Fellow Writers

File: 103 KB, 490x379, journal_old.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Fellow Writers Anonymous Sun Mar 6 16:36:34 2011 No.1607672 [Reply] [Original]

Any writers on this board? Personally I just want some helpful tips on how to remain consistent. There's days where I feel like I don't want to write at all, but it bugs me at the back of my mind that I SHOULD be working on that novel instead of loafting around. The most successful writers are the ones who write 10,000 words a day or at least write daily at a consistent rate. I need help with overcoming my laziness on it.

Also ITT: general writing tips on how to create proper literature

>>	Rangaha !KJKZ7n2h3I Sun Mar 6 16:40:34 2011 No.1607687 Realistically, you should only write when you want to. If you write because "you need to finish it" or whatever, then it will be completely devoid of emotion and vigor. And generally shitty.

Anonymous Sun Mar 6 16:47:34 2011 No.1607705

>>1607687
but isn't consistency key to writing good in the first place? Doing it when you don't have to, at least you get something down and activate that cortex in your brain. You can always go back and rewrite since 90% of writing IS re-writing. Consider that OP

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 6 17:04:34 2011 No.1607737 >>1607687 Not really. The trick is to motivate yourself to write.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 6 17:07:34 2011 No.1607746 >>1607737 OP here and that's what I'm wondering. HOW? Some days it just comes naturally, then others I know I should continue, but I feel like it'd be tedious.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 6 17:09:34 2011 No.1607753 Just motivate yourself, thats really all you have to do.

>>	Sun Mar 6 17:11:34 2011 No.1607757 >>1607687 no you do not understand also what's up with these new tripfags i mean that's the lowest status you can have being new and a tripfag

Anonymous Sun Mar 6 17:17:34 2011 No.1607777

>The most successful writers are the ones who write 10,000 words a day

What's your source for that? Cause it sounds a bit unrealistic to aim for 10,000 words a day, specially if you're struggling with consistency.

I mean, do you really need to write a couple of novels per month?

Anonymous Sun Mar 6 17:23:34 2011 No.1607803

There's no such thing as laziness in writing. If not writing is down to laziness, you shouldn't be a writer.

Writers' Block is a general mental condition!

I go for weeks sometimes without even writing a line of poetry, then sometimes I could write 5 poems in an afternoon.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 6 17:26:34 2011 No.1607814 No clue OP, I'm a poetryfag. I write 5-6 poems a week and don't give a fuck.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 6 17:26:34 2011 No.1607815 >>1607672 read some good literature read something that makes you want to write something good, kind of obvious but meh

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 6 17:33:34 2011 No.1607843 The best advice really is: read, read, read, read. The 10,000 words a day thing is complete and utter bullshit. So don't feel too much pressure.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 6 17:44:34 2011 No.1607884 >The most successful writers are the ones who write 10,000 words a day or at least write daily at a consistent rate. You got any proof, or are you just pulling that out of your ass?

Anonymous Sun Mar 6 17:44:34 2011 No.1607885

>>1607777
I feel like I am on contract. My teacher has reassured me that I'm on the right track in getting published if I just keep doing what I'm doing, but I just feel like it's too much work sometimes. Even though I am highly conscious of the fact that it should be a fun endeavor. As for the 10, 000 words, I have no source, I kind of just twisted my perception a little bit. It's what Stephen King does even when he doesn't feel like it. Some of its crap some of its not, he just does it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 6 17:46:34 2011 No.1607897 How about you read and gain life experience? You know, actually gain some interesting perspectives that people will want to read?

Anonymous Sun Mar 6 17:54:34 2011 No.1607918

>>1607897
I do have a journal that my brother tells me should be a blog. Just don't know if my personal life is really all that exciting. I usually write (just like any other author), drastic dramatizations and symbolizations of my life to make it interesting.

Anonymous Sun Mar 6 18:00:34 2011 No.1607943

Just force yourself to write a minimum of 500-1000 words per day at regular hours, even if it feels like pulling teeth.

There would be days you write much more, but that minimum would be much more important in the long run than the exceptionally productive day now and then.

Also, stop everyday at half-paragraph so you can start working directly from there the next day instead of losing time looking at the screen.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 7 11:01:34 2011 No.1610044 >>1607943 oooh that's such a good idea thanks. Setting a minimum as well as stopping mid-paragraph, I will do just that! Lol what if I forget what the rest of the paragraph is supposed to say?

Anonymous Mon Mar 7 11:18:34 2011 No.1610056

OP if you are already a loafer your chances of producing good writing on a regular basis are getting slimmer by the day. Even if 99% of what you write is shit, you should still try to get in at least a good ten minutes of writing a day. You'll improve a lot.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 7 11:21:34 2011 No.1610060 >>1607746 >I feel like it'd be tedious. With that attitude you should probably give up now.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 7 11:22:34 2011 No.1610061 >>1607885 >>It's what Stephen King does even when he doesn't feel like it. He's a commercial writer. Not everyone has to be a milk-cow - look how few books Flaubert published, and compare his reputation to King's.

Anonymous Mon Mar 7 11:40:34 2011 No.1610069

I haven't tried this out completely yet, but how does it sound?
It's meant both for short stories and individual chapters.

I. Interrogate yourself on paper about what you want to write.
II. Make a vague synopsis and blueprint of the story.
III. Elaborate the synopsis - e.g. "He verbs" becomes a paragraph describing his action.
IV. Transition from long synopsis to first draft - lengthen and connect the paragraphs, add intermediary paragraphs and background details.
V. = First Draft. Set it aside and rewrite it a few days later.

Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Mar 7 11:43:34 2011 No.1610070
File: 30 KB, 468x487, superman.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>general writing tips on how to create proper literature
Well if you're talking about PROPER literature you're going to need to go to university and study literature for several years and have an understanding of theories of literature, what motivates such theories, some grounding in Philosophy, a strong vocabulary of literary devices and themes, and a natural talent for writing. If you do not have these things then I'm afraid you will never write something truly substantial.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 7 11:57:34 2011 No.1610082 >>1610070 lolno

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 7 11:59:34 2011 No.1610086 >>1610070 You best be trolling, son.

Anonymous Mon Mar 7 12:03:34 2011 No.1610094
File: 48 KB, 726x578, Merlinpeeking.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1610070
shakespeare laughs from his immortal position.

but you do have a point- there is great value in a literary education. They often force you to read the best and what you read heavily influences how you write.

Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Mar 7 12:08:34 2011 No.1610099

>>1610082
>>1610086

You will find that everything I have stated is, in the main, most conducive method to the production of great literature. Please put aside your pathetic notions of imposed equality, inadequacy complexes, "underdog" heroicising, one hundred monkeys working away at typewriters, etc

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 7 12:12:34 2011 No.1610103 >>1610070 >you're going to need to go to university and study literature for several years Yeah, just like Hemingway and Fizgerald and Ben Jonson and Chris Marlowe and William Shakespeare and Herman Melville and Vladimir Nabokov did. Oh, wait.

Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Mar 7 12:15:34 2011 No.1610107

>>1610103
>Yeah, just like Hemingway and Fizgerald and Ben Jonson and Chris Marlowe and William Shakespeare and Herman Melville and Vladimir Nabokov did.
These people lived in different social, academic and economic conditions which determined the quality of their writing. Those conditions are not ours, nor are they fixed stable principles that hold throughout history. Thus, my prescription holds for our current social, academic and economic conditions, which are different to theirs.

Anonymous Mon Mar 7 12:15:34 2011 No.1610108

If you want to write, just write. Sit at your keyboard or your typewriter or whatever you write with, every day, for the same amount of time, and write.

Talent is good, ideas are necessary, but diligence is essential. What separates a writer from someone who's thinking about writing is the amount of writing they produce.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 7 12:17:34 2011 No.1610111 >>1610099 >Please put aside your pathetic notions of imposed equality, inadequacy complexes, "underdog" heroicising, one hundred monkeys working away at typewriters, etc nice occupatio, bro.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 7 12:17:34 2011 No.1610112 >>1610107 I honestly can't think of one decent novelist who studied literature. Can you? No troll - serious question. There are a few poets I can think of, but no prose writers.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 7 12:19:34 2011 No.1610113 >>1610099 Inborn talent is more important than schooling. Enjoy analysing feminist sci-fi.

Anonymous Mon Mar 7 12:20:34 2011 No.1610114

>>1610107
all the things you listed are things observed by the author, not innate to the author. I think it still holds that a literary genius not educated in the university could still observe and comment on those conditions as they are presently in a way that proves them to be a literary genius. However, a formal education is still recommended for the development of their skills.

Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Mar 7 12:26:34 2011 No.1610124

>>1610114
>all the things you listed are things observed by the author, not innate to the author
I didn't say any of these things are innate to the author; even natural talent is not innate to the author, it is simply a very specific biological, socio-cultural historical and economic configuration.

>I think it still holds that a literary genius not educated in the university could still observe and comment on those conditions as they are presently in a way that proves them to be a literary genius
I never disputed that there are exceptions, hence my use of "in the main", I simply asserted that these are the most conducive conditions for the production of great literature.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 7 12:27:34 2011 No.1610126 >>1610112 Every decent writer studies literature, through reflecting on their own writing and through their own voracious appetite for reading on their own. I think I know what you meant, but im not sure. rephrase your statement.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 7 12:28:34 2011 No.1610127 >>1610107 It wasn't necessary to get a degree in literature to write well a few decades ago, but it is now because of... what? More plastic? Transitioning from vinyl to CD? You're bullshitting.

Anonymous Mon Mar 7 12:29:34 2011 No.1610128

>>1610099
You don't have to explicitly know the rules to play the game. Further: indifference - contempt! - to the rules is required to produce something knew, therefore worthwhile. Unpleasant as it may be to you, you're still a slave; you just serve loftier masters.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 7 12:30:34 2011 No.1610131 >>1610128 *new fuck. me.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 7 12:30:34 2011 No.1610133 I agree with D&E. It would be the best enviroment for a great writer to flourish. If Hemingway, Nabokov and all the other authors listed HAD done what D&E said, their works would likely be substantially better.

Anonymous Mon Mar 7 12:31:34 2011 No.1610134

>>1607672
>biological, socio-cultural historical and economic configuration.

I will concede biology, but the artistic merit of a text, that is, the masterful craftsmanship of it, has little to do with socio-historical or economic conditions. A shitty writer may be in a very intriguing socio-economic position, but is still at a loss to put on the page in a way that we would call "artistic" or even "good"

Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Mar 7 12:32:34 2011 No.1610135

>>1610127
>but it is now because of... what?
The profusion of sign values and the predominance of consumer society

>>1610128
>You don't have to explicitly know the rules to play the game.
Nor did I ever say you did.

>indifference - contempt! - to the rules is required to produce something knew, therefore worthwhile
I haven't said anything about rules

>Unpleasant as it may be to you, you're still a slave; you just serve loftier masters.
Is this supposed to mean anything

Orz !!HZgLax1Xs6q Mon Mar 7 12:34:34 2011 No.1610136

Stephen King recommended that people try to write 1,000 words a day. There are some people who can do more, but it's debatable whether it's an improvement (take King himself for example).

It is easier to write when you feel like it, and giving yourself the freedom to never finish something can be very motivating. But I find that writing daily helps me get over the inertia of inactivity, and sometimes gets me in the mood to write when I wasn't before. If I have complete writer's block, I'll just write in my diary.

Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Mar 7 12:36:34 2011 No.1610139

>>1610134
>the artistic merit of a text, that is, the masterful craftsmanship of it, has little to do with socio-historical or economic conditions
I'd like you to point out to me a text that has artistic merit outside of its social-historical-economic context (bearing in mind each of these is inseparably inter-related), I expect you will have a difficult if not impossible time conceiving of one, and this will demonstrate how crucial these factors are to the determination of any individual's artistic merit

Anonymous Mon Mar 7 12:38:34 2011 No.1610141

>>You don't have to explicitly know the rules to play the game.
>Nor did I ever say you did.
>have an understanding of theories of literature, what motivates such theories, some grounding in Philosophy, a strong vocabulary of literary devices and themes
I am confuse.

>>Unpleasant as it may be to you, you're still a slave; you just serve loftier masters.
>Is this supposed to mean anything
Yes.

>>	Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Mar 7 12:39:34 2011 No.1610144 >>1610141 >I am confuse. Let me clarify for you; I have said absolutely nothing about rules, but you are free to greentext some more >Yes. Okay, maybe it means something you mean. It means less than nothing to me, sorry.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 7 12:40:34 2011 No.1610146 >>1610134 >>1610094 >>1610114 I enjoyed debating with you D&E, but I am an overloaded English Lit major (lol), so I must be off to class now.

>>	Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Mar 7 12:42:34 2011 No.1610147 File: 1.13 MB, 150x81, hooverdoingcoke.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1610146 cheers

Anonymous Mon Mar 7 12:44:34 2011 No.1610149

>>1610139
ok before I go-
most of Robert Frost's Poems
Lord Byron (specifically Manfred)
Charles Bukowski
Neuromancer by William Gibson
Wordsworth (though I hate him)
Steppenwolfe, The Glass Bead Game, Demian (Hesse)
Alan Moore's Swamp Thing
WE3 by Grant Morrison

ok, in one minute i did what u told me to do with poetry examples, novel examples, and even comic book examples.

Anonymous Mon Mar 7 12:47:34 2011 No.1610157

>>1610124
You could do with a read of "Politics and the English Language."

>>even natural talent is not innate to the author, it is simply a very specific biological, socio-cultural historical and economic configuration.
You've learned how to glue together some fancy phrases and you think you're clever.
Natural means "pertaining to the state of born things," innate means "inborn/coming with birth," and biological configuration means "state of a born thing."
In short, you're saying we're not born with the talent that we're born with, because it is part of the state we're born with.
In short, derp derp derp herpa derp. You're fooling no-one.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 7 12:47:34 2011 No.1610158 >>1610112 Tolkien did. (Not the poster to whom you're replying)

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 7 12:51:34 2011 No.1610167 >>1610144 Maybe we have different acceptions for rules. What I mean is that having an understanding - a theory, if you allow me that much - of what it is you are doing does not help you doing it. Can we agree on this?

Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Mar 7 12:59:34 2011 No.1610179

>>1610149
>point out to me a text that has artistic merit outside of its social-historical-economic context
But none of these works have artistic merit outside of their social-historical-economic context. Even the fact that you are presenting these to me as such constitutes a social-historical-economic context.

>>1610157
>In short, you're saying we're not born with the talent that we're born with, because it is part of the state we're born with.
No, I'm saying that what we consider inherent is actually the product of specific social-economic-historical configuration. Are social-economic-historical configurations inherent in an individual? Depends on what you want to use the term 'inherent' to suggest; so some would say that's a tautology and thus yes they are, others wouldn't because their conception of 'inherent' differs.

I have read 'Politics and the English Language', great read.

Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Mar 7 13:13:34 2011 No.1610202

>>1610167
>hat I mean is that having an understanding - a theory, if you allow me that much - of what it is you are doing does not help you doing it. Can we agree on this?
A theory is not an understanding, firstly. Secondly, we cannot agree. Having an understanding" of some activities one does, does not help them perform them; a paraplegic who has read twenty weightlifting books will never, as a result, lift leg weights better, because he cannot lift leg weights in the first place. If he could, however, if other conditions prevailed in other words, he would be capable of performing the activity "better" (in other words, capable of fulfilling a relative end much more sufficiently). And thus it is with my argument, I am citing the conditions under which an understanding of one's activity, within its specific cultural-historical-social-economic text, lends itself, in the main, to the production of great works of literature.

>>	Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Mar 7 13:14:34 2011 No.1610204 >>1610202 >*Having an understanding" of some activities one does not

>>	Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Mar 7 13:15:34 2011 No.1610205 File: 184 KB, 640x554, d2113az.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1610204 actually scratch that correction, what I said was perfectly fine albeit a little clumsy

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 7 13:21:34 2011 No.1610210 >>1610205 Stupid faggot.

Anonymous Mon Mar 7 13:22:34 2011 No.1610213

>>1610179
>>No, I'm saying that what we consider inherent is actually the product of specific social-economic-historical configuration.
Time, place, etc. are indeed important, but only as a stimulus. A writer may have a different style if he undergoes different experiences in life, but all that's based on the reaction of his inborn nature and innate talent to his environment. An education in literature can no more teach good writing than an education in music can teach catchy melodies. They can explain the technical stuff, but that's just fluff the fanboys write to make themselves feel on par with the author/composer. You're shunting the biological element to the side, probably because you're a little too proud of your education, and want to make what you excel at the criterion of all worth. Alternatively, because you're a leftist, but that's not so likely if you're an Arno Breker fan.

Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Mar 7 13:29:34 2011 No.1610237

>>1610213
>that's based on the reaction of his inborn nature and innate talent to his environment
There is absolutely no difference between "his inborn nature" and "innate talent" and environment. Environment is constitutive of the author, which simply reflects environment as a socially determined object, and every single other one of these things you have mentioned, even if it is misleading to say of these things that they are somehow "other things" to begin with.

>An education in literature can no more teach good writing than an education in music can teach catchy melodies
I didn't say an education in literature can teach "good writing". Please read my argument.

>They can explain the technical stuff, but that's just fluff the fanboys write to make themselves feel on par with the author/composer. You're shunting the biological element to the side, probably because you're a little too proud of your education, and want to make what you excel at the criterion of all worth. Alternatively, because you're a leftist, but that's not so likely if you're an Arno Breker fan.
Nothing to do with anything I've asserted. Again, please take the time to read my argument.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 7 13:41:34 2011 No.1610271 >>1610202 What makes a work of literature great?

>>	Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Mar 7 13:44:34 2011 No.1610278 >>1610271 cultural-historical-social-economic conditions

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 7 13:47:34 2011 No.1610283 File: 36 KB, 250x271, ouroboros.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1610278

>>	Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Mar 7 13:49:34 2011 No.1610287 >>1610283 It's not fallaciously circular.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 7 13:53:34 2011 No.1610292 >>1610278 >>1610287 It's idiotically vague

Anonymous Mon Mar 7 13:54:34 2011 No.1610294

>>1610237
>>...
I'm trying to reduce this paper-blackening academese to English - does it mean something like "individuality is an illusion"? I'm not going to bother engaging with that, since it short-circuits all arguments. And if you believe it - not that it's implausible - why do your actions say otherwise? Arguing with a constituent part of yourself doesn't make much sense.

>>my argument
You stuck "and a natural talent for writing" at the end of the list like an afterthought, then said that
>>If you do not have these things then I'm afraid you will never write something truly substantial.
Which pretty clearly says "Good Writing = University Education in Literature + Talent," which has rarely been the case historically. Unless the classics are just substantial, and not "truly" so.

>>...
If my interpretation of your buzzwords is correct, then the biological element is irrelevant for you because you're afloat in a sea of abstraction, and comfortable being a constituent of your environment, maybe so it can't criticise you.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 7 14:05:34 2011 No.1610311 >>1610294 The holding the world at arms length behaviour is interesting among those who fall so deeply in love with such things as deconstruction.

Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Mar 7 14:14:34 2011 No.1610330

>>1610294
>I'm trying to reduce this paper-blackening academese to English
I've actually purposefully avoided useful vocabulary such as interpellation, dialectics, and ideology that would be very elucidating to anyone educated in such a vocabulary, (really the only people qualified to talk about it), and instead have presented such concepts in their simplest, and thus potentially misleading, forms, in an effort to appeal to and give the opportunity to as many people as possible for voicing their arguments and opinions, in the hopes of producing informative discourse.

>'m not going to bother engaging with that, since it short-circuits all arguments
It's lead to roughly 40 years of productive discourse actually.

>why do your actions say otherwise?
They don't
> Arguing with a constituent part of yourself doesn't make much sense.
Maybe to you, I am perfectly happy with the way the system expresses itself.

>Which pretty clearly says "Good Writing = University Education in Literature + Talent," which has rarely been the case historically. Unless the classics are just substantial, and not "truly" so.
You haven't read my argument. I am saying absolutely nothing about immutable formulations for "good writing".

Anonymous Mon Mar 7 14:28:34 2011 No.1610353

>>1610330
>>Maybe to you, I am perfectly happy with the way the system expresses itself.
As suspected. You sate your ego by winning arguments with that theory, and save your ego by ignoring lost arguments with that theory. It's an effective masturbatory system.

>>I am saying absolutely nothing about immutable formulations for "good writing".
It's true that at this exact moment you aren't, but you were back there. Philosophers like yourself ought to be more careful - keep firmly behind your theory-shield.

Anonymous Mon Mar 7 14:30:34 2011 No.1610355

>>1610330
>jargon = qualification
Do ho ho. I'm sure the people at PC World or similar are computer geniuses with the amount they use.

inb4 that's not what you're saying:
>elucidating to anyone educated in such a vocabulary, (really the only people qualified to talk about it)
I'm only qualified to talk about it if I know a handful of buzzwords. Right.

Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Mar 7 14:33:34 2011 No.1610357

>>1610353
>As suspected. You sate your ego by winning arguments with that theory, and save your ego by ignoring lost arguments with that theory. It's an effective masturbatory system.
I've put forward some simple propositions for you to provide a sound counter-argument for, and you've yet to deliver. Please stop wasting my time with irrelevant issues. If you reply with totally irrelevant garbage that doesn't address anything I've said again, I'll simply ignore you or laugh at you as I have done with anyone else in the past who tries to waste my time.

>It's true that at this exact moment you aren't, but you were back there
I'd like you to point out at any moment where I specifically said I was dealing with immutable formulations for good writing. Again, waste my time with more mouthfarting garbage and you can expect to be shat on.

>>	Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Mar 7 14:34:50 2011 No.1610359 >>1610355 see >>1610355

>>	Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Mar 7 14:35:34 2011 No.1610360 >>1610355 see >>1610357

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 7 14:36:34 2011 No.1610361 Philosophical posturing aside, does anyone have any other serious advice for hopeful new writers?

Anonymous Mon Mar 7 14:57:34 2011 No.1610382

>>1610357
>>I'd like you to point out at any moment where I specifically said I was dealing with immutable formulations for good writing.
Well, golly gosh. I can't seem to find any retrospective qualifications like this in your weak argument. I guess I just took you too seriously! Sorry, man!

Anonymous Mon Mar 7 15:12:34 2011 No.1610407

>>1610360
Oh, that's easy. For example:
>There is absolutely no difference between "his inborn nature" and "innate talent" and environment. Environment is constitutive of the author, which simply reflects environment as a socially determined object, and every single other one of these things you have mentioned, even if it is misleading to say of these things that they are somehow "other things" to begin with.
>implying that society, environment, object etc. aren't all abstract concepts
>implying the map is the terrain
Again, inb4 "You can say that about anything", that's why we avoid phrases like:
>which simply reflects environment as a socially determined object
So what? This abstract notion says/does something because we decided at some point it says/does something. Lot of words to say nothing there.

Anonymous Mon Mar 7 15:15:34 2011 No.1610419

>>1610107

Shakespeare, Marlowe and Jonson, especially with respect to their dramas, are not considered great authors by virtue of the historical-social-cultural or economic contexts in which they themselves lived. It is only retrospectively that we consider them so, and their canonization has much more to do with our tastes than with 16th/early 17th century tastes. Nobody believes that Shakespeare was only a great playwright "in his own time"; we would want to say that there is something timeless and universal about his writing (even though translations into major European languages didn't occur until the 18th and 19th centuries).

Secondly, none of these authors were said to have produced 'proper literature' in their own times. The few dramas which were printed prior to 1620 were rarely included in the great library collections of the day, for example. Further, the Oxbridge educated critics mocked not only Shakespeare, but all attempts to elevate the English vernacular to the status of literature (see, for example, the Parnassus series of plays). You seem to occupy a similar position as a self-proclaimed arbiter as those players did, though without the academic excellence.

The reality is that the Shakespeare whom we all admire was a creation of the 18th century; this was an attempt to fix identity and especially authorship.

Anonymous Mon Mar 7 15:16:34 2011 No.1610420

>>1610419

Cont...

With respect to your argument, it is not at all clear which "socio-cultural historical and economic" contexts you have in mind. The ones in which the material texts were produced? The countless revisions and reinterpretations (in the case of Shakespeare, one need only consider the standardized spelling in modern editions) up until this very day? The 18th century when Shakespeare as author was created?

Of course it's merely a truism that all material texts are produced in certain "socio-cultural historical and economic" circumstances (how could it not be so?) but that is to overlook the reception, revisions and reinterpretations to which all of those texts are subject.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 7 15:18:34 2011 No.1610423 File: 35 KB, 500x303, this-is-why-we-cant-have-nice-things.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Mar 7 15:24:34 2011 No.1610433

>>1610407
>>implying the map is the terrain
No, I'm not, I'm simply talking about reality as we understand it. This has nothing to do with transcendental reality.

>This abstract notion says/does something because we decided at some point it says/does something.
It has a function in our language in other words. This is how ideas are communicated.

>>1610419
>Shakespeare, Marlowe and Jonson, especially with respect to their dramas, are not considered great authors by virtue of the historical-social-cultural or economic contexts in which they themselves lived.
Yes, and that has nothing to do with anything I've said. I said that historical-social-cultural and economic conditions determined the quality of their writing, which is true regardless of whether we see them retrospectively (this itself is one function of such historical-social-cultural econic conditions), so you're simply arguing against a claim I've never made

>none of these authors were said to have produced 'proper literature' in their own times
Again, I haven't made that claim. I've made the claim that historical-social-cultural and economic conditions determined the quality of their writing. This is actually a rather modest claim that I can't believe everyone is having so much trouble accepting.

Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Mar 7 15:32:34 2011 No.1610440

>>1610420
>With respect to your argument, it is not at all clear which "socio-cultural historical and economic" contexts you have in mind. The ones in which the material texts were produced?

>These people lived in different social, academic and economic conditions which determined the quality of their writing. Those conditions are not ours, nor are they fixed stable principles that hold throughout history. Thus, my prescription holds for our current social, academic and economic conditions, which are different to theirs.

Are people refusing to read my arguments or something

>it's merely a truism that all material texts are produced in certain "socio-cultural historical and economic" circumstances
Yes, and I don't know why so many people are having trouble getting their heads around this

>that is to overlook the reception, revisions and reinterpretations
I'm glad I haven't done anything like that in this thread nor does that apply to anything I've said whatsoever. that's a good point though.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 7 15:34:34 2011 No.1610444 >>1610433 >No, I'm not, I'm simply talking about reality as we understand it. This has nothing to do with transcendental reality. >reality as we understand it >transcendental reality It's cute when kids use words they don't understand

>>	Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Mar 7 15:38:34 2011 No.1610445 >>1610444 You'll find my use of it is entirely correct, although you're free to point out in what way you think I'm misusing it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 7 15:45:34 2011 No.1610449 OP one time I couldn't bring myself to write a college paper for a lit class. I ended up writing about my writer's block and my teacher gave me an A. True story.

Anonymous Mon Mar 7 15:47:34 2011 No.1610451

>>1610449

The same happens to me sometimes. My tutors only seem to care about "voice" so if I write an essay that's completely tongue-in-cheek and sarcastic, I hit an A or B as long as it is still academic to some extent and it actually answers the question.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 7 15:48:34 2011 No.1610452 >>1610445 I already know it isn't. You're free to find this out for yourself, and not be a leech on my time and knowledge.

Anonymous Mon Mar 7 15:49:34 2011 No.1610454

As with all people who find that they don't like criticisms of what they've said, this 'Deep&Edgy' chap seems to have resorted to hysterically insisting that nobody has understood his argument rather than responding to any of the perfectly reasonable questions raised about it. Boring. Away with you.

>>	Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Mar 7 16:07:34 2011 No.1610476 >>1610452 Okay, you have nothing to say; fair enough >>1610454 I haven't said anywhere that anyone hasn't understood my argument, they've demonstrated as such, but I haven't said it anywhere.

Anonymous Mon Mar 7 16:07:34 2011 No.1610478

OP,

What issues are you most passionate about? What do you know about the world that you think everyone else needs to know?

If you don't have anything in those categories, then you aren't going to be able to contribute much that is very meaningful.

Find a creative way to convey what you feel are important issues/concepts/pieces of information.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 7 16:16:34 2011 No.1610497 >>1610476 I'm sorry to interrupt this argument, but one of your points consisted of nothing but "if you don't understand me don't waste my time", so either shut the fuck up and let this thread get back on track or stop being a hypocrite. Fuck.

Anonymous Mon Mar 7 16:20:34 2011 No.1610506

>>1610476

> Please read my argument.

> Nothing to do with anything I've asserted. Again, please take the time to read my argument.

> You haven't read my argument. I am saying absolutely nothing about immutable formulations for "good writing".

> Are people refusing to read my arguments or something

Indeed! It's that they 'haven't read your argument'. Apparently this is your go-to move. It's as transparent as it is dishonest. You didn't at all address the point about material production of texts -vs- reception and reinterpretation.

The 16th century Shakespeare was not the 17th or 18th century Shakespeare. What is 'proper literature' is therefore subject to reinterpretation in every historical era. If that holds, it must also hold for our own era in which Shakespeare, who lacked all of the qualities you listed as constitutive of 'proper literature', is treated universally as 'proper literature'. Either reinterpretation is valid or it's not.

This reinterpretation is not merely about what distinguishes him as an author "in his own context" either. We don't read Shakespeare's own productions at all; we read standardized, updated, revised, edited (etc.) works which are all placed under a single author's name. The Shakespeare we read today is as much a product of our own material culture of books as he is the product of Elizabethan/Jacobean England.

>>	Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Mar 7 16:21:34 2011 No.1610509 >>1610497 >one of your points consisted of nothing but "if you don't understand me don't waste my time" I'd like you to point out exactly where I said that

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 7 16:23:34 2011 No.1610511 File: 45 KB, 300x421, scooby-doo..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1610509 Ruh-oh Raggy... >>1610506 Ree hee hee hee hee!

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 7 16:23:34 2011 No.1610515 >>1610509 >>1610357

Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Mar 7 16:31:34 2011 No.1610534

>>1610506
>It's that they 'haven't read your argument'. Apparently this is your go-to move
Yes, because people have consistently been raising objections to things that have nothing to do with my argument or claims I haven't made, just like you're doing now as I will shortly demonstrate, and I assume they would not be doing this if they had in fact read my argument.

>You didn't at all address the point about material production of texts -vs- reception and reinterpretation
Of course I didn't, because as I've demonstrated and as you've subsequently ignored, that has nothing to do with my argument, it's a separate claim you've invented and are arguing against

>What is 'proper literature' is therefore subject to reinterpretation in every historical era. If that holds, it must also hold for our own era in which Shakespeare, who lacked all of the qualities you listed as constitutive of 'proper literature', is treated universally as 'proper literature

I will again repeat what I told you the first time, what I told everyone much earlier in the thread, which adresses everything you've said

>These people lived in different social, academic and economic conditions which determined the quality of their writing. Those conditions are not ours, nor are they fixed stable principles that hold throughout history. Thus, my prescription holds for our current social, academic and economic conditions, which are different to theirs.

1/2

Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Mar 7 16:32:34 2011 No.1610537

>>1610534
2/2

>This reinterpretation is not merely about what distinguishes him as an author "in his own context" either. We don't read Shakespeare's own productions at all; we read standardized, updated, revised, edited (etc.) works which are all placed under a single author's name. The Shakespeare we read today is as much a product of our own material culture of books as he is the product of Elizabethan/Jacobean England.
And this has nothing to do with anything I've said, nor anything I've argued. You are free to point out in what way this is relevant to my argument, and I'd actually like you to point out some part of my argument you're addressing instead of simply throwing forth a series of assertions that seem to have nothing to do with anything I've argued.

Anonymous Mon Mar 7 16:33:34 2011 No.1610542

>>1610534
>These people lived in different social, academic and economic conditions which determined the quality of their writing. Those conditions are not ours, nor are they fixed stable principles that hold throughout history. Thus, my prescription holds for our current social, academic and economic conditions, which are different to theirs.
Again you have said nothing, but that conditions change, and on an unrelated point are related to quality. It's this second point you fail to back up.

>>	Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Mar 7 16:33:34 2011 No.1610543 >>1610511 >>1610515 >if you don't understand me don't waste my time Yes, and I haven't said that in either of the posts you two are referring.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 7 16:35:34 2011 No.1610549 >>1610543 Only in the sense it wouldn't come up with a ctrl + f. This isn't even aspi-ism, just pure idiocy.

Anonymous Mon Mar 7 16:37:34 2011 No.1610553

>>1610537
>>1610534

And.... he does it again. When you suggest that you will 'demonstrate' that nothing I posted was relevant, what you appear to mean is that you're going to reassert that nobody has read or understood your argument.

I think you're done here, old bean. You seem incapable of addressing any objections to what you've posted. Do take the time to read through the comments on materiality, reinterpretation and reception again though. They're really not that complex.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 7 16:38:34 2011 No.1610558 File: 26 KB, 360x450, Strawman-motivational.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 7 16:38:34 2011 No.1610561 >>1610549 then put in green text, specifically what you are referring to... I can't find it

Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Mar 7 16:38:34 2011 No.1610562

>>1610542
>you have said nothing
What are you responding to then? Spare me the mouthfarting

>conditions change
yes

>unrelated point are related to quality
It isn't unrelated, it's crucial

>It's this second point you fail to back up
>Those conditions are not ours, nor are they fixed stable principles that hold throughout history
>It's this second point you fail to back up
It's self-evident that we do not live in the same social-economic-historical-cultural conditions as any of the writers you've referenced, nor have the conditions which have produced what is considered quality writing (in its own historical context or retrospectively or otherwise) remained fixed or stable. Although I'd like you to demonstrate how this is isn't the case.

Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Mar 7 16:43:34 2011 No.1610571

>>1610549
>just pure idiocy
I wasn't aware that not allowing someone to twist my words was pure idiocy, that just seems like pretty simple common sense to me

>>1610553
>When you suggest that you will 'demonstrate' that nothing I posted was relevant, what you appear to mean is that you're going to reassert that nobody has read or understood your argument
I haven't done that in either of the posts you've referenced.

>You seem incapable of addressing any objections to what you've posted
I've addressed whatever objections you've put forth, and I'm still waiting for you to reference some part of my argument instead of devising your own strawmen for you to argue against

Anonymous Mon Mar 7 16:45:34 2011 No.1610574

>>1610562
>It's self-evident
No
>that we do not live in the same social-economic-historical-cultural conditions
Only in the sense that nobody has the same background or experiences as anyone else. This is you using some buzzwords to fill in for understanding (prove me wrong, faggot)
>as any of the writers you've referenced
I've referenced nobody
>nor have the conditions which have produced what is considered quality writing (in its own historical context or retrospectively or otherwise) remained fixed or stable.
Poorly constructed meaningless drivel. Stable means what? Quality writing means what? Etc. Again, trying to bullshit with jargon.
>Although I'd like you to demonstrate how this is isn't the case.
There is no case being made.

Anonymous Mon Mar 7 16:47:34 2011 No.1610583

>>1607687
Sound advice. But personally I work quite well under both conditions, when I am pressured and also when I'm positively motivated.

Every art has it's sacrifice, though. If you look at writing as art then you can't go about it like a totally logical pattern you need to figure out. That assumption will lead you into a dead end.

>>	Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Mar 7 16:50:34 2011 No.1610590 >>1610574 Oh look, you're that guy who has nothing to say.

Anonymous Mon Mar 7 16:54:34 2011 No.1610594

>>1607777
The most successful writers welcome diversity. if you can, don't just write novels, even if it's all you want to do.

Try relaxing with a nice easy screenplay if you feel the description part of your brain is overheated.

But seriously, writing is fun for some but do something else, ffs. Why destroy yourself with character and metaphors when you can enjoy everything else the world has to offer. I'm sure even Shakespeare had a weekend off.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 7 16:56:34 2011 No.1610599 File: 86 KB, 1209x484, 1298569802399.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1610590 NO U and The Lads

Anonymous Mon Mar 7 17:09:34 2011 No.1610617
File: 23 KB, 443x375, mmfmmfpmfmemfm.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>You will find that everything I have stated is, in the main, most conducive method to the production of great literature
Dear D&E. Would you please back this claim with actual names of writers and titles of text so we can get a firmer grip on what you mean? This evasive dance was fun for the first hours, but I grew tired of it. Oh and please don't reply that the burden of buttressing is on me, because it really is not.

Anonymous Mon Mar 7 17:11:34 2011 No.1610619

>>1607672
10,000 words a day? Maybe if I was editing or transcribing my notes. I have spent whole days writing (14 hours) and not gotten 10,000 down.

1,000 words a day is how I do it. Either in a notebook or on the processor. Everyday you got to write. No skipping out. I took Christmas off and did not start writing again until January 5th. You have to write everyday.
To help keep motivated I have a calender on the wall. Everyday I write, I X out that day in a red marker.

I don't understand the whole "writers block". I have days were I hate writing so much. On those days I grab a notebook and sit in the corner, I don't focus, I let my mind wander and my imagination kicks in on it's own. Then I will write ideas in my notebook, some ideas get me so excited I write my 1,000 words easily on them.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 7 17:30:34 2011 No.1610663 bump

>>	Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Mar 7 17:41:34 2011 No.1610701 >>1610617 You've misquoted me http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21st_century_in_literature This is fairly recent, although you could probably stretch it back as far as the 60's

>>	Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Mar 7 17:42:34 2011 No.1610702 >>1610701 >You've misquoted me ignore that bit

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 7 17:50:34 2011 No.1610728 >>1610701 >21st Century >fairly recent Oh really, how interesting.

Anonymous Mon Mar 7 17:59:34 2011 No.1610755

>>1610701

OK, good. Some names to work with. Let's just recap what you say is necessary to write proper literature in our own age:

>Well if you're talking about PROPER literature you're going to need to go to university and study literature for several years and have an understanding of theories of literature, what motivates such theories, some grounding in Philosophy, a strong vocabulary of literary devices and themes, and a natural talent for writing.

Of the 20 authors listed on the Wikipedia page you linked to, 14 of them do not appear to have the relevant academic qualifications you seem to require of them. Their qualifications are as follows:

Charlotte Roche: left school at 17

John Maxwell Coetze: B.A. in Mathematics

Bolaño: never enrolled at university

Hilary Mantel: graduated with a degree in law

Cormac McCarthy: did not graduate

Thomas Pynchon: studied engineering physics at Cornell; left after a year

Orhan Pamuk: architectural student; dropped out to pursue writing

Doris Lessing: self-educated

Khaled Hosseini: graduated with bachelor's in biology

Laura Hillenbrand: did not graduate

Jonathan Safran Foer: medical student

Imre Kertész: did not attend university

Elfriede Jelinek: art history student; did not graduate

Lawrence Lessig: lawyer

Anonymous Mon Mar 7 18:04:34 2011 No.1610774

To the guys proposing you need an academic background to write great literature, well, it also happens that writers tend to be good only when writing about what they have experienced. That means that academics end writing about university professors considering the possibility of adultery (I'm kind of quoting tvtropes there), since they have been living in their academic ivory tower their whole life. The fact that they tend to fashion their style according to the academic trends of the moment (Marxist and Freudian during the 60s/70s, Postmodern during the 80s/90s) just to become dated a decade later is also telling.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 7 18:09:34 2011 No.1610799 >>1610755 Pynchon came back after 2 years in the Navy and switched to an English major.

Anonymous Mon Mar 7 18:09:34 2011 No.1610801

>>1610702
Let's focus on the last ten nobel prize winners:

-Naipaul: scholarship Oxford
-Kertesz: experienced holocaust at 14, went to work as a journalist after liberation
-Coetzee: BA both in english and mathematics
-Jelinek: organist diploma, studied art history and drama
-Pinter; highschool english, published poetry at 20
-Pamuk: architecture school, then journalism school
-Lessing: self-educated from 14 on, read sociology and politics
-Le Clézio: master's degree in literature, worked as a teacher
-Müller: started as a translator for an engineering factory, then kindergarten teacher.

These authors made substantial enough a contribution to literature to be awarded the nobel prize. Now you may think the nobel prize is a sham, and that the laureates are shit writers, but you provided the fucking list, so one would expect the names on it to be both familiar to you and in accord with your assertion. they're not, you lose. nice game though.

Anonymous Mon Mar 7 18:10:34 2011 No.1610802

>>1610619
A calendar is a good motivation.
I'm a CW major, hopefully getting into a nice MFA next year, and all I can say is, force yourself to write, no matter what. Even if you have nothing to write at the moment, take a book you like and retell it, tell it backwards, tell it from another character's perspective. For me, only 20% of what I write remains after editing, the rest 80% is just me writing just for the exercise of it, or just to see if I can find what I actually want to write about.
Sometimes I sit down with a whole idea in my head, other times I have nothing but something always comes up in the end.
Also, try to write putting yourself under different situations: write when you're pissed off, happy, sleepy, stoned or drunk (lots of writers use alcohol to disinhibit themselves, it's fun to do every now and then), take your laptop to a place you've never been before, to an old familiar place...
Just push yourself to write, it'll get easier and easier with time. And I would not set goals in number of words but in time spent writing, some people are pickier and it takes them longer to put down a sentence.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 7 18:11:34 2011 No.1610810 >>1610755 >>1610801 bro-fucking-fist

Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Mar 7 18:25:34 2011 No.1610861

>>1610801
>>1610801

>did not graduate
I never said one had to graduate
>dropped out to pursue writing
I never said one had to graduate

I can simply extend the set of writers if you'd like, observe:

Umberto Eco
David Foster Wallace
Ian McEwan
Philip Roth
Thomas Pynchon
Martin Amis
Milan Kundera
John Updike
Anthony Burgess
Angela Carter
Peter Ackroyd
Margaret Atwood

I can go on but I think you get the picture, all of these people studied Literature and produced great works of Literature.

Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Mar 7 18:32:34 2011 No.1610901

>>1610801
>The fact that they tend to fashion their style according to the academic trends of the moment (Marxist and Freudian during the 60s/70s, Postmodern during the 80s/90s) just to become dated a decade later is also telling.
I don't believe The Stranger or Nausea, both products of academic fads became dated a decade after their production, sorry.

Anonymous Mon Mar 7 18:39:34 2011 No.1610928

>>1610861

You did say that they had to attend university and to study literature for several years, presumably in order that they could attain the relevant knowledge of "theories of literature, what motivates such theories, some grounding in Philosophy, a strong vocabulary of literary devices and themes".

If you believe that a year of undergraduate studies before dropping out is sufficient to have a firm grasp of all of the above, that's fascinating but I would suggest that the list does rather undermine your argument.

As to your own list: that is just a selection you have made which fits your own chosen criteria. If I wanted to specifically seek out people who did not meet your criteria, I could certainly have done that. Instead, I took the 20 authors listed on the page which you have linked and I found that 14 of them do not have the relevant qualifications (especially "attending university and studying literature for several years", which almost nobody on that list did).

And, of course, let us remember that I only needed to find one or two exceptions to demonstrate the idiocy of your statement:

> If you do not have these things then I'm afraid you will never write something truly substantial.

In fact, I found 14 of 20 using your own source. So, having avoided engaging in any real argument throughout the thread, you are now forced to concede after your first stab at trying to substantiate your ideas. Too bad. So sad.

Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Mar 7 18:44:34 2011 No.1610946

>>1610928
>You did say that they had to attend university and to study literature for several years
You haven't read my argument, that's what I initially say but then I revise it in no more than one or two posts later that it is the most conducive method of producing great literature. So I'm not simply saying the only way to produce great literature is necessarily to have gone to university and studied literature, that's never been at issue.

Again, you haven't fully read my argument. You've simply read my first post and worked from that. I'm sorry you've mislead yourself into arguing against things I previously addressed.

Anonymous Mon Mar 7 18:45:34 2011 No.1610948

>>1610901

That's not true. The Stranger and its related work, The Myth of Sisyphus, did look dated a decade after they were written. They were produced in a very specific historical context (i.e. occupied France) and a decade later, Camus had matured to the extent that he had more or less left behind his theory of the Absurd.

Anonymous Mon Mar 7 18:45:34 2011 No.1610953

>>1610861
>>1610901
>>did not graduate
>I never said one had to graduate
>>dropped out to pursue writing
>I never said one had to graduate

You said you need to study literature for several YEARS at a university:
>Well if you're talking about PROPER literature you're going to need to go to university and study literature for several years and have an understanding of theories of literature, what motivates such theories, some grounding in Philosophy, a strong vocabulary of literary devices and themes, and a natural talent for writing. If you do not have these things then I'm afraid you will never write something truly substantial.
And graduation is required if you want to take the step from study lit for a few years to several.

You could also extend it, but you'd still have the vast number of writers from the lists you've already given as counter examples. What you're doing here is backtracking now you've realized your first posts weren't biased enough to your own dumb point. It's like saying "All sheep are black, look at that flock of white sheep, now extend it to include that flock of black sheep, see?".

Also, if the best you can do is resort to "I don't think/believe..." you've lost the argument.

Anonymous Mon Mar 7 18:50:34 2011 No.1610957

>>1610946

> You haven't read my argument

> you haven't fully read my argument

> you've mislead yourself into arguing against things I previously addressed.

> Please read my argument.

> Nothing to do with anything I've asserted. Again, please take the time to read my argument.

> You haven't read my argument. I am saying absolutely nothing about immutable formulations for "good writing".

> Are people refusing to read my arguments or something

You're not a bright guy. Shifting from an absolutist position to the slightly weaselly 'most conducive' would be more convincing if almost three-quarters of the authors in that sample (chosen by you, lest we forget) had not failed to meet your criteria. Please continue your retreat into obscurity and incoherence.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 7 18:51:34 2011 No.1610958 >>1610957 BUT WHAT THE FUCK IS HIS ELUSIVE ARGUMENT?? Shit, I don't actually care. If he's too dumb to be clear, his argument's balls.

Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Mar 7 18:54:34 2011 No.1610964

>>1610948
>They were produced in a very specific historical context (i.e. occupied France) and a decade later, Camus had matured to the extent that he had more or less left behind his theory of the Absurd.
So essentially by 'dated' you mean, unless there is anything else by that you could possibly mean, that they were produced in a specific historical context that changed, and that writers leave behind the theories they produced the relevant works with. That is not very insightful. You could say of a huge quantity of literature of every age that it is thus 'dated'.

>>1610953
>You said you need to study literature for several YEARS at a university:
Yeah, but I never said you needed to graduate.

>And graduation is required if you want to take the step from study lit for a few years to several.
Of course it isn't. You could study literature for all the prerequisite years needed to study and still somehow fail to graduate. You would still have studied Literature for several years.

>You could also extend it, but you'd still have the vast number of writers from the lists you've already given as counter examples
14 isn't exactly vast, and it would have nothing to do with the proposition I am asserting

>hat you're doing here is backtracking now you've realized your first posts weren't biased enough to your own dumb point. It's like saying "All sheep are black, look at that flock of white sheep, now extend it to include that flock of black sheep, see?".
No, because I've already pointed out that I've corrected the issues you're concerned with, and you fail to appreciate this.

>Also, if the best you can do is resort to "I don't think/believe..." you've lost the argument.
I'm not resorting to anything.

Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Mar 7 18:56:34 2011 No.1610970

>>1610957
>Shifting from an absolutist position to the slightly weaselly 'most conducive' would be more convincing if almost three-quarters of the authors in that sample (chosen by you, lest we forget) had not failed to meet your criteria
I haven't shifted from any position. I have maintained a single position for every post bar maybe one or two in this thread. I have already extended the list of authors, and that is besides the point that I am arguing in the first place.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 7 18:57:34 2011 No.1610972 File: 15 KB, 450x317, like what you see?.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] This thread needs to die now. D&E's been told, and the rest is in as sorry a state as a battle ground.

>>	Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Mar 7 18:58:34 2011 No.1610973 >>1610972 >D&E's been told Another blatant assertion with nothing to back it up. Get in line with the rest.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 7 18:59:34 2011 No.1610977 >>1610972 D&E is routinely humiliated on these boards. The only thing he has in his favour is persistence.

Anonymous Mon Mar 7 19:00:34 2011 No.1610978

>>1610964
>Yeah, but I never said you needed to graduate.
Oh, so clever. You're right, I can see now from the vagueness of your argument you have perfectly captured what makes a great writer.

I'm sure you also have a good answer for why one would need to spend years at a university remaining at the same level of study without graduating over spending a few years at uni and passing the necessary learning outcomes.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 7 19:02:34 2011 No.1610983 >>1610970 Okay: state your position or refer to the post in which said position is clearly expressed or eat shit.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 7 19:03:34 2011 No.1610986 File: 61 KB, 252x221, 1295214238576.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1607705 >but isn't consistency key to writing good in the first place? >but isn't consistency key to writing good >writing good

>>	Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Mar 7 19:06:34 2011 No.1610990 >>1610978 >Yeah, but I never said you needed to graduate. >You're right, I can see now from the vagueness of your argument How is any of that vague unless you cannot read English >>1610983 see >>1610099

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 7 19:13:34 2011 No.1611005 >>1610990 This is your second post in this thread, in which you state that the method exposed in your first post is >in the main, most conducive method to the production of great literature in other words: LOL U CORNERED?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 7 19:15:34 2011 No.1611007 >>1610901 I think that's because Existentialism seems to be making a come back (nobody was talking about Camus or Sartre 10 years ago).

>>	None !WvWWh.l.CE Mon Mar 7 19:16:34 2011 No.1611012 this thread made my night xD

Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Mar 7 19:25:34 2011 No.1611028

>>1611005
>This is your second post in this thread, in which you state that the method exposed in your first post is
>in the main, most conducive method to the production of great literature

Along with the twenty or so posts where I've told people to read my argument and thus to see that point which virtually everyone who has been arguing against me has missed.

>>1611012
hi ty

Anonymous Mon Mar 7 19:35:34 2011 No.1611056

>>1611028
But you have just referred to:

>>1610099
As the post in whch you state your position. In which you just refer to your previous post:

>>1610070
As "in the main, most conducive method to the production of great literature". Let's quote that "conducive method":

>you're going to need to go to university and study literature for several years and have an understanding of theories of literature, what motivates such theories, some grounding in Philosophy, a strong vocabulary of literary devices and themes, and a natural talent for writing. If you do not have these things then I'm afraid you will never write something truly substantial.

My question is, Is this still your position?

Anonymous Mon Mar 7 19:44:34 2011 No.1611075

>>1610964

> So essentially by 'dated' you mean, unless there is anything else by that you could possibly mean, that they were produced in a specific historical context that changed, and that writers leave behind the theories they produced the relevant works with. That is not very insightful. You could say of a huge quantity of literature of every age that it is thus 'dated'.

Er, yes. It no longer applies as a viable theory outside of its very specific context, and even the author recognised this. That's what it means to be 'dated', dipshit.

>>	Fab !!GXZe+d0RTva Mon Mar 7 19:46:34 2011 No.1611085 I cant be bothered to read this bitch can someone just synopsize?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 7 19:48:34 2011 No.1611091 >>1611085 No.

>>	Fab !!GXZe+d0RTva Mon Mar 7 19:49:34 2011 No.1611093 >>1611091 puh leeze

Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Mar 7 19:51:34 2011 No.1611101

>>1611056
Yes, you will find that those are the most conducive means, in the main, to producing great literature

>I'm afraid you will never write something truly substantial
This, as I've already said, I don't hold, nor have I held ever since saying that those properties were in the main the most conducive. I've already said this throughout the thread and yet people refuse to read my argument.

>>1611075
>no longer applies as a viable theory outside of its very specific context, and even the author recognised this
Wow, that's a rather inventive definition of 'dated', I don't prescribe to such a definition because I would be much too specific to be useful in any discourse so I guess we have nothing to talk about, sorry.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 7 19:52:34 2011 No.1611103 >>1611085 DE says you should go to college if you want to learn to write good, everyone else is like nuh-uh

>>	Fab !!GXZe+d0RTva Mon Mar 7 19:53:34 2011 No.1611108 File: 7 KB, 202x249, Moliere.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1611103 srsly?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 7 19:54:34 2011 No.1611111 >>1611101 You mean you don't subscribe to it, you dunce.

>>	Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Mar 7 19:56:34 2011 No.1611124 File: 619 KB, 241x182, tearfulpunjab.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1611111 >those quints

>>	Fab !!GXZe+d0RTva Mon Mar 7 19:59:34 2011 No.1611135 >>1611124 dont make fun of my people please

Anonymous Mon Mar 7 20:01:34 2011 No.1611142

>>1611085
D&E defended that in order to write PROPER literature you need to have a strong academic background, knowledge of the current philosophical and critical theories and stuff like that. Others challenged this and he retreated into a corner and started crying like a little girl, stating that:

a) Challengers had not read or understood his position
b) He had never defended such position in the first place

>>	Fab !!GXZe+d0RTva Mon Mar 7 20:02:34 2011 No.1611147 >>1611142 well i disagree but if you want me to respect you i would like you to be educated

Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Mar 7 20:03:34 2011 No.1611150

>>1611142
>D&E defended that in order to write PROPER literature you need to have a strong academic background, knowledge of the current philosophical and critical theories and stuff like that

>You will find that everything I have stated is, in the main, most conducive method to the production of great literature. Please put aside your pathetic notions of imposed equality, inadequacy complexes, "underdog" heroicising, one hundred monkeys working away at typewriters, etc

Another mook who can't read

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 7 20:10:34 2011 No.1611173 >>1611150 >You will find that everything I have stated is, in the main, most conducive method to the production of great literature That sounds just like a slightly softer restatement of your previous post, mind you.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 7 20:18:34 2011 No.1611197 Maybe reading the biography of your favorite writer will put some vigor into you.

Anonymous Mon Mar 7 20:20:34 2011 No.1611207

>>1610135
Let's go back to the last interesting point itt
>The profusion of sign values and the predominance of consumer society
How does this make understanding of literary theory and philosophy more conducive to producing great literature than it was in the past? I don't know anything about literary theory or philosophy so bear with me.

>>	Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Mar 7 20:24:34 2011 No.1611219 >>1611207 >I don't know anything about literary theory or philosophy so bear with me. No thanks, I don't try to teach my dog algebra.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 7 20:31:34 2011 No.1611230 >>1611219 Come on, don't be hard on the guy just cause you got told on the internet.

>>	Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Mar 7 20:34:34 2011 No.1611242 >>1611230 Firstly, no-one has given told to me itt Secondly, that seems to imply I'm hard on my dog for not teaching it algebra.

Anonymous Mon Mar 7 20:42:34 2011 No.1611271

>>1611242
Come on, don't try to hide the traces of your defeat by saging the thread.

>Firstly, no-one has given told to me itt
Well, when you provide a list of the authors that supposedly support your theory and it becomes obvious that almost 75% of them don't have the background you defended as necessary to produce proper literature, you have been told.

>Secondly, that seems to imply I'm hard on my dog for not teaching it algebra.
No, you were being hard on him by comparing him to your dog. Remember you have shown no signs of intellectual superiority whatsoever. It almost seems like a way of overcompensating after your humiliation.

Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Mar 7 20:46:34 2011 No.1611283

>>1611271
>Well, when you provide a list of the authors that supposedly support your theory and it becomes obvious that almost 75% of them don't have the background you defended as necessary to produce proper literature
I extended the list, and it had nothing to do with my argument in the first place

>you have shown no signs of intellectual superiority whatsoever
It's not my fault you intellectual inferiors can't see intellectual superiority, if you were then you'd already be intellectually superior :)

Anonymous Mon Mar 7 20:48:34 2011 No.1611291

>>1611219
Well that's not helpful at all. Even if you don't htink I'll understand your arguments maybe someone else will if you substantiate your claim that, because of
>The profusion of sign values and the predominance of consumer society
then
>you're going to need to go to university and study literature for several years and have an understanding of theories of literature, what motivates such theories, some grounding in Philosophy, a strong vocabulary of literary devices and themes

Anonymous Mon Mar 7 20:53:34 2011 No.1611301

>>1611283
While you responded to:
>>1610953
You only did so to say "But I responded to your black sheep analogy and it didn't matter", or some similar shit, while, in fact completely failing to engage with it at all.

Also, for someone who hasn't been told, I left for home nearly two hours ago, it's approaching 2AM where you are, and you're still "arguing" if one can call you crying "none of you understand me" arguing and not teen angst. For someone who hasn't been told you're sure trying real hard to save some face. Which is kinda sad.

Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Mar 7 20:56:34 2011 No.1611314

>>1611301
>completely failing to engage with it at all.
Let me repost what I said; you can tell me exactly how any of it fails to engage with it at all.

>You said you need to study literature for several YEARS at a university:
Yeah, but I never said you needed to graduate.

>And graduation is required if you want to take the step from study lit for a few years to several.
Of course it isn't. You could study literature for all the prerequisite years needed to study and still somehow fail to graduate. You would still have studied Literature for several years.

>You could also extend it, but you'd still have the vast number of writers from the lists you've already given as counter examples
14 isn't exactly vast, and it would have nothing to do with the proposition I am asserting

>hat you're doing here is backtracking now you've realized your first posts weren't biased enough to your own dumb point. It's like saying "All sheep are black, look at that flock of white sheep, now extend it to include that flock of black sheep, see?".
No, because I've already pointed out that I've corrected the issues you're concerned with, and you fail to appreciate this.

>Also, if the best you can do is resort to "I don't think/believe..." you've lost the argument.
I'm not resorting to anything.

Anonymous Mon Mar 7 21:03:34 2011 No.1611344

>>1611314
>Let me repost what I said
It's like you think none of your previous posts are visible itt.

>No, because I've already pointed out that I've corrected the issues you're concerned with, and you fail to appreciate this.
Where have you pointed this out? You could have selected a list of any authors to show your point, and most of them went AGAINST the very point you were making. Assuming you have any intelligence, you'd have selected the best possible list to argue your case. So either you're retarded or wrong. Or, hell, you're both.

That you had to resort to a list of random authors who were only put together because they fit your criteria and thought you wouldn't be picked up on this further emphasizes this.

Anyway, talking to an idiot is boring. I suggest you get some sleep before you take a long ride on the short bus tomorrow.

>>	Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Mar 7 21:07:34 2011 No.1611358 >>1611344 >Where have you pointed this out? see >>1610099 What you're talking about really has nothing to do with what I've been arguing.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 7 21:09:34 2011 No.1611367 File: 13 KB, 230x173, severeautism.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1611358 Correct. It's a criticism of how you're arguing, buddy. >yfw

Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Mar 7 21:11:34 2011 No.1611378
File: 116 KB, 573x493, bombdropped.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

going to bed now. keep the thread going till I come home from college tomorrow. This is good because it gives one of you shallow-pates ample time to figure out what I'm actually arguing. We can work from there.

>>	Fab !!GXZe+d0RTva Mon Mar 7 21:12:34 2011 No.1611383 >>1611378 i bet you look the cutest when you're asleep

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 7 21:15:34 2011 No.1611391 >>1611378 This thread isn't going anywhere until you respond to >>1611291

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 7 21:25:34 2011 No.1611445 >>1611378 >>1611378 pretentious faggot

>>	Fab !!GXZe+d0RTva Mon Mar 7 21:26:34 2011 No.1611449 >>1611445 i dont know who youre speaking to

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 7 21:44:34 2011 No.1611518 >Enter thread looking for info on how to deal with procrastination >Fall asleep during debate of how canonized literature was made Undergraduate English majors prove once again why they are desirous of the world's contempt

Anonymous Mon Mar 7 21:55:34 2011 No.1611567
File: 156 KB, 600x452, taleseenlarge[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

http://www.theparisreview.org/interviews

This stuff is great for motivation IMO. Always very interesting what authors have to say about their work, others' work, and their process. Check it out.

Anonymous Mon Mar 7 22:18:34 2011 No.1611631

Not all authors have degrees in literature, but most have studied literature to the degree that D&E said. Authors are usually very erudite and know a good deal about literature, literary theory, history, philosophy and foreign languages.

Shakespeare knew Latin and possibly Greek or French or Italian, and he obviously consumed a great deal of classical literature and read history--just look to the sources of his plays. Joyce knew many languages and had studied theology, philosophy and literature. Nabokov knew French, English, Russian and German at least, and had been reading books like War and Peace since age 7. Not to mention he was instructed by private tutors.
You're kidding yourself if you think you can write well without at least self-educating yourself a great deal.

Anonymous Mon Mar 7 22:39:34 2011 No.1611677
File: 142 KB, 600x753, 1292912973545.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Has OP tried NaNoWriMo? It's a pretty good motivator, and since you're encouraged to just crap out a novel instead of obsessing over details, it gets you into the habit of writing more. Deadlines are a great motivator, I strongly recommend it.

http://www.nanowrimo.org/

Anonymous Tue Mar 8 01:44:11 2011 No.1612228

>>1611631
>Shakespeare knew Latin and possibly Greek or French or Italian
>Joyce knew many languages and had studied theology, philosophy and literature.
>Nabokov knew French, English, Russian and German at least
>You're kidding yourself if you think you can write well without at least self-educating yourself a great deal.

I am curious, what is the best way to go about accomplishing this task?

Anonymous Tue Mar 8 01:59:34 2011 No.1612243

OK, look people.
As a writer, stop askign writers how they keep writing.

Maybe you ask gym rats what keeps them going to the gym every day. What makes them pack that gym bag and get in there and work out for a solid hour each day.

Internalize THAT, and you've internalized the drive to write. It's all the same. Stop being myopic that only writers know what it's like to push yourself.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 8 13:10:34 2011 No.1612855 Mischievous bump.

Anonymous Tue Mar 8 13:40:34 2011 No.1612914

Shakespeare did not know either Greek or Latin. That is why Ben Jonson wrote of him:

And though thou hadst small Latin and less Greek,
From thence to honor thee I would not seek

No idea what the evidence is for Shakespeare having spoken French or Italian. I've certainly never encountered it, but if you can cite a source, I'd love to read it.

Shakespeare wasn't highly educated either. That was often commented upon by his contemporaries: for them, he was a plagiariser, a commoner, and, worst of all, he didn't even attend Oxford or Cambridge.

The 'sources of his plays' were most often other plays written in the English vernacular as well as translations of classical works. Then there are cases (with the 'ur-Hamlet', for example) where there is a single text which is believed to have formed the basis of the work.

It's a truism to say that you need to be "at least self-educated" in order to write well. That is not the claim that was being made by the gentleman you purport to be supporting. It's also a quite different claim from the one you made in your opening line, which is that "most authors" (you inexplicably take Shakespeare, Joyce and Nabokov as representative of "most authors") are erudite in some very specific areas.

Including "self-educated" was a masterful stroke though because it allows you to just assume that most authors meet the criteria simply by virtue of being authors.

Since the guy who made the initial claim has failed to respond to any of the numerous beatings his argument has taken, it's noble of you to take it up on his behalf. You did successfully name two authors from hundreds of thousands of possibilities who met the criteria, so well done. That gives you success rate of around 66%. Nice!

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 8 13:42:34 2011 No.1612916 >>1612914 This post was of course a response to this: >>1611631

>>	Sunhawk !nZQ2xl.g.6 Tue Mar 8 13:47:34 2011 No.1612928 ...

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 8 17:52:34 2011 No.1613439 Not dead yet.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 8 17:53:34 2011 No.1613445 >>1613439 Does the lack of response mean D&E's dead?

Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Tue Mar 8 17:56:34 2011 No.1613450

>>1611291
>Well that's not helpful at all.
I'm not here to be helpful.

>>1612914

>guy who made the initial claim has failed to respond to any of the numerous beatings his argument has taken
You appear to have missed every single post I've made in this thread

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 8 17:57:34 2011 No.1613458 >>1613450 >You appear to have missed every single post I've made in this thread They haven't. Try and make a post that isn't retarded now. Get the Lads to help you, if you want.

>>	Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Tue Mar 8 17:59:34 2011 No.1613462 >>1613458 >Try and make a post that isn't retarded now see all my previous posts

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 8 18:01:34 2011 No.1613475 >>1613462 You're just digging yourself more of a hole here.

>>	Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Tue Mar 8 18:03:34 2011 No.1613487 >>1613475 only for to bury the butterhardt loosers who got tjold by I self itt

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 8 18:04:34 2011 No.1613488 this thread: The humiliation of Deep&Edgy by the coward anonymous.

>>	Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Tue Mar 8 18:05:34 2011 No.1613495 >>1613488 Why would no-one proving me wrong or even attempting to adress my argument in this thread be humiliating for me

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 8 18:10:34 2011 No.1613504 >>1613495 you don't decide who wins and who loses. we do.

>>	Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Tue Mar 8 18:23:34 2011 No.1613528 >>1613504 >we do. There's no 'we' here >you don't decide who wins and who loses Actually I am probably the only person qualified on 4chan to decide that

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 8 18:27:34 2011 No.1613534 >>1613528 Congrats on barely graduating high school and getting on a shit-tier uni course

Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Tue Mar 8 18:35:34 2011 No.1613560

>>1613534
>Congrats on barely graduating high school and getting on a shit-tier uni course
My qualifications are much much higher than that, but even so, there's no need to so denigrate the 4chan community; I'm sure that for every seven or eight fuckwit losers on this website there are maybe one or two individuals with decent educations, and for every twenty or thirty individuals with decent educations, there are six or or seven tripfags with excellent educations, and for every six or seven tripfags with excellent educations, there are maybe two or three tripfags who are experts in their field. Of course, I am much much more qualified than any of these people, but nonetheless, there's really no need to denigrate such a large and varied community.

Anonymous Tue Mar 8 18:38:34 2011 No.1613571

If it hasn't been posted before -- too lazy to check -- do this:

set a time to write. one hour minimum. that's all you do during that hour. even if nothing comes to you, sit before that paper until the hour is up. also, do it right after you get up and your mind is still fresh. do this every day. you ought to get something started within two weeks.

remember. sit there don't do anything else during that hour.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 8 18:38:34 2011 No.1613572 >>1613560 what do you do with all your expertise, other than haunt the living fuck out of every thread in this website? you are a worm, and when the last 404 comes, your carefully picked words shall drown into insignicance

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 8 18:39:34 2011 No.1613573 File: 41 KB, 256x256, Scottish Fold.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1613560

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 8 18:44:34 2011 No.1613591 >>1613560 You need to get back on your medication. The delusions of grandeur are coming back.

Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Tue Mar 8 18:44:34 2011 No.1613597

>>1613572
>what do you do with all your expertise, other than haunt the living fuck out of every thread in this website?
Typically I'm breaking hearts and saving lives

>when the last 404 comes, your carefully picked words shall drown into insignicance
pretty sure they'll be there in the archives for future PhD students to cite

Anonymous Tue Mar 8 18:52:34 2011 No.1613630

>>1613597

what archives you dumb fuck?

you are just an overly educated recluse, too insecure to venture away from your keyboard, easily satisfied with the usuless appraisal of a bunch of fat lonely nobodies, pulsating over literature, pure unadulterated failure in every single breath of air.

If i saw myself coming here, doing what i am doing now, more than once a week...id fucking kill myself.

>>	Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Tue Mar 8 18:57:34 2011 No.1613648 File: 483 KB, 141x141, thumbsup.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1613630 >what archives you dumb fuck? get a load of the newfag guys

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 8 18:59:34 2011 No.1613653 >>1613648 There is nothing good about knowing about green oval. If anything, it adds to the sadness of your situation.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 8 19:00:34 2011 No.1613657 >>1613648 this reply only solidifies my point I revel in my newfaggotry...considering the ghastly sickening bloody fucking disgusting alternative... i hate everything you stand for. i would like to find you, and watch you bleed.

>>	Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Tue Mar 8 19:01:34 2011 No.1613658 >>1613653 >If anything, it adds to the sadness of your situation. But my situation isn't sad at all. I'm one of the most fulfilled human beings to have ever walked the face of the earth.

>>	Fabulous !!GXZe+d0RTva Tue Mar 8 19:04:34 2011 No.1613666 >>1613657 you and I shall be on speaking terms only when you conform to a presentable state

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 8 19:04:34 2011 No.1613668 >>1613657 Look, Deep&Edgy is a shithead, but you are much worse. You hate what he stands for? You "revel in newfaggotry"? Don't even lurk, just leave. I'm sure we'll all be much better off.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 8 19:06:34 2011 No.1613672 >>1613666 judging by your name you are clearly homosexual and therefore a walking shameful corruption of the human male. you are a crime against nature and deserve violent death.

>>	Rangaha !xi8/JKFwzo Tue Mar 8 19:09:34 2011 No.1613684 File: 71 KB, 544x389, Screen shot 2011-03-08 at 4.08.37 PM.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1613672 but he actually IS gay pic is captcha

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 8 19:09:34 2011 No.1613688 >>1613658 Steak AND Chips you say? And a night with "The Lads"?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 8 19:10:34 2011 No.1613691 >>1613672 lol he mad

>>	Fabulous !!GXZe+d0RTva Tue Mar 8 19:11:34 2011 No.1613695 >>1613684 did you do that AGAIN >>1613672 you're right I have been set free of all kinds of nature

>>	Rangaha !SeEsZIKwNs Tue Mar 8 19:12:34 2011 No.1613699 File: 67 KB, 921x144, Screen shot 2011-03-07 at 8.13.29 PM.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1613695 no I just wanted to see if someone would jump on it proof

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 8 19:12:34 2011 No.1613701 >>1613572 >>1613630 >>1613657 >>1613672 lol. we need more of this guy...

>>	Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Wed Mar 9 08:26:34 2011 No.1615648 Bumping for anyone who would care to provide a counterargument to anything I've said

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 9 08:34:34 2011 No.1615654 Uhm... Would it be possible for us to go back to advice for writing?

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature