Yet he had so little vanity in regard to his own work that he could hardly understand his success, though it depended on those very qualities which, in other authors, excited his utmost admiration.
One of his fundamental opinions about literary work was that to write much and with abundant spontaneity is better than to polish minutely.
Over and over again we find this idea expressed, most noticeably in connection with the poet Campbell, whom Scott could scarcely forgive for making so little use of his poetical gifts.

He applauded the much-criticised fertility of Byron, whose genius was in that respect akin to his own.

"I never knew name or fame burn brighter by over-chary keeping of it,"[351] Scott said.

The greatest writers he observed, have been the most voluminous.

His position was one that could be fortified by inductive reasoning, contrasting in this respect with theories which seem plausible only until they are tested by actual facts, as, for example, Poe's idea that long poems lose effectiveness by their length.
But perhaps Scott did not sufficiently take into account the circular nature of his argument; for since the world has refused to consider the men very great who "never spoke out," the truth is not so much that a great man ought to write copiously as that if a man does not write copiously he will not be counted great.