The Internet & The Writer

Has the Internet ruined the writer?
When you think about it, the greatest and some of the most recognized writers of the past centuries had never fully integrated with the technological advancement of the Internet.

Online, there is access to an indefinite amount of content, from information to imagery. Stories can be shared from person to person on: Internet forums,blogs,social media, image board sites, video sharing platforms , etc. Books on any subject or genre can be purchased with just a few clicks and can be read momentarily or be delivered to your location. Information,ratings and reviews on these books can also be acquired in a few clicks. All of which takes time.


So, has this fairly recent development influenced the time shrinkage of a writers craft? And has it potentially polluted the creative process with all the bits of content consumed? Ending any chances for originality in a writers work. Or perhaps , does it motivate toward originality?

Please leave your thoughtful posts below.

I think there's no debate that back then a person could easily focus and zero in whatever topic or study he's practicing.

Right now? Modern technology has stripped man from his concentration and threw him in a realm of endless distractions. There is no focus. (hence the incredible high rate of ADHD among the populace)

The only way for betterment is individual self-discipline, unless a society deems that a mans' focus is of the highest values (which it is) and makes legal change. But alas, that'll never happen with the imbecile-pseduo-intellectual we have running amok. Pushing for less "internet"/"distraction" will only be followed by angry mobs yelling about freedom of speech and 'limited government'.

I honestly think we're reaching some sort of climax in human history. (and not an enjoyable ride it'll be)

Not so much the Internet as the web browser.

Trying to excuse yourself?

the internet is popular
john green is popular

coincidence?

>literally projecting

There are some collaborative acts of writing out there that would be impossible without the Internet (SCP for example). Some others have tried, for example, Stephenson's Project Hieroglyph, but I don't really see that one going anywhere.

Other works of art would have been impossible without the Internet, think of that superweird PDF with posts inspired by UTV on /sp/.

its all garbage lmao

I don't think it's necessarily been detrimental to writing as a craft anymore than you could say that it's been detrimental to music or visual arts as crafts. Yes, the market is more saturated, and consumption is more rapid. However, there's more experimentation than ever before.

Also, guys, stop romanticizing "the creative process" as if Thoreau's work was a scripture for all future writers to follow. It's vastly different for different writers. Some like solitude, some like being social while working, some like to meticulously write and rewrite a piece, others like to rapidly push out as much content as they can and never dwell too long on a single concept. If you think copying what some other writer did is going to help you be a better writer, you probably should give up before the rejection drives you to suicide.

this desu

also does pynchon use the internet?

Not fully

Distractions existed back then too, for instance you had to get a fucking job to not die if you weren't born in nobility, many writers either had to write or die, or were noble neets.

Massive declines in the overall intelligence and education of the masses has eradicated the writer, and the creator. Why has this happened? I believe humanity has been shaped this way by elite businessmen who require a workforce of industrially educated and easy to please masses.

The internet if used correctly could actually bring us to a new renaissance, but we are raised into being too much of an idiot to really do such a thing.

>tfw you've integrated all of your best personal aphorisms into shitposts

>motivate toward originality

Yes

I know the idea that there will be no more original works has been repeated ad-nauseum but it must eventually necessarily be true right? So why not in this era?

I really don't think there is any fecund ground left for the development of music for instance simply because of how integral the harmonic series is. This means microtonal music is a nonstarter because it can never conceivably achieve a different quality than chromatic music. Likewise Schoenberg's idea of the mailman whistling Peirrot Lunaire is a pipe dream.

Work is a very different kind of distraction, because it allows for long periods of continuous thought, unlike the Internet, which rewards a short attention span. Long periods of continuous thought ----> good space for developing and creating. Short periods of staccato thought -> stupeys

>it must eventually necessarily be true right?
Why? Just because we don't know of new ideas now doesn't mean they don't exist and won't eventually be discovered.

because even the freaking Library of Babel is finite.

So? There's a whole universe beyond it, and we've barely moved within it.

I find anthropocentric wankers just abysmal. No, we are bounded by the parameters of the universe not the other way around. Hate to be the bearer of bad news and all.

Dwelling on one thing for a long time, or a good amount of things mid time, or insane amount of things short time, or many things mid time with two or so things mid-to-long time, or uber timing 1 thing whilst coming back to many things in 80:20 Paretto short time, or

Again, so? Our knowledge of the universe is minuscule. Our knowledge of our planet isn't even complete.

I'm not even seeing how this is an argument, or a point, or even true.

The truth value arises from the absurd egocentrism to believe otherwise. And the point is no, we are not capable of everything.

No one said we were capable of everything. That was not even involved in the discussion.

>The truth value arises from the absurd egocentrism to believe otherwise
ha ha what? the only absurd egocentric here is you.

don't want to open a new thread for this, maybe someone here can help me: i'm looking for a latin (or greek, not sure) term. its a term for the attribute that differentiates two things from one another in the same category. it's something like 'criteria specifica' or something, the term is often used in philosophy but i just can't find it

please help

If you actually believe there are infinitely many new ideas then its implied.

It isn't, and at no point did I say I believed there are an infinite amount of new ideas.

You know, you probably shouldn't base your arguments off of assumptions of what you think people are implying.

Sorry, I got it from The Art of Controversy. Btw in spite of this slight concession I have still won the argument

Oh, so you're just shitposting.

You could have just said that.