Maybe everyone should write--it can be therapeutic, I suppose, although that's never been the case for me--but should everyone publish? Was there some value for the larger culture in the old-school gatekeeper role of traditional publishing? Sure--they missed a lot of good stuff that deserved to be published, and published a lot of stuff that they ought to be ashamed of. But did they also serve a valuable role by weeding out huge quantities of execrable schlock? Surely there's some writing that should never see the light of day--but now the rusty handbrake of traditional publishing has been released, and what's left of literary culture is careening toward the cliffs. I'm playing devil's advocate here, to a degree--but for the sake of argument, who are the gatekeepers now? Or was there ever a need for gatekeepers in the first place?
It would be nice if people would learn to write a good story before publishing.
Yes. That would be nice, indeed.
But, again... who's to judge?
When I read, I judge.
As if anyone who has ever read anything, has ever done anything other than that.
Well bully for you. We all do.
But we don't all run around saying people shouldn't do things if we don't like them.
Okay then, looks like we all know who is the judge of what is a good story…the readers.
Makes one wonder why anyone would put forth a question like that when anyone that can write would say, “I am.”
LOL Good point, DLR. My hackles went up at the question right off the bat. "Shouldn'ts" give me an itch.