The act is not why one becomes a writer, it is the result and the sharing of that result, communication. He complains about one extreme and then swings to the o

The act is not why one becomes a writer, it is the result and the sharing of that result, communication. He complains about one extreme and then swings to the opposite fence and starts talking about natural talent which leaves the overall piece to seem to be more about himself and ego than the topic, great that he loves to write and has unlimited natural talent at it* but that has nothing to do with anyone else. I write to communicate those things which can not be communicated anyway else, sometimes I do hate it, sometimes it hurts, sometimes it is effortless and I am not sure I can say I love the act of writing but the act of finishing is always something substantial and meaningful even if I am not thrilled with the result because it is done (at least for the time being) and I get to apply what I learned on subsequent work. Did he not understand the quote from Dorothy Parker that he included? it undermines his entire point when he tries to represent it as supporting his point. What does it matter why others write? Who cares? At least explore the idea outside of yourself if you are going to go down this road instead of reducing everyone else to some stereotype. *He was a tad ambiguous with this comment, he could be saying that his natural talent is not limited by something external but it is difficult to say other than he seems to be overly confident/reliant on his natural talent which results in the ambiguity and ego throughout this piece.