But I know if I really sat down and worked at it, I could write better than most of the boilerplate books I've been reading for free on Overdrive or getting monthly from Amazon Prime. I don't mean to belittle what's written, but I know I have the capacity to reach that or surpass it.
That's pretty damn presumptuous, and the last person I heard make that statement never made it to the end of his short story, let alone a novel. I'm one of your boilerplate book writers, and while my tastes far surpass my talent, it's taken me twenty novels to get to the point where I feel like I'm even at a semi-decent level of writing. It's not the sentences that are hard, it's the story, and mastering the art of storytelling is a hell of a lot harder than getting grammar and style right.
Your caveat is true - if you really sit down and work at writing, you can get good at it. Most people give up before they reach the end of their first book, though,and lots others realize that it's much easier to read a good book than it is to write one. I wish you luck with your first efforts.
I'm sorry this came across poorly. In hindsight I should have mentioned how many books I also read that I think, "Wow, this is really great. The characters and the words really come alive. This person does such a better job than I could do."
You're right about the storytelling aspect of it, and I'm sure I will learn how that aspect can indeed be challenging. But I stand by my comment regarding the quality of the writing of many (but not all) of the books I have read in the romance genre. The writers likely have done a better job than I could have done about developing a story and moving it forward (after all, that's why their books are on my Kindle and my hypothetical one isn't!), but the writing itself suffers from a lack of something. I think that's what sets certain writers apart from others. Not surprisingly, these are the same books that have three or less stars on Amazon's rating system. I'm not the only one who noticed it. The writing impeded the storytelling.
Conversely, I am acquainted with someone peripherally in my real life who wrote something classified as true literature of the likes of Wolfe (i.e. something that is featured at the front of Barnes and Noble, the full press court, articles in the New Yorker), and he got three stars and below because, while he is an amazing writer, probably one of the best, the story itself didn't go anywhere. So there's that too.
I probably don't have whatever it takes to make a great writer either, and I'm not talking about great in the sense of Tolstoy or Hardy or even Wolfe. I mean great in the sense of compelling, pop lit. I think it takes
both an ability to develop a compelling story which brings a place and person alive and an ability to write well. Some people have one and not the other. These people cross my desk often as an editor/ghostwriter. They have the idea for a fabulous story but lack the ability to write it. Or they have written something, and the writing needs to be elevated somewhat.
Anyway, I'm sorry again that I came across as rude or presumptuous. I recognize how hard it is to write, which is why I haven't pursued fiction in earnest and sat on the sidelines mulling it over. I have written a book, though - three actually (more if you count my ghostwriting), all of which were over 100 pages, one over 300 pages. I count completing those "books" (are dissertations books?) in the category of extremely difficult things I've done in my life. I know how difficult it is.
