/lit/ - Literature

>>18637942
>>18637947
Case in point

>>18637858
>>18636233
>>18636121
>>18636112
>>18636093
>>18635350
>>18634901
>>18634668
>>18634665
>>18634586
>>18634583
>>18634571

Colossal polarisation from one tidbit of writing. Every piece of technically sound writing will have this effect. You have people who genuinely hate Joyce and Proust and think they're shit, but love writers like Palahniuk and Bukowski. Other writers hate Palahniuk and Bukowski and think literary stuff is better. There are even some people (see: Tolstoy) who thought Shakespeare was objectively shit. Case in point, you do you and if you do it well enough you'll have fans and you'll have detractors. Like in that drumming movie Whiplash, the guys who make it are the ones who will literally never stop honing their craft even to the point of death and constant failure/rejection.

(fwiw I though anon's story was great writing and even I feel a bit salty and my first instinct is to trash it. It hurts and upsets me to see other people producing better writing that I can right now. But I think the wealthy, wholesome thing is to resist that feeling and instead identify what I admire and how to do that in my own work).

Don't know whether /sci/ or /fit would be a better place to ask but I'm asking here:
What can I do to improve my cognition? To get better at induction and deduction. I make sure to exercise regularly so I will get dumber at a slower rate, but is there more I can do? I'm less than 25 so I want to capitalize on all opportunity I've got to do this while still possible.

It's called mother nature for a reason
The masculine is destructive and the feminine is healing, two halves of an endless cycle, inseparable
Even ancient people understood this basic concept

My addictions are leaving. No more alcohol and drug binges, no more regrettable sex, no more pornography or masturbation. No new shameful memories to haunt me. I'm coming back to normalcy. Why did I abandon it to begin with?

here's a critical redpill for aspiring /lit/ writers: most great writers aren't that smart. just english language wise, guys like shakespeare, hemingway, faulkner, fitzgerald, sterne, and so on weren't that smart. they were above average, but they weren't geniuses by any means. being a genius is an obstacle to writing something great. obviously, some great authors were general geniuses (goethe comes to mind) but it's better if you're just smart enough to understand the world.
i am currently huffing paint in hopes that i will become less intelligent and hit the sweet spot for writers (in iq terms (which are inadequate for expressing intelligence, though perhaps i'll change my stance after retarding myself) somewhere around 110-130). remember: you don't want to understand the world, you want to understand humanity.

post exhortations to truth and beauty /lit/

>>18024651
Infinite Jest

favorite books about animals' true capacity for thought?