same degree as word choice, as approach, as there are variances in writing.
I cannot help but draw the very, if not obvious to all, real comparison between a composition with words and one of music. Now follow me. Music writing may have various applications with various results. For instance, one may strive for a certain melody which he or she hears inside their head and
place all effort on getting the exact representation of this melody on paper, formulating a definite melody line, accompanied by just the right chord ensemble, in the right meter and so on. Others, though, have adopted various means of getting the song out of their heads and onto paper, such as: free-playing,(as Elbow would recommend), starting with a basic melody and embellish and embellish, and yes, regress and go in another direction, all chipping away making and breaking connections of musical ideas and connotations that arise from them. Others prefer rote methods of composition, utilizing every technical facet of music writing that they have been taught. But the end result? There are great and poor works alike in all methods.
I do agree with Elbow that we think of writing in a very restrictive way. Too many rules to think of. Too many critics for everything written. Fear of others not grasping the point due to your own failure at getting the point across in the most effective manner. Free writing helps us expound on previously stumped or tired ideas of which we thought there was nothing else to say. Elbow's example of touching toes by reaching up to the sky says a lot about learning the wrong way to wright, our struggling approaches built on a faulty paradigm, though no fault of ours. We must change the approach.I whole-heartedly agree.
But I am left hanging with Elbow's notion that method is the most important factor, not talent. Now we are warned on pg. 12 that excuses form those with education and those without and those with talent and those without are abound. Elbow talks of the “old world “ psychologists and their belief in a
“special writing faculty” or the “some people have it; some people don't” I don't know! I am a student and am here, like you all, to find validity in this. But I must say there is something to be said about talent. Excuse my skepticism. It is my style.