You’ve made a really valuable point here, Pete, and I appreciate you sharing it. ‘Giants’ wasn’t used entirely to express astounding quality, but rather enormous success in terms of audience and engagement. Having read the works of Hardy and Oppong further, though their writing is still worthy of respect, I have edited these examples and replaced them with Zat Rana and Kris Gage — lesser-known writers whose work better reflects the points I have made.

I agree with what you’re saying — large numbers certainly don’t reflect quality. That’s evident in all spheres, from fashion to pop music and art. High-quality work and raw talent doesn’t always equate to success and recognition. As I said, there’s no secret, but in my own experiences I have certainly found that audiences much prefer my writing when it’s my best work. And if they don’t, I’m probably just being pretty biased in claiming it as my best. Even if it sparks fewer engagements than material that isn’t as good, it speaks to people and is almost exclusively far better received. The same goes for content that I read, that any of us read — if we genuinely like what we’re reading and respect the author, we’re going to be giving it our support.

Good work doesn’t mean large numbers, but good work is going to attract the right types of people that keep coming back. And if we’re focused more on marketing than we are on improving, we’re in this game for the wrong reasons.

Thank you for your response, Pete. I appreciate you taking the time to engage.