Thought Pollution

Why do so many people misconstrue being a writer with being a reader? I understand using a solid basis of literature to make appropriate works for the current literary mind, but wouldn't reading dilute the self-realization the work to become nothing more than a hack of derivitives?
Does ignorance of cannon (of any type) instill originality, good or bad, in the work?

all good writers are well read readers
No one cares about your snowflake originality faggotry
kys

I agree that nobody cares about the individual originality but what if the originality squelched, from the individual, reading famous works, dulls a genius in the making?
And do you concede the point that the act of reading obscures true originality?

I don't think I can offer an answer, but I was thinking about this the other day. I was thinking about how I stopped reading consistently a while ago and how I want to write now. But I became nervous because I thought my drop in reading would make me a poor writer. Someone told me that to be a good writer, writing is more important than reading (practice makes better, etc.) but would reading not significantly improve my writing capabilities? I think so.

No, it doesn't. You have to know what's been done before you can break out of it. Anything you think is "original" has likely been done before, and you wouldn't know it because you didn't read it.

Also, it's canon.

I would disagree only in the aspect that reading does not make you better at writing.
I think it does, but at the sacrifice of original perspective

I would agree that one risks walking over trodden ground, but my main point is that reading famous works to get perspective with always affect the reader, and therefore, they will lose that which makes them unique and adhere to acceptable practices.

>canon
Yea, my mistake.

I don't think you've thought this through very far. Can you give me a concrete example of what you're saying? What makes someone "unique" that reading will take away from them? It's like saying to make avant-garde music you have to play guitar without knowing how to play guitar or ever having seen someone play guitar. If you're a musical genius you might come up with something interesting but it'll likely be shit to everyone except the player. Avant-garde artists know exactly what norms they're breaking, they're a reaction against them.

This.

OP is very generation snowflake; muh precious feelings muh self expression...nobody cares, its boring

so I would say originality does not depend on what has been done, but what an individual comes up with in moments of creation without a basis of pre expressed thought.
Now, I understand this idea is most likely not shared, but the argument I press forward is that of which people cannot create truly original works if influenced by a prior work.
You can claim originality from a comment on a work, (through an original thought on the subject) without making a truly original statement; for it rests on the shoulders of another idea.
The same goes for literary styles and literary tactics.