I'm watching an interview with Robert Hughes on the Australian Screen website. It's from the show Masterpiece Special.
I like what Hughes says in the interview. All writers have a ton of doubt. The only exception is writers who are mediocre. They have total self-confidence.
I often have a lot of doubt about my writing. So that means I'm NOT mediocre. How awesome is that?
But what does it mean if you have a lot of self-confidence regarding having doubt? I'm kind of cocky when it comes to that.
Now I'm thinking, though.....
It's not a choice just between mediocrity and greatness. There's awfulness in there too.
Is it better to be an awful writer or a mediocre writer?
I think I'd prefer being an awful writer. Awful writers are seen by some as being brilliant/great writers. And when I think of books I strongly disliked, they're usually written by writers who are well known, award-winning, and/or popular.
I just finished a book that I'd put in the mediocre category. I didn't love it. I wasn't bored to tears by it. I liked it, but I probably won't seek out the sequels.
I like what Hughes says in the interview. All writers have a ton of doubt. The only exception is writers who are mediocre. They have total self-confidence.
I often have a lot of doubt about my writing. So that means I'm NOT mediocre. How awesome is that?
But what does it mean if you have a lot of self-confidence regarding having doubt? I'm kind of cocky when it comes to that.
Now I'm thinking, though.....
It's not a choice just between mediocrity and greatness. There's awfulness in there too.
Is it better to be an awful writer or a mediocre writer?
I think I'd prefer being an awful writer. Awful writers are seen by some as being brilliant/great writers. And when I think of books I strongly disliked, they're usually written by writers who are well known, award-winning, and/or popular.
I just finished a book that I'd put in the mediocre category. I didn't love it. I wasn't bored to tears by it. I liked it, but I probably won't seek out the sequels.
