Like every author I am constantly checking the opinions my work generates, watching each upward (or downward) tick of the cumulative numerical ratings each story garners and craving to find some new review to dissect for clues as to how any particular work was generally received.

 Yes, that may be somewhat masochistic but I find it to the a pretty useful alternative view to my own image of something I’ve written, helping to ground my own opinion of what I’ve created.

 So far I’ve written thirty one novels in a wide variety of genre and the one constant throughout all of them is the nagging question:

 “Is this story any good, or am I even talented enough to consider myself a writer in the first place?”

 It strikes me a lot of other writers are plagued by this same concern, and it got me thinking.

 Does every single new tale completely define my entire body of work? Or did I just choose to write a story that was, for whatever reason, dead before it was born?

 After reading a considerable number of posts and comments by other authors I see this same concern many times expressed in many ways. There’s a lot of “should I even bother finishing?” or “am I just wasting my time?” self-reflection, which is usually met by a lot of kind reassurance (no doubt by other would-be writers) to press ahead and complete the work, no matter what.

 But something I’ve begun to understand recently (I know, it took a while) has helped ease that nagging concern for me.

 Of course it might not be helpful for someone who is embarking on their early work or doesn’t have an opus already established, but it might be something aspiring authors should keep in mind:

 Just because a book fails or is unsuccessful does not mean you are a bad writer and should quit.

 Sometimes the fault is not in the writer, it’s in the story itself.

 While the author may think it is the most important, most engaging and thrilling concept they’ve ever come up with, that doesn’t mean that, looked at objectively, it is a sure fire work of genius. It could just be that your interest in the topic/character/plot/story isn’t shared with most other people.

 After all, no one sets out to spend hundreds of millions of dollars creating a movie that is a piece of garbage, yet that seems to happen with alarming frequency. Does that mean that, just because “Megalopolis”, written and directed by Francis Ford Coppola, was in incomprehensible mess so unacceptable it is currently not even available on streaming less than six months after its release, that Coppola himself is a no-talent hack?

 Of course not. After all, this is the same director who helmed all three of the wildly beloved “Godfather” films, as well as artistic visions like “The Conversation” and “Apocalypse Now”.

 Clearly the man has both experience and talent. 

 So should he be judged solely on each individual effort as if it definitively labels him as a good filmmaker or a bad one? I would argue no.

 The same is applicable to an author, because each new work consists, to a certain extent, of two separate parts:

 The author’s “style”

The elements of the story

 The author’s style is something that is often the ultimate definition of the author, as opposed to the individual works.

 Take, for example, Dan Brown, author of “The DaVinci Code” and “Angels and Demons”, among others. While those two stories, based on the adventures of his character Robert Langdon, were huge hits with audiences, both in book and movie form, most of his other work barely caused a ripple and are mostly forgotten earning, at best, tepid ratings from both critics and fans.

 Does that mean his “style” (the way he uses the language, imagery and exploration of character) is an indication of a lack of talent? Or has he simply invested a lot of his effort in attempting to tell stories that aren’t as interesting to others as they were to him?

 I find his “style” to be quite engaging, his ability to describe a scene perfectly clear and his communication of the characters easy to grasp and even sympathize with. Clearly, the man has talent. It’s just sometimes he expends it on things are ultimately prove less engaging to other as they are to him.

 Or how about E. L. James’ “Shades of Gray” trilogy? Her three books telling a continuing story of erotic power exchange (also known as “Dominance and submission”) were quite popular, despite the fact that her style in telling them is often awkward, clumsy, poorly described with jarring leaps in both logic and timing and poor character development.

 In short, she’s simply not that good a writer. But sex (especially kinky sex) sells.

 A lot.

 So before an aspiring author spends a lot of time agonizing over whether or not they’re chasing an impossible dream of artistic validation and should just quit the attempt, consider that they might actually possess a talent to rival that of William Shakespeare himself but they are expending it on something simply not worthy of exploration. (After all, though “Hamlet”, “Macbeth”, “A Midsummer Night’s Dream” and a dozen other of Shakespeare’s works are still produced today, four centuries and more after his death, how often have you even heard the titles of some of his other works, such as “Cymbaline”, “Titus Andronicus” or “Timon of Athens”?

 Yes, the immortal Bard of Avon wrote some genuine stinkers himself.

 And maybe that’s what’s happening with whatever you’re working on that is causing you to doubt yourself and your talent.

 So before you tear yourself apart and “suffer for your art that nobody understands”, I’d encourage you to write as much as you can and try to garner as many objective, independent opinions about it as possible. If you’re written a number of things others have read and the reaction is generally positive, with perhaps a few pure raves or pans, take that as encouragement that you can write… you just might not have written something that contains what might cause a universal connection with readers.

 If, on the other hand, you find no matter what kind of story you write you can’t seem to get a reaction better than mediocre on anything, you maybe should consider it’s the way you write, not what you’re writing, that is the problem, and perhaps you need to learn more about what others consider “good style” and think about how you can tweak your own more in that direction..

 Or you could just hope you stumble over a concept, idea or plot that is, in and of itself, so compelling that you can tell the story poorly yet others will hang on to see how it turns out, despite being a bit of a slog for them.

 Just don’t spend too much time beating yourself up while you’re creating. In the end it’s not worth it.