4 ms·
Your last sentence has me doubting: I think that 'faster and better' is potentially true in measurable fields with reasonably objective criteria for success (wr
by johnloeber 11y ago
Your last sentence has me doubting: I think that 'faster and better' is potentially true in measurable fields with reasonably objective criteria for success (writing code is one), but it strikes me as untrue in the arts, especially regarding experimental work, which is often all about defying the norms and expectations a reviewer is in place to enforce.
- hibikir 11y agoIf your argument was correct, we'd see authors make their best work later in their career, when they can ignore editors and publishers, because their name alone will carry their work. I haven't done a big study in this, but it seems to me that early works are, on average, better than works made after artists have become famous. If anything, they become complacent. It's not just GRR Martin: Look at the Harry Potter series, for instance. In general, the commmercial success makes things worse.
- eutectate 11y agoAn alternative explanation is that famous artists struggle to replicate their initial success because it often required a large amount of luck.
- thaumasiotes 11y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean Authors often do get noticeably worse after becoming famous, though. Take the reasonably well-known example of Robert Jordan, who wrote a series of 5 great books followed by 5 lackluster books. It's hard to say he just got lucky five times in a row. And you can look at the same question another way by reading self-published (therefore, unedited) books -- I used to be quite open to reading those; bitter experience has taught me not to bother.