no.

every good writer reads a shitton

>>7742391
Thats what i figured, but thought maybe there'd be a couple extreme outliers

Outsider literature is only endearing in its banality. The majority of it is garbage or schizophrenic manifestos. The whole concept of outsider art centers on patronization.

>>7742386
I would recommend My Tisted World by Elliot Rodger

>>7742386
they are a good writer but are not influenced by previous authors or much of the canon

The possibility of such a thing is a myth. This is what was thought about Homer before the 20th century, or even about Shakespeare... think of Milton referring to "sweetest Shakespeare, fancy's child / Warbl[ing] his native Wood-notes wild." Wordsworth and Coleridge thought that they could emphasize the natural poetry of the rustic figure, and Burns collected Scotch ballads with a similar intent. The "natural" genius of literature cannot exist, since the conditions that allow that genius to express itself are fostered through extensive literary education (i.e. reading and writing).

I do, by the way, believe in genius as an uncommon gift of the imagination, rather than being merely the product of historical forces. It's just that genius needs to be fostered and nurtured to arrive at it's potential.

Whoever wrote the Epic of Gilgamesh
Homer

>>7742391
not a shitton really
people usually forgets how, due to the time when they lived, even real cultured guys had no more than 200 books back in the days. of course, they read them tons of times.

>>7742529
wrong. they read a lot of books that no longer survive/aren't read today.

>>7742531
not really mane. back then producing and getting information wasn't as cheap and easy as it is today

>>7742546

Shut up, hes right. if u spent ur life reading and writing u were an idiot if u couldnt get a hold of alot of shit. and that counts a good 1000 years back in time.

>>7742723
Kek. Nietzsche or Schopenhauer knew pretty much the same as we do now about buddhism for example

>>7742386
Roberto Arlt