So there is room for the self-obsessed omphaloskeptic, just don’t expect me to read their output. There is room for those who write to impress other writers. I’ll take a pass there, too, but would never stand in their way.

I would rather read a well-crafted short story than a novel that wanders aimlessly in search of an ending. But I prefer novels in general.

Ah, yes, good triumphs over evil, love conquers all, and it ain’t over ’til the fat lady sings.

I want a story. A novel should include a beginning, a middle, and an end. When I close the last page, I want to feel that the events have reached a conclusion, and yes, I want events, not thoughts or ideas.

I like genre. I think most authors need some structure. “Literary” is a genre. It’s just not one I wish to waste my time reading. If a writer wishes to “find himself” or “get in touch with his inner child” I do not wish to go along for the ride. I have no interest in his navel.

Shakespeare did not write to show how well he could write. He wrote to sell plays and poems that people would buy because they were entertaining. Dickens, the same. Most of the writers now viewed as masters wrote to sell. It seems to have worked out well for them. It’s certainly worked out well for us who read.