/lit/ - Literature

>>14262395
Humans beget other human though, as well as cultural and technological works that remain long after they are gone.

>>14247599
Sounds pessimistic, I'm not sure how it doesn't follow from determinism that a potential carrot and a potential stick is the best way to proceed forward to varying degrees depending on the person it is being applied to. It's clear that capitalism thrives off exactly this sort of mixture, as do all stable societies.

>>14235373
I like
>began
For when someone is cut off.

>>14226794
Nah, sorry but that wasn't the vibe I got at all. Was more of a Mitchell Heisman tinted exchange.

As for me, I've been running RPGs again recently in addition to just generally focusing on my writing career. Still comfortably gaining traction thankfully.

>>14158761

While I've got you on the line I want to talk about another issue I've been having regarding creativity. I feel like my filter for qualitative judgments on good and bad things has skewed in an eerily permissive direction as of late.

I've taken a utilitarian/digestive attitude towards literature I think is vaguely reminiscent of my early days binging School of Life vids on youtube instead of having an actual university 101 career.

To get specific as to how this has affected my media diet is that I perceive media as literal consumables. I derive sustenance that I then digest back out through my arts and crafts. The only things worth consuming are things that nourish in this view, but all things have the capacity to nourish.

I've yet to really codify this perspective, and it feels materialistic and rings a touch hollow, but we're living in a material world and I'm a material bug.

What is your take on this?

>>14158820
Hard work pays the bills. That certainly seems to be true, even though there is a little luck at play it's like buying a ticket every day versus once or never.

A lot of people buy a few tickets here and there, few people buy them consistently.

Though the odds of being a writer these days are much higher than winning the lottery, especially if you factor in screenplays for film, tv, or even vidya.

>>14150910
Fine, I'll respond in more detail.

>Spellcheck is for illiterates.
Hyperbole.
>Anyone capable of writing anything worthwhile is capable of spelling
This is the point I contested at first by pointing out that strict spelling rules are a recent development. Why is knowing the symbol so important when the meaning can still be transmitted from producer to consumer?
>and of creating neologisms frowned upon by linguistic stultifiers like Grammerly and Microsoft Word.
Only in a recommendation sense, and adding custom words to personalized language libraries allows these to occur, and in more advanced systems themselves be spell checked procedurally as per the writer's will.

>>14079395
This but unironically. It's aesthetically superior.