There is a difference.  If a few genes are "incorrect," the entire organism will die, or simply not live in the first place.  If a book is stylistically immature, it is subject to interpretation, and might be popular anyway.  In essence, you're comparing genes and memes.  Where this analogy fails is that the inherent truth of a meme is not relevant to its reproductive success.  For genes, their ability to produce a living being (their "truth&quot is crucial.

I see what you're saying, and I agree in general with the philosophical accuracy of your statement.  People could probably produce "better" art if they spent more time improving their skill in baby steps.  However, this is a generalization, and is not true in every instance, and your analogy is not exactly valid.