I guess I’ll never get to that novel (opens in new tab)

why is it so often assumed that the novel is the highest form of writing?

I have always had a eye for drawing and painting, but it took me over 13 years of practice to churn out half-decent sketches. I guess persistence is the key. As for writing - re-reading books and rewriting sentences can help. Each sentence should have enough spring to propel you and the reader to the next sentence. Of course, easier said than done and all that.

Alaric might have down better to read a biography of Hemingway instead of reading Hemingway's novels. Then Alaric could have been inspired to have his own adventures instead of spending too much time reading.

Sure, read Hemingway, but then what? Write imitation Hemingway based on reading about adventures? Write the kinds of novel that emerges from a quiet, bookish life, whose only adventures are vicarious?

One vision of the novelist has him leading a full, rich, and busy life. He leads it fast, leaving time before its end to write great novels, full of wisdom about the human condition, based on his immersion in it.

A rival vision of the novelist sees him closer to being a historian. A great novel sees life in the round. Just as a historian gains perspective on events with time and non-participation, a novelist's youthful reading gives him many lifetimes of (vicarious) experience to draw on.

I wonder if Alaric fell between two stools, unclear on which vision of novel writing he was pursuing?