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):
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.
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.
Last edited by a moderator: