4 ms·

>The usual course is for an author to keep learning for years, figure out what works well for them, and perhaps lose a little ground towards the end of their li

>The usual course is for an author to keep learning for years, figure out what works well for them, and perhaps lose a little ground towards the end of their lives due to failing health or lack of care. I haven't found that to be true, at least amongst successful authors. Certainly not enough to call it 'the usual course.' Most authors who I have seen be successful in early life don't write their best works in middle or late age.

dragonwriter 10y ago
I think one of the problems which may make it appear that this is the case, whether or not it actually is, is that once an author has achieved some success, they are granted increasing deference by editors and publishers; this may lead to the quality of their finished work declining even while their writing skill increases.
- chc 10y ago
  That's true, but we see the same phenomenon in a lot of fields where that isn't as true — such as bands' later albums — so it seems likely to me that there's something deeper at work a lot of the time. I suspect it's some combination of that and: - They had a reserve of good ideas and used them up faster than they could generate new ones - Their initial efforts had a lot of time to "cook" in their heads, while the later ones were forced out (similar to what you propose, only it's their internal editor that's slacking off) - They lose their enthusiasm for the profession, but they don't want to give up the success and identity they've built in the field
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    There may be other fields where that isn't as true, but bands albums aren't one of them; bands relations with labels and producers, etc., have much the same as authors with publishers and editors. Basically, once their name is going to make the sale on its own, other people in the production chain are less likely to say no. OTOH, I think that quality of work (judged, as it always is, by subjective appeal to some critic or set of critics) with constant skill has considerable variation in most artistic endeavors, and what makes a name is usually not the kind of work that most people can turn in day in and day out. Saying that skill goes down after someone becomes famous is, I think, a lot like saying people's skill at the lottery tends to go down after they hit the jackpot.
  - mercer 10y ago
    > - They had a reserve of good ideas and used them up faster than they could generate new ones I think the quality and complexity of the ideas also matters, perhaps more even than quantity. Some of my favorite 'creators' who become better over time tend to focus on essentially the same thing over and over again (more than others, it seems). But their later works are richer and better and developments from earlier works.

dragonwriter 10y ago

I think one of the problems which may make it appear that this is the case, whether or not it actually is, is that once an author has achieved some success, they are granted increasing deference by editors and publishers; this may lead to the quality of their finished work declining even while their writing skill increases.

chc 10y ago
That's true, but we see the same phenomenon in a lot of fields where that isn't as true — such as bands' later albums — so it seems likely to me that there's something deeper at work a lot of the time. I suspect it's some combination of that and: - They had a reserve of good ideas and used them up faster than they could generate new ones - Their initial efforts had a lot of time to "cook" in their heads, while the later ones were forced out (similar to what you propose, only it's their internal editor that's slacking off) - They lose their enthusiasm for the profession, but they don't want to give up the success and identity they've built in the field
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  There may be other fields where that isn't as true, but bands albums aren't one of them; bands relations with labels and producers, etc., have much the same as authors with publishers and editors. Basically, once their name is going to make the sale on its own, other people in the production chain are less likely to say no. OTOH, I think that quality of work (judged, as it always is, by subjective appeal to some critic or set of critics) with constant skill has considerable variation in most artistic endeavors, and what makes a name is usually not the kind of work that most people can turn in day in and day out. Saying that skill goes down after someone becomes famous is, I think, a lot like saying people's skill at the lottery tends to go down after they hit the jackpot.
- mercer 10y ago
  > - They had a reserve of good ideas and used them up faster than they could generate new ones I think the quality and complexity of the ideas also matters, perhaps more even than quantity. Some of my favorite 'creators' who become better over time tend to focus on essentially the same thing over and over again (more than others, it seems). But their later works are richer and better and developments from earlier works.