Surprisingly critical

Before you read this blog, please read this article about Mark Twain. It's from the New York Times.

I'm confused as to why the author of this article acts like it's big news that Mark Twain wrote critique in the margins of books he read. Does the general public really think that being a writer is something completely different from being an editor or a critic? Do writers really think that?

I hope not. I firmly believe that it is a writer's job to be a jack-of-all-trades: creative writer, technical writer, reporter, editor, critic, evaluator. If it's print on paper, writers should be familiar with it: how to interpret it, how to write it, and how to make it better. I admit, my career goal may make me biased: I want to be an editor. So obviously I'm fixated on learning how to fix things.

But at the same time, in order to do something well, you must understand what it means for something to be good. You must be able to evaluate others' work and decide what qualifies as good and bad in order to develop an idea of what you want to write and who you want to emulate. A writer can't improve until he or she knows how they can improve. Being an editor is necessary in order to improve as a writer-- and in order to be as successful an important a writer as Mark Twain, you have to be one hell of a self-editor.

I apologize for the somewhat questionable line of reasoning-- it's midnight, and I'm not waxing as concisely as I normally manage. But the point remains: a good writer HAS to be a good editor. So why is it surprising that Mark Twain-- one of America's most celebrated writers-- is also a critic? He has to be in order to practice his craft with such a degree of success.