I'd love to hear more about great artists/makers/scientists etc who started in their 30s/40s.
Only one who comes to mind as far as writing goes is Chandler, but he must have done his own share of writing (oil business in 1920/30s must have required some writing)before that.
Joseph Conrad is another interesting case mastering English in his late 20s.
My premise: To be great you have to perspire early with some talent thrown in.
Early means in your teens, early 20s. After that it is near impossible to master the unconscious mastery of the basics of whatever craft you choose.
Again, I'd love to hear more counterexamples of old age mastery of something started in your 30s.
Bukowski published his first novel at 51. He had written a couple of stories and poems before his 30s, but spend most of the next 1.5 decade drunk and not writing.
Burroughs published his first noval at 39. He had just written a few articles until then.
Walt Whitman first published a poetry book at 36.
Toni Morrison wrote her first novel at 39.
Bram Stoker wrote Dracula around 50. He worked as a public servant before, and wrote theatre reviews.
Anthony Burgess (of Clockwork Orange fame) first published at 39.
Raymond Chandler worked as a businessman (in the oil industry IIRC) and started writing novels at 51.
Wallace Stevens, celebrated poet, worked office jobs, and first published at 35, but his best work was done in his 50s. He went on to win the Pulitzer price at 75.
Beatrix Potter wrote her first book at 35.
Jules Verne, who went on to write tons of classics, started at 35.
Ian Flemming worked as a spy in Britain, and only started writing his books (James Bond) when he was 44.
In another genre, Martin Rev released his first album (with Suicide) at 39, Leonard Cohen started as a singer/songwriter at 33, and Vi Subversa (nee Frances Sokolov), started singing and performing as the vocalist of the influential Poison Girls punk band at the tender age of 44, and as a mother of two.
>Early means in your teens, early 20s. After that it is near impossible to master the unconscious mastery of the basics of whatever craft you choose.
That presupposes that you need to. Modern painters don't need to learn to learn to paint like Michalangelo to express themselves (and many don't know), modern musicians don't need to go into classical training or even know the scales (e.g. somebody like DJ Shadow and tons of others).
As for writing, it can be more about sensitivity to details and having an interesting story or viewpoint to express, than mastering some genre rules. One can learn most about writing from having read a lot (which is also what most writers advise young writers to do).
Kind of like how you don't need to study CS and study TAoCP to learn to program and write something useful. There are stories that picked up programming later in life and went on to write succesful apps and open source projects.
Your list is inspirational although I could argue that it is flawed because those late starters actually had early practice.
Jules Verne is one of my favorite childhood writers thus I knew he had an early start.
Wikipedia concurs: By 1847, when Verne was 19, he had taken seriously to writing long works in the style of Victor Hugo, beginning Un prêtre en 1839 and seeing two verse tragedies, Alexandre VI and La Conspiration des poudres (The Gunpowder Plot), to completion.
Same deal with Bukowski, sure he had not written a novel but he knew he was a writer much earlier + plus he devoured the whole library ages 15-24.
Same deal with Fleming: His wartime service and his career as a journalist provided much of the background, detail and depth of the James Bond novels. Emphasis on being a journalist.
Still writing is indeed one of those fields where you can get by with not being fluent in your skill as long as you got a good editor.
Programming is the same thing, you can write a decently sized program without knowing the language and its idioms very well but it is oh so painful.
So yes you can achieve outside success in some craft without being really gifted/skilled but that's not the same thing as achieving proficiency and being in flow. Yeah you can fake being a modern painter but someone like Rothko or Pollack had the early classical training.
My lament is that past the age 40 you can not achieve proficiency in some new craft that you have taken up. There are no neurosurgeons who started at 40.
You have to settle for less, pick your battles very carefully and delude yourself with special prizes.
Only one who comes to mind as far as writing goes is Chandler, but he must have done his own share of writing (oil business in 1920/30s must have required some writing)before that.
Joseph Conrad is another interesting case mastering English in his late 20s.
My premise: To be great you have to perspire early with some talent thrown in.
Early means in your teens, early 20s. After that it is near impossible to master the unconscious mastery of the basics of whatever craft you choose.
Again, I'd love to hear more counterexamples of old age mastery of something started in your 30s.