How do I become a genius writer and join the canon?
Pls spoonfed me.
Read The Artist's Way and do all the exercises. You'll literally become a vessel of pure creativity, possibly from God.
Shoot lower, you're never going to be a genius
Get a life, then write about said life.
This isn't the place to be asking that.
Hang out more with friends, experienced people, role models, the only way to get there is though networking, not self-deification. Maybe self-deify yourself while using your personability.
>>7795940
What I have read is that a certain level of IQ is necessary for great achievements, but once you pass a certain limit (IQ of 120) it’s not easy to make correlations. Once this limit is achieved, a person with an IQ of 125-130 might end up creating greater works of art than someone with an extremely rare IQ of 160, and that even though the two people are both making efforts and working hard. The person with the higher IQ might absorb information faster and understand subjects with more facility, and yet his/her creativity might not be as incredible as the one we found in the person with a 125 IQ. The main thing here is:
>A higher than average IQ seems to be necessary for great achievements, but once you pass a certain level the creativity and personal story of a person can be much more important than extra points of IQ; about creativity, there is no consensus about what it is, how it works, how it can be measured and how much it is related to raw intelligence.
IQ is not an absolute test for intelligence, and everybody knows it, yet there is a correlation between great achievers and successful professionals and higher IQ scores. To say IQ is completely irrelevant is to deny a lot of collective knowledge and accumulated data about the subject. But when we say “high IQ” we are not speaking of enormous IQ scores, such as those of 160-170-180 and higher, but simply IQ’s that are superior to scores like 120. In fact, there are lots of people in the world with the capacity to excel in great creative undertakes.
>>7795975
One of the best phrases I ever read about genius is this one, by Havelock Ellis, on his book A Study of British Genius.:
>“Genius is the happy result of a combination of many circumstances.”
That’s actually perfect. Yes, you need a relatively high IQ, but you also need a proper upbringing, the exposition of the person in the right time of her life to the area of creation that is actually her personal field, the many particular characteristics of personality, like ambition, desire to excel, curiosity, obsession, courage, hard-working capacity, and many other circumstances.
It comes down to this: Genius is so rare not because we have few people with high IQ, but because high IQ is only one of the pieces of the puzzle.
The best book I have ever read on the subject is this one:
>Before the Gates of Excellence: The Determinants of Creative Genius
http://www.amazon.com/Before-Gates-Excellence-Determinants-Creative/dp/0521376998
In short (and Like I exposed before), although a high intelligence coefficient is necessary, it is not necessary that it be absurdly high, but just a little above average. The majority of /sci/ posters, for example, have an IQ that it is in the spectrum of some of the great genius of history. But the similarities end there.
The great geniuses usually had similar personality traits, that motivated them to spend hours and hours and hours, days and days and days working and improving themselves. Great geniuses are a mix of genes (just good genes, a little above the average – being the average today around 100 IQ points) + creation + specific features of personality beget by the life experiences and genetic material of the child.
>>7795979
All great geniuses were ambitious and had broad desire to be recognized and admired for their work; all of them also had obsessive personalities and thought that they creative jobs were the main function of their lives. They might try to fool people, like Einstein tended to do when he spoke that he was only after truth and satiating his curiosity, but not after fame or glory. No doubt he wanted to satiate his curiosity, yet when he was working on general realtivy he was aware that other people were facing the same challenges (like David Hilbert) and he worked like a fanatic, desperately wanting to complete his theory before others did. If he wanted simply to know the truth he could sit down and wait, for people would get there pretty soon. But of course he, like anybody else, wanted to be proud of himself, of his own achievements, and so he worked hard to be the father of general relativity.
Another interesting point: although the child who becomes a genius in the future start his/her career in the specific area of activity in a playful manner (playing with musical instruments, drawing for pleasure, reading for pleasure, etc.), in the future the conscience of their own emerging talent (the child or teen realizes his ability in the field and starts thinking on the possibility of achieve fame with his work) makes the chosen activity becomes not just a pleasurable hobby, but an terribly stressful and overwhelming obligation. The great geniuses often had to work without having the slightest desire to do so (all writers relate the difficulty of having to sit all day, in a routine, and fill the paper with significant literature). Even Einstein, when he worked on the theory of general relativity, eventually was tormented by stomach pain, nausea, anxiety, tachycardia and tremors. The anxiety and fear of failure are constant companions of geniuses, and also the constant dissatisfaction with oneself. The moments of pride and joy are quickly dissolved into new ambitions.
>>7795980
What technique?
>>7795986
technique of writing, what else?
>>7795940
use a long time
>>7795993
The deep throating technique. You're probably gone need it.
>>7795980
>>7795986
I suggest you find out what is the writer that you like the most in all the literary canon: find out who is the writer whose books you would like to have written. Is not easy to discover this ideal author, nor is it fast ... but eventually you will find out what author you admire the most.
After discovering this writer, read all his work. But do not just read his work: dissect it: find out what are the best books of literary criticism about his work (for best books of literary criticism I mean those books that analyze the techniques of the writer in question: books that deal with his construction of the characters; with the structure and sculpting of his chapters, paragraphs and sentences; with the way that he elaborates dialogues, performs as descriptions, and other technical aspects - do not waste time with books of literary criticism that want to reveal what the author meant with his work, or what is the philosophy behind his work – like Harold Bloom’s books - : What you must learn is the techniques): read all these books of literary criticism and discover the secrets of the style of your favorite writer.
When writing your first books, whenever you have questions about how to proceed, imitate your favorite writer: make him your model, your teacher, and try to reproduce his techniques. Gradually you will develop your own voice, your own style, but you do not need this to happen suddenly. The time will take care of that.
2 examples of this new-writer/old-writer relation: a) Keats and Shakespeare and b) Hemingway and Tolstoy.
>>7796012
Another example would be Shakespeare and Nabokov. You see: the medium of both is very different, but there is no doubt about the enormous influence of Shakespearean language upon Nabokov. If you doubt that, just look for this book by Nabokov (a play, actually): The Tragedy of Mr. Morn. Shakespeare was forever a presence in Nabokov bones, blood, marrow and brain fluids.
Take your time, don’t hurry. Like I said, it’s not an easy or instant task the one of choosing a mentor. Just read a lot, several different authors. You may have fall in love for someone, but there are always other fishes on the sea. You can also fuse two or more different writers sand styles, and make this fusion your teacher.
What you must do, above all else, is write. You must write every day, or at least five days a week, even when you are not in the mood. Believe me: most writers are never in the mood, and procrastination is a perpetual phantom.
But do this: sit down and write, write, write. Don’t expect to be good right from the start; you will face terrible difficulties. The first months and years are funny, because you advance in an extremely fast pace. When you look to your material of, say, 3-4 months back, you will see how bad you were. When you look to your material of 2-3 year before, you will think of how did you even had the guts to start a career as a writer. This is true to every writer, to every artist: the incubation period is very traumatizing, very febrile. It usually takes something around 10 years of practice to achieve the level of accepting literature.
>>7795980
Be a genius. Also don't not be a genius
>>7796016
I will suggest a book that deals with daily routines of several artists and scientists, so you can see how important is to create a working routine. You must insist, and that is pretty damn hard: you must face the blank pages everyday (that albino face that mocks your lack of stamina and shortness of ideas), face again and again and again your limitations and your own mediocrity. It’s not that pleasant a life, let me tell you. Of course, for all that days of suffering and self-loathing there are days when you leave your work-table satisfied with what you wrote, satisfied with what you created, and there is no better feeling in the world that having created beautiful metaphors, modeled a great scene, formulated a memorable speech – it’s a different pleasure that that of sexual satisfaction, a more profound and meaningful pleasure (but that pleasure, alas, will soon vanish, and you will need to prove yet again, on the next day, that you are able to purge the pestilence of mediocrity and plague of bareness from your blood).
Also: remember that you probably won’t be able to sustain yourself with your writing, so you will need to balance the work time with the writing time. That alone is a hard challenge. I, for example, am a lawyer, a profession that makes me cook on boredom and boil in anemia on the gray and dead office. I have to go to work to sustain myself, to pay the bills, and only after I return home, generally already a bit tired, I can finally sit down to write. This balance: working-creating is one of the things that you will have to learn; it’s kind of a biological learning: you will have to teach your body how to face the enormous mental demands that you will throw upon him. One of my secrets is coffee, lots of coffee, but I have also experimente with a drug (modafinil). This problem (the work-write dichotomy) is also covered on the book I will suggest to you.
>>7796029
Above all, you must have a visceral enthusiasm about creation, about the act of modeling words, of bringing imaginary entities to life. Yes, you will feel tired and hesitant to sit your ass on the work-desk every day, and that is normal. But that inner fire of creation, that thirst for artistic glory and aesthetic achievement is something that never leaves an artist. Enthusiasm seasons the gray porridge of an apathetic life with pepper. You can own the whole world, but if you don’t have enthusiasm, the world will be as boring as a classroom in summer time.
Here is the book about the routines of artists and scientists: http://www.amazon.com/Daily-Rituals-How-Artists-Work/dp/0307273601
I wish you the best of luck. You are starting, in other words, you are facing the hardest part of a creative life. But don’t worry: for every day that you feel dissatisfied with yourself there are going to be days of hope, of creative drive and of gratefulness for possessing the ability of creation.
>>7795963
>self help books
>>7795983
It is also a common feature of geniuses that certain feelings, mainly of respect or value, are wanted but not provided in childhood (sometimes this is even imaginary: the child receives attention and love, but not the enormous amount of attention and praise that it commonly desired). The huge ambition that they have is, in a way, a response to not receiving all the admiration they wish they had received when they were children and teenagers. Genius are generally very proud of themselves.
>>7796034
Thanks.
I'm aware of all that you said.
I don't consider myself a genius, or I don't consider a genius to be some magical entity, I feel is a combination of a desire for improvement, desire to learn and desire of originality (making new works from remixing older works).
I do have some ideas I wanna try, like making the lord of the rings but using black people mythos and lore.
My problem comes from not knowing the techniques top writers use.
I don't find a problem writing, in fact I think is the easiest craft compared to music or drawing or animation.
My problem comes from lacking the theory over what techniques do top writers use.
I'm aware of things like figures of speech, but what else do they use?
I've indeed read books such as the hero's journey and lajos egri dramatic writing and robert mckee the story, but even while I understand how a movie script is written and why do people cry over a moving scene in a film or how a plot twist is done, I'm confused when I read a writer.
>>7796059
>My problem comes from not knowing the techniques top writers use.
See my other posts:
>>7796012
>>7796016
>>7796029
>>7796034
Especially:>>7796012
>After discovering this writer, read all his work. But do not just read his work: dissect it: find out what are the best books of literary criticism about his work (for best books of literary criticism I mean those books that analyze the techniques of the writer in question: books that deal with his construction of the characters; with the structure and sculpting of his chapters, paragraphs and sentences; with the way that he elaborates dialogues, performs as descriptions, and other technical aspects - do not waste time with books of literary criticism that want to reveal what the author meant with his work, or what is the philosophy behind his work – like Harold Bloom’s books - : What you must learn is the techniques): read all these books of literary criticism and discover the secrets of the style of your favorite writer.
>>7796075
You know , to me there are two main species of literary critics: a) those who try to interpret what the author meant with his text and b) those who analyze the literary techniques used by the author (metaphors and similes creation, versification , metrification , the structuring of dialogue, punctuation, uses and transformation of source material, descriptions, creation of stream of consciousness: style in general).
In my opinion the critics of category (a ) ( which are by far the most abundant and the most famous - Harold Bloom, for example , is one of them ) are generally useless and, in general, pretentious : you have every reason to want to make your own understanding: who are these gentlemen to have the authority to say what the author wanted to convey through his text? If they can discover the meaning of an author’s text, we also can.
As for the critics of category (b), I must say that they are special people: they spend their whole lives doing a strenuous job than earns them no money and no fame, just for the sake of the love they have for the artists who they are analyzing. The reading of such critics should be constant for young writers: there is nothing that favors more the formation of an young author than the analysis of the bowels of the works of the masters (that and also reading and writing a lot and constantly, of course). Unfortunately critics of category (b) are few and little known (even among serious readers). About Shakespeare, I advise (for those who really want to delve into the work of the author, and not so much for the casual reader) to read the following books:
>Shakespeare’s Imagery, by Caroline Spurgeon;
>Shakespeare’s Language, by Frank Kermode;
>Shakespeare’s Metrical Art, by George T. Wright;
>The Development of Shakespeare’s imagery, by Wolfgang Clemen;
>The Poetry of Shakespeare’s Plays, by F.E. halliday;
>Shakespeare’s Uses of The Arts of Language, by Sister Mirian Joseph;
>The Language of Shakespeare’s Plays, by B. Ifor Evans
>>7796075
I guess I can try.
I was reading borges and found some interesting stuff there (in terms of techniques).
>>7796059
why don't you read some good writers, and look at how they do it?
If you're incapable of that, you'll never be great.
Honestly, the fact that you couldn't figure that out shows you'll never be great.
>>7796082
thanks bro, that was what I was looking for.
you know, there are books in art that teaches stuff like anatomy, perspective, values and all that.
I've found books on story structure, but didn't knew how to search for books that teached the techniques or the anatomy or good writing.
I guess I'll read those then.
I guess also I'll read some grammar manual.
>>7796094
It would take years and decades of experience to discover such stuff by myself.
Do you think you magically listen to beethoven symphones and could write one without understanding of counterpoint, orchestration, scales and so on?
Do you think you can magically copy a drawing of sargent and magically reach an old master drawing level?
I always hate that philosophy of just copying the works without having an understanding of the underlying techniques and structure genius use.
>>7796097
It is not easy to find the right books. For example, I am a Shakespeare fan, but those books that I mentioned about his techniques are very obscure and little known: they are the real treasures, but since the reading is very specific and demanding, a truly technical reading, they end up being read only by a small bunch of scholars. They are not the Harold Bloom type of criticism, the one that gets famous but that teaches you nothing about the craft.
Choose the writer or writers that you admire the most and then look for the best books of criticism about them (look at Amazon, search inside them, look for the contents): you will need to spend a lot of time digging things up. Often the best books of criticism are quite obscure.
>>7796107
Yes, you should read up on all those things, but you can't rely on them.
A lot of being artistic is analysis and experimentation. Sometimes you'll come across something and you'll wonder why does this speak to me in this way, and no book you'll find will be able to answer.
So yeah read up as much as you can, but you have to study on your own, without any handholding.
>>7796107
>It would take years and decades of experience to discover such stuff by myself.
This.
The works of great and serious critics are shortcuts. They contain lifetimes of careful analysis, careful thinking and anatomizing. Why would one waste the work of those eyes and brains that have already collected a lot of knowledge for you? You can end up absorbing and understanding as much as those critics, but if they have already done the job why don’t use the results they have obtained? When you buy they’re books you buy thousands and thousands of hours of work and attention that other human beings have dedicated to see the hidden skeletons, veins and sinews of the featured writers. You are valorizing your own time when you do it.
>>7796116
I find sad on average 9 of 10 artists I ask what are the technique they use to do art or music or any art seems misterious and utterly beyond their grasp.
Most artist I found do practice and do studies, at least the ones that reach the top ranks does.
Indeed, many of top artists can teach the techniques they use, and I've found pretty much all the arts at least are simple once you understand them.
Most of top art can be analized in terms of stuff like balance, form, negative form, patterns, tropes they use.
I find distatefull the type of art circlejerk both from snobs who think they're simply superior because they enjoy some genius work and are dismissal of popular works, while ignoring there's nothing magical about such geniuses works while both the actitude of the plebeians who also dismiss the techniques claiming their work will be more original that way.
>>7796121
have you read books such as loomis.
I find weird not to find the loomis version of writing.
It is a natural selective that has made high IQ a rarity. If it was useful as a dominant trait then why has it escaped thousands of years of natural refinement into a rarity.
>>7796136
Even while I was a smart kid, you know those nerdy kids that are bullied because they're the nerdy type in class, I've found myself to become smarter, or at least snappier and much more critical when I started to improve myself.
Learning about the basics of critical and rational thinking has made me realize how basic is the average human mind.
Even some intelectual friends I have seem to fall short on some of the pitfalls the human brain has.
I've always find this example usefull.
You could be a manlet, but you can be the most amazing manlet basketball player that can give a run to taller people who never played basketball.
>>7796136
it's always been rare. high IQ does not give you a higher chance to produce offspring. In fact, it likely gives you a lesser chance (in that people with high IQ have less children than apu patel with 90 iq).
The only thing that could really change that is some sort of Eugenics system, which doesn't seem likely in this era. We're much closer to active Dysgenics.
>>7796135
No, what is loomis?
>>7796146
I'll be honest, reading your posts, I connect with you a lot. Our problem is that we're lazy and too analytical. If you want to have better writing technique, study 3 hours a day and write 5 hours a day, and do that for a decade or so.
>>7796146
You are on the right way. One of the few people I have ever seen here that is actually in the real road to achievement.
Become intimately familiar with the canon and engage with it while doing something new.
>>7796150
Andrew loomis was a top illustrator from the 50, but he is more remembered because of his art educational books on drawing and painting.
He's a basic reading to any aspiring artist.
Any artist worth his salt has read him at least once.
His six books explain pretty much all the basics of drawing and painting.
>>7796156
I guess I could short stories and post it here for fun.
Yup, the decade timeline is correct.
I've found most people who suceed already have at least 7 years of practice before suceeding.
>>7796158
Thanks.
I don't think a genius is something hard or mistical to archieve, but rather that most people lack the drive and willpower to succeed.
My goal is to enter college and start using it to improve myself rather than wasting time on my mother's basement and rooting myself.
>>7796163
I guess I'll try that.
plagiarism
Reminder that the literary canon is just decided by a handful of heads at any particular time.
Read this, then shut up and write
http://sacred-texts.com/neu/dun/fotd/fotd02.htm
1) Become an editor for a publishing house
2) Identify a fledgling great, a genius, and reject his submission
3) Kidnap him and keep him in your basement
4) Publish his works as your own
>>7795940
>Have a life filled with chaos, poverty and deception.
>Died(preferably suicide) unknown to everyone. >Get "discovered" 20 years later by some indie faggot literary "connoisseur" .
>Rage in hell
You're welcome OP
>>7795979
Your posts on /lit/ ages ago actually led me to develop my thoughts on this issue a LOT. The book you recommend as well.
Thanks bro. By weird coincidence, I had a weird epiphany earlier today while reading about Frye's creative process, and have been hashing it out for several hours, including a lot of stuff I got as a result of your posts (whether directly or indirectly). I just decided to take a break from looking into it more, and end up seeing your post on /lit/.
>Individuation; Goddard on Shakespeare's genius; Dewald on Frye's "speculation"; Weininger's Sex & Character; Goethe's morphology; Paglia's Apollonian
>>7795940
Subtle penis by the mouth on the face. I like it.
It's easy Opie.
1. Write a book
2. Try to get it published but fail numerous times
3. Have a terribly awkward relationship with your mother
4. Commit suicide and ask for her to get your book published in your suicide note
5. ???
6. Profit
>>7796211
>Your posts on /lit/ ages ago actually led me to develop my thoughts on this issue a LOT.
I am very pleased to hear that, Anon.
I was absent from here for quite a while, but recently started to hang around again. Some of the bigger and more detailed posts I made I also saved on an archive, if I eventually had the opportunity to post them again. I am very happy that my advices proved fruitful to you: the last thing I would want was to end up being a bad influence in a new writer’s career.
You made my day. Thank you.
>>7796211
>I just decided to take a break from looking into it more, and end up seeing your post on /lit/.
I guess that sometimes we need to change our mental routine; if you are felling that you need a break maybe it would be nice to take one. I myself have periods of time when my brain seem to be an anemic zombie and I only read lighter materials. But it’s up to you. I wish you the best.
>>7795993
congratulations, you're a retard
>>7796442
Not him, but the retard here is you.
You think that great writing comes from simple inspiration? Ou think that there isn’t hours and hours of work behind it, and a lot of study of dusty and boring manuals about technique and tools? Think again.
Take Shakespeare for example, the greatest writer of all time. It’s probable (almost certain) that William went to a Grammar School for quite some time, and do you know what they taught at schools that time? The name “Grammar Schools” already says a lot. Yeah, that’s right: grammar, especially Latin grammar. History and the Sciences were hardly a subject of teaching, but Latin and English, figures of speech, rhetoric, oratory, Ovid, Virgil, Seneca, metaphors and similes – that was the main thing kids learned at that time. It’s probable that a kind in Elizabethan England schools was having a better education to invest in a poetry career than people on literature courses on University in our own time.
So yeah, Shakespeare spend most of his childhood learning the techniques of how to write, exactly what the Anon there was asking for.
The retard her is you, and I bet your own writing will prove that to us.
>>7795940
Be a genius.
>>7796461
On mobile and at work so pardon the lateness of this response
OP is retarded because he desires to enter the literary canon with no apparent interest in or understanding of actual literature, asking for specific techniques as if all greatness takes is a well-designed flowchart. Of course greatness takes technique--though a single technique? does Proust use the same technique as Dickens, or Roth?--but I think more importantly that technique must be wed to a motivating idea, an artistic vision. And even then is this enough to gain entry into the canon? Or does this artistic vision (wedded to /lit/'s magic technique obv) need to be unique, strange, exciting, and/or even lucky, in the historic sense?
Shakespeare wasn't the only guy to go to grammar school, faggot. Where are the Marlowe studies programs?
OP is, indeed, a retard. QED bitch
>>7796665
>taking shitposting seriously
ayy lol
>>7796059
>is the easiest craft compared to music or drawing or animation.
it's actually rather subtle and it's nearly as difficult to get perfectly right as the other practices.
>>7796467
This.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FKB715rdsI
>>7795940
2 cold showers every day, 1th in the morning the second in the evening.
Thank me in your "Memories"
>>7796135
http://www.palestrant.com/babbitt.html
>>7796467
>>7796931
None of you will go far in the way of art.
This whole idea of "inspiration" and "beeing a genius" and "express what is already inside of you" are all quite new, ideas that go against most of what was taught in the history of art and literature .
In Renaissance artists studied and worked in workshops that functioned almost as small woodworking factories: they were places where you learned all the techniques of a craft, all the secrets collected by several generations of past artists. As winemakers, cheesemakers, breadmakers, furniture, carpets, glasses and musical instruments makers: the artists were grouped into guilds and learned the techniques of the craft. Michelangelo, Raphael and Leonardo are some examples of teachers who have gone through this learning experience.
Shakespeare, Marlowe and Ben Jonson spent theire childhoods learning hundreds of figures of speech and techniques of rhetoric, as well as English and Latin grammar and reading the classics in a way that cared more about the techniques used in its creation than with the messages they conveyed.
Of course the person who has more intelligence will find it easier to bloom, and of course there is a share of natural talent, but without effort and countless hours of study nobody flowers at all. And even a person without much natural talent (Faulkner is an example, study his biography) can insist so many times into the desired way, and always keep going foward until finally erupts in an artist of great gifts. For Rimbaud work was simpler, but who can say that Rimbaud is more of a master than Faulkner? Both are great artists. To be fair even Shakespeare's maturation was quite slow: he was writing Titus Andronicus when he was already 28.
The guy in the video is a charlatan, and worst of all: an arrogant charlatan. And to top it he uses words like "truth" and "freedom" as the flags his philosophy, just as politicians use them: in so broad a sense and so nebulous way that they can mean several things, but if we try to see what they meant we realize that they are empty concepts - they were mere propaganda tools.
It scares me how people well educated as you can be so devoid of common sense and ability to see the obvious.
The fact is that most people are lazy and dont have the strenght and the desire to walk all the way.
>>7796932
>2 cold showers every day, 1th in the morning the second in the evening.
This is not a troll post: this is actually good advice
>>7796932
I've been doing this for the past 2 years and I'm still shit senpai.
But seriously, I always considered myself to be "le creative", but I just can't think of a good story to tell. I have a good technique, I just lack content, and this pisses me off.
>>7797015
>In Renaissance artists studied and worked in workshops that functioned almost as small woodworking factories
How many of those people do we remember today? Seriously, what percentage of those people are still thought of as geniuses?
>>7797063
Many more than lay people know; the artistic community remembers many names besides the famous among the media.
Also in art, especially in the visual arts, there is a kind of injustice: some artists are luckier and are best remembered, while others, as capable as, for some reason are forgotten.
>>7795940
Don't write with the intention of greatness.
>>7795940
Read up on the canon and steep yourself in the philosophical and cultural tradition that is western thought is my first step but otherwise I think everything else has been said
so read, then write
>>7796010
>>7796023
>>7796467
>>7797354
These
also>>7797906
this is only useful if you think of something original in the end, we read enough hamlet remakes thank you very much.
also write every fucking day, write all the time, read what you write, save what you like, write it again but better, write notes about writing, be a fucking asshole about it, and so on.
>>7796136
IQ is a relative measure, which means that high IQ will always be a rarity.
Search the novel tag on tumblr. Find some writer on the brink of suicide and plagiarize his novel. Send them to a publishing firm and hope one of your attempts catch success and the writer succumb's and dies so he doesn't sue you.
Live long and prosper.
actually good thread, guys. thanks everyone
>>7796012
I don't think that reading criticism on your favorite author will help you. I honestly think that it could hold you back. Their text should communicate to you directly—you shouldn't have to break everything apart, first.
There's a HUGE difference between knowing how to do something and knowing how to describe how you do something. They've found that golfers who try to describe their swing temporarily fuck themselves up in the process. It's unconscious. Isn't it funny how you can be an amazing coach, even if you're really fat, or that you can analyze literature at a godlike level but you can't write a good story (see Bloom)? Genius in the arts is not something that can really be learned through bullet points. It has to be picked up as an implicit, unconscious skill.
If you provide examples to the contrary, however (like proof that Keats studied lit crit on Shakespeare), I will definitely recant everything. I'm not trying to be arrogant (I know my argument is really weak)—I'm really interested in genius, too.
Sorry for this post being disorganized and polemical
>>7796082
But anon, Shakespeare didn't read works like these, did he? He did it on his own. What's the use of books of category b for a budding writer?
>>7800459
>or that you can analyze literature at a godlike level but you can't write a good story (see Bloom)
If you think that Bloom is a godlike level of criticism is no wonder you think that critic books are not very helpfull.
Bloom is terrible.
>>7800472
As is probably obvious, I don't read much literary criticism. I just find myself agreeing with the things he writes to a much greater degree than other critics.
You (I think it was you) mentioned that Shakespeare and his companions all studied the classics and books of rhetorical devices. I think that's really an incredible point. Could you expand on it? Like, could you give evidence? I believe you already, but I just want to make sure. It would really shake my romantic ideals of a "natural genius"
>>7800468
>But anon, Shakespeare didn't read works like these, did he? He did it on his own. What's the use of books of category b for a budding writer?
See:>>7796461
>Take Shakespeare for example, the greatest writer of all time. It’s probable (almost certain) that William went to a Grammar School for quite some time, and do you know what they taught at schools that time? The name “Grammar Schools” already says a lot. Yeah, that’s right: grammar, especially Latin grammar. History and the Sciences were hardly a subject of teaching, but Latin and English, figures of speech, rhetoric, oratory, Ovid, Virgil, Seneca, metaphors and similes – that was the main thing kids learned at that time. It’s probable that a kind in Elizabethan England schools was having a better education to invest in a poetry career than people on literature courses on University in our own time.
The books he used in his school times were actually great (though often pedantic) treatises on literary techniques, with the exibition of various writing tools, all treated separately, with quotes from Latin calssics as examples.
See Sister Mirian Joseph books for more information. The writers of that time were much more learned than most poets today.
>>7800482
Would you say that this is why poetry is so unpopular today? Everyone just takes off without any respect for or knowledge of the underlying rhetorical foundations and history?
Also, do you think a site like TVTropes could be an example of a postmodern version of this? Just an idea, it seems somewhat similar, idk.
>10 billion people on earth in the past 30 years
>the best novel we got was Infinite Jest
>>7800479
I would have to make very detailed and time-consuming post. The fact is that good critical books are rare: most of them do not really help you at all. You have part of reason in what you say: the majority of criticism is just some reader offering his own perceptions about what he has read. To really go deep into the work and expose it's techniches is something that takes a lot of time and patience, and it oftens dont give you much rewards (the reading public of such works is quite small).
About Shakespeare and his education I can recomend the works of Sister Mirian Joseph Smith, and an older book (and a very arid reading, mostly a work for schoolars) of T.W. Baldwin, who studies specifically how was the education of Grammar Schools in Shakespeare's time.
http://durer.press.illinois.edu/baldwin/vol.1/html/index.html
>>7800493
I find tv tropes extremelly fun.
They have some gold shit there.
dunno why people hate that site.
>>7800493
>Would you say that this is why poetry is so unpopular today?
I think the major problem for poetry's unpopularity today is the greater emphasis on lyrical and intimate poetry and less efforts on poetic works with characters, plot and stories to tell. These, the most basic elements of narrative: a beginning, a middle and an end, and creatures that roam between these layers - such elements, although very old, never get out of fashion: we all prefer such stories at the expense of poems that simply describe an impression or an idea.
But as with so many major changes the real cause must be a plurality of causes. The greater emphasis in the novel and the short-story, the growth of medias like the TV and film, the reduction of poetry teaching in schools, the modern movements of poetry that made it confusing and arcane, almost a food that only poets have the patience and the taste to consume: all this has plays its role.
And yet we see that poetry is still consumed. In music, for example, and rap. It is not poetry of the highest quality (not even close), and is not pure (in the sense that comes with music, or at least rhythm), but is a form of poetry, and it is consumed by thousands.
I suspect, however, that poetry has never been something extremely popular among most people. Perhaps it has always been something for few.
>>7800558
OP here.
I do agree that maybe in ancient times people didn't have all those entertainment we had.
At best the average peasant only had one person who read text to their friends.
Maybe some singing.
Dunno, I guess that was how medieval people entertained, telling each other stories, maybe poethry back then didn't have competition.
But now?
It has to compete with vidya, TV, music, films.
Not a chance.
But will people get tired of good dialogs?
Not a chance, even shakespeare is still popular, and there's shakespeares plays around the world, even in japan.
Even gamers could agree some cheesy dialogs have potential to be memorable.
Hell, I'm sure 99% of /v/ can tell you from memory the opening lines of Castlevania SOTN (die monster, you don't belong in this world, I was called here by... but enough talk, have at you).
So, poetrhy is important, only that it's true potential lies in the spoken word.
>>7800582
Yes, exactly my point: if you use a poetic texture in stories containing characters, stories where a plot walks from the beginning into the middle and then to the end, if you use poetry in this mode you have more chanses to produce something that might interest people.
Shakespeare plays, for example, are much more read and appreciated than his sonnets.
I am not american, but if I am not mistaken Dr. Seuss writes in verse and is still very popular, am I right? And he creates stories and use characters: it works better when you are engaging in the timeless art of storytelling
>>7795975
>>7795979
>>7797015
I can accept this. I'm very much against talent and genius, but this is the first time i've seen arguments that makes sense that isn't just "it's genetics".
What i like to think is: You may not be a Mozart, but you could be a Puccini, a Salieri, Haydn, Boccherini, Albinoni, Rossini, Storace etc.
These are all great classical composers who are masters of their craft. They may not be as popular as Mozart, but they're still good composers and i could play a sonata by any one of them and you'd have a difficult time figuring out who wrote it. What i mean is they all had the technique and creativity down and were differed mostly just by their musical tastes and personal experiences.
>>7795940
Go ask /x/ I'm sure they have some fucked up ways to make this happen.
>>7796059
Lord of the Kings?
sorry.. Kangz
are people answering seriously to this shit thread? this is either bait or 15 years old or worse
>>7802123
why do you think this?
>>7802123
>he takes a joke in cheek seriously
lmao
>>7795975
You have 125 IQ, we get it.
>>7802940
Never tested, but probably lower ;_:
>>7803130
Test your B-12 levels too, they're almost as important as IQ.
>>7795940
by writing a story that might interest people
>>7800512
moby dick didnt become popular until 70 years after first published
>>7803643
And nobody knew who Joyce was until he was sixty years old. So, never stop running after your dreams, you can reach them at the most unexpected of times.
>>7795940
by not being doubting yourself
Nice thread.
Is it possible to increase your IQ? Obviously it's not going to be possible to go from 100 to 200 but increase it by 10-20 points?
>>7804017
That is absolutely not true lmao
>>7806718
IQ literally fluctuates by 15~ points from day to day.
And you can obviously increase your IQ by reading more, thinking more, doing brain puzzles etc
Be selected by the Muse.
t. inspired poet to-be-canonised in the next century
>>7806718
Yes. Practice IQ tests and similar puzzles / puzzle games.
>>7795975
>What I have read is that a certain level of IQ is necessary for great achievements, but once you pass a certain limit (IQ of 120) it’s not easy to make correlations. Once this limit is achieved, a person with an IQ of 125-130 might end up creating greater works of art than someone with an extremely rare IQ of 160, and that even though the two people are both making efforts and working hard
Yes. It truly is whether or not the muse selects you. The ancients were right. The greatest works in art and science are done through the influence of spirits. Plato says that he can be a master in terms of technique, but unless he has the "divine madness" of those who are inspired (literally, "breathed in" by the spirit), he will never produce a work of genius.
>When we look at science, we hope to see a rigid yet dynamic system which we use to quantify our world. Supposedly it is designed from the outright to remove bias with its main tenets dictating a strict non-opinionated approach to understanding and quenching our thirst and curiosity. At least that is our hope. In examination, we will show that mysticism, hallucinations, dreams and madness in many cases drive our progress in understanding, or at least inspiration leading to understanding, not strictly rational endeavor. Our aim is not to discredit these advances but instead simply to reveal their sources for what they are - nonrational.
>Popper would look upon such an endeavor as suspect and an issue of psychology, not the nature of science or knowledge. I firmly disagree on the basis of the potential use of such psychological provide a method of sorts. Can elegance really be said to be less psychological? We can’t make any sort of claim to this effect. What is elegant to the satellite is not elegant to the traveler on Earth. Since mysticism is a valid mechanic of discovery and analysis it thus should be placed among the methodologies taught for use in science - despite its dangerous nature.
>What exactly do we mean when we say mysticism or when we talk of mystical experience? Perhaps it is best if we discovered this through the context itself, which is to say through examples. We do have hordes of them, after all. And they paint their own picture.
>Let us first put our attention towards those cases where vast improvements in science, technology, or understanding came through relatively normal (if indeed any of these accounts could be said to be ‘normal’) visions or dreams. Surprisingly it has happened more often than we’d first guess. Perhaps it occurs much more often - as one might be hesitant to talk of such experiences due to social stigma.
>The most famous of these visions is like Einstein’s. As a small child in school he had a vision of himself running alongside light. From this he said his work on relativity followed.
>>7806796
>>Another notable example is Nikola Tesla, known for his integral part in the design of modern alternating current. One day he was taking an ordinary walk as any of us might and a vision appeared to him of rotating burning wheels. From this came the invention of the Electric Motor in 1887.
>Dreams as we can see are not an uncommon method of inspiration and enlightenment. Otto Loewi, the father of neuroscience, had a dream on Easter Sunday 1923. He woke up, grabbed a nearby pad and scribbled down an experiment to prove that the transmission of nerve impulses was chemical and not electrical. In the morning, struggle as he could he simply could not read his writing. Luckily for us he had the same dream the next day and this upon waking went straight to work, and won himself a Nobel Prize for it.
>Ahh, but there are more! So much more that we must be dainty in our selection, for like Rowbotham we are overwhelmed by the truth in all directions. So much more we must question how blind those are who deny that science is irrational at its core!
>August Keke discovered the ring shape of the benzene molecule under the influence of a day dream. In 1855 he had a daydream of the ouroboros while on a horse-drawn omnibus in London. To him it appeared as dancing atoms and molecules that directly led to his discovery.
>Paul Davies recalls another for us in The Mind of God
>" For other scientists the revelatory experience happens spontaneously, in the midst of the daily clamor. Fred Hoyle relates such an incident that occurred to him while he was driving through the North of England. “Rather as the revelation occurred to Paul on the Road to Damascus, mine occurred on the road over Bowes Moor.” …. One day, as they were struggling over a particularly complicated integral, Hoyle decided to take a vacation from Cambridge to join some colleagues hiking in the Scottish Highlands:
>“As the miles slipped by I turned the quantum mechanical problem … over in my mind, in the hazy way I normally have in thinking mathematics in my head. Normally, I have to write things down on paper, and then fiddle with the equations and integrals as best I can. But somewhere on Bowes Moor my awareness of the mathematics clarified, not a little, not even a lot, but as if a huge brilliant light had suddenly been switched on. ….” [pgs 228-229]
>>7806797
>Paul Dirac, known to some as The Mystic of the Atom, would frequently have small revelations that guided his work. Off taking a walk to get away from his work one day on the Cambridgeshire countryside when out of blue he gained slight visual insight into the problem at hand: the non-commuting quantities in Heisenberg's theory. This was pretty common for him. (126 The Strangest Man, Graham Farmelo)
>So often do insights come from these non-mundane sources it is inevitable that some would try to reach such states to steal insight through non-natural methods. And this is exactly what folks do.
>Thomas Crick, co-discoverer of the double Helix structure of DNA, tells the story of how his use of LSD lead to this amazing discovery. He reveals to us that he would regularly take LSD and that it helped him to understand the structure of DNA, and thus winning him the Nobel Prize.
Note: mind-altering drugs were anciently associated with witchcraft / shamanism, the invocation of spirits.
>Kary Mullis tells the BBC in their Psychedelic Scene documentary: “What if I had not taken LSD ever, would I have still invented PCR? I don’t know. I doubt it. I seriously doubt it.” The evidence is stacking. Hordes upon hordes of instances, such that we only need to show a few to expose the truth. And yet like the walking dead they shamble around us. Hungry to be heard.
>Carl Sagan was often known to smoke cannabis which he claimed in Marihuana Reconsidered “helped him intellectually.” Richard Feynman set up deprivation tanks and experimented with pot to “explore human consciousness”. Edison fueled his life by Vin Mariani, a cocaine infused wine that allowed him to sleep only 4 hours a night. Steve Jobs recounts his LSD experience as the “single most important event of my life.” But enough about those who found their way artificially. Far more interesting are the tales of natural experiences of this sort. Those that touch us to believe there is another abstract Platonic realm.
>As it happens accomplished Physicist and Mathematician Roger Penrose has spoken often of “breaking through to the Platonic Realm.” Godel as well talked of experience with a realm where he could perceive mathematical objects. Of course this theme is not new to mysticism.
>Others tell of an almost sixth sense from which they receive revelation. Einstein would talk of the "old one" and his religious feelings quite often. Both David Bohm and Brian Josephson, another nobel prize winner, are known to meditate to gain mystical insights to guide their creation of theory.
>>7806799
>David Peat talks of his experiences
>" A remarkable feeling of intensity that seems to flood the whole world around us with meaning … we sense that we are touching something universal and perhaps eternal so that the particular moment in time takes on a numinous character and seems to expand in time without limit. We sense that all boundaries between ourselves and the outer world vanish, for what we are experiencing lies beyond all categories and all attempts to be captured in logical thought. "
>>7795940
Eat tobacco.
>>7806796
>>7806797
>>7806799
eureka moments only happen to people who work very hard on their own fields; and after the eureka moment you still have a lot of work to do.
Also, the eureka experience is mostly realated in the field of sciences, where a main idea is much more rarer than in the arts, where you have thousands of ideas and must select the best ones and mold them after that.
Also:
Thomas Crick, co-discoverer of the double Helix structure of DNA, tells the story of how his use of LSD lead to this amazing discovery. He reveals to us that he would regularly take LSD and that it helped him to understand the structure of DNA, and thus winning him the Nobel Prize.
Beware of this guy: he was quite a hack; he and his partner took all the credit for the work of a lot of people (whole labs are responsible, in our era, for such discoveries), including a lot of work by Rosalind Franklin.
>>7806740
shhh
>>7796036
r/faggot
protip, you don't.
