[ 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: 474 KB, 600x857, BULMA1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6566173 No.6566173 [Reply] [Original]

Why is so common for writers to dismiss any attemp at formulate any good theory of what works and doesn't work in literature?

I found that pretty much all the others arts (music, poetry, painting, drawing, animation, film) has a corpus of theory and some canonical books to teach new artists to learn the craft.

Of course there has been some writers who tried to formulate a workflow and tried to discuss about what works and doesn't work and formulate some guidelines (rules) to create good art.

I only see screenwriters barelly discussing them.

Most writers are just:
But a workflow will kill creativity.
Writing is just diferent.

Is this really common among writers?
I see they try to write something by just brute force and hoping to land some magical luck.

>> No.6566183

>Who is Joseph Cambell?
>Who is Vladimir Propp?

>> No.6566392

Most common advice I see is to read and write often.

People simply differ on the specifics of how.

>> No.6566398

are you fucking stupid op


>I've never heard of literary theory

>> No.6566413

>>6566392
This.

>> No.6566443

Aristotle's Poetics
Horace's Art of Poetry
Pope's Essay on Criticism
Dryden's Essay of Dramatic Poesy

>> No.6566454

>>6566392
How often is often?

>> No.6566662

>>6566173
Because everyone can write; what's hard learning to write GOOD. There are a lot of nuts and bolts to music and drawing that you need before you can be creative with it.

>>6566454
Every day

>> No.6566679

>>6566173
>poetry
M8, poets have books that teach them tools to write poetry, not how to write good poetry. There is no formula for art.

>> No.6566689

Because "Good" writers can make anything work.

>> No.6566695

imo, it depends on what you're writing, but the style of a novel in any genre can theoretically be adapted into even a vignette. i read a story of two characters in an unusual relationship under the guide of sparrow cliffton, where both character discussed neither the merit of each, but the question of their merit, so that when you look back you're in a puzzlement about the sort 'idolatory' of position in reading. so technically, the novel positions you, but this was a short story. it was fantastic because it was clueless unlike the novel, but pragmatic like the novel.

>> No.6566705

>>6566173

because with drawing/animation/art, you literally must learn all the same things as everyone else before you can even start being original. Everyone really (should) be drawing still lifes, gesture drawings, anatomical studies, color studies, etc. for years before attempting academic painting, or animation exercises, or anything of the sort. There is a lot to learn up front in art, and all the great artists learn the same things before branching off.

Literature is more pick-and-choose. You have writers who study shitloads of history and are fluent in 5+ languages, you have writers who come purely from philosophy, you have some who mainly read poetry and then write prose from there, there are some who read/write just short stories, etc. There's no real "anatomy" to study in the same way as there is in drawing -- perhaps there is, but it's incomparable entirely. The writer reads extensively and picks up

> Of course there has been some writers who tried to formulate a workflow and tried to discuss about what works and doesn't work and formulate some guidelines (rules) to create good art.

yeah, and then you have prescriptions from shitty writers like Stephen King or MFA teachers who give you writing prompts like "write a story about waking up in a room you've never seen before" or "write because you want to write not money :P b urself"

reading, writing, and then showing your work to others for feedback is an okay cycle, especially at first. But writing is too intellectually intimate to be "taught" in the way that drawing anatomy or learning color theory can be taught. There is still a wheel of colors that act in certain ways; after learning that, you can experiment with them. The human body is generally 7.5 heads tall, give or take based on age or build, and there are dozens of facial muscles that must be learned in order to give realistic expression to a face -- after learning that, you can start simplifying to some cartoony 4-heads anatomy and simplified expressions once you throw away the symbolic thinking and learn to think entirely in anatomy and form and simplify, rather than drawing entirely from "well the ear goes here, and at this angle it should be THIS type of squiggle as I copied from this one anime show..."

The anatomy of poetry, for example, is learning the rules of classical discourse and form, meter, etc., but you still have to figure out what to actually talk about. Besides, book/poetry anatomy is best learned autodidact-fashion from fucking reading intelligently on your own.

>> No.6568512

>>6566173
bump

>> No.6568663

>>6566183
Just listened to "Wings of Art"

His description of Joyce's aesthetics blew me away.

>> No.6568800

>>6566173
who is this manga banga?

>> No.6568830

>>6566173
Uhh Strunk and Whites' Elements of Style comes to mind.

>> No.6568847

>>6568800
yo are you for real?

>> No.6569001

>>6568830
the continued publication of this book is a crime against humanity

>> No.6569347

>>6566173

Look up "formalist criticism"

>> No.6569483

>>6566183
Campbell isn't taken very seriously outside of pop culture though.

>> No.6571059

Poe on how to compose a great poem
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/10031/10031-h/10031-h.htm#section8b

>> No.6571065

>>6566173
>Why is so common for writers to dismiss any attemp at formulate any good theory of what works and doesn't work in literature?

Just because philistines on this board deny literary study to justify their bad taste does not mean it is widespread amongst actual writers.