[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 224 KB, 537x800, 123933451687.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
984901 No.984901 [Reply] [Original]

So /lit/, how disheartened were you when you found out that what determines whether a writer is 'good' or not is not something so ludicrous as "talent" rather than simply a combination of cultural, historical and sociological factors, all of which beyond the "writer"'s control?

>> No.984909

was not surprised in the least. that's why my priorities are:
1 using opiates
2 being a famous writer

>> No.984916

I have not found this out because it is not true

:3

>> No.984919

Cool sentence, bro.

You will never be a good writer. Not because of cultural, historical, or sociological factors, but because this sentence is a travesty of the English language.

>> No.984922

This shit applies to all art forms. I learned this when I was ten.

Herp everyday knowledge derp

>> No.984923

>>984916
>Not true
No shit dickwad there is no truth only interpretation

>> No.984928

>>984922
>I learned this when I was ten.
Nah bro you were still a kid then so no.

>> No.984933

>>984923
Not when facts are brought into the picture. Then you can place values on certain interpretations, and it becomes so that some are superior to others. ie: He's right, you're wrong.

>>984928
Okay, so all the other shit I learned as a kid (ie: breathing) doesn't count then. Alright.

>> No.984941

>>984933
breathing isn't a learned behavior

>> No.984944

>>984941
'Kay, walking. Because I learned to walk when I was a kid, I don't know how to walk. That is basically what you're saying.

>> No.984950
File: 44 KB, 446x400, girls-getty_1376498i.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
984950

>he thinks that cultural, historical and sociological factors matter when every generation of most countries has produced some good writing and some of the best writing was generated in poverty

>> No.984951

>>984919
>hey guys no famous writer ever subverted the rules of language which in case you didn't know happen to be arbitrary and ultimately a matter of convention

>>984933
there are no facts there is only interpretation, also a correspondence theory of truth typically presupposes a metaphysics which is unprovable and thus the entire theory is built on unprovable ground
lol

>> No.984955

>>984950
I don't think you're entirely grasping this

>> No.984962

>>984950
>poverty
>implying that doesn't just slot into one of my categories

>good writing
>assuming what he has yet to prove
also, fuck off pissant marxist

>> No.984964

Why don't you ever participate in our philosophy and pomo threads, DeepandEdgy?

>> No.984966

>>984951
Good interpretations of anything rely upon supporting statements. The other anons supporting statement is that he is a successful writer (or he at least implied to be). He now has one supporting argument for his interpretation. You have zero. Therefore his interpretation > yours.

>> No.984975

i learned this when i was 6. i was also the spelling bee champion of Mrs. Bigglesworth's class and the first kid to tell everyone Santa was just your parents cause guess what dumbass it's your mom's handwriting on the cookie thank you note.

>> No.984976

>>984964
of what we cannot speak we must pass over in silence

>>984966
Good interpretations of anything rely upon supporting statements
>assuming what you have yet to prove.
I'd like you to tell me how one interpretation is better than another without invoking subjective values. You'll get a point if you mention hermeneutics somewhere in your predictably wrong answer.

>> No.984981
File: 99 KB, 425x282, istock_000002762586xsmall-diverse-group-of-women-laughing.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
984981

>>984962

>"writer"'s

>> No.984995

>>984976
Well, if you go around disagreeing with everything most people agree on such as Facts (ie: ducks quack, sun shines, water is wet etc) you will be judged clinically insane and thrown in an asylum where I won't have to give a shit.

I understand you're not really arguing much of a point and are simply a troll. Therefore I will take my leave.

If you wish to interpret this as me losing the argument and running like a bitch then you are entitled to do so.

>> No.985011

>>984995
uh whatever bro that is the sort of archetypal response I get from people with whom there is absolutely no intellectual value for me in arguing with, trolling or not, so okay

>> No.985033
File: 95 KB, 630x400, women_laughing.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
985033

>>985011

>archetypal, factor, sociological, buzz-words

>> No.985044

>>985033

>post is the ur-manifestation of ignorance

>> No.985047

somebody's butthurt

>> No.985060

do you believe that some people have a knack for observing the world

>> No.985072
File: 12 KB, 200x285, melon.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
985072

How do you define talent?

Also, I feel you're just pissed because you think your writing is the bee's knees and everyone else thinks it sucks.

>> No.985079

Seriously guys, he's a troll. His own trip is in jest.

>> No.985087
File: 119 KB, 500x404, 3907636225_0dff4cce5d.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
985087

>>985044

>What?

>> No.985103

>How do you define talent?
Sure is the proper way to start an argument. I'm inclined to think that the way to define something as elusive as talent calls for a resort to family resemblance.


>Also, I feel
Well shit bro if that's how you feel

>> No.985105

>>984901

I actually believe this is a by-product of academia's desperate attempt to infuse literature with something resembling objective value. "Talent" as the sole criterion for worth is so subjective it makes formal literary studies a COMPLETE waste of time.

By insinuating cultural, historical and sociological factors play into a text, scholars are able to justify and institute their wily opinions.