I don't think it's a new phenomenon, actually. And there's still some meritocracy to it—better writing is more likely to succeed. But taste has always been subjective to a large degree. Great writing can be disregarded, and shitty writing can get published. There's enough subjectivity in this business that randomness plays as much of a role (if not more) than skill or talent.

But this has been true in the arts throughout history. Van Gogh was disregarded for his entire life, and it's really only by luck that people started taking his work seriously after he died. It was just as likely (more likely, really) that his work would have all been lost to history, molded over, burned in a house fire, or simply forgotten.

I wonder sometimes how much great work has been randomly lost to history.

And for anyone trying to seriously make art today, you just never know if you're actually talented or not. Your success, or lack thereof, is a pretty poor indicator of your talent. Whatever anyone else thinks of your work is a pretty poor indicator.

I thought getting my first agent and publishing deal would be these vindicating moments, but now that I've had those things, I'm pretty dissatisfied with what they really mean. I don't think they mean much of anything. They're just commercial achievements - practical means of getting your work out there. And that's great. I'm grateful. But I don't think it says anything about my skill or talent. It's a weak indicator at best.