# Is Writing a Meritocracy?



## Steerpike (Feb 12, 2014)

I read some interesting comments to the Jim Hines Gospel of Publishing blog post, linked by A.E. Lowan. Among them were comments from NYT Best-selling author Rachel Caine, who I think is a good writer. They make a point I've made before, though she says it better (and I do have one quibble, after the quote):



> Don said writing is a meritocracy, but I actually don’t agree with that – monster bestsellers often aren’t the best artistic or technically written works. They are the books that appeal to some hidden zeitgeist nobody else managed to touch, that’s all. I’d say honestly that a lot of runaway hits (NOT all) were written at what he would consider a “coach class” level … yet they’ve got a hell of a lot more folding money than any of us will ever see. Writing is crazy that way. You can’t call it a meritocracy. It’s much more chaotic than that. AND THAT’S GOOD. That means we’ve all got a shot at it....
> 
> ...I tend to think as authors we would like to equate craft directly to success, because craft is controllable and measurable. Success is a wild and uncontrollable lottery. They *can* go together, but often the best craftspeople don’t draw a major audience. Craft does not have to equal storytelling, either. Storytelling is a pure, visceral sensation for the reader that can carry them right past any deficiencies in the craft of the writing. And often, storytelling is what tips it over into a whole different sales category.




I think she's right, as much as writers who are starting out don't often consider this to be good news. My one quibble is this - I think if you're talking about mid-level success, the kind of success that is realistic for most authors, technical merit and craft are important factors in elevating you above the mass of works that are below that. But going from that to out-of-the-park success, I think all bets are off and being a better writer, in a technical sense, isn't predictive.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Feb 12, 2014)

I haven't been posting much in the Writing Questions forum recently, but I couldn't resist the question in the title of this post 

I think that mega-success is almost pure luck.  For the most part, you need some type of skill to be in a position to catch that luck - kinda like decent craft is the purchase price of the lottery ticket.  Not sure even that caveat is needed in all cases, though.  50 Shades, by all accounts, was horribly written.  (My wife, who does not read like a writer on any level, even commented on just how poorly it was written.)  I think that Harry Potter and Twilight were well written, but I don't think that either series was so much better than competitors that it justified the difference in success level.

I think, however, that achieving some level of success absent luck is absolutely a meritocracy, though not a pure one.  I don't think you can say, "This book is 5% better than this book and will thus make 5% more money."  I do think that, on average, better writers will have a better chance for success than their peers.  I really think that better writers who have a sense for marketing will have a hugely better chance for success than their peers.

Defining "better" is a bit of a rub, though.  The quote differentiates Craft and storytelling.  When discussing learning to write, it makes some sense to separate the two.  When discussing "better," I don't think it does.  A good writer needs Craft in order to communicate Story and needs Story to draw true fans.  If you can't communicate Story, what good does it do to be good at Story?  If you don't have a good Story, what good is being able to tell it do?


----------



## Steerpike (Feb 12, 2014)

I agree with 99% of what you've said, though I do think that on par story-telling trumps craft, and mediocre craft with excellent story-telling skills will trump excellent craft with a mediocre ability to tell a story. In other words, if you're just competent at craft and great at story-telling you're going to do better than someone who is the reverse of that.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Feb 12, 2014)

Steerpike said:


> I agree with 99% of what you've said, though I do think that on par story-telling trumps craft, and mediocre craft with excellent story-telling skills will trump excellent craft with a mediocre ability to tell a story. In other words, if you're just competent at craft and great at story-telling you're going to do better than someone who is the reverse of that.



I actually don't disagree with that.

I started my journey with craft since it's simply easier to learn.  Since I reached a point where I felt I was competent (not excellent) with craft, I've really been working hard at the story part.  It's a lot more nebulous - not as many rules that you can even use as guidelines and hard even to define.  I think, though, that I'm starting to pick it up.

EDIT: I do think, though, that there is a market for works that are purely craft driven.  Take scifi adventure.  I think that, if you write fast-paced, tension-filled stories, you can sell them all day long even if there's not much to the storytelling aspect.  (Depending, of course, on your definition of the nebulously-defined word, "storytelling.")


----------



## CupofJoe (Feb 12, 2014)

I think being lucky or if you prefer being _in the right place at the right time_ has an affect on how successful you are.
Sometimes it is as straightforward as your contacts [or your contacts' contacts] - getting the right  people to see your stuff. 
Other times its hitting on that unexpected mix  that people didn't know they wanted.
If you can't get your work to the right audience at the right time, then success will be limited if it is there at all.
That said, the old joke still goes... How do you get to Carnegie Hall? You gotta practice, really really practice...


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Feb 12, 2014)

The problem with the idea of writing being a meritocracy is this: who decides what defines merit? It's the same problem I keep blathering about, about trying to define a book as "good" or "bad." Mug's game.

As a writer, you have goals, and either you meet them or you don't. If you want to make lots of money, write books that lots of people want to read, and flog the hell out of them until you get some traction. If you want critical acclaim, write books that critics will like. If you want both, well, good luck, because I have no idea how to achieve that.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Feb 12, 2014)

> The problem with the idea of writing being a meritocracy is this: who decides what defines merit? It's the same problem I keep blathering about, about trying to define a book as "good" or "bad." Mug's game.



My understanding of the context of the question is:

Do the "best" books go on to become the most commercially acceptable ones?  Is success a result of "merit" (the "best" books succeed) or by some other factor?

In this case, the buying public are the ones who define "best" with their votes in the form of dollars.

EDIT: The concept isn't to try to determine what is "best."  It's to determine whether or not hard work leads to success or if we, as writers, are pretty much left to fate if we want to succeed.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Feb 12, 2014)

There are too many variables in an author's success to break down and be able to accurately discover some secret to success. Those reader whims and tastes change from year to year, fad to fad. 

I think most writers accept that story trumps all, but that craft will help. In my opinion, the reason we discuss craft and, by extension writing well, is because we CAN breakdown elements of craft. We can understand technique & learn from the application of different methods. 

The longer I write a lot & read a lot though, the more convinced I become that storytelling skill is not the same. I'm not sure that people can learn to be better storytellers. Now, I'm not talking about story structures, character archetypes, or anything of this nature. That to me, is still craft. I'm talking about the simple ability to tell an enthralling tale that captivates the imagination, an innate understanding of how to relay story concepts and character emotion effectively. I believe the telling of a story is a communication skill separate from any understanding of technique. It's more akin to a performance. It's the ability of that guy or girl you know that's the life of the party. The one that gathers a crowd in the kitchen when describing the funny events of last weekend's adventures. They capture attention, and so does good storytelling in written form.

As far as success is concerned, well you'll have to define what success entails for yourself. It could be a thousand readers. Maybe it's hitting the NY Times best seller list. Or, perhaps it's simply being able to make a living by writing alone. That's for each of us to decide.

That being said, we've all noticed the popularity of YA books in the adult market. There have been lots of runaway successes in that grouping as of late. I think the main factor there, common in most of these, is ease of reading. People that read a ton aren't really affected by this. It's the people who are occasional readers, those that latch onto fads. Those readers account for these massive blockbusters. These folks don't want to work when they read. They want escapism. They want ease. They want a great story that entertains. Providing that, at the right time, takes a bit of luck I think. Sure, you can follow behind the work that begins a fad but that's nothing more than imitation. Yes, you can have monetary success doing so, but the big ones...those whose names get pandered about (recent examples: Rowling, Meyer, Collins, Martin) are at the front end. They started something, or at least popularized the type.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Feb 12, 2014)

T.Allen,

I laughed when I read this:



> The longer I write a lot & read a lot though, the more convinced I become that storytelling skill is not the same. I'm not sure that people can learn to be better storytellers. Now, I'm not talking about story structures, character archetypes, or anything of this nature. That to me, is still craft. I'm talking about the simple ability to tell an enthralling tale that captivates the imagination, an innate understanding of how to relay story concepts and character emotion effectively. I believe the telling of a story is a communication skill separate from any understanding of technique.



This is the exact opposite of the way I feel.

The more analytical reading I do and the more I write, the more understanding I gain of storytelling.  And not just the aspects that border on technique.  I feel that it absolutely can be learned.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Feb 12, 2014)

BWFoster78 said:


> The more analytical reading I do and the more I write, the more understanding I gain of storytelling.  And not just the aspects that border on technique.    I feel that it absolutely can be learned.



Lots of people would agree with you. I can only speak from my own experience. I've read a lot of excerpts in crit groups that range from first-timers to those with years of practice, and while I've noticed dramatic improvements in writing techniques and understanding of craft, I have yet to discover anyone whose gone from an inability to tell an engrossing story to someone that can.

Just to be clear, I'm not talking about principles like "showing vs telling". I'm talking about the imagination and wit required to conjure a good story that captivates.


----------



## Steerpike (Feb 12, 2014)

I think storytelling can be learned, but is best learned by the ability to turn off the hypercritical writer that looks at so many of the technical aspects we concentrate on in forums and to instead read more like a reader, taking a more organic approach to the novel.


----------



## Malik (Feb 12, 2014)

Steerpike said:


> I think if you're talking about mid-level success, the kind of success that is realistic for most authors, technical merit and craft are important factors in elevating you above the mass of works that are below that. But going from that to out-of-the-park success, I think all bets are off and being a better writer, in a technical sense, isn't predictive.



This. 

You can write technical crap and still hit a nerve with the populace. People are stupid and getting stupider; the bar for good writing is dropping. I deal, daily, with college graduates who can't construct a single coherent sentence and who I'm sure wouldn't recognize a well-crafted sentence from a bad one. (I read an article recently suggesting that people should be able to sue their colleges and get some of their money back. Think about it: every syllabus clearly states "At the end of this course, the student will be able to . . . ." The plaintiff rests.)

On top of that, self-publishing apparently leads people who have zero writing ability and no training to think that writing a book is a road analogous to becoming YouTube famous. I'm not talking about books I don't care for. I'm talking about bad writing.

I mean for all intensive purposes when an Author doesn't know, there not supposed to abruptly change you're "Point of View" and etc. than it effects me as a Reader and I loose interest.

If that sentence read fine to you and you think you should self-publish, you are killing the craft. 

The flip side of this is, there are books for the _Kardashians_ constituency. People who are either uneducated or too apathetic to recognize good writing occasionally buy books, primarily because other people are reading the same books and they want to maintain a sense of cultural relevancy. However, these are people who maybe buy one book a year, if that. This is a market so small you can't even aim at it. 

You're not going to get away with writing poorly and make a living as a writer. Writing a piece of crap that becomes a massive commercial success is possible; we've seen it. But this is not only like winning the lottery. As a buddy of mine puts it, we're talking about odds on the order of playing Russian Roulette and surviving because the gun jammed on a winning lottery ticket that fell out of the sky.


----------



## Steerpike (Feb 12, 2014)

I'm glad you said "if that sentence read fine..."


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Feb 12, 2014)

Malik said:


> I mean for all intensive purposes when an Author doesn't know, there not supposed to abruptly change you're "Point of View" and etc. than it effects me as a Reader and I loose interest.
> 
> If that sentence read fine to you and you think you should self-publish, you are killing the craft.


Now that made me chuckle!


----------



## Svrtnsse (Feb 12, 2014)

Would you say that "craft is science, story is art" sums it up? I guess TAS would agree, but BWF not?

I think it's about what level you're talking about. I think/hope that through practice and hard work you can probably reach an acceptable (even good) level of story, but to get that extra notch towards truly excellent story there's something else needed; talent, intuition, luck maybe?

As far as practice and hard work goes. I think it definitely contributes to your success. If nothing else, it ought to increase your chances of being lucky, even if ever so slightly.


----------



## Steerpike (Feb 12, 2014)

Getting to stupid people, I'm not sure I would jump to that conclusion. I know lots of very smart people who are excellent writers and readers who loved the Twilight books, for example, and the writing proficiency there is mediocre. Meyer succeeded as a story teller, however.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Feb 12, 2014)

Steerpike said:


> Getting to stupid people, I'm not sure I would jump to that conclusion. I know lots of very smart people who are excellent writers and readers who loved the Twilight books, for example, and the writing proficiency there is mediocre. Meyer succeeded as a story teller, however.



Agreed. I don't think that falls on intelligence. I know very educated, successful people that liked those books as well. I myself liked the stories well enough. 

I think it comes down to what readers enjoy & what they're looking for in their reading. In this particular case it was a story people liked that was easy to read.


----------



## Telcontar (Feb 12, 2014)

Joe Konrath is fond of saying that writing is a lottery. Or maybe it's that the bestseller status is a lottery. Obviously, he's got a very distinct bias (being perhaps the poster-child for the anti-traditional publication movement) but I'd agree with him on that.

Ben also brings up a very good point in that "merit" is in itself a completely subjective thing. I know a lot of people who say that craft, or "how good of a writer you are," is not entirely subjective. I think that is only true for a very stark and basic level. Once you are able to form coherent sentences, the rest is all subjective. Steerpike and Malik spoke of technical merit, and again I'll call that a fairly basic level of proficiency with writing. Errors in basic grammar usually aren't a stylistic choice, after all. But once you get beyond making those errors, we cannot truly say that somebody is an objectively bad writer if they (for instance) happen to like using adverbs. It simply runs counter to the prevailing style.

As far as audiences go... I too know a lot of very smart people who enjoy what I consider to be terrible books. My favorite one for this example is 50 Shades of Gray. A number of my friends liked that book, including several who (to borrow a phrase from Simon Tam) make me look like an idiot child. And that's fine - I don't think anyone should have to feel bad for enjoying something that doesn't harm anyone else. I don't believe in the concept of "guilty pleasures." The number of variables in the human experience - and in the things that speak to it powerfully - is infinite.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Feb 12, 2014)

> Just to be clear, I'm not talking about principles like "showing vs telling". I'm talking about the imagination and wit required to conjure a good story that captivates.



T.Allen,

Part of the problem, as with any discussion, is one of definition.  Were we to agree on a definition of storytelling that we both could live with, however, I'm pretty sure we would still disagree on this subject.

There are, however, two separate questions that I see raised by your statement:

1. Is Storytelling ability an innate skill that only some possess?
2. Assuming the first to be true, if someone does have some level of Storytelling ability, can that ability be improved with learning?

Regarding Question 1: I just don't know.  Are there people in the world who will just never grasp the fundamental concepts?  I'd have to say, "Yes."  Do there exist people in this world who are just innately gifted as Storytellers?  Again, I'd have to say, "Yes."  Instead of looking at the outliers, however, what about the average aspiring author?  To what degree is Storytelling Nature vs Nurture?  Beats the crap outta me.

Regarding Question 2: Unless I'm deluding myself, I have to say, "Yes."  All I can really speak to is my own experience, which leads me to believe that the skill can be honed.  I have a so much better understanding of how to shape a good story now than when I started.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Feb 12, 2014)

> Would you say that "craft is science, story is art" sums it up? I guess TAS would agree, but BWF not?



Svrtnsse,

Can't speak for TAS, but you've got my viewpoint down.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Feb 12, 2014)

Steerpike said:


> Getting to stupid people, I'm not sure I would jump to that conclusion. I know lots of very smart people who are excellent writers and readers who loved the Twilight books, for example, and the writing proficiency there is mediocre. Meyer succeeded as a story teller, however.



I'm obligated any time someone criticizes Meyer to state:

_Midnight Sun _is one of the best books I've ever read, and it's a half-finished rough draft.  Any author who wants to say that Meyer's writing isn't very good, please show me something that you wrote that engages me even half as well.

[/obligatory comment]

Note: The statement is not directed at Steerpike.  He and I, to the best of my recollection, agree that Meyer is unfairly maligned.


----------



## Steerpike (Feb 12, 2014)

BWFoster78 said:


> I'm obligated any time someone criticizes Meyer to state:
> 
> _Midnight Sun _is one of the best books I've ever read, and it's a half-finished rough draft.  Any author who wants to say that Meyer's writing isn't very good, please show me something that you wrote that engages me even half as well.
> 
> ...



I haven't read that one. I thought Twilight was a great job of story telling, with mediocre writing, but I thought the writing in The Host was better.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Feb 12, 2014)

Steerpike said:


> I haven't read that one. I thought Twilight was a great job of story telling, with mediocre writing, but I thought the writing in The Host was better.



I think that, if you value the filtering of emotion through a character, you'd do well to study what she does in Midnight Sun.


----------



## Steerpike (Feb 12, 2014)

BWFoster78 said:


> I think that, if you value the filtering of emotion through a character, you'd do well to study what she does in Midnight Sun.




I will do that. And I should point out that I'm not using mediocre as an insult. I thought it was firmly middle of the road. Certainly competent. Not stellar. I figure most of the criticism of Meyer on those grounds is professional jealousy or hipsterism.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Feb 12, 2014)

Steerpike said:


> I will do that. And I should point out that I'm not using mediocre as an insult. I thought it was firmly middle of the road. Certainly competent. Not stellar. I figure most of the criticism of Meyer on those grounds is professional jealousy or hipsterism.



Understood.

To be honest, while I have reread Midnight Sun in the not to far distant past, I haven't reread Twilight in a while, so my recollection may be skewed.  My memory, though, is that the book was extremely fun and easy to read.

I strive to create easy to read.  Maybe it's me, but I don't think it's as easy as it looks.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Feb 12, 2014)

BWFoster78 said:


> T.Allen,
> 
> Part of the problem, as with any discussion, is one of definition.  Were we to agree on a definition of storytelling that we both could live with, however, I'm pretty sure we would still disagree on this subject.
> 
> ...



We are simpatico. That's more or less my feelings  as well. Though I'm not certain of any of my assumptions, that's where my experiences have lead.


----------



## Jabrosky (Feb 12, 2014)

Ironically, I've always felt that infamously bad writing could do wonders for a book's sales. Considering all the unkind words I've heard about _Twilight _and _50 Shades of Grey_ despite their alleged popularity, I can only conclude that most of their sales went to people who wanted to see if they were nearly as bad as the hype claimed. That by itself can't explain how these particular books first snatched public attention as opposed to all the other bad writing out there, but it ought to explain how they went from noteworthy to notorious.

I'm not sure how much I buy the claim that certain people have more innate storytelling ability than others. I can accept that some people, by virtue of certain psychological quirks or talents, might have advantages when it comes to different areas of storytelling, but successful storytelling encompasses so many skills that I don't think many people are born with all of them at once. For instance, I personally have an easier time with visual imagination and basic spelling and grammatical skills than I do with in-depth characterization.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Feb 12, 2014)

> successful storytelling encompasses so many skills that I don't think many people are born with all of them at once. For instance, I personally have an easier time with visual imagination and basic spelling and grammatical skills than I do with in-depth characterization.



Jabrosky,

I think that "storytelling," as defined by TAS, has little to do with visual imagination, spelling, grammar, or characterization.  As near as I can figure, he means the term as something like:

The ability to come up with concepts that resonate with the reader and convey those concepts effectively through character and emotion.

I'm not sure that captures his views well or if I'm even representing his view at all, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't have anything to do with your definition.


----------



## Helen (Feb 12, 2014)

BWFoster78 said:


> The more analytical reading I do and the more I write, the more understanding I gain of storytelling.



Completely agree.


----------



## Steerpike (Feb 12, 2014)

Jabrosky said:


> Ironically, I've always felt that infamously bad writing could do wonders for a book's sales. Considering all the unkind words I've heard about _Twilight _and _50 Shades of Grey_ despite their alleged popularity, I can only conclude that most of their sales went to people who wanted to see if they were nearly as bad as the hype claimed. That by itself can't explain how these particular books first snatched public attention as opposed to all the other bad writing out there, but it ought to explain how they went from noteworthy to notorious.



I don't think that's accurate, at least not for Twilight. You have to consider that the book came from an unpublished author, completely unknown, then went to a bidding war with the big publishers and ended up getting Meyer a $3/4 of a million advance before a single book had even been printed. And then you add on top of that the fact that the publisher was absolutely right to give her that much. It just strains credulity to think that an unknown author who sent a terrible book to a publisher got that result (besides which, I've read it and the writing isn't bad).

With 50 Shades, I think it was already popular self-published before the publisher picked it up, otherwise I'm not sure it would ever have made it into a traditional publishing house. I haven't read that one, though.


----------



## psychotick (Feb 13, 2014)

Hi,

My thoughts are a little different. I think writing is a meritocracy to a certain extent. I don't see any truly terrible books making it to the best seller's list and most of them fall by the way side. That's not to say if you write a true literary masterpiece it will succeed. Only to say that there is a better chance.

And when you examine writing I do agree that the story telling is the most important part, and the rest follows. For me as a reader I want to be swept up in the story. I want to walk in the shoes of the hero, see the world he lives in, live in fear and wonder as his life story unfolds. I don't want to sit there and marvel at the competance and linguistic brilliance with which the prose is written. For me - and maybe this is part of why I am an indie - the craft side as in putting the words together in such a way that they make sense, merely has to achieve a standard such that when I'm reading I don't notice glaring spelling mistakes and typos all the time.

I'll forgive a lot for a good story. I won't forgive nearly so much for a technically well written piece of prose.

And lets be honest - I haven't done a survey here so I'm just shooting from the hip - if technical skill in writing prose were the most important thing, wouldn't more editors become hugely successful authors?

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## The Dark One (Feb 15, 2014)

I'm coming in late to this conversation (which has been done here before numerous times). Actually, that's not quite true - the can storytelling be learned? debate has been done a million times but the meritocracy is a new-ish angle.

Briefly - my own take on the storytelling question is this: we are all born with a certain innate storytelling IQ but what you have can be educated and improved. Everyone's innate storytelling IQ, however, is different, both in magnitude and type. Einsteinian level storyteller IQs (eg, Tolkien, Heller, Orwell, Golding etc) will always succeed given a chance - and to that extent writing is a meritocracy if you regard superior storytelling IQ as merit.

The other side of the question is (for me) too hard to answer - no two people will completely agree on a definition of what constitutes good writing and there's no way of measuring it. Some would suggest sales is a measure but I'll deny that until my last breath.


----------



## taiwwa (Feb 15, 2014)

The only fantasy book I'm close to familiar with is JK Rowling's Harry Potter series.

So here's what I think in regards to her success...

1. There are hidden biases. Rowling herself was rejected by several publishers many times. Her name is abbreviated so it doesn't seem too feminine, but on first glance can seem like a man wrote it.

2. Her writing does appeal to a hidden zeitgeist. Harry Potter is basically about everyone's desire to attend an elite boarding school.

3. She has talent in describing magic in creative and inventive ways that are fun to read. This is her merit.


----------



## Devor (Feb 15, 2014)

The Dark One said:


> Briefly - my own take on the storytelling question is this: we are all born with a certain innate storytelling IQ but what you have can be educated and improved. Everyone's innate storytelling IQ, however, is different, both in magnitude and type. Einsteinian level storyteller IQs (eg, Tolkien, Heller, Orwell, Golding etc) will always succeed given a chance - and to that extent writing is a meritocracy if you regard superior storytelling IQ as merit.



Let's see if we can get people talking about Storyteller's Quotient (SQ) all over the internet.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Feb 16, 2014)

The Dark One said:


> I'm coming in late to this conversation (which has been done here before numerous times). Actually, that's not quite true - the can storytelling be learned? debate has been done a million times but the meritocracy is a new-ish angle.
> 
> Briefly - my own take on the storytelling question is this: we are all born with a certain innate storytelling IQ but what you have can be educated and improved. Everyone's innate storytelling IQ, however, is different, both in magnitude and type. Einsteinian level storyteller IQs (eg, Tolkien, Heller, Orwell, Golding etc) will always succeed given a chance - and to that extent writing is a meritocracy if you regard superior storytelling IQ as merit.



The problem is this: someone with the innate skill of an Orwell or a Tolkien or a Heller will always succeed given a chance, but you can't _tell_ whether someone is an Orwell or a Tolkien or a Heller until you've _already given them a chance_. And even then, history is littered with authors who wrote one really great book and then never got anywhere near that level of success again. So you _really_ can't tell if they're one for the ages until... some ages have passed.


----------



## The Dark One (Feb 16, 2014)

What does a chance mean though? It basically means an opportunity to be taken seriously, whether by a major publisher or a substantial reading community.

It's also possible that an Einstein level writer can only produce one masterpiece. Maybe they slave away for years in the lonely garret to produce something amazing and then success changes their life and systems so much that they can't replicate what they did before...despite the brilliant capacity. Once you're writing to deadlines, everything changes.


----------

