Imho, it's *definitely* worth writing regardless of the quality -- you can write because it's a part of you, and a part of who you are.
Plus, just like with muscle memory in gymnastics or in playing musical instruments, for two examples, there is also muscle memory in the brain. In life, and over time, if you do something long enough and hard enough, you may actually find you are brilliant, and not because you were born with a talent or because it comes easy to you, but because of dedication and hard work.
I believe there are two paths toward anything in life: talent, and hard work. Persistence is needed with both. The extent the two mix can make it easier or harder in ones chosen endeavor, but even so, no well-written piece comes to life without persistence.
Not to toot my own horn here, but to make a point -- my writing is only good now, at 42 years old, and only ready now for me to be putting out there in the world. I wrote like a fiend all these years, but I knew in my twenties (and in my disappointed heart) that my writing wasn't quite there yet. But, I wrote because I was a writer, no matter the quality of my work.
Twenty years later, I can even impress myself, sometimes. It took the long road for me, writing-wise, but even the "long road" is valid.
Looking back, there are three things about me that haven't changed all my life: pink, my favorite color, my love of spaghetti and meatballs, and writing. In this constantly head-spinning and changing world, I highly value those three things.
Whether I was good or not (yet) wasn't part of the equation when it came to writing. Just like anything else, you keep working at it, and working at bringing about those things that mean the most to you.
Em
ANGELINITY wrote:
I guess my quandary stems from wanting to write a 'really good' book.
Every time i read a really good book, I am humbled. Is it really worth writing at all, unless one can produce something of unquestionable quality?[/quote]