"To be a best-writing author, you don’t need to win a Pulitzer. You need to have experiences that make good stories, and you need to be yourself on paper." Thi

"To be a best-writing author, you don’t need to win a Pulitzer. You need to have experiences that make good stories, and you need to be yourself on paper." This definition bothers me. He's creating a false dichotomy between literary technical excellence (as loosely symbolised by a "Pulizter") and a marketable--and sellable--story presented in what he believes to be an authentic voice (his definition of "authentic voice" also bothers me, if only because he conflates it with a voice couched in bonhomie). The idea of "Tucker Max" also erodes the value of his point especially because some of Tucker's stories are not at all genuine, factual or even remotely real. "To be a best-selling author, you need to take being a “best-writing” author (as I’ve defined it) seriously." It's difficult to consider the latter point when the former already sounds dubious. Having worthwile experiences is useful but much of the best creative work arises from the imagination, far outside the reaches of experience. Our experiences are but the the base from which we create. In that sense, all experiences are equally valuable. What he appears to mean, is that we need to have sensational experiences. That, to me, sounds completely wrong, or at least wrong-headed. But if he is equating best-sellerdom to sensationalism, then that would have to a mostly correct description of the state of the world right now.