Anons over 25, how do you deal with the fact that most well-known writers were published by your age?

Nope. I'd still do arty things because that's who I am. Practising art refines the will. If I ever cannot truly be happy with what I have accomplished, I'd just end my life. But that'd be a dire situation like solitary confinement or cancer.

I just focus on why I want to be published, why I want to make a name for myself, why I care that I feel like I've "wasted" time.

People that seek to be published or known these days do so from weakness, and general ineptitude in their social life. They need that "special" life to have a voice because they can't reveal their pain otherwise. Pain here being used in the sense of longing for power over their conditions, their social life, their will, (along with actual day to day pain and lingering trauma.)

Your name will be absent when the sun dies, and, no one who has cared for you will care that you dug a knife into your arm or lived your life striving for what you knew to be impossible.

I focus on knowledge structures, especially languages, and I like to laugh. And, as well, I also spend a lot of time feeling bad for those people who crave being known rather than those who are known because of how they impose their will on others.

Embarrassed, sort of, but more happily puttering away. Mediocre, compared to many, yes, but not everyone can be so good at mopping floors. Delusional, not really, I just like to buy lotto tickets every once and a while for the sake of childhood traditions.

Embarrassed? Frightfully so. Have you seen my feed? I'd try anything once....

i dont give a fuck

Easy. I don't care being famous or having status. I just want a job that leaves me enough money to buy books, watch anime and play my videogames.

Wallace Stevens didn't publish till 35, and he's the greatest poet who ever lived

Exactly, what the hell do you know at age 22? Leonard Cohen didn't start playing music until 33 and he's considered one of the most brilliant musicians of all time.

I am over 25, albeit barely. I am not well-known, but I am published. Making money just about each day, yes, I do consider self-publishing to be a very legitimate way for an up and coming author to get a start. I doubt most musicians have made a name for themselves by 25 however, or that most comedians/actors/painters (ESPECIALLY fucking painters), and other artists have made names for themselves by 25. I mean, Christ, isn't there almost a curse with painters where often times they don't gain true recognition until they've fucking died? Of course there's some painters that gain notoriety while alive, but I hear most struggle along until they die and THEN might actually gain traction.

I don't feel like I wasted my potential. Sure, I could have started writing earlier, but then my books might not have been as good. Either way, half a decade isn't a long time in the grand scheme of things. As I stated, I'm not a well-known author, but I AM an author, and in spite of how briefly I've been an author I'm making money from my books. Not enough to make a living, but it's steadily growing, and I don't think it'll be much longer at the rate I'm going. I believe I'll be a full-time writer before I'm even 30 years old, and I have the blissful knowledge regarding the fact that, especially as a male, being 30 years old is still being a VERY young man, even still naive to an extent, and I'll have my ENTIRE fucking life ahead of me provided fate doesn't have a nasty surprise waiting. I specify as a male because by 30 years old, if a woman hasn't yet had a child, well... generally speaking, I think it's advised to get on that shit before the next decade is done, and even if another childless decade goes by they'd be VERY lucky to get a chance over the next couple years after that. So I can wait another 20+ years if I want before starting a family, if I ever decide to do so.

Mediocre? Technically, yeah. I'm new, I haven't written about all that much yet, I don't have much life experience... still, I think my books are good. Give it time, and I'll improve exponentially. Delusional? No. Optimistic? Bet your ass, I am. I don't know what you mean by 'past it', and as for embarrassed I guess to an extent I am. I write under a pseudonym; a pen name. I'm not yet comfortable with family knowing about the books I've written. Still if they found out, I think that would suck, but I wouldn't stop. I'd keep writing, self-publishing, and if they don't want to read some of the sex-bits or some of the extreme events in some of my books then they don't bloody well have to read them.

What about you, OP? Are you over 25, and if so, how would you answer all the questions you pose to us?

Unless you're talking about rock stars, most artists start making work of quality at around age 25-30.

>Wanting to be well-known by normies

The reason they're so well known is their 25-year old brains couldn't write a sophisticated, intelligent novel, so 110-IQ normies easily understand the point and can 'relate'. There are plenty of even greater writers and thinkers first published after 25.

No biggie. I'm 28, and just started recently to work seriously on a book. I'm also practicing keyboard, draw from time to time, and plan to take singing lessons.

It would be great if I could one day live solely from writing, but only few can do that. I just plan to do things that I like to do, and have "fun" at it. This life can be very fleeting, and even if I should get published, I have no influence whether my work will be considered as an opus dei or as a waste of paper and ink.
We writers, and generally artists, are victims and hostages of the public.

Daily reminder that Lermontov died at 26

like a pussy bish 2

Do you have any advice to share for somebody who started writing? Anything you wished you had known when you started writing?

Also, do you have a routine or something like that?

thanks for that Cohen info.... gives me hope :/

Leonard Cohen published his first book of poetry at the age of 22 (Let Us Compare Mythologies) and his second at 27. He published his first novel aged 29.

First and foremost, don't write just for money. It's fine to want to make money from what you write, but if the purpose of you writing is simply for money then you likely won't last long. Like I said, my first 5 months seen barely any sales whatsoever. I kept writing because I love to write and I kept self-publishing because I found it to be rather thrilling. Every single little sale or few KENP page-reads was exciting, the thought of someone, somewhere, reading my stuff.

So write because you love to write. Utilize KDP Select promotions immediately. Learn to market in a non-obnoxious way; might sound simple, but not entirely. GIVE before you ask for things, and when you bring up your book don't ask people to buy it. Mention it, MAYBE suggest that "if you're into that thing, then you might be interested in this book". What I mean by GIVE though, is whether it's a Youtube comment, a Twitter tweet, a Facebook thing, a forum post, or what have you... if you're going to bring up a book, firstly make sure it's at least somewhat relevant to the discussion at hand, and secondly make sure to write a purely honest message or whatever. Say what you'd normally say, book COMPLETELY out of mind, but then towards the end you can mention it.

One of the promotional things you can do with KDP Select is give free ebooks. Up to 5 days during the 3-month contract. Let people know when it's free. I'd also suggest keeping prices low at $0.99 USD or so at least for your first few books to encourage people to buy/read it. You want EXPOSURE. You want to get your name/pseudonym out there, you want people reading your stuff, and if YOU did YOUR part then they'll either want to buy more and/or tell others. If you DIDN'T do YOUR part and they didn't like the book, then you should hope they got it during a free promotion and didn't waste money on it. You're not entitled to their money, and you should be thankful for every sale you get. I'm even grateful for the free downloads.

I don't really have a routine, though I do find that I tend to do a good bit of writing early in the morning with my first cup of coffee. I also typically get 1500 words a day, on average. Today I got over 2000, but yesterday I sadly didn't much feel like writing anything. VERY rare that I ever go 2-3 days without writing or editing, and in the past 8 months I've maybe gone 4 straight days without writing or editing on ONE occasion. I average about a book a month, but that's just me. Some can do faster, but I'm pretty sure most don't manage that much writing in that amount of time, and that's ok. Whatever feels right for you, do it, and good luck to you user.

Did I just read an ad or did you just regurgitate some business speak with sincere intention...and why the hell do I expect an answer on Veeky Forums that is going to be sincere...? Quick, say something edgy before the bots arrive....

these aren't true at all

for every creative person who saw success by age 25, there's others who only began to conceptualize their great works at that age

for musicians it looks like mid-late 20is when they really start to gain relevancy

shit, mang writers didn't even begin to write until that age let alone find any success

Poetry's not that hard to write, honestly. Let Us Compare Mythologies is also only 80 pages long. It's not that much of an accomplishment.

ive never read it nor am i big fan of poetry but i can almost guarantee that theres more literary worth in a zweig novella than a massive tome of teenlit. lack of length should not be some kind of disqualifying feature for a work to be an accomplishment.

Your criteria is all over the place.
Set a goal, achieve it. Repeat.
I don't see what age has to do with anything.

I don't see how it could be an ad when I didn't even mention the name of any of my books. If you want insincerity, I will happily inform you that I have a truly massive cock and have never left a woman unsatisfied.

>Anons over 25, how do you deal with the fact that most well-known writers were published by your age?

Great, but I don't really care because I am a reader, not an author.

>How do you deal with the fact that most musicians had already made a name for themselves by your age?

Great, but I don't really care, because I listen to music, not make music.

>How do you deal with the fact that most comedians, actors, painters, and other artists had made a name for themselves by your age?

Same.

>Do you feel like you wasted your potential? Do you feel embarrassed for not having made something of yourself by now?

I feel I might have wasted my potential in other parts of my life, but no way to change that now, so no need to regret it.

>Do you feel mediocre? Delusional? Past it? Embarrassed?

No.

I gave up hope of accomplishing anything great years ago.

Poor life choices and character flaws have led me to anonymous mediocrity. Not much to be done.

i guess it's cheating to post if you've 'made it' to some degree but i think writing in general has a larger disconnect with its audience then, like, music. unless if you're doing a reading or whatever the interaction you have with your audience is pretty impersonal.

i don't think writers really do it to get applause or whatever. i think it's just a job that comes from having a natural and really specific temperament. the happiest writers i know do it because they get a buzz out of it. they love the grind which honestly is a huge part of writing. to most people the idea of carefully stacking words against each other is excruciating but that's just what you instinctively do if you're a writer.

so i dunno how much that helps but honestly most people don't make it, and after a certain point it's really just luck. you can work hard, be extremely talented and know the right people and still fall flat on your face. acclaim or success or whatever isn't why you do this. you do it for this weird borderline masochistic sisyphean pleasure. no homo

Thank you for the input.

>most well-known writers were published by your age
[citation needed]

>How do you deal with the fact that most musicians had already made a name for themselves by your age?
>How do you deal with the fact that most comedians, actors, painters, and other artists had made a name for themselves by your age?
These things tend to be easier, since skill + idea + chance is enough. For writing you also need experience in life for most books, so you're a lot less likely to write anything worth reading before mid twenties and then comes the editing. (there are obviously counter examples)

>Do you feel embarrassed for not having made something of yourself by now?
Maybe a bit.

>Do you feel mediocre? Delusional? Past it? Embarrassed?
Well, I am still one year away from 25 but beyond missing out on the "young genius" cred, I don't mind it too much. It's done, when it's done.

>over the age of 25
>STILL haven't had a man's second puberty where he realises he will never be great but there's nothing wrong with being mediocre, that in fact an immense amount of personal achievement can be derived from ""ordinary"' life goals

I'm in STEM, so no. I'm changing the world for the better.

this is how deluded out snowflake generation is, with the self-esteem movement bullshit. they turn 25 and aren't famous rockstars and they're like omg i have failed in life!

totally spooked by art as commodity form

Only people under 26 feel this way. 25 isn't old.

Most people didn't create any worthwhile creative work before the age of 25, even if they were published.

DFW said once that one of his biggest regrets was being published first at 25.

There are very few comedians who are funny under 30. Most peak at about 40.

Most classic novels were written by authors who were approaching 30, most of the best novels, that is.

There are plenty of well known authors who published earlier in life, but as a general rule, they often only achieved renown for their later works, and their early stuff just got picked up for the ride.

Musicians can make a hell of a career by 25. Rock musicians and hip hop artists. But I honestly think the best music is made by people who are older. For under 25s you have groups like Nirvana and Kendrick Lamar and Guns n Roses. Fine for what they are, but they aren't exactly deep pieces of work. It would have been interesting to see what kind of music Cobain would have been making if he'd lived to 45.

that's the problem with art, at least in sports everyone knows by the time they're in college that they aren't going to be stars, but artsy kids can go on deluding themselves forever

>It would have been interesting to see what kind of music Cobain would have been making if he'd lived to 45.

all you have to do is look at the shitty music david grole or w/e makes to get an idea...

or look at tupacs career trajectory, everyone album he made was more watered down and poppish relying heavier on bowered hooks and less and his own talent, so probably whoever shot him did him a favor by closing his oeuvre without 20 years of uninspired pop albums and guest appearances on movie soundtracks to fulfill record contract obligations

I'm 30 right now. Last year I had a few short stories published, not in any major venues, but they were breakthroughs for me.

I also feel like it was only upon reaching the age of 27 or so that I truly came into my own as a writer. I moved out of my parents' house, started reading great literature again, made a more conscious decision that I truly did want to be great.

I'm determined to write things that are beautiful and that will last for all time. I can be great, and I will be great. I may be great already, but that might be presumptuous to say.

how much pussy do you get? if you don't have a gf/wife and/or get laid all the time, then you're not going to be a famous author. that's more of a determiner than age.

I abstain from sex because I'm a devout Catholic and am seriously devoted to God. One of the main reasons I write is to glorify God, in fact.

Wat

That's really nice user. What in your writing do you think glories God? I'm writing a story myself about a Christian filmmaker who has an existential crisis because he doesn't see what the point of making art is.

If you're a writer looking for work, consider joining studio spark

discord.gg/guXtKpB

writers fuck women left and right even before they become writers
and then they write about women, which makes their audience full of women,
then the female reader goes to the author at conference, flirting with him, asking him for a libertine weekend or some affair (since the author devotes his life to some woman already)

Well, I approach it from multiple angles. I do have some stories in which I overtly present a Christianity at work in the world. Some of these I classify as magical realism, because they have certain miraculous happenings in them, mostly corresponding to miraculous Catholic occurrences: weeping statues, mystical relics, and so on.

However, even in my works which I wouldn't classify as "religious," I try to instill a sense of the mystical, I suppose. This is because I myself have a somewhat mystical, sacramental perspective on the world, which I think I share with other Catholic writers such as Graham Green. There's another word I've lately grown to like: "numinous." Carl Jung used it, and C.S. Lewis used it too. It describes something that's mysterious or awe-inspiring in a spiritual way--something mystical, almost supernatural. I have a number of stories imbued with this sense of the numinous. I think this is important. So often, in the modern world, people not only have no sense of Christianity, but have no sense of the spiritual at all. Their lives are wholly materialistic, and nothing stirs them to awe, wonder, or fear. I suppose one of my primary goals as a writer is to awaken in my readers that spiritual sense. I want to make them feel a sense of something powerful and terrible.

I understand that. I'm more influenced by the modernist tradition and write more cynically. As the saying goes: I want to make fiction comforts the disturbed and disturbs the comfort. Or perhaps less adversarial than that. More akin to comfort the disturbed and allow the comforted to approach the world with a renewed sense of kindness towards Creation.

Do you worry though, that instilling the holoistic in your readers is sort of pointless in our world? Like that readers will go to your work for a spiritual high, but it will never reveal them God or really lead them to Him in a meaningful way (the same way someone like C.S. Lewis has)? Like, I love Laurus, and book reviewers do too, but I don't think anyone has found God through the book.

I think the existential turmoil comes from the fact that a lot of Christians aren't really into art now-a-days and a lot of people into art are not Christians. So those serious art consumers will roll their eyes to explicit references to God and any serious Christian art consumers are honestly probably just reading Milton or something.

>25yo authors, musicians, comedians, actors, painters, blah blah blah

>Do you feel like you wasted your potential? Do you feel embarrassed for not having made something of yourself by now?

I am 35. No. My potential is completely intact. Bazinga! Haha just kidding I'm only a redditor ironically. No, I don't feel embarrassed. I spent my very early 20s being a socially crippled depressed shut-in and 3d game "artist." Tired of the NEET life, I volunteered to become a slave at 26. I got into amazing shape, did things I didn't think I could, had a fuckton of real world experiences, read books, and lived all over.

I have never been more ripe for creative success than I am now. The 25yo artists you romanticize are very often just talented idiots. Whether by imitation, luck, plagiarism, or just plain hustling they have made themselves into names. I am smarter and more talented than they are, I just don't have the recognition. I'm currently writing scenes for a screenplay that will sell and make me a name.

>Do you feel mediocre? Delusional? Past it? Embarrassed?

Definitely not. I don't concern myself with other people's opinions, and I am not so new as to doubt myself. I've got a drinking problem, a cat, and spent most of my savings preparing for the end of the world. Whatever comes, I'm set. I think OP is searching for a reason to believe himself a failure. This post was written for (You), anons. Put in the work. You can make it.

Regarding your worry about pointlessness, I am not concerned. This is for two reasons. For one, I don't pretend to be a strict apologist for my religion in my fiction. I may some day write apologetics, but my fiction isn't meant to be that. I don't worry about leading people to God through my fiction. If I'm leading them to anything, it's merely to a sense of the spiritual, the numinous, in general. It's a very general thing, not specific to Christianity, but it seems deeply needed in the modern Western world, which to me seems so desecrated. If I awaken that awareness of the numinous in people, then what they do with it from there is up to them.

My second reason for security is that I believe I'm simply talented enough as an artist to arouse awareness of my work even in the secular arena. I'm pretty self-confident, and I believe I'm good enough that my work will do what I want it to do with all who encounter it. So there's a certain amount of arrogance involved also, on my part.

itt: people reassuring themselves that they are still relevant

beautiful

No problem.

go back to r9k, you faggot

If you're a woman, your creative clock is ticking at 25, men peak later. The ages of sexual peaking of the genders are reversed for creative works.

Mary Shelley wrote Dracula when she was 19. Emily Bronte wrote Wuthering Heights if I remember correctly when she was nineteen. I think Virginia Woolf first published a novel in her early twenties (22?) if I remember right. Jane Austen was also similar. Women then start to decline after this.

Most men don't write a decent novel until they're near thirty or later, and don't decline until their 60s.

I meant to simplify this a little, but ended up expanding it:

I don't believe 'making it' is necessary, and so I reject OP's premise. I feel I have already made it in my life, OP doesn't. Art is a worthy pursuit, and there is no shame in making a profit from it. An author's aspirations to literary worth only create a puzzle for him to solve and hinder him from finding an audience that will bring recognition and financial success. They are writing for an audience they believe is like themselves. This is not the audience of the market OP speaks of. Success is measured in dollars, and the unread work might as well not exist at all. There is no artistic sin in this.

Look at this shit:

True Detective S1. Pizzolatto's cop drama ripoff of Ligotti and Chambers. Sons of Anarchy? Seven seasons of Hamlet. Star Wars is Lucas reading Campbell, watching wuxia, then making shitty samurai movies in space. Breaking Bad? Book of Job + Paul->Saul. And the major networks... I don't know how any of their script writers can look at themselves in the mirror. Anyone here could do better.

Incidentally, anyone interested in the false dilemma of commercial art vs "real" art should watch Hail, Caesar! It's brilliant.

instead of worrying if you will be a famous author by 25 try moving out of your parents basement by 25 for starters

Daily reminder that Keats died at 25, and Shelley at 30

Last ranty post on this I think, and maybe it will give OP and other anons some hope. When the market has chosen you for success, suddenly a great many people are personally invested in seeing you succeed. Producers, directors, actors, production staff, executives, shareholders, the ad company, etc. Or, in the case of books, the publisher and ad staff. Usually talent has nothing but good things to say about each other, but writers aren't so generous. My point is there is a definite barrier to "making it" but you shouldn't feel bad about not crossing it yet because it does not reflect on you as an artist.

You think, for example, Fetty Wop is rich because he's brilliant or talented? No. He is the most exploitable, knew his audience, and was willing to work.

youtube.com/watch?v=i_kF4zLNKio

>Fetty Wop is rich

most rappers aren't even close to as rich as they put on, while many of the big indie rock acts are richer than they let on, the music is industry is all fake shit

>most rappers aren't even close to as rich as they put on
I'm aware. Trap Queen got half a billion views though. Just having that sort of audience is money in the bank. Even a smidge of talent with industry backing could make a new product and exploit that audience for new wealth.

>the music is industry is all fake shit
Yeh.

the reason trap queen got so many views is because of the clever title, trap can be interpreted as crack house, so people looking for thugged rap music will click, trap could mean obnoxious edm with a lot of snares and sirens, and trap could mean trannies, so you got three different demographics of horny teens all hoping to see a "queen" of their respective trap...that song fucking sucked, i think its success was like 80% the name, like if infinite jest was called tedious slog instead it wouldn't sell half as much

I really don't care. I can make art still... but to be honest there is bigger goals. MUCH BIGGER. I'm 24 though... but still getting paid decent is more important to me. that and being something useful to others in career and in life. I tried...I failed. It's not me. I'm not the one. And for real most people who are famous really aren't all that famous: it's a big fake shithole, pewdipie doesn't make millions, t.v. stations are struggling to survive, dr.phil is paying millions alimony, and scrapping shock stories just to stay alive. the media always loves to seem like their rich when in reality they'd be better off in a real job and not a saturated attention whore scandal, but you know they totally don't care they're rich right? (they aren't which is why they aren't retired already, that's the one thing I learned broadcasting school: even the highest in the industry are pretty poor compared to other high end positions.) Why would Micheal Jackson make that many albums and buy stock in sony and do show after show stressing himself out like that if he as rich already/
this vid sums up things for me today:

youtube.com/watch?v=tKNhPpUR0Pg

okay so you are saying trap queen is brilliantly titled to attract customers and you agree with me that fetty wap is nothing special?

boy you showed me. and it still got half a billion views. i used this as an example of a mediocre work being propelled into "making it" by OP's definition to show talent isn't really necessary and how industry can select you and part of the artist's job is knowing how to be selected. not sure what your point is fella.

ps I totally agree with numinous user's desire to create wonder, but also believe something like that could easily have mass appeal

yeah but what is "talent"? i'm concerned that u might be the kind of tasteless nerd who sees some faggot tapping out the super mario theme song on an electric guitar on youtube and be like "now THAT'S what I call TALENT! look how fast his fingers move!"

michael jackson was in horrible debt, when he died he was renting a mansion in beverly hills for 40,000 a day or something, the thing with 'rich' people is a lot of times they are in debt but can sustain these extravagant lifestyles because they do have huge earning potential, everyone knows michael jackson can go on tour and make another couple 100 mil easy so when he comes to you saying he wants to rent a mansion or private jet you sign him up, the only problem is when he overdoses and croaks while preparing for the tour...

this is exactly what I'm saying. it's all swag. artists use perks and rentals and free tickets but they never pay, it's all gifts because in actuality they're pretty broke. They get checks for music vids too, but half of it's to pay back the crew they took a loan out for.

haha don't worry about what i call talent friend, worry bout urself lol ;^) scroll up the thread. this might give you a hint. I enjoyed all of those things I listed, but they are painfully obvious about their sources.

As I've already said, "talent" is obviated if you have the market on your side. Veeky Forums's favorite meme authors are mostly good, but not suitable for the common palate accustomed to cheetos and chickn(tm) nuggets. Part of talent is knowing your audience, or rather aiming your work towards a certain person or as a response to the mood of the time. People like Eragon and Potter and American Gods and Chicken Soup for the Soul, PewDiePie if you're a useless faggot millennial. DFW and Pynchon are not /their guys/, but they have achieved success in their own circles and attained wider celebrity as "deep thinkers lol." Just knowing their names and some book titles has social currency: witness the constant threads about them here.

Talent is what I have, and my opinion of what qualifies as talent does not concern you.

youtube.com/watch?v=d81fk0BV1_k

this guy is pretty talented though. sage

>only a consumer
pathetic

Fine, but Newton, Maxwell, and Einstein all put out some pretty serious and early contributions, too, if I remember correctly. Same problem.

For the over-25s, how do you all feel about your ability to get better and smarter, and your ability to advance relative to your peers? I'm trying to make my own theory about how to get better, but I'm in college right now so my whole perspective is skewed by a ton of new experiences.

>For the over-25s, how do you all feel about your ability to get better and smarter, and your ability to advance relative to your peers?

I think it absolutely varies by person. As much as personality, in fact. Some people resist change, including new knowledge or attitudes that might make them "better". Sometimes this is because they are emotionally -- and perhaps financially -- invested in their beliefs and refuse to question the comfortable mindset they have built for themselves. Laziness and intellectual timidity, basically.

Getting better at something is the result of doing it over and over. Getting smarter is tied into the question of what is intelligence and, imo, best summarized as a result of useful media intake, retention, and capability of synthesizing new truths from it. In a creative field, that means how easy it is for you to make art.

Advancement relative to peers is not a useful measure really, unless you want to make yourself feel bad. I got 1/3 of the way to military retirement and changed career. I'm happier now, but not "advancing." 35 year olds screenwriters are usually steadily employed, or have some experience in the field and connections. I have none of that and am I'm behind, but I'm ahead by a lot in many other ways.

IMO and TLDR: "gitting gud" creatively is a continual process that is easier for some, specifically those who are open to changing their mind.

More Justin Johnson cuz he's cool. youtube.com/watch?v=A-dmuTEhWdk

By knowing that at that age, I would've written the same angsty and exaggerated shit that gets popular because of how over the top it is. I'm content skipping the phase where I pour mindless anger into an anti-something or transgressive work and cry my eyes out about my first love leaving me or seeing another brick in the wall and whatever else gets hyped.

I can appreciate a Pixies song for what it is but I'm not really jealous or sad about not doing the same.

I published my first novel at 22, so that's not a fact I have to deal with. I don't write for fame, though I do have a following. No, I don't feel like I've wasted my potential. I've published three books and I'm not even 26 yet. I feel accomplished.

Rachel please go