[ 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: 92 KB, 450x538, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14362770 No.14362770 [Reply] [Original]

Is experience needed for great writing? Could Melville have written Moby Dick without experience as a whaler? Could Dickens have written about poverty without being in it? Could Dostoyevsky have written about suffering so much if he was a happy guy?

>> No.14362775

>>14362770
If you don't have experience you must become a great reader, think Borges.

>> No.14362795

>>14362775
I was thinking Milton for that. It seems that a sense of realism is lost on writers who have not experienced their story in some way though. That's why Milton was more suited for such a grand epic over a domestic story. Dialogue is also an issue, introverts can't write convincing dialogue because their experience is limited.

>> No.14362821

>>14362795
To be honest, I'm not a big fan of realism for realism's sake. A story has to offer way more for me. As for dialogue, I don't think it's necessarily an introvert/extrovert thing. McCarthy writes good dialogue and he's quite introverted. It has more to do with priorities and abilities.

>> No.14362829

>>14362770
Yes, absolutely. Just requires sufficient imagination and empathy. Melville wasn't a proficient whaler besides. If I remember correctly, he jumped ship shortly after signing on.

All that's really required is an ability to study other people.

>> No.14362830

>>14362821
I guess what makes Tolstoy and Melville etc. is his detail whereas the likes of Kafka, Borges and Milton have something else that makes them special. Still, I feel most writers need to go outside and observe some real people instead of jacking off until a muse comes down and shoves a story up their arse.

>> No.14362835

>>14362770
you just posted a dude who wrote about emperors and generals and shit while sitting in his study

>> No.14362839

>>14362830
Yea, the more experiences the better. On the other hand, I do like Melville and Tolstoy. They go beyond mere realism.

>> No.14362843

>>14362829
He was a cabin boy then a harpooner for about 5 years if I remember correctly. What I mean is I would have no clue how a ship works, nor how a harpoon works or where they keep the whale's oil etc. If I wrote Moby Dick, it'd suck.

>> No.14362851

>>14362835
Gibbon was just used so people didn't get distracted by tits or a specific author.

>> No.14362856

>>14362851
The point stands.

>> No.14362866

>>14362835
Fuck him for not having a time machine, right?

>> No.14362869

>>14362856
Gibbon wrote non-fiction about Rome. He didn't create anything, just study and write. Same with Kant, Locke, etc. A novelist is different to a historian or philosopher. One needs reason, the other needs creativity.

>> No.14362873

How about Thomas Pynchon? His major novels (GR, MD, ATD) are in settings he never experienced and only read and researched about. His novels inspired by his personal experiences (Vineland, IV) are generally considered lesser works.

>> No.14362878

>>14362866
How can you call yourself a Roman historian if you haven't personally fingered an Emperor?

>> No.14362884

>>14362821
I think realism is a vehicle, simple as. Sometimes it works for the feel you want to portray, sometimes something more exaggerated, or even fantastical can do the job better.


It’s just one of a number of avenues to communicate a vision.

>> No.14362888

>>14362873
That's a good point actually. I guess it's more about experiencing emotion so you can describe them well. You don't need to be a cucked Jew to write Ulysses but you do have to understand how a cucked Jew might feel, in Joyce's case.

>> No.14362894

>>14362843
When people think of Moby Dick, do they really think about the accuracy of where the harpoons were kept or how many barrels of oil could be boiled out of one whale? I think you're needlessly inflating the importance of some fairly mundane shit.

And regardless, it's impossible to talk to a whaler? Whaling ships and crews were common in Melville's time. Nothing Melville wrote would require a five year term as a glorified slave.

>> No.14362896

Joyce wrote about his own experiences, which for the most part were rather ordinary, but in such a creative way that it didn't matter.

>> No.14362898

>>14362888
He actually asked his wife to cuck him so he could better write about being a cuck. She refused.

>> No.14362901

>>14362898
Source?

>> No.14362904

>>14362894
>needlessly inflating the importance of some fairly mundane shit.
Is this a summary of Moby-Dick?

>> No.14362909

>>14362904
Rude.

>> No.14362927

>>14362894
After reading 100 pages on Cetology, I have a feeling Melville's interest in whales was beyond some autistic who bugged a sailor once. It's not the facts about whales and ships, it's the passion and realism they create. Who else would think of having Ishmael groping some whale fat with some Polynesians for a full chapter?

>> No.14362952
File: 751 KB, 3021x1179, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14362952

>>14362901
Ellman, 445

>> No.14364174

>Do writers need experience?

Yes, maybe.

>> No.14364197

>>14362775
Pretty much this, you’re either a well read hermit like Pessoa and Kafka, or you had an adventurous life like hemingway and Dostoyevsky.

>> No.14364210

What is the cheapest and most readily available call to adventure for someone in their 20s? I’m not looking to join the military.

>> No.14364218

>>14362952
when i hear about poor girls whose husbands try to get them to do such disgusting things i feel genuinely sad for them which is weird because the rest of the time i absolutely fucking hate women and wouldn't piss on one if she was fire to put it out

>> No.14364399

Shakespeare? Led a pretty boring life.

>> No.14364499

>>14364399
He was also very well read and the earl of oxford.

>> No.14364513

>>14364218
She jerked him off on their first date.

>> No.14364530

There's no choice or question of having or not having experience. Everyone has some form of experience, and there's no writer whose writing exists in a vacuum, totally unrelated to his experience. Even a fantasy or science fiction writer still draws on aspects from the real world or his own life. The obvious answer to OP's questions is no, except for the first one, which is malformed.

>> No.14364623

>>14364530
I think op meant to use the term “worldly” or something similar.

>> No.14364872

>>14364623
I think if we take experience to mean that then the answer would be no, because great literary writing (ie a good style) is fundamentally imaginative. But great writing in general? And is great literature reducible to great writing? I don't know

>> No.14364911
File: 18 KB, 558x614, 664.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14364911

>>14362894
>When people think of Moby Dick, do they really think about the accuracy of where the harpoons were kept or how many barrels of oil could be boiled out of one whale?
>Literally the thing that makes Moby Dick a classic
>hurr hurr who givs a shit jus read abridged verson

>> No.14365298

To write is to spread memes. Without memes, there is no writhting.

>> No.14365434

Or intelligent and neurotic.
It will have you feel all and every existing emotion and passion by age 19. Through this holistic neuroticism a masters degree in psychology is laid before your feet.