/lit/ - Literature

>>14143303
stupid anime nigger, every heard of kafka or slyvia plath?

>>14143304
Yes, because they were vain enough to put pen to paper

actually to be a good writer, you need to cater who love entertainment, which means women, so the topic which sells good is people who have sex and get bored. Since bourgeois have lots of spare time to kill and lots of sex and actually know how to write, they talk about sex and boredom the most and sluts love them for this.

>>14143312
>t. 19 year old """""commie""""" in his first year of university who thinks "raising awareness" is helping the revolution

>>14143311
reddit is elsewhere

>>14143303
>the vain man writes a statement characterizing all other writers as vain and idiotic in order to feed his own massive ego
It's a satirical masterpiece, bravo anon

>>14143648
4chan is Reddit now.

In the past 3 years traffic has grown 500%. Larping teenagers outnumber oldfags 10 to 1. This site has been dead for a long time.

>>14143653
Thank you

You are describing a bad writer. A successful writer, or any other artist, needs to show a remarkable understanding of what's good.
And you just can't do that in a vacuum. It is therefore very easy to spot those who will become successful out of a group of students in a writing/art/etc. class. They seek critique, they want to know what others think of their work, and they improve. It's not about blindly following people's tastes, it's about maturing your own - nobody is born a genius, people grow over time. Any personal flaws will also show up in your work, consciously or not.

>>14143685
>They seek critique, they want to know what others think of their work, and they improve
None of the writers I like ever asked for critique in their lives. They had a vision and they didn't want anyone to interfere with it.

Writers who ask for critique's all the time are failures.

this is the kind of stuff a person thinks who never even attempts to be creative. they think ‘A Person Is Either Born To Do It, Or Not’

but to be good at anything just means you do it so much, it becomes like drinking water. Maybe the water has sand in it from time to time, but it’s never a fucking protein shake

>>14143793
>but to be good at anything just means you do it so much, it becomes like drinking water.

>>14143788
heh, sure thing buddy

>>14143796
Chris chan is literally retarded though

>>14143801
You're a failure, you don't have any right to write anything if you need to have your hand held all the way through

>>14143793
People are predisposed to being better at certain things.

If you're a bad singer, you'll never be a great one, no matter how hard you try. Same goes for everything else in life.

>>14143303
Bait, but I do think about this sometimes.
My highest aspiration is to write a mediocre webcomic, or perhaps just web fiction. I'm morally opposed to taking money for doing so, but it dawns on me that I'm still taking people's time from them. The chain of my reasoning is too boring to get into, but essentially: Every moment spent reading any of my mediocre work is a moment somebody isn't dedicating to a more valuable activity. Any action I take to boost 'engagement' with my work is an arguably malicious one.

>>14143821
Things you disagree with are not bait you fucking child

>>14143788
I think I'll rather listen to the advice of Horace who influenced 80% of canonical writers and who praised honest critics, rather than some rando on 4chan who probably didn't even publish a book (sure as fuck not at a respectable publisher).

>>14143796
Without criticism and knowledge of theory, but by sticking blindly only to your most autistic ideas, this is what you end up with.
The guy who draws these is metaphorically speaking a spaz who almost chokes whenever he drinks water.

>>14143796
>>14143813
lol, fair points, but what about an outsider artist like Henry Darger? if you are an autist trying to sound like Mariah Carey, you are gonna suck

>>14143836
Didn't say i disagreed, you fucking child.

>>14143303
>To be a writer you have to be vain.
>You have to be in love with the sound of your own voice,
I don't think narcism and vanity entail eachother, even if we suppose a writer needs to be one or the other.

>you have to believe with all your heart that you're incredibly interesting and what you have to say is of critical value.
Would you rather writers were people who think everything they say is stupid and pointless, and then publish anyways? What are you getting at?

>A truly wise man wouldn't care to spread a message
Then duct tape your mouth shut and watch how even the most basic components of your life collapse. Even monks wave hello to eachother.

>Every man who ever put his name to a manuscript was a man so full of self importance the only people who could stand to listen to him for more than 10 minutes were the strangers who bought his books.
No? Do you think everyone who's published a manuscript was unlistened to for their entire life up until writing? Beyond that I don't even see how this is a burn. Suppose we're talking about an author most people here don't even like, like Rowling. "Haha the only people who listen to you are the millions of people who read through five or so books of your writing." Great burn, anon.

>>14143303
No poet or orator has ever existed who believed there was any better than himself. - Cicero