How Tucker Max Got Rejected by Publishing and Still Hit #1 New York Times | Hacker News Reader

How Tucker Max Got Rejected by Publishing and Still Hit #1 New York Times

fourhourworkweek.com

28 pointsjedwhite9 comments

Oh, Tucker Max. Of all the bullet points the author listed, I failed to see "produce quality content" as one of them, which is pretty much why Tucker Max began a slow slide into irrelevancy years ago.

At this point he's a relic of an earlier time where fictional stories posed as truth was taken at (mostly) face value. In today's era of camera phones and youtube, if there's no proof then it didn't happen. Most of his stories have been debunked by various sources, and all you need to do is Google "Tucker Max sucks."

And of course, the $2.5 million question is if Tucker Max was such an effective marketer, why did the movie version of his book perform so poorly? (the "$2.5 million" figure obviously referring to the cinema and DVD sales combined[1]).

[1] http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2009/IHTSB.php

Of all the bullet points the author listed, I failed to see "produce quality content" as one of them

How about:

"The most important point, the thing that trumps all the rest, is this:

CREATE AMAZING AND COMPELLING CONTENT THAT PEOPLE LOVE AND VALUE. Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, flows from that central principle."

Correct, the recipe to Tucker Death Mix is quality content.

A while back at SXSW, Tucker said, ""You turn your nose up, but there is a reason that I'm sitting on this panel and you're not"

I hesitantly admit to knowing that Opie and Anthony have even called him out: http://gawker.com/5035006/even-shock-jocks-hate-tucker-max

Tucker hit a sweet spot when blogs were blooming, with his stories of debauchery and was small enough and early enough in the curve to keep from getting called out until he was already nationwide.

His content made for an guilty pleasure, with the more far-fetched tales actually being more amusing. The problem he has (as you've pointed out) is that he's been called out publicly on the truth of his stories. But possibly more importantly, he's getting older, and I doubt anyone wants to hear about someone pushing 40 getting drunk and chasing 20-somethings, true or not.

"To be a best-writing author, you don’t need to win a Pulitzer. You need to have experiences that make good stories, and you need to be yourself on paper."

This definition bothers me. He's creating a false dichotomy between literary technical excellence (as loosely symbolised by a "Pulizter") and a marketable--and sellable--story presented in what he believes to be an authentic voice (his definition of "authentic voice" also bothers me, if only because he conflates it with a voice couched in bonhomie).

The idea of "Tucker Max" also erodes the value of his point especially because some of Tucker's stories are not at all genuine, factual or even remotely real.

"To be a best-selling author, you need to take being a “best-writing” author (as I’ve defined it) seriously."

It's difficult to consider the latter point when the former already sounds dubious. Having worthwile experiences is useful but much of the best creative work arises from the imagination, far outside the reaches of experience. Our experiences are but the the base from which we create. In that sense, all experiences are equally valuable. What he appears to mean, is that we need to have sensational experiences. That, to me, sounds completely wrong, or at least wrong-headed.

But if he is equating best-sellerdom to sensationalism, then that would have to a mostly correct description of the state of the world right now.

Say what you will about Tucker Max and his work, this was a quality blog post with a lot of great references and a valuable message. And it's the same message that we seem to keep coming back to: make something people want.

Egads! Tucker Max and Tim Ferris at the same time!? My Huckster Detector 5000 readings are off the charts!

not as exciting as you think, since the "rejection" happened as a nobody before he made his website.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com