Isn't it more likely that Ellison and Capote failed to write their novels because, at heart, each man was just not a writer? Eah used writing for secondary ends -- social advancement -- and when that was secured, there was no point to continue writing being being a public figure was much easier. the catch was, each man was expected to publish again, and had to suffer those public expectations.

I can't speak for Ralph Ellison, but I think Capote was always a writer at heart. You can't read IN COLD BLOOD and come away thinking he was just a poseur. It's too damn good. Maybe it was simply that he didn't know how to make the magic work twice, and he was inwardly terrified that he just didn't have it in him. If I'd written anything half as good as that, I think I might feel a little leery the next time I sat down at the typewriter. I also suspect that the drinking didn't help.

Exactly. Why do we assume that once someone writes a great novel (or two, or three), he must have another one inside him somewhere? The well's got to run dry eventually. One and done is more than most of us have to offer.

And a perfectionist would imagine the well had run dry well before that was actually the case. It's rather funny that society assumes "everyone has a book in them" but the minute that book becomes successful for someone the bar instantly rises to where we expect them to churn out countless books of great quality.