/lit/ - Literature

>>8141320
I know, I'm just wondering why JG thinks it's misogynistic.

>>8071924
Anonymous collectives are useful because you can embarrass yourself an infinite number of times, and it won't matter.

You guys are practice for real life communication with unreasonable assholes.

How is this place not useful, again?

>>8063578
You clearly didn't read my post. Nowhere did I say that I respected or admired academics. I asked the gentleman (perhaps you, perhaps another anon) to *specify* his claims. I found them melodramatic and angry, and thought perhaps that getting him to deconstruct his own ideas was a decent place to go with the discussion. Because even if he's correct, it might be for the wrong reasons.

The world is full of people who are wrong for the right reasons and right for the wrong reasons, as I'm sure you already know.

I also implied that reading is less of a waste of time if one does it while multitasking.

>>8059364
>In both writing and drawing, you don't 'learn' the skill, you develop it. No matter how many books you read on how to draw/write, you'll always be shit unless you put effort and time to improve.
>When people tell you to practice or that to make one good thing you need to make a thousand bad things first they don't mean you to draw/write with one hand while looking away and yawning, they mean you to try your best a thousand times and persist despite it being shit.
>If you give up the moment you find you're not good at something you'll never be good at anything.
This guy has it right.
I've scrapped 60,000 words before. Growing hurts.

I've had to go through learning to balance painstakingly-detailed realism with commercially viable pace, I've had to learn how to world build not on the basis of what I think is interesting alone, but on the basis of what the audience is likely to find interesting, as well. I've had to learn how to juggle high-brow ambition with low-brow carefree ease.

I've had to learn how to have style at the right time, and in the right place, and to not confuse/overwhelm readers with self-indulgent "innovations" that take them out of the text.

>>8050414
das fuk up meng