The Novelist Paradox

If novelists are so smart, why don’t they succeed at much besides writing fiction?

When I read a good novel I think “the author must be very smart to be able to write this and understand people so well”.

But novelists tend not to be very successful at things in life other than writing fiction, certainly not at anything like the rate of people who write good non-fiction books.

Just off the top of my head, people who wrote good / highly acclaimed non-fiction books while also being highly successful in other fields:

  • Julius Caesar
  • Marcus Aurelius
  • Benjamin Franklin
  • Richard Feynman
  • Winston Churchill
  • Barack Obama
  • JD Vance
  • Many top economists (Keynes, Hayek, Friedman)

While off the top of my head, novelists who reached anything like that level of success in other fields include:

… No one?

The best that comes to mind is people that started philosophical movements related to their writing, like Ayn Rand, Scott Alexander, or Eliezer Yudkowsky. But that’s clearly a different kind of success than for most non-fiction authors. Likewise when I ask Claude the best examples I get are doctors, lawyers, and academics, not world leaders. I’ve been kicking this idea around for years but was inspired to finally write it down because I found out that before Ben Hur was a movie it was a wildly successful novel, and the novel was written by former Civil War general Lew Wallace (not a great general as they go, but its still impressive to be a general at all). But I still think that is the exception.

In fact, worse than just “not being world-changingly successful”, some of my favorite living novelists sometimes seem crushed by the weight of everyday tasks like giving public talks, maintaining relationships, or completing their work anywhere close to on time.

Naming the living novelists I’m thinking of would be mean so here’s F Scott Fitzgerald

The paradox: if novelists are so smart, why aren’t they more broadly successful?

Potential resolutions:

  1. I’m wrong and novelists actually are broadly successful.
  2. Novelists are so smart, but tend to have other deficits that keep them from being broadly successful, or from wanting to try, e.g. being neurotic introverts
  3. Novelists aren’t so smart, it’s more of a narrow skill that we shouldn’t expect to indicate general intelligence, like being good at painting or football.

The question can be flipped: why can’t / won’t many very successful people write fiction? Are they more grounded in the real world when it treats them well? I’m not ‘very successful’ but I write a lot. In my case I’m not convinced I could even write a bad novel, much less a good one. Wouldn’t know where to start.

Cunningham’s Law Update: John Giebfried writes in with excellent counterexamples along the lines of resolution #1-

5 thoughts on “The Novelist Paradox

  1. Joy Buchanan's avatar Joy Buchanan April 16, 2026 / 9:52 am

    In my mind a bunch of male novelists began as journalists.

    Like

  2. butterypowerful84d160bf3f's avatar butterypowerful84d160bf3f April 16, 2026 / 6:36 pm

    I’m not sure the premise is correct. If they are good at writing novels and that’s what they want do, why would we expect them to do other things? If you succeed at your life’s passion, would we expect them to do something else? Further, it seems like there are plenty examples of successful people who became novelists, they were excelling as doctors, lawyers or professors and then when their novel of screenplay sells, they pivot to that.

    Like

  3. yjtank's avatar yjtank April 16, 2026 / 11:29 pm

    I’m reminded of a Mitch Hedberg joke here:

    When you’re in Hollywood and you’re a comedian, everybody wants you to do other things. All right, you’re a stand-up comedian, can you write us a script? That’s not fair. That’s like if I worked hard to become a cook, and I’m a really good cook, they’d say, “OK, you’re a cook. Can you farm?”

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Scott Buchanan's avatar Scott Buchanan April 21, 2026 / 9:40 am

    Good points.

    Nitpick: I think Lew Wallace was actually a fairly great general. His skillful defense initiative at Monocacy against overwhelming odds saved Washington, DC (with Lincoln, et al.) from being captured by Jubal Early’s lightning cavalry raid in July 1864. (A relative of mine on the Union side was captured there, and was starved nearly to death in a Confederate prison camp, which is why I know of Monocacy). And he did well in other battles as well.

    He got unfairly blamed for the Union near-defeat at Shiloh (somebody had to be blamed for the high casualties there, and Wallace was the scapegoat), but later historians acknowledge that his maneuvers there were justifiable and saved lives.

    Liked by 1 person

    • James Bailey's avatar James Bailey April 21, 2026 / 6:28 pm

      Interesting, I just learned of him reading Grant’s account of Shiloh, good to know he did better elsewhere

      Like

Leave a reply to Scott Buchanan Cancel reply