
Everyone does not, in fact, have a book in them - whatami
https://theoutline.com/post/5541/unconventional-wisdom-you-should-not-write-a-book?zd=1&zi=4m5oydnj
======
syndacks
>I put it like this: I have been running since I was about a year old. Almost
40 years! But I cannot for the life of me run a marathon. I am not physically
capable of it, even though I can run a few miles in a row.

Yes, you are. You just tell yourself that you are not.

And yes, you can write a book. Whether it gets published or not is another
story.

I don't understand why someone whose job it is to find the next best selling
novel would write a post like this. It reeks of something a literary-
agent/failed writer in Brooklyn would say...

~~~
bartread
Agreed. I _could_ run a marathon if I put in the effort. The reason I "can't"
is truthfully that I _can 't be arsed_. If you want to run a marathon what
you're saying is that you're happy for training for that marathon to take over
your life for, probably, about a year, and I'm not motivated to do that.

With that being said Eddie Izzard, with little training, ran 43 marathons in
51 days. He didn't break any records or win any medals, which I suppose is
roughly analogous to getting a book published, but he did do it, over and over
again, which is arguably writing the damn book.

All of this suggests that I could probably run a marathon right now if I
really felt like it. Fortunately (I'll say it again) I can't be arsed. Same
goes for writing the book, because nothing inspires me enough to write an
entire book. But I _could_ do it, because I've absolutely written a book's
worth of words over the past few years.

~~~
paulpauper
_But I could do it, because I 've absolutely written a book's worth of words
over the past few years._

It depends on the genre and if it's fiction or non-fiction. Non fiction, yes.
But fiction is harder because of stylistic attributes and the fact it all has
to connect. It's not like writing 300 300-word blog posts.

~~~
coldtea
> _Non fiction, yes. But fiction is harder because of stylistic attributes and
> the fact it all has to connect._

Ever read Dan Brown?

~~~
zbentley
That isn't a counterargument. Regardless of whether or not you think someone's
writing is good, to your taste, or nuanced, there's still considerable (and, I
think, reasonably rare) skill involved in making something that the general
public wants to pluck off of the paperback shelves (or e-reader equivalent).
It might be tawdry, silly, and factually inaccurate, but those qualities are
orthogonal to whether or not you can write a story that people want to buy.

~~~
coldtea
> _there 's still considerable (and, I think, reasonably rare) skill involved
> in making something that the general public wants to pluck off of the
> paperback shelves_

Is there? The general public can be sold any kind of crap that takes minimal
effort -- and in the same way, don't buy masterpieces that take tremendous
effort and skill to create.

> _It might be tawdry, silly, and factually inaccurate, but those qualities
> are orthogonal to whether or not you can write a story that people want to
> buy._

This isn't an argument on actual writing skill though.

It's like you measure a new category like "skill of writing best-selling
stuff" that's not necessarily connected to the skill of writing itself -- just
to the degree of sales.

But one can sell bad stuff or skilless stuff too. Sales don't show anything
more than a skill in sales themselves.

------
byteface
A negative article. I spent 2 years writing a sci-fi about a guy who builds a
blackhole powered computer to simulate another universe. It got less than 150
downloads in 18months. I did it because I was doing nothing else with my life.
Ultimately it failed to be succesful. But I gained a lot. It really helped me
get a lot of crap off my mind. I learned a lot. I also read 400 books and
graphic novels over 4 years. It was a rewarding proccess and would recommend
it to anyone. So in that respect I disagree with this article. You don't need
financial reward or peoples approval to gain from the experience of writing a
book. Everyone does have a book in them.

~~~
charmides
Please post a link.

I have a couple of questions:

i) Have you been able to apply the skills you gained for something else? Did
it help you career-wise in any way, or do you just feel like it made you a
better, more well-rounded person?

ii) Did you have a job at the same time to sustain yourself?

~~~
byteface
Apologies, Can't link as I used a pen name for freedom of expression. So far
nothing attaches me to the book.

Yes I do use the skills, on email daily for example. I understand punctuation
a bit better and many word definitions are clearer. As a programmer I could
already touch-type. I repeat myself less and edit down my copy removing
redundant words. One concise sentence is better than saying the same thing 10
ways. I don't have as much anxiety or stress in general as writing things down
gets it all out and helps you understand yourself better. Turning mentalses
into logic. You may even find you logically disagree with how you 'thought'
you were thinking. This is very resolving. You also learn a lot about the
subject you are writing.

Yes I had a job, yes it did affect it. For 2 years writing became my evening
hobby instead of coding. Sometimes it felt like I was deviating from what I
should be doing. I ignored those feelings. Peers that didn't know me very long
judged me as not being into my vocation (something I normally pride myself
on.) I felt this affected my stance in the team. But I had more to gain than
other peoples opinions. I've been a generalist coder for 15+ years so was a
decade ahead of many of them and could afford to drop a gear.

I admit to cheating in the editing phase. After 11 months of editing I'd
almost re-written the whole book. I realised like painting, writing is never
finished, only left. This is partly because you're always changing. I tried
modafinil, wrapped up in a few weeks and moved on.

------
jeffwass
The article title is actually “No, you probably don’t have a book in you”.

But the intended meaning of the article is more like “no, you probably don’t
have a _bestselling_ book in you.”

Disclaimer - I’ve written a kids sci-fi novel in the past year. Something I’ve
been meaning to do for awhile now, and finally got around to actually putting
down the words on the page to make it happen.

Now it’s one thing to say “I wrote a novel.” But to be fair I wrote the
_draft_ of a novel that still needs substantial editing before it’s ready to
publish. I’ve been picking at it for awhile, and still it’s not ready to send
out to other editors (or agents).

I’ve been stuck in edit mode for months now, I’ve been finding editing much
harder than writing. A common feeling. One writer told me that writing is like
a party, editing is cleaning up the next day. Some of my published friends and
colleagues tell me it takes a few drafts of editing before it’s even good
enough to send to an agent or editor. So I’ve got a lot of hard work ahead of
me.

But this article is a bit strange because the author is an agent herself, who
knows full well that there’s a ton of editing and a night-vs-day difference
between someone’s first cruddy draft and a finished product, for which agents
and editors worth their salt will have honed and worked their magic on.

Also a bit discouraging to hear this from an agent, suggesting people’s
stories may not be worthy enough to be told. if anything I’d want them to
encourage more people to write that story they’ve been thinking about on the
train. Can you imagine if JK Rowling heard this and just thought, “she’s
right, my story probably sucks, better to just focus on my day job.”

Though the author does clear things up a little at the end of the article to
say write a book because you want to write it, not because someone told you to
write it.

But in any case, the title is still misleading because people do have books in
them. Even if they’re not profitable. Even if the ultimate reading audience is
in the single digits. It’s still a book that means something to the author and
that small but critical audience of readers.

~~~
ben_w
> I’ve been stuck in edit mode for months now, I’ve been finding editing much
> harder than writing. A common feeling. One writer told me that writing is
> like a party, editing is cleaning up the next day. Some of my published
> friends and colleagues tell me it takes a few drafts of editing before it’s
> even good enough to send to an agent or editor.

It’s a relief to read this. I’ve written about 135k words an only managed to
edit about 15k so far.

~~~
jeffwass
Nice, congrats on finishing your draft!

Yeah, I’m finding it very difficult to decide what to keep, what to rip out
entirely, what to rewrite.

I blew way past my 75k word target to about 98k words now, and still feel like
there’s a bunch more I need to add.

FYI, I’ve found Hugh Howey’s four-part Writing Insights columns on his blog
from last year very useful, helped me get thru my draft.

But I’m finding it hard to take his preferred approach to editing of rewriting
scenes from scratch instead of altering or spot-editing them. I took a stab at
rewriting one of my earlier chapters, now that I know what happens later on,
but don’t feel the new version was substantially improved to warrant all the
effort.

I think the hardest part for me is killing my darlings, and ripping out the
big chunks that I feel are essential.

But I know I need to slog through and get to some point where I can stop
picking at it and send out to some alpha readers, then consider actual
editors.

I’m still not sure yet if I’ll self-publish or go the traditional route.

Good luck!

------
Johnny555
I think this author has the misconception that people only write to be
successful, others, like you, write for their own reasons.

I had a relative who once wrote a book about her life, honestly the book was
not very good (both the writing style and content), and largely "sold" (or was
given away to) only to family (despite her paying for a book run out of her
own pocket and shopping it around to bookstores on her own)

Yet she was immensely proud of her book, which she spent years of her life on.
As well she should be, while the book didn't meet any commercial success, it
had been a longtime goal for her and she told her story to people who
otherwise wouldn't have know about it.

~~~
pandapower2
Simply documenting people's story has value. I know someone who wrote an
autobiography that was basically a chronological description of their life. It
wasn't an enjoyable read however it was a largely unvarnished description of
their long and varied life.

A large library happily took some copies to go into their archives. First hand
descriptions of events are hard to come by. Chances are it will sit unread in
their archives for decades but it could one day be interesting source material
for someone.

~~~
charmides
I wonder how valuable something like that will be now that there already
exists so much online data and documentation about our lives. Maybe
traditional memoirs will still provide some insight, considering that they do
at least give an organized account.

~~~
johnchristopher
The medium is the message.

------
pnathan
Has anyone just farted around self published books or fanfic a bit?

Let me tell you: there's a _lot_ of writing that is nearly unreadable. Sure,
you _can_ do it. It's probably best written down and then gently carried over
to the archives, only taken out for a good laugh down the road.

Writing well is like programming. You have to spend some time doing it before
its really ready for public consumption. Then you get to be educated in how
the sausage is made and _then_ you have a start.

The marathon example is a good one. You need to put in preparation, work,
training, sweat, and then you can do the finished product.

Writers have workshops and critiquing circles. They have editors. Review,
review, review. Draft, draft, draft.

The author is critiquing the idea that some genius will hike up their skirt
and drop out a diamond, which the agent will then pick up and make the genius
rich. Takes ten years of sweat to have a 3 minute hit.

~~~
pm90
> Writers have workshops and critiquing circles. They have editors. Review,
> review, review. Draft, draft, draft.

Sure, that is probably how "professional" writers get good. But we've had good
writers before there were all these tools , didn't we? I find it hard to
imagine e.g. Bukowski attending a writing workshop.

Some people just have the talent. Others are mediocre and get better with
effort.

~~~
pnathan
Not to my knowledge. The University Workshop as a reified formal system, yes.
But the review and drafting system where you rewrite it yourself and show your
friends the work, then rewrite; it has been present for a quite long time. My
dim recollection is that it extends into the 1700s in English literature as a
thing. I seem to recollect anecdotes of Johnson doing so; Puritan theologian-
pastors previewed their ideas in sermons before publishing them.

A more learned historian of literature or theology would be able to provide
hard accounts here.

As a general remark, the outsider as genius in full flower springing out of
Zeus' forehead is astonishingly rare, and should never be taken to be
normative or as an ideal to aspire to. This an ancient principle: there is no
royal road to geometry.

------
potta_coffee
The author seems to be be ignoring the fact that talent is immeasurable.
There's no metric by which we can truly define it. There's no way to know who
"has a book in them" except by looking at who has already written books. It's
ridiculous to pay attention to the self-defeating naysayers. If you have a
strong enough desire to produce a book, then you've got a book "in you", and
there's little sense in letting anyone tell you otherwise.

I've experienced similar conditions learning to code and write software. Some
elitists have beliefs along the lines of, "if you don't already know how / if
you didn't learn at a young age, then you're not a true talent, and
programming is not really for you." Those kinds of people can get fucked.

------
alister
> _I 'm often sent stories that are way too long or too short for the
> publishing industry. The average novel is at least 50,000 words._

I find it fascinating that there are sweet spots for the length of an
economically successful book (50,000 words), movie (90-120 minutes), or song
(3 minutes).

For whatever reason, even collections of short films packaged together as a
feature-length movie are rarely successful. Likewise with short written works
packaged as a full-length book. I guess songs were the exception in that
multiple songs sold together as an album did work (at least until recent
years).

It's interesting to think about how attention span, delivery mechanism, costs
of goods, and who knows what other factors, created these target lengths.

~~~
Izkata
> I guess songs were the exception in that multiple songs sold together as an
> album did work (at least until recent years).

I'm fairly sure this was just an illusion. Liking a full album seems really
rare, the general sentiment with anyone I talked to about this was that they
bought it just to get 2-3 of the tracks available.

Imagine if there was no such thing as a 90-minute movie, and they were _all_
made up of 9, 10-minute movies. They'd appear very successful as well.

------
CPLX
It's actually possible almost everyone, or at least a great many people, have
a good book in them. The hard part I would think is getting it out of them. It
takes work and practice.

I've been a professional writer for much of my life, in the sense that for
periods of time I've actually been able to eat and pay NYC rent by virtue of
people paying me to write things.

But I don't know if I have a book in me. Because every time I try to write
things that could possibly turn into a book I read them and they don't sound
very good. I know what I'd have to do to change that, namely write a lot every
day for a few years until it clicked. But I don't.

But so far I haven't made that a priority, so whatever book might be in me is
still there. I think there's a lot of people like that. Many people just can't
write and tell stories at all, of course. But many many people can, and would
in fact be able to do so compellingly, but they haven't and won't put in the
work.

~~~
bmer
> But I don't know if I have a book in me. Because every time I try to write
> things that could possibly turn into a book I read them and they don't sound
> very good. I know what I'd have to do to change that, namely write a lot
> every day for a few years until it clicked. But I don't.

Could you expand on what you mean by this?

problem: you write down something, but it doesn't sound very good

solution: write a lot every day for a few years until it clicked

How is the problem solved by the solution you presented?

~~~
CPLX
The problem is a lack of skill.

The solution is lots of practice.

~~~
btrask
It seems to me that you are already a good writer.

------
geist
This reminds me of the idea that seemed to be very popular a couple years ago
that everyone can and should become a programmer. Nothing is quite that
simple.

~~~
wahern
It's really sad. The original idea is that application interfaces should make
programming accessible. Think the vi editor as used by AT&T secretaries, or
Excel spreadsheets.

Some concepts and interfaces simply can't be shrouded in clickable widgets
that command the computer to perform some pre-scripted task. Just like people
need to use math directly and require the ability to input and manipulate
simple equations, some problems require the creation of small programs--
variables, conditionals, and the encapsulation of these things into functions.

Maximizing the utility of computers means everybody should be capable of not
only basic grammar or basic math, but basic computer programming. But that
doesn't mean everybody needs to be taught to be an author, mathematician, or
computer programmer. Rather, actual computer programmers need to design
applications in a way that make it simple and easy to apply basic editing,
mathematical, _and_ computer science techniques to the task at hand.

That was the original idea back in the day. Then it was co-opted by social
movements in a manner that completely misunderstood the notion. Indeed, they
have it completely backwards. The way to make programming accessible (and to
reduce the outsized power of the programmer class, sharing the wealth) isn't
to turn everybody into programmers, it's to make programming a part of every
job.

But the fact that programming is largely still the domain of programmers isn't
the fault of those social movements. It turns out it's really hard to design
interfaces and applications in this manner, and harder still to keep it
consistent across unrelated applications so knowledge and experience readily
transfer. Arguably the furthest we've ever gotten is early text editors, the
shell, and spreadsheets.

~~~
mitochondrion
The fact of the matter is that, broadly speaking, basic programming is a suite
of cognitive processes that pretty much all come online at the same,
reasonably above-average IQ, and they are irreducibly complex; they cannot be
further simplified except by rote execution of formal process, at which point
you should just let the computer handle it.

~~~
adrianN
That's a pretty bold assertion. Or maybe your understanding of "basic"
programming is much more advanced than necessary. I'd consider writing a
slightly complex ruleset for filtering e-mail "basic" programming. I don't
think that "Put that mail in this folder if the subject contains A unless it's
from Jack, then put it in the Jack-Folder" a skill that only comes online at
an above-average IQ.

~~~
Izkata
I think one of the best newer success stories here is another thing that, like
"filters" and "spreadsheets", doesn't even call itself "programming". The
Android app Tasker [0] is a "total automation" tool with over a million
installs.

[0]
[https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.dinglisch....](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.dinglisch.android.taskerm&hl=en_US)

------
Finnucane
I think what this person is trying to say is, please do not send me your book.
And I kind of get it. I've had to read slush, I've rejected many thousands of
manuscripts. You get to your desk in the morning, and every day there's
another stack of envelopes (in those days it was all paper). You spend an hour
sending it all back where it came from. Virtually all of it completely
hopeless. Once in a great while there's something with some potential. The
thing about slush is not that most of it is particularly bad, it's
particularly nothing at all.

A lot of people do have a book in them. Unfortunately, it's not much different
from the other 20 or so that arrived the same day.

------
asdfman123
I do have a book in me, but I question its value as I'd most likely be pulling
it out of my ass.

------
kjgkjhfkjf
The title should be "Not everyone has a book in them". If everyone did not
have within them a book, then there would be no new books.

------
40acres
Honestly, even accomplished writers sometimes don't have a book in them. I've
many works that would be a great Harvard Business Review article but got
expanded into books for some reason or other. You probably have a great long
read article in you, book... not so sure.

~~~
ghaff
Pretty much every business book ever written (hyperbole alert) would have been
improved by being an HBR article augmented with some detail and case studies
that ended up in the 75-100 page range. But the economics of publishing
apparently demand 200-250 pages.

------
coldbumpysparse
> for many reasons too boring to get into here, and no, it’s not just cheaper
> to do ebooks, either

Guessing he's not counting kindle publishing here, but regardless I'd love to
know all the little details of why publishing e-books are so difficult

~~~
ben_w
Charlie Stross detailed this in a blog post (which I can’t easily find).
Basically, _printing_ a book is easy in comparison to editing, typesetting,
and marketing.

~~~
mcguire
I may have mentioned this before, but that's not what publishers said in the
'90s, when book prices were increasing rather quickly. Then, it was "paper is
costing more and more!"

And, of course, editing and typesetting are done once and should be a flat
fee, not a percentage of profits.

Finally, "marketing" is something that doesn't seem to happen to most authors.

~~~
sago
Simple to try this yourself. Print 1000 copies of your book, record the price.

Then hire a professional copyeditor to do line edits, an illustrator/designer
for the cover, and a professional typesetter for the content, a professional
indexer if it is non-fiction. Pay for targeted ads to reach 1000 click-
throughs of consumers with an interest in your book.

What proportion of the cost was printing?

It is true that a lot of publishers don't spend a lot on marketing. This has
noticeably dropped off since 2004 when my first book was published. But it is
not true that a publisher who is investing the cost in getting the book out
the door is likely to do _no_ marketing. Of course they want the author to
market as much as possible. But there will typically be a budget line, at
least as big as the advance, often an order of magnitude bigger.

> should be a flat fee, not a percentage of profits

You are welcome to publish via vanity press. Where you pay this flat fee
upfront. It is a percentage, for the same reason that investors take a
percentage of your business, to distribute the risk. Most books lose money.
Most books never make their 'flat fee'.

~~~
mcguire
Now print 100,000 copies and see how the numbers align. Sure, almost no books
do that, but it's still how the deal works.

> via vanity press.

You realize the general procedure recommended in the self publishing industry
is to hire a reputable editor, pay them several thousand dollars, and get
results that are comparable to assorted well respected publishing companies.

Yes, the author is taking all the risks. On the other hand, given how little
authors are paid, I suspect they're taking all the risks anyway.

~~~
ben_w
I will be over the moon if my novel sells 100k. From what Stross has blogged,
I’ve been limiting my fantasies to no more than 10k, and suspect that 1k is
much more likely.

------
lkrubner
I suspect that everyone could write a book if they simply committed to some
process. Especially when writing of true events. When I started writing “How
To Destroy A Tech Startup In Three Easy Steps” I had the emails and Slack
messages to work from. I simply copy and pasted all the relevant
communications and suddenly I had a manuscript. Then I simply had to add some
background information so that the reader would understand the overall
context. I suspect anyone could write a story using a technique like that. And
most of us have been through some event which is worth recounting.

------
steve918
I published [https://makersatwork.com/](https://makersatwork.com/) It's a
great book, but not because I'm a talented writer. It had moderate success,
but I didn't tell my story. I took other people's stories and compiled them
using a model proven by Jessica Livingston's Founders at Work. It's a book of
interviews of interesting people and industry experts. You don't have to be a
fiction writer to be a published author. You don't even have to be the story
teller.

~~~
cma
I think Susan Lammers did the original in the tech/computer field,
"Programmers at Work." (Not sure if Lammers based it on something else that
was also titled similarly):

[https://www.amazon.com/Programmers-Work-Interviews-
Computer-...](https://www.amazon.com/Programmers-Work-Interviews-Computer-
Industry/dp/1556152116)

------
biggestlou
This is one of my biggest grammatical pet peeves. The title (and corresponding
sentence in the article) should really be "Not everyone, in fact, has a book
in them." I'm finding this more and more frequently even in legitimate
publications and it's maddening.

------
jm_l
> But do it because you want to, not because someone suggested it one time.

Does this author live in a world where people write books unwillingly to
appease their friends?

------
modells
This story is a duplicate of _Practically everybody in New York has half a
mind to write a book, and does._ -Groucho Marx sometime between the 19th and
20th centuries.

I hope not everybody has a book in them, that sounds mildly annoying and not
sure if someone could cough that up on demand, unless they need to book it to
an appointment that they booked. ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯ C’est la vie.

Disclaimer: everything should be taken reactively literally, no exceptions...
straight to the gallows without a cigarette for a passive-aggressive send-off.

------
Theodores
I take great interest in people's literary ambitions and hear them out. My
hope is that they really do have a book inside them, a story that just needs
to be told or a new idea that the world just needs to know.

However, I usually find that this is not the case. There is no big idea. There
is no innate storytelling ability. The genre is not of interest. The true
passion is not there. Basic grammar is not there.

So why do they persist with the dream? Exactly because it is a dream. A dream
to be published and to get validation from the whole world that they are
someone. A dream to be rich and to go on book tours and to be invited in to a
premium world of literary events. Like the lottery it is a dream to be the one
that gets picked out of the pile of manuscripts for a team of editors,
marketing people, lumberjacks and bean counters to devote themselves to their
words.

We all want to be listened to and recognition is up there with food and a roof
over one's head as a basic human need.

Publishing sets out an awful path for people to achieve these things. As a
consequence a lot of wannabee writers are not really cut from the right cloth
for it. You have to either be really good or have delusions of grandeur to
want to take the path set out by publishing. Unless you really do have a story
that does need to be told, some form and genuine motivation not tarnished by
the aforementioned dreams of wanting the world to fall at your feet because
you are up there with the Shakespeares and Hawkings of this world.

So this creates a situation where the people that really do have a book inside
them that needs to be shared are less likely to be the ones putting themselves
through the perverse pain that is the rejection world of publishing. In a
word, the manuscripts piling up at the publishers really are submitted by the
stupid people.

Although writing is generally there to create something for someone else to
read, hopefully to enjoy, writing should be like knitting and other hobbies,
i.e. a pastime that is personally satisfying to do. There is no reason for
someone to read what you have written, in fact you might prefer writing to
paper in an open ended way to explore thinking that you might not be able to
explore in conversation.

Even though the dialogue is between yourself and the page a little bit of
'rubber duck debugging' goes on. You might find that after writing reams and
reams of stuff you have actually sorted ideas in your mind to distil the
ramblings into something that can be succinctly summarised into an idea that
others can enjoy. The book really might not be needed. If the distillation of
ideas has been arrived at before getting to the 'final chapter' then even
finishing the work in progress might not be needed and the whole lot can be
put in the bin. In some ways word processor crashes of unsaved work can be
helpful with this.

We are doing pretty good with video and still images with people being able to
do these things for sheer creative enjoyment. Youtube and Instagram are good
platforms for people to do video blogs or photo diaries. The feedback works
well, some people are happy to do this as a creative hobby. You can do videos
about fixing your hamster wheel and not feel compelled that you have to be
making the next Hollywood blockbuster mega series. You can post pictures of
your hamster doing tricks without feeling you have to be the next Ansel Adams.

The legacy of the publishing industry and the state of current always-
monetizing blogging platforms has cut a relatively rough deal for writers who
just enjoy the creative fun of writing. Unless you want to restrict your
output to mere tweets there is this expectation that you have to be the next J
K Rowling. There isn't a happy medium where people can enjoy a modest level of
writing and enjoy a modest and socially acceptable reward through likes for
doing so. Maybe it is time to move on, to not brush people off with 'you have
a book inside you' and to start telling people they have a 'youtube channel
inside them'.

------
meesterdude
But what if everyone does?

~~~
stephengillie
It would show up under x-ray.

~~~
majos
I know we're supposed to downvote short jokes, but so help me I like this one.

------
Avshalom
s/book/good book/

~~~
tbirrell
IDK, I'd have trouble stringing together enough words to even qualifies for
book-length status.

~~~
Avshalom
Nah, you'd have trouble stringing together enough words that make sense. Joyce
threw a typewriter down some stairs for a month and now we all hail Finnegan's
Wake as a master piece.

------
dalbasal
The tldr is that writing books is hard and most attempts fail.. especially if
made by amateurs haphazardly and without practice, instruction or plans that
involve learning to do something before being good at it.

It finishes with a satisfying lesson in curmudgeon economics.

...

Anyway... it's interesting that so many people _want_ to write a book. They
may be naive, but they do know it's hard. That's why they haven't done it yet.

~~~
joe_the_user
"...it's interesting that so many people want to write a book"

Indeed,

The article's main conclusion, that not everyone can write a best selling
novel or biography, is nearly truism in that there are a few bestsellers per
months and millions of people in this country (or any country).

I think it the interest of many average people in being best selling writers,
along with interest in making and staring in TV shows, comes from the way that
all these forms tend to expose the unique, inner, human characteristics of
their protagonists. The urge to have this experienced by an audience is
strong. And moreover, it's reasonably plausible that just about everyone
actually does have inner qualities, that, if cast in the right light, can be
extraordinarily beautiful. "All" that is needed is to artfully allow a jump
from exterior appearance to inner experience (a very difficult process but one
which when done right, seems easy).

The problem is that such portrayal is hard and making that portrayal
accessible is also hard and the competition for doing these things separates
the few best sellers from the many literary attempts.

~~~
majos
My read on why writing a book is seductive is more cynical: most people
believe that writing a book is an achievement and signifies something about
the writer -- depth of thought and feeling, intelligence, vague specialness,
etc. So writing a book seems like a fine way to transform an unspecial life
into a special one.

What's even better: from the outside, anyone _can_ write a book. We all tell
stories, most of us can read and write, and those are the only technical
requirements. By contrast, when you're 50 you know there's just no viable path
to say becoming a surgeon or painting like the old masters or finally writing
that symphony. The skill barriers are just too obvious and high. But you can
start writing a book today, and indisputably, you'll be writing a book.

------
BerislavLopac
Dupe of
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17635227](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17635227)

~~~
jwilk
(1 comment)

------
throwaway2016a
I suppose this is the literary equivalent of a software developer writing an
article "No, you probably can't program computers"

~~~
CPLX
I think a better analogy would be an article along the lines of "Sorry, your
good idea isn't necessarily a startup"

~~~
vortico
Right, but based on the article title and phrase that's repeated throughout
the article, it would be called "You can't write a computer program", but the
point of the article will be "your good idea isn't necessarily a startup."

