So many people write, but so little is worthy... Why? I think it's because in order to write something valuable one must posses two opposite qualities: you must be as intelligent as possible (because writing is not easy) and, at the same time, as crazy as possible (for the writing to matter).
To write something worth reading you have to have real experiences that you learn and grow from. No one does that anymore.
>>25330933>who is Jorge Luis Borges
>>25330937idk I only read white male writers
>>25331020please find somewhere else where that joke might possibly be considered funny.
>>25331025>joke
>>25330916>So many people write, but so little is worthy...How do you know? Maybe all the manuscripts that don't make it past the gatekeepers and all the my diary desus that don't even bother or dare to show it anyone else are really great.
>>25330916>So many people write, but so little is worthy... Why?Because "writing" (filling a page with words) is easy but writing well is hard.Also because writing isn't like, say, cooking. If you can cook respectably well, your skill is useful. You can cook meals and they will be a lot better than raw ingredients, and better than meals cooked by a bad cook. You don't have to be the best cook ever or even the thousandth best cook ever; you can still add value to the world.Writing isn't like that, because writing is very easy to disseminate (basically free, now) and lasts a long time (basically forever). This means that (barring very ephemeral, day-to-day stuff like journalism) there is NO point writing unless you are EXTREMELY good. If you're trying to do anything remotely "literary" you are in competition with the greatest geniuses of the past X thousand years. There is enough first-class literature available already to last anyone a dozen lifetimes.Horace in "The Art Of Poetry" makes this point. He's talking about all the amateur Roman poets turning out their little verses. And he says, the thing with poetry is, if it's not at the very top it sinks to the very bottom.There's simply no room in the world for "quite good" poetry. It's actually worse than useless because it only gets in the way of the really first-rate stuff.>I think it's because in order to write something valuable one must posses two opposite qualities:Hmm . . . .>you must be as intelligent as possible (because writing is not easy)All other things being equal, yes, the more intelligence the better. In pretty much any field of endeavour.>and, at the same time, as crazy as possible (for the writing to matter).Nonsense.
>>25331314>Nonsense.Why do you say so?
>>25331417Because sane minds are more effective than insane ones.It may indeed be true, as has often been suggested, that some sort of "psychic wound" is needed to produce art. People have said the artist is like an oyster with an irritating piece of grit in its shell, who makes a pearl to surround it and protect itself. The art is the pearl.But even if that is true — and I don't think it's always true — then given you need that little bit of emotional irritation, you then want the person to be as sane as possible. Not as crazy as possible.Truly crazy people don't produce the best art. They can achieve a sort of manic intensity. But they have crippling blind spots and obsessions and their work is always distorted.The "genius = crazy" thing is mostly just a myth propagated by places like Hollywood because it makes spectacular stories. If you look at some supposedly "crazy" artists you almost always find their lunacy has been exaggerated.You have to differentiate between truly unbalanced people (Marquis de Sade) and basically sane people at odds with their circumstances (Emily Bronte). Or, basically sane people who put so much effort into one area that they necessarily have to let other things slide a bit (Beethoven).
I stuck my dick in crazy once. A few times, actually.At the end of the day, would not recommend it. Just go fuck a normal bitch.
>>25330916i think you are right, anon
>>25331470But what kind of book could a boring normie even write? Some romantasy slop?
