/lit/ - Literature

what do you expect?

like eny other human endeavour hard work can only take you so far…

and probably,sometimes, the difference between a bad writer and a good writer as king defines them is probably just the lack of dedication.

If the greatest writers were so gifted that we could never even hope to understand them, then we would never understand their literature enough to appreciate it. He sounds pretentious and silly.

>>5929

What about the lack of say, inspiration or the flow of ideas? I think dedication can only take you so far. I kind of agree with King on this, they're simply born great.

>>5931

But do we ever understand them? (Them being the authors). I mean both on a literary and personal level? All we have are interpretations and assumptions. We definitely understand their works enough to appreciate them, but I don't think we'll ever really understand what went through the minds of authors like Dostoevsky or Lovecraft when they wrote their greatest works. A lot of these guys were tortured souls or like King said, freaks.

>>5929

>the difference between a bad writer and a good writer as king defines them is probably just the lack of dedication.

Didn't really address this in my inital post >>5932, but I think he has a point. I've seen people who would be considered "bad" writers constantly read and write, but they never really rise above the level they began with. Studying structure and having the determination can only take you so far. It has to naturally come from the writer if they ever hope to write something noteworthy.

I do think that bad writers can become competent with enough practice, but I don't think they'll ever be that good or great. Please excuse my pretentiousness.

>and at 141 poetry readings

>141

Hm. Looks suspiciously like an OCR artifact, that is to say A PIRATED PAGE NUMBER!

With a page number as my guide I reread that section, and am glad I did so as I might otherwise have gone off on a meaningless rant about quality. King was maneuvering around an artistic approach instead of a literary judgment, and he was not being obscure about it.

Who is considered brilliant as a writer is largely determined by external factors, and some luck. Plus all the rest: time and effort, and talent, and so on. Strangely enough for all their brilliance, such writers may never lead a life worth living.

Conversely, by mastering the fundamentals anyone can become a merely competent writer. Competent in the same way an office drone who shows up day after day, for forty years, and retires. Anyone might make a living at writing, being a writer is just another job.

Technical documentation, product placement ads and reviews, legal briefs, instruction manuals; yes, even so called journalists just passing along the facts. Be trained to a level of competency and sail off into a career as a writer, and not a bad life either.

King is talking about something higher, about art not industry.

Good writers are contemptuous of bad writers, feeling not that they can do better, but knowing how to be better by making use of what is bad.

Good writers are despairing of better writers. Their despair is no obstacle. Instead, they find ways to make use of their betters.

Good writers can not be made nor raised up to such status by the efforts of others. They make themselves.

Good news if you wish to be a writer. Great advise if you want to be good writer.

>Do you agree, /lit/?

Yes.

>What does being a good writer mean to you?

Now we're back to quality, so.

A little tidbit of my own: someone who is willing to fail, joyously fail, and who shows that failure as being no predictor of the value of their future works.

>>5932

of course, but keep in mind "bad" writing has a very wide spectrum.

and i said "sometimes".

some people are just stupid. the kind of stupid that makes them think they are smart and very much so. there's no helping those.

as for inspiration and flow of ideas i consider them natural talents.

especially in this age of widespread literacy talented and untalented people are potentially exposed to the very same thing.

the fact that some see things or have perspectives that others don't and feel the need and have the skills to put it on paper is not an accident.

>>5934

>Hm. Looks suspiciously like an OCR artifact, that is to say A PIRATED PAGE NUMBER!

You got me. What's the next step of your master plan? I forgot to put a link, but it's from King's "On Writing".

>Strangely enough for all their brilliance, such writers may never lead a life worth living

True enough. Alcoholism, drugs, self-loathing, and death follow the most brilliant and troubled. Like Dostoyevsky said: "Pain and suffering are always inevitable for a large intelligence and a deep heart. The really great men must, I think, have great sadness on earth."

I remember reading this awhile back in college and a lot of people got upset about his position. Unsurprisingly, many of them were also terrible at writing. It's just a cold truth that there are those who excel in certain areas more than others. I don't understand the "Everybody is a winner!" mindset.

Like you mentioned, good writers know that there are those who are better, but they continue to try and reach or maybe just do their own thing.

>>5910

>Listening to Stephen King

If he said grass was green I'd go outside just to check.

>>5910

>many of them lead miserable lives,

>realizing (at least on some level) that they are nothing but fortunate freaks, the intellectual version of runway models who just happen to be born with the right cheekbones and with breasts which fit the image of an age

Swing and a miss.

>>6138

The first greentext is the swing and the second greentext is the miss - noting the principle that "miss" does not necessarily mean "batting in the wrong sports ground"

>>6138

>>6139

What do you mean? I get it that you don't think it's right, but why? What do you think is the proper delineation and demarcation of bad writers and great writers?

>>6147

Something to do with genius as a mindset, and something to do with the conflicts between the minds conscious and unconscious.

>>5936

>I don't understand the "Everybody is a winner!" mindset.

Unless you completely suck at life, you can be a winner at something. I'm good at lifting weights, even though I suck at sports. Had I never found this niche, I never would've considered that I could ever become strong and aesthetic. I wouldn't wonder if no amount of training could ever make me good at ball sports, though.

It's like that with most people. Some people will never be leet h@xx0rs, but they can be great writers. Some will never be good martial artists, but they will be great at drawing comics. And so on.

I used to think talent meant being good at something. Now, I think it's more akin to being capable of being good at something.

>>5910

Every good writer to me has a distinct almost scent of otherness. They are not the people who are easy to talk to, and there is an analytical aspect that is necessary to being good at telling a story. You need to be able to say something new, or be able to say it appealingly to be in any way a good writer. This does not mean "insert x formula 'with a quirky twist" it means having a perspective that is start and poignant without being preachy. But more than anything, no matter how layman your writing technique, having something to say that is uniquely yours is refreshing and impactful.

There is also knowing when you've said too much and when you haven't said enough than many people fall in to. But technique is secondary to message.

>>5910

To me, being a good writer is being able to do what you wish with the reader, in as few words possible, while maintaining a sense of eloquence in diction. By do what you wish, I mean:

>evoke a certain emotion

>describe a setting

>tell the life story of a young man

Get it?

The truth is, I'm leaning to believe that the geniuses are indeed one in one million, due to science. I want to believe if I work hard enough I can be one of the big people, but the reality is, I don't know if that would ever happen. I don't know anything in the end. But I do wish I could finally settle down on a medium to express myself freely, writing seems to be best for now.

>>6203

And this, the message.

Its the best when an author can get the message to the reader without directly saying it.

>>6203

>>6205

>art is all about the propaganda

I'm glad you'll never write anything big.

>>6208

I agree, Nabokov. Treating writing as a means. I however can agree with this:

>Its the best when an author can get the message to the reader without directly saying it.

>>6158

Okay, that's more understandable. So what you're saying is his representation of them as "freaks" is wrong because it relies on the premise that there is an inherent biological/mental difference rather than having a different perspective.

>>6124

>Later in the next section (P149) King lays down the parable of a budding saxophone student to help illustrate his point

isn't it his son? I think he wants to impart that writing should be fun. If you don't find it fun, why are you even doing it in the first place?

>>8162

Well, no. It's not always fun. There are aspects that can not be made to not suck, and without the determination and drive to embrace these parts you are not going to be a creative writer.

One of King's points is that no one can do this for you. In addition to this, he is saying that you should experience from the process something that keeps you going, and that something is neither fame, nor fortune, nor even some proclamation of quality others attribute to you.

I attached that quote from Thompson as he is saying exactly the same thing: Am I going to die an unknown in the gutter, alone? OKO then; meanwhile, I am a writer.

The question I am now going to pose is not one I am asking to you, nor is it something you could answer here. Whatever you may say here in reply will be wrong. This is a question from yourself to be answered only by yourself, to be heard by no other.

Do you want to be a writer?

>>8166

>Well, no. It's not always fun

I know. I'm just referring to the message I quoted earlier.

In my case, it's more like there's a ticking time bomb in my brain that always say to finish what I started. That or just OCD.