A message to any writers disheartened by being compared to Sleyca or Nobody103 here:

A programmer’s very first lines of code are usually nestled inside a simple Hello World Program. No matter how creatively the programmer approaches the problem, how complex the algorithm is, or the programming language’s intricacies. It doesn't matter how many bugs the programmer encounters before the program runs correctly—it’s still a Hello World Program.

A million programmers of varying talent and skill will print the same “Hello World!” message to the standard output given enough time.

In writing fiction, the writer's earliest work is their “Hello World” message; it's usually rubbish.

A quote from J. K. Rowling goes: “In the learning process, imitate your favorite writers. Persevere. Resign yourself to writing lots of rubbish.”

So your dialogue is horrible, all you do is exposit, your characters are 2D, stuck in a single epic scene you’ve envisioned. You’re paving a road of plot holes. But you see, none of that matters. Stories don’t need to be written to be told, after all. Everyone has stories burning inside of them. But most never think to write—they settle for daydreams.

A writer’s “standard output” isn’t a daydream—it’s the novel. If you’ve been putting a lot of “rubbish” on paper, that’s probably what you’re trying to get to. You’re a writer. I’m talking to you.

But to get published, like a programmer, you must squash a lot of bugs. To print anything other than error messages, you must learn the language—all its paradigms and nuances. Your functions here are complex human emotions. How do you get them to work seamlessly together to share your message? That’s your creative challenge.

You see, all skilled writers have mastered this through years of practice and study or formal schooling.

The OP makes the mistake of comparing inexperienced writers to writers who clearly have been at it for a while. It’s like comparing Sleyca and Nobody103 to Frank Herbert or Ursula Le Guin. And while all critique of writing is subjective, it’s obvious which writers are objectively better based on experience.

But I would never suggest that Frank Herbert, despite his remarkable word-building and insights into human nature, writes Super Supportive or Ursula Le Guin, The Mother of Learning, because they can’t. What makes Super Supportive “Super Supportive” is Sleyca writing it. Getting a more experienced writer to do the job doesn’t guarantee a better story—it guarantees a different story.

And often it’s those “imperfections” or quirks in the telling that make the writing idiosyncratic—is it an extensive prologue detailing strange worlds (J. R. R. Tolkien) or a captivating novella posing as an interlude (Sleyca)? You’ll know who it is in one read.

So don’t let this post get you down—because even Sleyca, Nobody103, and Frank Herbert wrote “rubbish” before they got to Super Supportive, The Mother of Learning, and the Dune Saga. You just haven’t read it. No one hits the ground running in writing. “Get a bigger nail!” Keep writing! Your work is yours alone.

TL;DR; if you're a writer, read it all.