| | I found it interesting that the responses were so varied, and even, contradictory with each other.
But the general takeaway, for me, was the majority sense that writing is not like 'paint-by-number' --including any conscious consideration of consciously injecting symbolism.
I'm also not sure what a conscious consideration of unconsciously injecting symbolism would be like? The questions are implying a conscious consideration of that question...
How do successful writers define success? I'm not sure they all do that the same way, but the way history defines successful writers is pretty much that many folks willingly seek to read their writing...
Is there another rule of success that rivals that fundamental rule of success? "Critically acclaimed?" By whom? Folks who are not successful writers, largely. Never understood that one...
If so, it must be way down on the list, I'd think, and I doubt there is any 'write-by-number' method of achieving writing success that can actually be taught; that doesn't stop folks from trying, however(to teach successful writing.) It is an entire industry.
I don't mean 'teach to write.' That is done reasonably well in our schools. At the least, well offered. But, teaching 'successful writing.' How to be the next Hemingway, etc. Not readily bottled and sold, I would think. Questions like the ones raised in the article try to peel away the onion, but it might not even be an onion that needs to be peeled away.
Do successful writers aim to be successful, and follow a formula, or do they just write and become successful? I sure as Hell don't know, but I suspect the latter.
regards,
Fred
|
|
