Did anyone see that amazing, marathon tennis match between Nicholas Mahut and John Isner? It finally produced a winner in John Isner, but not before Isner had notched up 70 games to Mahut’s 68 in the fifth and final set.
I’m a mad keen tennis fan so I followed every second. And, incidentally, me being a mad keen tennis fan also explains why I tend to go a bit slower at this time of year as far as Writers’ Advice Centre work is concerned – apologies. On the TV it’s the French Open, followed by Queens, followed by Wimbledon. And that’s not to mention the various exhibition events that go on which I somehow manage to get to if I can.
Anyway back to Mahut/Isner. That match got me thinking about the nature of winning. When two players are so equal what does it take for just one to come out on top? It’s not just down to talent…although obviously that helps. And it’s not really luck…although that comes into it just a bit. It’s not fitness either because Isner looked the loser on that score for most of the match yet he still won. No, winning in sport is largely down to belief. And to a certain extent that’s the same in writing.
A few years ago I was approached by a keen and enthusiastic new writer. She deluged me with work, as she did with every other editor I knew at the time. I tried to help her but, at the end of the day, I didn’t think she would ever make it as a writer. In my opinion she simply wasn’t good enough. However she wasn’t to be deterred and when one of those editors (not me thankfully) accidentally returned his brutally honest, uncomplimentary notes on her work (meant for his eyes only) she had an epiphany.
First of all she cried – buckets and buckets. But then she looked again at the notes. Agonising though it was she took every single negative point on board and acted on it. A year on from that moment she had one picture book published, another one in the pipeline and several publishers commissioning her to write series read fiction.
So was I wrong about her? No, I don’t think I was. I don’t – and still don’t – think her writing is particularly special. She will never receive glittering reviews nor receive literary prizes. However I was wrong about her not making it as a writer. She did…she has…and it was all down to her own massive self-belief.
As Serena Williams said, when she lifted the Venus Rosewater Plate upon winning Wimbledon this year, “Everyone’s dream can come true if you just stick to it and work hard.”
God, what self-belief. I suppose every writer that has’t been published wonders all the time if they are good enough. I certainly do. I also know I would rather be told if an editor doesn’t think i’m good enough. Do other writer’s agree? Sometimes it takes brutal feed back before facing the truth about anything. We can all see or read what we want to when it is in a kind or going around the houses type of way. I admire the girl for carrying on after reading what was accidentally sent to her by the editor. Again what do others think? What do you think Louise? I don’t know whether i would carry on. Would you?
Define, good enough? Is it not true that each editor, agent, publisher, writer not to mention the reader look for something different and thank god that what we all like to write and read is really that subjective. First and foremost winning ‘the game’ involves stick-tuitiveness and a degree of flexibility. Some may never like what you write or what you write because there is no accounting for all tastes. Brutal feedback is always welcome but it too is subjective.
Of course editorial judgement is always going to be subjective. However let’s not kid ourselves…objectively editors know what is ‘bad’. What is considered to be truly ‘good’ (and/or commercial) is usually a no-brainer. What I am talking about are the ‘hacking authors’ who fall between ‘good’ and ‘bad’. Whether or not those authors become published often boils down to self-belief and – and this is important – what is expected of them.