1 hour ago, DarthHammer said:

Yeah, cause he wasn't either of those things.

You’re right. His Imperial ranks, which were dictated entirely by his policy, were just teeming with gender and racial diversity (referring to ACTUAL races here, not the social construct so familiar on this planet). I don’t know what made me think he might be that way. My bad...

(cue the handful of obscure examples in an attempt to counter this sarcastic remark)

4 hours ago, Darzil said:

Whilst I may find it arrogant to consider oneself better than others due to my upbringing, I must also point out that success at an endeavour has a major luck component which means that success = superior skill is a highly weak proposition in any case where judgement is involved.

Seeing as how TFA and TLJ have both raked in the box office cash, it's pretty safe to say there's a high degree of skill involved with the writers who worked on those scripts. Same could be said for Solo, which would have been considered a financial success if they hadn't needed to do all those reshoots.

Granted, there are people smug enough to consider themselves superior writers to the likes of Stephen King or J.R.R. Tolkien, considering them to be cut-rate hacks who never should have had any of their works published. And yet, the first is perhaps the best-selling horror writer around today and the later pretty much birthed the fantasy genre as we know it today. And given the sheer volume of work that Mister King has produced, it's safe to say he'd have not had nearly the level of success he's enjoyed if he didn't have the writing chops to back them up. Even JK Rowling, who helped get children to want to read books again, has her detractors and those who claim they're far superior writers to her, and yet it does take a degree of writing skill to be able to create a book series that still has a diehard loyal following years after it had concluded.

So maybe just plain "success = superior skill" isn't a strong argument, but "consistent success = superior skill" can't just be dismissed out of hand either.

48 minutes ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

Seeing as how TFA and TLJ have both raked in the box office cash, it's pretty safe to say there's a high degree of skill involved with the writers who worked on those scripts. Same could be said for Solo, which would have been considered a financial success if they hadn't needed to do all those reshoots.

Granted, there are people smug enough to consider themselves superior writers to the likes of Stephen King or J.R.R. Tolkien, considering them to be cut-rate hacks who never should have had any of their works published. And yet, the first is perhaps the best-selling horror writer around today and the later pretty much birthed the fantasy genre as we know it today. And given the sheer volume of work that Mister King has produced, it's safe to say he'd have not had nearly the level of success he's enjoyed if he didn't have the writing chops to back them up. Even JK Rowling, who helped get children to want to read books again, has her detractors and those who claim they're far superior writers to her, and yet it does take a degree of writing skill to be able to create a book series that still has a diehard loyal following years after it had concluded.

So maybe just plain "success = superior skill" isn't a strong argument, but "consistent success = superior skill" can't just be dismissed out of hand either.

This comes across as a post simply to get the last word in.

There’s no doubt luck plays a part in the initial success of someone. Had King been killed in that car crash he wouldn’t have continued success. Had Tolkien died in the First World War he would’ve never written LotR. Playing on Tolkien, there’s something to be said about walking away from the idea of “continued success.” Look at what Lucas did to his legacy and what Rowling (arguably) could be doing to her’s. So in a sense, Tolkien could be considered “lucky” in his continued success because he passed before he could possibly ruin his own legacy (see his and C.S Lewis’ ideas on bringing their properties into the modern era which could have potentially been devastating).

And there are plenty of writers out there with more talent than anyone I’ve mentioned simply because they have the advantage of building upon established precedent, but there will always be a fanbase for the originators of something (or a genre) who had luck (or whatever cosmic force you want to attribute to it) on their side.

It’s bizarre to even argue against that.

14 minutes ago, Flavorabledeez said:

It’s bizarre to even argue against that.

And yet, here you are arguing that some random faceless goober on a message board should be taken at face value that their unsubstantiated claim of being a superior writer as opposed to those who are able to consistently be hired for the job said goober proclaims to be better at should be taken as a gospel truth.

Until he puts his money where his mouth is via the means I mentioned before (actually producing a Star Wars film using a script he's written), the afore-mentioned faceless goober is simply a giant bag of hot air.

And by the way, there are authors/artists/actors/screen-writers that got a "lucky break" and never went anywhere simply because they didn't have, as the adage goes, the skills to pay the bills. The sheer number of "one hit wonder" musicians that have since been reduced to answers in trivia games is testament to that.