Talent is more erotic when it is wasted

Actually he means that talented people horn up when they're drunk

Is that why I make drunken passes at all the women I'm remotely attracted to? Or Am I just a shitter

I think that's a question for Don "the Horn-Dog" Delillo

You didn't? Shut your FUCKING mouth, then, smartass!

>Talent is more erotic when it is not discernible

He's right. Your sister always loves the guy that had the talent to be a champion boxer or something, but "life happened" and shucks, here we are with kids! My family always harped on about how smart and talented my dad was, but he is a blue collar prole, if he acted on his intelligence instead of getting blind drunk when he was young and fucking girls they would probably resent his talent. Still, other people's opinion is little justification for squandering your potential.

gary lutz does, sort of.

good old beaner

This is an example of a special type of "very writer-y" sentence that ticks me off to no end. They're the type of things to be quoted beneath the picture of the writer upon googling their name. It usually involves a generalization that can be completely disproved by saying "not necessarily," and a clever turn of phrase. "Talent is more erotic when it is wasted" -- what a clever little paradoxical statement! Isn't it just brilliant how unexpected the flow of the sentence is?! This sentence seems to be an antiquated technique, reaching its prime with writers like Oscar Wilde and Lord Byron, that writers can't let go of, even though it has far outstayed its welcome. Nowadays, the reader is too skeptical to be convinced of a truth by a turn of a phrase, and to write in this manner only envelops one's style in an air of pretense. "Look how important I am, how clever I am, that I am able to sum up such a great deal of the world in the majesty and brilliance of my sentences!" This is what it says, because it is a style of writing that puts far too much emphasis on the ego of the writer. Many writers are able to circumvent this problem by putting these phrases in the mouths of certain characters, but too often are these characters transparent mouthpieces for the egotist hiding behind them. Writers at this point should have moved on, should have realized that this flippant technique needs to have been abandoned, that literature nowadays must show the world, rather than arrogantly sum it up in such an old-fashioned manner. This artificiality of language that, say, Shakespeare was able to make use of so brilliantly in his own time, is no longer applicable, no longer convincing in the much less secure world that we live in today

listen fag i didnt read shit in ur post past the first line but ur anger dissipates a sense of jealousy. let me explain the quote to ur feeble minded nigger brain. look at every movie that involves talent. it's almost always accompanied by some type of obstacle that leads to the protagonist squandering his potential and this pathway is almost always romanticized by the director in a 'what could have been' kind of way. the last 'big' movie about talent- whiplash, features the same exact archetype laid out in this post. even classics like raging bull prove this.

>ur anger dissipates a sense of jealousy
heh

idk why you're hehing but i dont know what dissipate means so i mightve used it wrong

>it's like a beautiful girl who hides herself. all the more desirable.

The librarian porn of sentences? Or isn't it more virginal, awaiting our seed to enter it?

Fuck that. I get your complaint. But what you fail to hear is a sentence uttered in the awkward silence of a room filled with people that have nothing to say and just need someone to say something to begin the conversation again. Yes he wants the room to turn towards him to acknowledge he is clever, but he does so in a manner which isn't a sermon or a rant meant to direct people towards whatever he wills. It is as you say less convincing, but it serves its purpose - and no one should ask more of literature than to start conversations amongst boring people.

>no one should ask more of literature than to start conversations amongst boring people.

actually, yes they should ask a lot more

What you ask for then is a bible or a manifesto. Go read non-fiction and let less sacred and less politically charged stories put people to bed. The novel form is a flailing victim that we'd all like to help, but that needs to be put out of its misery.

To waste talent shows that little fuck is given. Little fuck given shows arrogance and confidence. Arrogance and confidence convey strength. Strength is erotic to women.

Talent that is not wasted shows effort. Effort is wasted unless outcome is achieved. Without outcome, talent that is not wasted is merely trying without any actual noteworthy outcome. This shows weakness and demonstrates something that is lacking in the individual, which is not erotic to women.

Talent that is not wasted, and is actively used to make a living, means money is being made. Money is erotic to women.

Women also desire a flawed man so that they can make him better. A distant, mysterious, dark individual with a sordid past is erotic. Why clear talent is wasted offers a mystery, and also offers the opportunity to attain money in the future and make a successful man out of this talented individual.

>Talent is more erotic when it is wasted.
I think he might be right. Successful talent is not inherently non-erotic, but wasted talent could conceivably be 'more' erotic.

>tfw sexy NEET

No, Delillo is sub-clinically fucked up. Whole, thriving people are attracted to whole, thriving people.

He's emotionally frigid and he's smart enough to be self-concious, to detect a 'lack' in himself, and this fucks with his self esteem.

He didn't engage in practices to fix his own lack of emotion (religious rejuvination, etc) The result is his whole aesthetic and personal philosophy or ideology is structured around the irreparably flawed.

His writing is very interesting for this reason but it will never be great in the way Homer is great for this reason as well. Not unless he finds Jesus.

ROFL

not an argument