Reading an old book for writers - "Science Fiction Handbook, Revised," by L. Spargue de Camp and Catherine Crook deCamp. L. Sprague deCamp was a fairly well-known author and editor of science fiction and fantasy back in the day. At any rate, the book has some really good advice and insight, and other advice I'd argue with. When he answers the question people often put to him - "should I be a writer," - he says, in part, the following: "Strictly speaking, the right answer to such a question is 'No.' Unless a person has so strong an urge that he will struggle to become a writer no matter what anyone else says--if there is any doubt in his mind, he had better avoid this profession. He will almost certainly do better financially in some other occupation for which his physique, education, and personality qualify him. ... "A writer must have psychological toughness and resilience, so that, although time and again felled by frustration and disappointment, he promptly bounces back. If adversity, such as working for a year on a book and then having the publisher go bankrupt, throws a writer into such a fit of despondency that he cannot work at all, he is too sensitive for the rough-and-tumble of freelancing. Disappointment is the daily lot of the self-employed writer. It seems even worse than it is, because a piece may be rejected twenty times before it is accepted. Hence, one eventual success entails twenty preliminary failures." What do you guys think? An accurate assessment? Overly pessimistic, or not pessimistic enough? I've heard much the same sentiment from writers who make a living at it today, so I think deCamp is probably pretty close. What say you all?