LATE BLOOMER

Last week my dad dropped by, book in hand, saying he thought of me while reading a chapter that pertained to writers. Out of all my personal cheerleaders, Dad leads the pack. I scanned the spot he dog-eared--it's a chapter titled "Late Bloomers."

Me: Dad, are you saying I'm a late bloomer?

Dad: Well, it's too late for you to be an early bloomer.

Then he laughed his hearty Dad laugh--the kind you can't help but join--and believe it or not I was truly encouraged. As he said, you never know, what's in this chapter might be the thing that keeps you writing when you want to quit. Gotta love him!

The book is called What the Dog Saw, by Malcolm Gladwell. (Remember, I just blogged on that 10,000 hour thing by the same guy. Then I read this chapter by him. Guess I'm on a kick.) What I love about his theories is that he asserts genius is not simply what you're born with, but what a person developes over time.

Favorite quote in this chap:

"....sometimes genius is anything but rarefied; sometimes it's just the thing that emerges after twenty years of working at your kitchen table."

The main idea in this chapter is that late bloomers don't just start late, and it isn't that their talent goes unrecognized until later in life. It's that they just aren't much good until later in life because this type of person takes a more experimental approach to their art. Unlike early bloomers who tend to start with a clear idea where they want to go, late bloomers like to learn and discover along the way, thus taking longer to develop.

He applied the concept broadly, including artists and writers, and I suppose it could be broadened further to encompass all pursuits.

Admittedly, I'm a late bloomer. But I do think it's due, in large part, to the fact I didn't really study writing and begin to take it seriously until my mid-30's.

Where do you come down on this? If you're an early bird, is it because you had clearly defined goals? If you're a latie like me, is it because you experimented? Curious about your thoughts!