I’m reminded of the old adage—a writer spends their entire life writing their first book, and then spends a few years writing every other book they will ever write. Once you start writing as a career, the demands of having to churn out writing pressures you to think and reflect less and crystallize your opinion more: you spend more time writing than reading, and you read only to write about it instead of reading to change your perspective.
Another idea: smaller writers aren’t penalized for writing outlandish pieces, because no one sees their smaller failures. This allows them to take more risks and be more varied. Established writers have a reputation to defend, and thus are more likely to write what they know. Even worse, what happens if you read and change your mind and then suddenly disagree with one of your books? That seems pretty risky—and writers probably want to avoid the cognitive dissonance that comes with disagreeing with and old published book.
I’m reminded of the old adage—a writer spends their entire life writing their first book, and then spends a few years writing every other book they will ever write.
Another idea: smaller writers aren’t penalized for writing outlandish pieces, because no one sees their smaller failures. This allows them to take more risks and be more varied. Established writers have a reputation to defend, and thus are more likely to write what they know.
(Full transparency, I think both of these ideas stem from Astral Codex Ten—I vaguely remember Scott witting a post about why he fell off ot something?)
You talk here of fossilized intellectuals. Yet you don't give any real examples! Or is there an in-joke here like I'm meant to know who you're writing about and chuckle at the sametime? 😎
I’m reminded of the old adage—a writer spends their entire life writing their first book, and then spends a few years writing every other book they will ever write. Once you start writing as a career, the demands of having to churn out writing pressures you to think and reflect less and crystallize your opinion more: you spend more time writing than reading, and you read only to write about it instead of reading to change your perspective.
Another idea: smaller writers aren’t penalized for writing outlandish pieces, because no one sees their smaller failures. This allows them to take more risks and be more varied. Established writers have a reputation to defend, and thus are more likely to write what they know. Even worse, what happens if you read and change your mind and then suddenly disagree with one of your books? That seems pretty risky—and writers probably want to avoid the cognitive dissonance that comes with disagreeing with and old published book.
I’m reminded of the old adage—a writer spends their entire life writing their first book, and then spends a few years writing every other book they will ever write.
Another idea: smaller writers aren’t penalized for writing outlandish pieces, because no one sees their smaller failures. This allows them to take more risks and be more varied. Established writers have a reputation to defend, and thus are more likely to write what they know.
(Full transparency, I think both of these ideas stem from Astral Codex Ten—I vaguely remember Scott witting a post about why he fell off ot something?)
You talk here of fossilized intellectuals. Yet you don't give any real examples! Or is there an in-joke here like I'm meant to know who you're writing about and chuckle at the sametime? 😎
Nice post, enjoyed reading. Hope I don't turn into this version of myself someday.
Eeeesh. I feel this.
Ouch.
Great post Naomi. This is really true.