On the other hand, the author explicitly said to his agent "Find out why she rejected it," speaking of Hollis. That suggests the author, at least, did not know why.
Perhaps. Or perhaps the agent had already told him obliquely and the author didn't want to hear it.
We know from the story that the agent had previously done his job -- selling the author's books for increasing amounts of money despite declining sales. And we know from the story that after he meets with Hollis and is told the proposal reads like a crib from Wikipedia, he goes home and writes another proposal for her. And what happens? She likes the ideas but not the writing. And when the WSJ steps in, again it's for the ideas -- they want a co-author for the writing part.
Perhaps the agent should have been more direct, "Jim, the word on the street is that you're a one-hit wonder; that your ideas are great, but your writing sucks. What do you say I check around and see if I can hook you up with a co-author for the next proposal?"
Put this in HN terms, if people like your ideas but aren't willing to fund your startup, do you think it's someone else's job to find out why?
Frankly, what I found most alienating about the story was the me-me-me focus. (I mean really, going unsolicited into stores and signing books with random messages?) Too bad there was so little focus on providing value for his readers. Once I hear an author refer to a book of his as "garbage", I'm inclined to agree with him and dump him from my recommended list.
