Lots and lots of links!
First off, if you live in the Bay Area or plan to pass through our fair part of the country I will be hosting a workshop at your friendly neighborhood Books Inc. Opera Plaza in San Francisco on September 13th. The workshop is called Secrets of a Literary Agent, it will be about finding an agent and the secrets therein, and believe it or not, after I reveal this top secret classified agenting information I will not then have to kill you. You’ll just have to take a memory erasing drug.
Amid all this talk of Amazon’s world domination comes more persistent rumors about Apple developing a (potentially Kindle-killing) tablet sized device. T-minus six months until Apple is the new company the Internet thinks is going to bring about the apocalyptic end of books as we know it.
And speaking of the Kindle, remember way back a week ago when everyone was worried about Kindle pricing? Former HarperBusiness publisher Marion Maneker has a terrific article in Slate’s The Big Money this week summarizing the issues surrounding the price point battle and why publishers are reluctant to embrace $9.99. Essentially, even though publishers are generally receiving near hardcover-level revenue from the Kindle as Amazon takes a loss, publishers are anxious about Amazon using their books as loss leaders and also about the extent to which readers are fleeing paper books in the direction of plastic whenever a big title comes out.
The article is also noteworthy as Maneker is the first individual to ever utter the following words in a journalistic sphere: “Publishers aren’t stupid.” HISTORY IN THE MAKING, PEOPLE. Also there is no word on Maneker’s whereabouts. Journalists don’t take kindly to such loose talk.
For more discussion on the future of e-books: B&N recently announced the creation of a massive e-book store, PBS recently featured a segment on e-books (thanks to reader Heidi Willis for the link), there’s an article on demand pricing for e-books by Evan Schnittman, and a 100% must read by Mike Shatzkin evaluating the future of e-books. Shatzkin envisions a near future where there’s an explosion of devices and purchase points, an environment in which Amazon and B&N in particular may not have an edge (via Pub Lunch)
Meanwhile, in news that is completely and totally unrelated to this week’s Orwell/Amazon Internet freakout, Shelf Awareness linked to an article in Retail Week about how customer service expectations have soared in the recession. Hmm..
In Jessica Faust news, I thought three of her recent posts were especially terrific. First is a list of reasons she would stop reading a query and the second is a fairly comprehensive post on novel word count. The last one is advice for all: “Good enough” isn’t good enough.
Also in agent advice, Jane Dystel has a great post on etiquette when submitting to an agent. Some goes just for Dystel & Goderich and some is universal, but definitely check it out.
Still with me? MORE LINKS TO GO.
Anonymous publishing intern The Intern wrote a post about how many spiritual memoirs she’s been receiving (she’s not alone) and some things to consider when writing one. (via Janet Reid)
And in more writing advice news, my amazing client Jennifer Hubbard wrote about the importance of patience (no, really, you’re going to need it), and she also linked to a very interesting discussion by Janni Lee Simner about the distinctions between “girl” and “boy” books and voices.
Many people passed along Editorial Anonymous’ recent Publishometer, a point system by which you can see whether you pass the bar for publication.
Almost finally, as many of you know ANGELA’S ASHES author Frank McCourt passed away this week and there have been many remembrances in the media and online. I was particularly struck by the LA Times book blog Jacket Copy’s article that remembers McCourt as one of the great late blooming authors, having published ANGELA’S ASHES, his first book, when he was 67 and retired.
And finally finally, I was immediately drawn to this video of the world’s fastest everything. I only wish they had included footage of the world’s fastest novel (via Andrew Sullivan).
Have a great weekend!
JohnO says
Holy schnike, my finger's gonna get sore from all that clickin'!
serenity says
I think the novel word count link is broken?
mkcbunny says
Hi Nathan,
FYI, in the Apple-tablet paragraph, the link "tablet sized device" doesn't work.
What am I going to do about this Apple news? I have a birthday coming up, and dreams of a shiny new Kindle arriving. Can I wait six months for Apple to make what will undoubtedly be the coolest reader ever? Decisions, decisions.
Your September 13 workshop sounds fantastic. Why, oh why, do I have to be on a plane that day, at that exact time? Cursed vacation!
Nathan Bransford says
Thanks, serenity, fixed.
Margaret Yang says
I'm trying to figure out what "secrets" you can tell in your workshop. Don't the bran fans who read your blog already know all of your secrets? You even gave us a peek at your vacation pictures!
Nathan Bransford says
Thanks, mkcbunny.
Someday blogger will fix the bug that randomly messes up links.
Bane of Anubis says
I swear that those cup-stacking kids are possessed…
And no matter how hard I try, I will never understand the Japanese culture ;)…
Ah, Minesweeper — nostalgic flashback to the early 90s.
Meg Spencer says
Hurrah, I was just running out of stuff to read! And um yeah, I wanted to thank you for talking me off the metaphorical ledge over the Amazon thing. I was kind of freaking out about it a little, so the voice of calm reason was quite appreciated.
Chuck H. says
September 13th, eh? Sorry, I have plans to be in Missouri that weekend. I have plans to be in Missouri most weekends. I think I'm in a rut.
Word ver: bacanbly – sounds delicious.
T. Anne says
I do nothing quickly, although was quickly amused at your video. thanx for posting.
Mira says
Lol. Posted as a character.
Okay, now as me:
You're talking??? In town?????????
On a weekend I have plans to not BE in town????????? As in plane tickets??????????
ARRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH.
Oh the irony. The sad, cruel irony of life.
Nathan, you did that on purpose. I just know you did. But how did you know? You have magical powers, that's the only thing I can think of. And something I always suspected.
Well, I'm going to have to go kill myself. After that, I'll take a look at all these wonderful links.
Ink says
I hope those gun guys in the video were in law enforcement and not just yahoos who spend all day in their basements practicing that. Or at leas that they're not Canadian. I'd breathe easier, say, if they were San Franciscans.
And, oddly, I feel like stacking cups. Anyone else here reminded of the symmetrical book stacking in Ghostbusters? Classic movie. And you can't beat book stacking. Who's got the stopwatch?
Mira says
Oh, and I see you posted a link to the Bookends site where I talked about blacklisting.
I usually like Jessica's posts, but boy did I have trouble with that one. I can see you liked it though – that's okay, we can disagree.
Well, I did wonder about my inexplicable popularity the last few days. I suppose people will now be edging away from me and waiting for the lightening to strike.
But don't worry. My discussion about the unbelievably horrendous practice of blacklisting people in the publishing business will be continued. I started, I'm not stopping now.
But not today.
The First Carol says
Secret Agent Bransford: Sign me up for the mind erasing prescription, I need to make space up there any! Your funny. Oh, and if you ever write a book, I will Kindle you, hardcover, for sure.
Tomas says
the best round up since… last week! really, great overview. of everything um, I'm interested in, right now thank you…
Mira says
Nathan, sorry to post so frequently, this is the last for awhile.
I assume you'll be speaking places around here again. I'm going to type up a list of all my engagements for the next two years and send it to you. Could you schedule around that please? Just as a favor. So, I don't have to kill myself repeatedly?
Thank you.
Thermocline says
The discussion about Boy/Girl books made me think of the Lord of the Rings movies. The romance between Arwen and Aragorn, which was a large focus of the movies, was not a huge plot point in the books. I don't think of the trilogy as being Boy Books, but it's quite obvious that Peter Jackson thought amping up the romance would help it reach a wider audience.
The covers and marketing of YA and MG novels might turn off boys but I think it's too simplistic to say that boys don't want to read about girl protagonists. Maybe just not girly protagonists.
Marilyn Peake says
Thanks for so many great links, Nathan.
I loved Jessica Faust’s post about how "Good enough" isn’t good enough. Hooray for insistence on taking the time to make a manuscript as perfect as possible.
I agree wholeheartedly with Jennifer Hubbard’s advice about how important patience is in becoming a writer. I think it’s a requirement.
I felt so sad when I read that Frank McCourt had died earlier this week. His life story is incredibly inspirational.
Loved the World’s Fastest Everything video. Especially loved the cup stacker, and the Rubik’s cube guy. Wish I could solve even two sides of a Rubik’s cube in … well, any amount of time. What is the world’s fastest novel? THE ROAD by Cormac McCarthy written in three weeks?
Your workshop sounds awesome! Wish I could be in California in September, but am scheduled to be there one month later. Sigh.
Have a great weekend!
ryan field says
Good links, especially the B&N one.
Kristi says
Oooh, I LOVE Apple and am happy for them to take over the world.
Marilyn Peake – thanks for the links yesterday to the interviews about the influence of the digital age on the music industry. They were great and I forwarded them to my musician hubby.
Happy Friday! 🙂
Reesha says
Hmmm. As much as I love my Kindle, I also would be quite happy if Apple took over most of the world.
And btw, what is it with us automatically thinking that because a company is big they're going to take over the world? How do we get to that conclusion so fast?
Personally I blame literature and marvel at its power. Go, literature! Go! Change the masses!
Marilyn Peake says
Kristi,
I'm glad you enjoyed the links. I had so much fun this week, surfing the web and following links posted on Twitter. Feel like I learned a lot. 🙂
Anonymous says
Great links, again. Thanks much.
Marsha Sigman says
Great links as usual!!!
Anonymous says
Regarding the DG blog post on etiquette:
If a manuscript is rejected and they don't encourage submitting another manuscript in the future, they are basically done with that writer.
Is this a common attitude or one unique to DG?
It appears they work under the assumption a writer can never, ever improve. One shot and one shot only. Wow. That sounds harsh.
M. Dunham says
Many your hands must've been worn out with all those links.
Janet says
A video about the Fastest Everything that lasts over 5 minutes? Fie and for shame! ;o)
Nathan Bransford says
anon@2:00-
No, I don't personally agree with that sentiment, although I can't speak for other agents.
Anonymous says
nathan, thanks for responding. I'm glad to hear it isn't the standard with every agent. I've read where some successful authors have been rejected 100+ times before finding an agent. I like to think we may all have the chance to connect with a different project at another time.
Cheryl Barker says
Thanks for pointing out an author whose first book was published at age 67. What great encouragement that it's never too late to try!
Other Lisa says
In case you aren't worn out from all the linky goodness, here's another one about a really unfortunate cover decision.
Laura Martone says
Thanks, Nathan, as always for the newsy, topical links. I have three blog posts to write today – but I promise to peruse them all this weekend.
In the meantime, I just want to say that I'd love to attend your workshop – if only I planned to be on the West Coast that day. Nerts.
Also, yahoo, Bane! Another thing we have in common… I STILL play Minesweeper on my laptop sometimes… er, when I should be working.
And, Mira, please refrain from offing yourself. Some of us would surely miss your wacky sense of humor and ever-changing icons… when I said "some of us," I didn't mean me, of course. I meant Bane and Ink.
Have a groovy weekend, everyone! 😉
Elizabeth Aloe says
Hey Nathan,
I rsvp'd for your workshop and I very much look forward to it. Thank you for providing this for us. Have a great weekend.
Mira says
Hi Laura, absolutely. Already understood. Bane and Ink would miss me.
I'm thinking of changing my trip. Is that weird? Is that stalker-like? That would make it totally appropriate then. I might be able to go the next weekend.
Sheesh Nathan.
Laura Martone says
Um, er, uh, Mira, hmmm…
I'm not sure how to answer that.
Stalker-like? Nah.
Ravingly psychotic? Maybe.
Haha – just kidding, of course. Do what you must. As for me, while I think Nathan seems like one groovy cat – and I would get a kick out of learning his "secret agent" ways in person… I don't do much rearranging of my schedule for anyone. Not even my husband.
Well, maybe I would for Willie Nelson… I sure do like his braids.
Mira says
Just ravingly psychotic? That's a relief.
I'm not sure I can. I think when they say discount due to non-refundablity, they might mean it.
I guess he'll talk places again. Oh, but so close. So close! I told people we should have done labor day.
Okay, sorry. I'll stop taking up space here with my personal tragedy. Oh, but sooo close!
Anonymous says
Amazon will rule us all someday.
Anonymous says
The links that have been provided in this blog lead to other blogs and articles that are all very interesting and informative – but surely there's something missing there: where's the link to the article written by the unpublished novelist who has to deal with all these people?
Honestly, was I the only person here who was almost offended by what Jessica Faust wrote in the blog in which she listed the reasons she would stop reading a query?
She provides a lengthy list.
So here's my own list (which I posted in her own comments section) – this is a list of just some of the things that irritate me when I have to deal with certain literary agents.
1) Agents who can't get my name correct, even though my name is written right there at the top of the page.
2) Agents who can't get the title of my novel correct even though the title of my novel is written right there at the top of the page.
3) Agents who can't even be bothered to mention the title of my novel when they're rejecting it, and will refer to my novel as being my 'book project' – it's not a book project, alright, it's a novel, and I titled it for a reason. If an agent doesn't even bother to mention the title of my novel in the rejection letter (cough, cough) then I can only assume that my submission received very little attention – at least show me the courtesy of writing down the title of my novel, which, in all likelihood, I had been working on, day and night, for two years or more.
4) Agents who don't request to read at least three chapters of my work – I have no patience for a person who thinks that they can decide whether or not a book will be good in just a few pages. This is akin to sitting down in a theatre and watching a movie and saying, after five minutes, that the movie isn't your cup of tea, and then getting up and walking out.
5) Agents who don't understand that I've spent twenty years living in poverty so that I can spend my every waking moment either writing, reading, or thinking about fiction – these people should become real estate agents instead.
6) True novelists are born out of deprivation. Deprivation. Deprivation. Deprivation. Every older novelist who has written more than just one or two novels will be able to tell you that. Deprivation is at the heart of every true novelist (and quite frankly it's often what separates writers from becoming novelists, or becoming agents or editors instead), and any agent who doesn't understand that should probably not be in this business to begin with.
7) Agents who will clearly state that they're presently accepting unsolicited work – but then when I send them my work it will end up being read, not by the agent, but by the assistant of the literary agent – I didn't send my 'book project' to the assistant, I sent it to the agent. If an agent believes so highly in the assistant then the assistant should become an agent. The simple fact is that if I had been told up-front that my work would end up being read by some assistant, then I would never have sent it in the first place.
Here, I'll even sign my name.
I've been visiting blogs like this for the past couple of weeks now, and what I've noticed is that if I don't sign my name, then the first little jab that's taken at me is from somebody who will say, ah, very interesting, but I usually don't listen to people who are 'afraid' of revealing who they are, and will only post anonymously.
I'm not afraid of revealing who I am, alright.
Michael Younger.
I also posted as The Goose. If I ever post as anything else then I'll let you know.
Mira says
Michael, you're the goose! I thought it was Ink. You're funny. Welcome. I think you have excellent points. I especially liked 5, 6, and 7. I don't quite agree with 4. I think you can tell in a few pages if you want to see more. Agents need books that 'hook' the reader, and they can tell that early.
Very brave – good for you! I'm posting too much, but I just wanted you to know you have support.
Other Lisa says
Since I was one person who mentioned that I did not weigh comments from people signing themselves "Anonymous" too heavily, let me clarify. Obviously I have no trouble with people using handles to identify themselves on blogs; I use one myself and have done so for years. What I don't like is people who try to engage me in some form of dialog but who don't adopt some kind of consistent handle for that.
I don't expect everyone to use their RL identity on the interwebz (In fact I think there are a lot of good reasons for not doing so), but I do think it's reasonable to ask a person to use a name of some sort, so I can associate that name with said person's opinions and personality over time.
Speaking for myself only.
Word verification: uncoo. Heh.
Anonymous says
I'd like to post this comment as well, if I may – well, in fact, I'm going to whether you like it or not.
I am shocked…
Shocked isn't even the word for it.. devastated, maybe.. to learn of Jane Dystel's attitude regarding the submission of subsequent novels after an initial rejection.
I'm not going to hold anything back here: learning of her attitude here made me spitting mad.
To suggest that a novelist can't improve is just insanely stupid – and yes that's exactly what she's implying!
I am not the novelist that I was ten years ago. I've had to learn a thousand things about writing, and each of those things has been its own little battle.
To suggest that a novelist – any novelist – doesn't go through an apprenticeship is just downright offensive.
Nobody can teach you how to write a novel – you have to learn that all on your own, and of course it will take you years – years – to reach the point where you can write and complete a commercial work of fiction.
I should be getting used to some of this stuff by now – but I'm not.
It just boggles my mind that these are the people who have ended up in the positions of power.
Oh well – I'll just continue to post what I think, and live with the consequences I guess.
God I get angry sometimes, though. And I mean 'real' angry. What's up with that, eh? Ernest Hemingway, I was told, would pound his fists against the walls every time he received a rejection letter… yeah, I might try that.
Michael Younger.
Ink says
Michael/Goose,
Interesting. Got a few thoughts on your list.
1 and 2, I'll agree with those on the first part. 3, I partially agree with, but understand that agents leaving off the title are looking to save time. You may not agree with their desire to save time, but I don't think it's particularly nefarious. Putting the name there doesn't really change anything one way or another. As long as the communication is clear, I'm not really bothered, though I understand where you're coming from.
Number 4 I disagree with. It's simply impossible. Not difficult, not hard, not some extra work. Impossible. If they morally have to read three chapters of yours, they have to do the same for everyone. So on monday Mr. or Mrs. Agent comes in to work and has 75 queries waiting for them. So, three chapters each… let's say roughly fifty pages (thinking average chapter is 15-20 pages). Now, to give a good reading (and not a half-asssed skim) of fifty pages, let's say an hour. So, that's one hour per submission. Times 75. That's 75 hours. That's two weeks of full time work for one day's queries. And they're going to get more queries on all those days. Plus, they actually haven't done any of their job yet, which is actually representing clients and trying to sell their books. So, manifestly impossible. Maybe if they paid a team of assistants. Which would be financially impossible, most likely. Plus you don't like assistants.
5 and 6, to me, seem like dangerous generalizations without much of a basis in anything. Well, 5 could be taken in a very specific sense just for you. But why should an agent know anything specific about you? Certainly all writers don't fall under that description. Many wouldn't even come remotely close. And it would be sort of hard to judge what the agents do or don't think anyway. Number 6 seems an unlikely generalization. All writers come from deprivation… you sure about that? I'm not sure I really want you speaking for me on that.
Number 7 I partially agree with, in that I understand where it's coming from. I think every writer would rather have their work in the hands of the agent, the one making decisions, rather than an assistant. I mean, the writers have researched the agent, not the grad student doing an internship. But, again, the agents are looking for time, and with the idea that the assistant can clear away the stuff that isn't remotely close to being ready yet, with the idea that this will give them more time to examine those who do have a chance (which is what you wanted in number 4). It's a matter of minutes in the day, and you can't have everything.
And I agree it would be frustrating to see agents who toss a query for small reasons, while at the same time making just such careless errors in their rejections. But I always figure you can't control how other people do business – just how you do business. You're reading the blogs, so you'll know the ropes. Don't make the mistakes and don't give them a reason for rejection. Everyone has the same opportunity.
Best of luck,
Bryan Russell
Ink says
As for the Dystel thing, I doubt they'll remember or care about a query they rejected two years ago if they're queried again. Now, if someone queries ten projects to them in two weeks, they might be getting a little tired… But I agree it seemed a funny sort of thing to suggest.
Bryan
Nathan Bransford says
It's Friday afternoon so I won't address all of Michael's points, but let me just say that I do mess up authors' names. Heck, I even mess up the names of people I know extremely, extremely well (Natalie/Nicole, you know who you are).
But I don't mess up as much authors' names as much as the people who query me mess up my name. You wouldn't believe the creative spellings of "Bransford" I see every day.
And Michael, I don't hold it against them. I've never rejected someone for messing up my name. Just saying.
Anonymous says
Bryan, two points:
One:
If you've actively attempted to make contact with an agent, then in all likelihood that agent will remember you.
Nevertheless, that's not the issue here. The issue here is what Dystel wrote. And what she wrote was downright offensive – to suggest that writers won't or can't improve over time is just plain wrong.
Maybe some people will simply start submitting too early. What? Now they're cut off? Unbelievable.
If she didn't believe in what she wrote, then she shouldn't have written it! It's just that simple!
And two:
I was watching the Charlie Rose show many, many years ago (this was around about the time I was starting my apprenticeship) and Charlie Rose was interviewing an elderly novelist.
Rose asked the man (I can't remember what his name was) why a person becomes a novelist, and the man suddenly went quiet, and appeared to be almost devastated (at least that's how I now remember it):
"Deprivation," he said.
Rose nodded in agreement, having apparently heard this answer before – I could tell though that Rose didn't understand it at all, which was a typical reaction really, since most people don't.
"Deprivation is at the heart of every novelist," the man continued. "You're deprived of something in your life, and so you make up for it in the writing by creating fictional art."
Show me a person who has been deprived of something, and you won't always be showing me a novelist, but show me a true novelist and almost every time you'll be showing me a person who has faced deprivation.
Obviously there have been many people who have completed novels without having had deprivation in their lives' – but are they true novelists? I would argue that, no, they're not. Sorry, but I feel pretty strongly about this. It's the reason I'm living in poverty right now. I never chose to do this. I write morning, noon, and night, not because I'm getting paid to do so, but because I don't know what else to do, or how to do it. Deprivation has been the guiding force in my life, and it's what has sent me down this road.
I have a theory that most great editors would have been great novelists instead, if only they had faced some kind of early deprivation.
The writer John Irving is the perfect example of the true novelist – he was unaware that almost every one of his novels was centered around 'a missing father figure' until, one by one, the critics all pointed this out in their reviews of his books.
And guess what… John Irving's father… yup…
Michael Younger
Anonymous says
And I would also argue, Nathan, that a true novelist would be writing all the time, and wouldn't know the difference between a Monday morning and a Friday afternoon.
The Goose.
Ello says
Hey Nathan,
You didn't mention the whole cover whitewashing controversy about Justine Larbalestier's new book Liar. Justine herself wrote a blog post about how publishing will not get behind a cover with a person of cover on it. I was really curious to know what your thoughts on that are.
Best,
Ello
Laura Martone says
Michael (aka The Goose) –
I know it's late (well, where I am, it is), and everyone has probably gone elsewhere by now… movie, nightclub, bed, whatever… but I just have to weigh in on this discussion.
While "deprivation" feeds my writing, it's not the reason that I'm a novelist. Being the only child of a broken home, I find that a lot of my stories revolve around characters (with siblings) who have issues with one or more of their unhappily married parents (usually, the mother). But still, I don't feel that the REASON I write is because I was deprived of certain things as a child (or even as an adult).
And I think it's awfully dangerous to make generalizations like the one you've made. Just because someone hasn't been markedly deprived of something doesn't mean he/she is incapable of being a true novelist. Besides, to a certain degree, everyone on this planet has been deprived of something at some point in their lives – whether it's wealth, affection, a dream career, or something much smaller – so, by your logic, everyone on this planet has the potential to be a true novelist.
And another thing… just because you live in poverty so you can write all day long doesn't mean that everyone must suffer for their art in equal measure. Every writer has a different story to tell – whether it's heartbreaking, hilarious, uplifting, or something else entirely – and all of those stories come from different wellsprings of inspiration – real or imagined. I'm not a terribly rich writer myself – in fact, I'm downright poor – but I don't think being impoverished is a prerequisite to being a wonderful novelist, the kind that's remembered through the ages. It's as if you're saying that poor writers are the only ones with a richness of spirit… and that's simply not true.
I wish you lots of luck in your writing, your career, or whatever else you're seeking, but I can't abide by your generalizations. They can only serve to alienate you from your fellow writers and taint your own soul with bitterness and anger.
–Laura
Bane of Anubis says
To back up Nathan's point (and I'm not quite sure I should admit this, but it's Friday, so I'll go great guns here — a british phrase; don't actually know what it means, but I like it)….
Awhile back, I queried Nathan prior to being his blog addict and addressed my query letter to "Mr. Bradford," I believe… I was (am) mortified, but, nonetheless, he requested a partial (and spelled everything in his responses correctly)…
Mistakes are made on both ends, but agents are going at warp speed, whereas we're meticulously grooming ourselves for show (and evidently I was having a Ben Stiller moment from There's Something About Mary), so I'm neither surprised nor offended if they make mistakes – hell, I'm just happy if I get a response (positive or negative)… Even if it's addressed to 'Dingbat Writer.'
As for deprivation – it doesn't feed my writing… Entertainment does… There's nothing like a good story to me. If it's got subtle meaning to it, more power to it, but I'm one of those people who writes/reads to fill holes but to expand horizons/imaginations.
Agree w/ you about the callous sounding tone of the Dystel piece — use that as a metric for whether or not you want her as a potential representative, nothing more (as w/ rejection letters, remember that agents aren't all the same — sometimes it may seem like they're a conglomerate, but I'm pretty sure they aren't ;).
Mira says
Michael, I agree with you more than the others might, so let me weigh in on the deprivation thing.
I don't actually think it's deprivation that makes a writer, but something close. Emotional pain. Maybe that's what you meant by deprivation….? And it certainly helps if you throw isolation in the mix. Being unhappy and alone plus talent will make a darn good writer.
Emotional pain can create very open channels and focus that allow the muse to speak very clearly. Although, I'm not sure if other types of concentrated experiences would create the same condition. For example, someone who felt joy all the time. They may be great art that came from deep joy, that would be interesting to see. Of course that joy could be from the spiritual discoveries that come with the resolution of deep pain and loss, but I don't know. That's certainly not my path. I got the pain one.
But Michael, I have a concern here, and I hope it's not too personal. My concern would be that if someone believed deprivation was what gave them talent and the ability to write, they might not be motivated to give themselves more abundance in their lives. And everyone deserves abundance. You don't want to throw yourself on the cross of suffering in order to elevate yourself to artistic heights. Life is hard enough. Besides, it's also okay to let the world bring some joy in. It will deepen you as a writer, and bring a greater perspective.
Remember, we don't live to write.