I've been going through the catalogs for canonical writers' libraries and I've noticed that they generally didn't own...

>That's non-fiction.
The fact you think this is why you will always be mediocre.

So this is the face of autism.

How do I become better?

You have no idea what you're talking about. Most canonical writers did read philosophical and religious texts. They even namedrop them all the time in their books. The Divine Comedy, Paradise Lost, Faust are some of the building blocks of western lit and they're full of philosophical references.

Anyway, the other user wasnt dismissing feeling he was making fun of you for using the term "feel like" which is what people who have no idea what they're talking about say to substitute actual knowledge. Who cares what you feel like about any topic. Can you substantiate any of it? No? Then follow Wittgenstein 7th's proposition and stfu.

>user provides a reasoned post
>hurr durr autism
Go back to whatever shit board you're from, crossposter. You cant even read, let alone write.

Nobody reads Dante or Milton for philosophical allusions. You too seem wholly unable to grasp the point of writing, you are overly literal and incapable of understanding experiences of others. I have no idea why people like you try to read and write, it's wasted on your stunted mind.

He is literally autistic and thinks fiction can't have true experiences. He is the definition of a philistine.

Nice try at changing the goalpost. You made the claim that canonical writers didnt seem to read philosophy. I proved you wrong and now you change the claim to "well, nobody read them because of it". Get out of this board. Its clear you only hear for brownie points. You're a moron, accept it and go back to reading or stop posting.

Be honest in your ideas and in the way you present your ideas. Writing from your experiences is the easiest way to do this. Most of the great writers of fiction wrote from personal experiences, even if those experiences were not exciting or important. Doing this will help you find the emotional core of what you are writing, and once you understand that you can use it however you wish.

>fiction can't have true experiences

No one said that.

You're the idiot making the grand claim that all literature is about "true experiences".
I suppose Faust really did make a deal with devil.
I suppose Gregor did become a insect and went to work.
I suppose peoole can transpose heads around.

>You made the claim that canonical writers didnt seem to read philosophy.
No I didn't. I said I felt that people who read philosophy in an effort to improve their writing missed the point of writing, which you're doing a good job of proving by the way. And I used the words "I felt" because it was a feeling I had, not a belief or a fact I can prove. But to overly literal, stunted people like you, feelings are not worth conveying. And you tell me to leave? You have wasted your time on literature, I'm sorry to say. You've understood nothing.

>People who have no regard for the impact of feelings in writing are doomed to mediocrity.

You're right but most of this board is too autistic to understand. Writing is an impassioned hobby for the individual but what's the point in writing just for yourself?

>all of this momcore advice
Yes, user. Go wrtie another Eat, Pray, Love.
>the emotioal core
Nice buzzword that means absolutely nothing.
You're a complete dilettante and pseud. This entire thread is you trying to find an excuse to not bother to read challenging works of thought. Go back to your blog.

I'm thinking of starting to write one day, can anyone help come up with a pseudonym?

If your writing does not interest yourself it cannot interest other people. That said, not everything you write is going to be amazing and worth reading even if it is the very essence of your soul put to page. Some people have a gift and even errant journal entries scrawled at 4 in the morning are compelling when written by them, but other people need to sift their mind regularly to find the good ore.

I'm seriously laughing right now. Holy shit. You are LITERALLY autistic, you have no idea what "true experience" means. How can somebody like you seriously consider yourself a student of literature?

>Using autism as an insult

The advice I gave is actually very challenging stuff that few people can follow to success. Which is why people like you avoid it, instead you immerse yourself in writing that does not require introspection or personal effort, only sterile ideas.

There is no point to writing. The reason you cant prove jack shit is because theres nothing you can prove. You use the term "feel like" because thats all there is to it. You have this completely baseless bias which you take a some kind of truth but know full well that its nothing. All of what you're saying about the nature of writing is meaningless to everyone except you because you have nothing to base it on. The fact is that many if not most canonical writers did read philosophy and its displayed in their works. And those are observable facts, not "feels".

I'm insulting you, but calling you an autist is a statement of fact. It is a trait of autistic people to be extremely literally minded, unable to understand metaphor or abstract thinking.

This.

You dont even know what the word literal means and you're using it wrong. You're a retard.

You said nothing in that "advice".
>be honest with your ideas
you cant even come to explain what that means cause its all hogwash- meaningless.
>find the emotional core
Yeah, whatever that is. Absolute trash, user. You know nothing about literature, its form, its history or its theory. Your an absolute dilettante and a pseud.

You are just embarrassing yourself. I mean really, you see the term "true experiences" and then treat it like I'm talking about factual events, how is that not a literal interpretation of the statement? You are right now like a one armed toddler trying to keep his head above the water of this conversation.

>you cant even come to explain what that means
It means to use only ideas that are personal to you and your experiences, and not others. I thought that was obvious, but it seems to your overly literal mind I have to explicitly outline connections between words and concepts or else you're completely unable to understand. This means writing about something you intuitively know and understand without having to research it or read somebody else's opinion first. Those are "honest ideas".

>Yeah, whatever that is.
The true experience of what you wrote, something that people will read and they will be able to feel that experience you had. The fact that this idea does not feel familiar to you as a reader shows to me how utterly deprived you are. How do you read literature and have no concept of an emotional core or true experiences? What do you even get out of reading? I'm asking honestly because you are by far the saddest, most twisted person I've seen on this board to date.

Thats your fauly, user. You keep making uo this terms that mean jack shit and then accuse others for interpreting them.
>Writing as a craft is about true experiences, not so much truth in abstract
What is a "true experience", huh? Something thats similar to something in real life? A psychological reality? A possible event? Huh? What does it mean? Have you ever thought for a second about what your saying? Is the metamorphosis a true experience? Is the Iliad? Is Crime and Punishment? Ubu Roi?

Oh, I see. Could you help me with my writing then?

Pretty sure it's bait at this point

>It means to use only ideas that are personal to you and your experiences, and not others
How do you know canonical writers did this? What ideas cant be personal to you exactly? How do you define a personal idea? If i can think it is then not personal? If im aware of it, is it not personal? What about all the writers that didnt go ti war but wrote about it? Do you think The Red Badge of Courage isnt a great book?
>This means writing about something you intuitively know and understand without having to research it or read somebody else's opinion first. Those are "honest ideas"
Oh so Homer intuitively knows how Gods and Goddesses are? So Melville intuitively knew all he did about Whales without researching? Are you then saying researching is no-no. No canonical writer ever researched anything for their books. What a load. You're a complete pseud. You're coming up with all this shit on the spot. You dont even read.

>implying an art born out of communication with a span of thousands of years and billions of people can be distilled to a "point"