This is the source of near all current and 20th century literary genius and if you want to have the chance of being an...

well that is a list of popular writers. but i feel like i could just make a list of authors who weren't addicted to speed to make the argument pointless, don't you think?

First off, I thought you were going to name some of the best authors from the 20th century, and you come back with a list like that? Second, it doesn't really matter if you can commit and organize a book if, at the end of the day, it's poorly written and unimaginative.

They're literally all hacks. Maybe you're just lazy? I've built a system for writing that has taken me years to develop. It's not perfect but it keeps me going

>First off, I thought you were going to name some of the best authors from the 20th century, and you come back with a list like that?

I know you're pretending to be known and read and not at all pretentious, but I've never seen a thread about Grahm Greene or anyone talk of him. Or have read him. The Nobel Prize of literature speaks otherwise, though, assuming what you're going to post next is "The Nobel Prize doesn't matter"

>Second, it doesn't really matter if you can commit and organize a book if, at the end of the day, it's poorly written and unimaginative.

If your writing suddenly is destroyed and turns unimaginative that quickly from something as tame as 30mg of Aderall you were never talented to begin with.

>They're literally all hacks

Yes user. They're all hacks, everyone professional who respected their body of work are wrong. You're the sole voice of reason in an ocean of idiots. They're all wrong user, you're right. You're opinions are valuable.

>They're literally all hacks. Maybe you're just lazy? I've built a system for writing that has taken me years to develop. It's not perfect but it keeps me going

And nobody will ever know you because you can't commit to writing enormous amounts of material.

>2 out of 100 nobel literature prize laureates have been addicted to speed
>amphetamines are the true source of literary genius

ummm speedtards??

None of you are going to become Nobel Laureates writers. You are all going to be hacks. The best way around this is to be mentally ill, end up becoming mentally ill, tackling drugs or everything in between.

Ok, well, since pushing those points any further isn't going to make you realize the lack of logic in your stance, how do you explain every writer that existed prior to the development of amphetamines? Are you seriously under the impression that it isn't possible to be a writer, and a good writer at that, without amphetamines - completely neglecting the number of great writers, both historically and as recent as the 20th century, who never relied on them?

Also please continue the ad hominems because it only makes it clear you can't defend your point very well.

damn dude is the speed market so bad you gotta shill your product on Veeky Forums nowadays?

>how do you explain every writer that existed prior to the development of amphetamines

They were talented and eccentric geniuses who could compose a novel and mostly had some form of mental illness in order to become creative. For example, there's a rather large correlation between people with Bipolar disorder and talented authors.

>? Are you seriously under the impression that it isn't possible to be a writer, and a good writer at that, without amphetamines - completely neglecting the number of great writers, both historically and as recent as the 20th century, who never relied on them?

I'm never suggesting that. I'm suggesting not all of you are built to be authors. Most of you would have to have medicated assistance to compose anything large. Amphetamines are logical, as they make one take to task any amount of work. If you can't make a novel work with even the assistance of amphetamines, you aren't meant to be a writer. It's literally cheating in terms of shitting out the skeleton, the structure and pages, of a novel.

Have you ever been to college

I think you might actually have a learning disability or are potentially so far up your own ass on amphetamines that it's impossible for you to reason this out.

I'll break it down for you:
>writers can be considered great while abusing amphetamines
>not everyone who abuses amphetamines is a good writer
>writers with mental illnesses can be considered great
>not all people with mental illnesses are great writers

Just like any other artist, a writer's ability to be great ultimately rests on their talent. Having a mental illness or abusing drugs won't magically make you a good writer. Also, I feel like you're romanticizing potentially-debilitating qualities of life, which makes it very easy to believe that your mom will probably be dropping you off at school soon.

If you "need" amphetamines to do anything you can't actually do it.

Also I should mention you need to take a statistics class to understand the difference between correlation and causation. For example, I could give you countless reasons why there is a large overlap between people who have mental illnesses and those who might be considered "great" in any field.

>I think you might actually have a learning disability or are potentially so far up your own ass on amphetamines that it's impossible for you to reason this out.

It's 5:50 in the morning and I'm arguing with someone who thinks 30mg of Adderall is going to adversely effect their prose in a significant way. Excuse me, I'm tired, I'm also tired of you.

>Just like any other artist, a writer's ability to be great ultimately rests on their talent. Having a mental illness or abusing drugs won't magically make you a good writer.

Hypomania a good author has made through time. Saneness has not. Of course, it works both ways. Not everyone who isn't sane will be a good writer. But there's more good authors who struggled with something than authors who just wanted to write a book to become a talented author.

If you can't balance the two kinds of condition, both deeper despair and most manic joy, and everything inbetween. Its why people with Bipolar disorder tend to end up becoming authors more than other people without it. Hypergraphia and other types of manic behavior do not stem from sanity.

Adderall is more or less a way to stimulate Hypergraphia.

Who says that the effects of drugs "change" a person more than give him this or that what he could need to create better art?

That isn't changing someone's artistic capabilities

>For example, I could give you countless reasons why there is a large overlap between people who have mental illnesses and those who might be considered "great" in any field.

Writing is completely different and if you really want to argue pure sanity and good writing, or good art in general, go hand in hand I'm going to laugh at you.

your mom went to college

>Who says that the effects of drugs "change" a person more than give him this or that what he could need to create better art?
Neuroscience.

I mean there's no reason to go on with this, because plenty of proof has been given to refute your point. If 30mg of Adderall can affect you prose in a positive way, why can it not, then, affect it in a negative way? Like I said, there's really nothing more to be said because you have all that you need and more to refute your point. You're not as smart as you think you are, and you need reevaluate your narcissism. You miss very simple points and then expound on points that are only tangentially related in a way that only someone on adderall or suffering from aspergers would be able to.

It argues the exact opposite. "You" are not your soul, you are your body, and your mind is not separate. You cannot totally change the limits of the mind you have, but giving it this chemical or that chemical is not changing you into someone you're not. It's effecting your body. If you want to argue every time you ingest something that alters brain chemistry in any capacity, "you aren't yourself", and that is backed by neurosciences, please do so.

>If 30mg of Adderall can affect you prose in a positive way, why can it not, then, affect it in a negative way?

Do you have the learning disorder? I'm talking about the ability to create a novel, a large piece of literature. Not work out prose. Have you never edited out something before? You have to keep yourself focused to a manic degree to pump out a good piece of fiction.

I also clearly said that being manic does not always create great authors, but certainly it doesn't harm creative ability.

>Like I said, there's really nothing more to be said because you have all that you need and more to refute your point

Why did you repeat yourself?

>You're not as smart as you think you are, and you need reevaluate your narcissism.

Holy shit

>You miss very simple points and then expound on points that are only tangentially related in a way that only someone on adderall or suffering from aspergers would be able to.

Being awake early in the morning does this. And not everyone incoherent on the internet has autism calm down. People who behave like you usually are.

In fact, I'm going to lay out for you the situation here, because people like you are becoming increasingly common on Veeky Forums:
If you're under 18: something like this is expected, but should be addressed as you mature. You should learn to be more dialectical in your arguments and recognize that any discussion should be held simply as a form of transportation to the truth.

If you're in college or college age: this is, sadly, still very common among college students who think they're smarter than all of their peers. It's sad that you haven't addressed it already, and I'm sure that you've lost friends over it, assuming you made any. I would make it a priority to either, A) accept that you're not as smart as you think you are, or B) if you're actually very intelligent, you should stop letting your arrogance cloud your logic - put your intelligence into areas where you will help yourself in the long run, and try to avoid making yourself out to be an intellectual.

If you're out of college or past college age: I don't really know what to say, except that most people probably don't like you because of the way you act, and I would encourage you to try and change that.

>inb4 projection

>>If you're in college or college age: this is, sadly, still very common among college students who think they're smarter than all of their peers. It's sad that you haven't addressed it already, and I'm sure that you've lost friends over it, assuming you made any. I would make it a priority to either, A) accept that you're not as smart as you think you are, or B) if you're actually very intelligent, you should stop letting your arrogance cloud your logic - put your intelligence into areas where you will help yourself in the long run, and try to avoid making yourself out to be an intellectual.

What the fuck are you talking about

>I'm talking about the ability to create a novel, a large piece of literature. Not work out prose.
He doesn't know what prose is

You aren't going to nail out good prose on your first, second, third, or even fourth attempt at a novel. You work it out slowly over time as if its from clay. Expecting good flow to just shit out your mind from the get go is the imaginings and fantasies of someone who has written shit all in their life.

>invented 20 years ago
>literally all great, well known works in literature written before 20 years ago.

OP it sounds like you just want an excuse to use a crutch. Just have some discipline and write, damn it.

Benzedrine you fucking dumbie

What's it like to have to work so hard, take so many amphetamines, force a mental illness upon yourself, tell yourself it will all pay off, tell yourself you're smart, that you're destined for greatness, only to come back to shitpost on the same Sri Lankan death metal forum?

I'm just going to direct you to this so hopefully you can snap out of it.

>>What's it like to have to work so hard, take so many amphetamines

I don't take them often and when I do its usually for college. I'm doing this thread to talk about the commonality of good authors and mental illness, since it usually brings out the crowd who post on /pol/ about the inferiority of mental illness while simultaneously promising culture will be better.

Amphetamenes and manic-ness have been part of literature communities for a long time now and you are the new one for just picking them up.

>force a mental illness upon yourself

When the fuck did I suggest you do this

>tell yourself it will all pay off, tell yourself you're smart, that you're destined for greatness, only to come back to shitpost on the same Sri Lankan death metal forum?

You sound like someone who wants to sound smart. I'm not even trying to sound smart. I'm pointing things out.

I'm not rereading that autistic diatribe about how someone on the internet has autism

It's very obvious projection and kind of sad to read.

Im so sick of this epic "mental illness is good for your writing" meme. Premedicated bipolar I would write nothing at all on the lows and constantly drop over ambitious underworked projects on the highs. Now on lithium and seroqueal and my writing is totally mediocre but of a higher standard than my worst days so please commit immediate suicide.

>Premedicated bipolar I would write nothing at all on the lows and constantly drop over ambitious underworked projects on the highs. Now on lithium and seroqueal and my writing is totally mediocre but of a higher standard than my worst days so please commit immediate suicide.

Wow personal first hand experience to a long standing and contravertial psychological debate if altered moods could influence traditional "creativity" one way or another. Bravo.

I'm sure Dostoyevsky was a perfectly sane guy who didn't obviously have some form of epilepsy induced geschwind syndrome.

Just plenty of the sane socioculturally considered at the time normal who are/were the ones alone through sleepness nights pumping out literature.

Your point is essentially lost. I told you that amphetamines were good for organizing and solving problems, but that they also stunted imagination and creative ability. My point was that there is a mercurial aspect to writing, and as much as you want to logically create prose, it likely will come out too analytic; rewriting is editing, I'm talking about actually writing what you intend to say in an approximation of how you want to say it - this is likely one of the more imaginative parts of writing, and it's also what can make it great.

You then presented a list of writers who used amphetamines, which is not nearly enough evidence to reach any sort of conclusion other than the fact that people who rely on their ability to keep things in order may need help doing so.

You then turned to mental illness, saying that it is an essential part of writing. You have to recognize that virtually everyone has had experiences with mental illness or trauma in their life; books are often written about struggles, but to say that mental illness is a requisite for good writing is just as wrong as saying amphetamines are.

It's like you're neglecting the fact that, in any field, people are good at something simply because they are. Richard Feynman wasn't exceptionally smart, he didn't abuse drugs, and he wasn't mental ill, yet he had an incredible impact on physics in a similar way to his counterparts in literature, the arts, etc.

Mental illness can be a contributing factor to greatness in the same way amphetamines might be, but you have to realize that they're not the only things that contributes to someone's greatness.

>>Your point is essentially lost. I told you that amphetamines were good for organizing and solving problems, but that they also stunted imagination and creative ability.

But that's not true or accurate. 30mg of Adderall is not going to affect your prose at all.

>My point was that there is a mercurial aspect to writing, and as much as you want to logically create prose,

When did I suggest I wanted to "logically create prose". How does one logically create prose anyhow. Does editing not exist to you in the novel writing process?

> I'm talking about actually writing what you intend to say in an approximation of how you want to say it - this is likely one of the more imaginative parts of writing, and it's also what can make it great.

Alright going down your argument where you've lost yourself so far up your own ass you're starting to sound like your stereotype You aren't going to get good prose by imagining you've nailed it on your first go ahead, that's more delusional than the argument I'm making. You look at something and think you can do better, and you look at it again, and think you can do better.

It takes fucking comittment to nail out an entire novel. Manic commitment. Not some half assed "It feels brilliant in my mind so I'm sure it's good". That's usually how to write a terrible novel nobody will ever read. And in the process of editing you may find you have no talent at all. I'm sure you'll get tons of publishers accepting your manuscripts son.

>You then presented a list of writers who used amphetamines, which is not nearly enough evidence to reach any sort of conclusion other than the fact that people who rely on their ability to keep things in order may need help doing so.

>You then presented a list of writers who used amphetamines

Yes I did. You do know how large and widespread benzedrine use was throughout literature communities, don't you? You're acting as if this isn't standard. You're ignorant of the medium itself.

Are you a native English speaker? You have some peculiar word and phrase choices that make it seem like you might not have spoken it natively. Also, if mental illness is the key to success, then why aren't all mental ill people successful? And the same question can be posited for amphetamines, seeing as you've dubbed them artificial mental illness.

>Also, if mental illness is the key to success, then why aren't all mental ill people successful?

Ah yes. The collective "mentally ill" that all have the same conditions and afflictions. It's a large, unilateral monolithic problem. Fortunately, we don't have to worry about them, they never do anything.

It's not like I fucking pointed out the existence of bipolar or otherwise induced hypomania to hypergraphia in very possibly influencing creative ability. Or that more people who are bipolar go into literature than most other mental illnesses because of both their ability to experience both emotional extreme and have manic capabilities.

>And the same question can be posited for amphetamines, seeing as you've dubbed them artificial mental illness.

No I didn't you fucking idiot. Can you read? Why are you posting on the literature board if you can't read? I said it can give you somewhat manic like commitment otherwise exhibited elsewhere. It does not magically send you to the fairy tail mentally ill place where you can pick prose from pixie flowers. It gets you motivated enough to match it.

And considering your idea of what creates a good novel, you need Adderall more than I do to pump out something worth a shit to anyone buddy

I'm a college graduate, and trust me, the ones who write on speed get the motivation and focus, but then have to work with the shit that comes with that. Those who write sober usually come out with better results, and don't have to sort their ideas out from the goofy shit that comes with speed.

I have episodes of mania. I've had to be restrained and shot up with haldol, I've been committed against my will, all of that.

It's an illness and it does not help writing, it gets in the way. It's not a disorder where you have a lot of energy and write and write. You might feel that way for a couple of weeks on your way up to crazy town but it's generally a debilitating, psychotic illness. And most people have more frequent depressive episodes, when you feel like an animated corpse and can't even read, let alone write.

Lots of writers have suffered from it and it gave them significant problems. I'm sure many of them would have appreciated lithium, had it been known at the time. Incidentally lots of "lowbrow" street people have it, too, and in the psych ward there are a lot more junkies, homeless, and ordinary people than there are "artistic" types.

Carneades the academic skeptic had bipolar disorder. He purged himself with hellebore regularly to prevent his episodes.

Lucretius had bipolar disorder. He killed himself.

Burton had bipolar disorder. He killed himself.

Virginia Woolf had bipolar disorder. She killed herself.

Poe had bipolar disorder. He drank all the time and suffered a violent death.

People romanticize it but there's nothing to romanticize. Manic episodes are ecstatic, mystical experiences but they don't do much for your life, besides landing you in horrible situations and increasing your risk of dementia.

Only tangentially related, but I think a great talk:
ted.com/talks/elizabeth_gilbert_on_genius

>I'm a college graduate, and trust me, the ones who write on speed get the motivation and focus, but then have to work with the shit that comes with that. Those who write sober usually come out with better results, and don't have to sort their ideas out from the goofy shit that comes with speed.

It obviously isn't going to work with everybody and I never suggested it would however most people lack the commitment to create a novel. You have to pour your heart and soul into it and that isn't otherwise available to a "normal" person.

>It's an illness and it does not help writing

That's very unfortunate but you alone aren't the arbiter of the debate on the subject if certain types of the broad mental illness and creativity are linked. It is very much still debated with evidence pointing more towards many different factors influencing examples of enormous creative force.

I think you just need to rethink your perception of what a normal person is. What exactly do you think a normal person does? How do they think? How are they different from the supposed "other"?

fuck adderall SHIT GAVE ME A PANIC ATTACK AND ALMOST PUT ME IN THE HOSPITAL
i get flashbacks everytime I see it
I literally have 90 capsules of the shit sitting in my cabinet that Im gonna try to get rid or sell for food

This was so awkwardly worded that I can't even respond. Lay off the speed.

>>I think you just need to rethink your perception of what a normal person is.

Interesting question. Someone who isn't capable of hypomania for extended periods of time naturally.

>What exactly do you think a normal person does?

Not act on periods of hypomania they've had for an extended period of time naturally.

>How are they different from the supposed "other"?

They don't have hypomania for an extended period of time naturally.

No

And most people have more frequent depressive episodes, when you feel like an animated corpse and can't even read, let alone write.
>feel like a walking corpse
>cant even read
Christ have I felt these feels.

Fucking lol.

Every amphetamine-fueled writer except for Thompson has had below shit-tier prose.

Name three authors who were speed-faggots who didn't.

I basically agree with you that there is some connection between mania and creativity. Mania is like the creative thought processes completely taking over the prosaic. If we take creativity to be finding new and unexpected connections between ideas, that's the essence of the manic thought process. I couldn't even take a piss without feeling like Gargantua pissing off the tower of the Notre Dame, which made me wonder what makes a giant, which made me think of the Nephilim in the OT and why they were there, which made me think of ideas in the Zohar about the Nephilim, etc. That's not even a real example but an example of the sort of thing that happens, an actual manic thought process is more interesting than that, but moves to fast to be recorded, and is very hard to remember after you've come back down. I would laugh hysterically and then weep and howl and then laugh hysterically, because I could see the whole truth and it was awful and hilarious.

Anyway I don't know why you started this thread. You could have made a much better case for alcohol and tobacco as the Literary Drugs of Choice. And I find a moderate amount of beer more conducive to my writing and thinking than any other drug or aberrant state of mentation. I think you're just trying to validate your choices by defending them on an anonymous imageboard, as well as enjoying a "debate" of sorts. Why? Nobody cares. Take your amphetamine, I'll take my lithium, lots of people who don't take anything at all have written better things than either of us ever will.

Quads for indisputable truth. The asperger aspect is spot-on.

You are so much smarter than the critics user oh my god alen ginsberg and wh auden and jack keroauc are fucking hacks you're so much more enlightened than people who are actually read on the subject who respect their body of work

>I basically agree with you that there is some connection between mania and creativity

Then don't argue.

Why are you so fixated on hypomania as the definitive trait of separation between someone who is normal and abnormal? That seems like a really weird thing to be fixated on; so do you consider someone who doesn't experience hypomania to not be mentally ill, and therefore not to have the potential to be a good writer? Also, I've noticed an unusual preoccupation with planning and organization when it comes to a novel - why do you feel that is so fundamentally necessary for a novel over good ideas, prose, themes, etc? I mean surely it's important, but it's only one of the pieces necessary for a great literary work.

The guy you're talking to is on drugs RIGHT NOW, you won't get to have a productive conversation with him

Also
>except for Thompson

He's certainly entertaining but are you honestly fucking arguing that Thompson had better prose than Keroauc. This is a rhetorical question, but do you read?

>Why are you so fixated on hypomania as the definitive trait of separation between someone who is normal and abnormal?

Do you speak English? Because you asked what I thought wasn't normal in context of the argument I'm presenting. Which is their is a link between hypomania and writing. In fact a specific affliction of it is specifically called Hypergraphia

>so do you consider someone who doesn't experience hypomania to not be mentally ill, and therefore not to have the potential to be a good writer

Fucking christ do you think mental illness is the same across the board?

>? Also, I've noticed an unusual preoccupation with planning and organization when it comes to a novel - why do you feel that is so fundamentally necessary for a novel over good ideas, prose, themes, etc?

When did I suggest more importance of any one of those over another.

>I mean surely it's important, but it's only one of the pieces necessary for a great literary work.

Follow your own advice and quit talking like someone friendless with autism.

I'm actually not. I'm just fed up explaining simple argument over and over again to probable high school students who post on /pol/

Tbqh it's kind of funny to me haha I'm essentially seeing him argue with himself.

The quads were right all along.

>if you don't think bipolar is a blessing and speed is the only way to be a succesful author you're from /pol/
You've gone full retard lad.

...

>You are so much smarter than the critics user oh my god alen ginsberg and wh auden and jack keroauc are fucking hacks you're so much more enlightened than people who are actually read on the subject who respect their body of work

I'm guessing you're on speed right now.

If so,

Q.E.D.

>if you don't think bipolar is a blessing and speed is the only way to be a succesful author you're from /pol/
'
Except again. I never said that. I've argued it's the very opposite of a blessing.

Yes. You are guessing

How much did you take and at what time user? Has this all been an elaborate bait for you to analyze how your writing degrades after taking speed? You got me desu

You're a drug attic, that's why 30mg doesn't effect you. Normal people are effected by 30mg.

So adderall is autism now. Why is it that autistic people always have the loosest definition of what autism is and are usually the first to use it as an insult

Lemmie entertain you

>How much did you take and at what time user?

I didn't take adderall this morning I don't have any on me.

>Has this all been an elaborate bait for you to analyze how your writing degrades after taking speed

It's been a test to how my writing degrades under tested patience.

>You got me desu

Don't worry I didn't intend to irritate you but you were irritated anyways.

>be OP
>Realize I cannot keep focus while sucking cocks
>Go to doctor
>Diagnoses me with stupidity/"""""ADD"""""
>Tells me I will need to take powerful psychostimulants to be able to concentrate for longer than 20 seconds like a normal person
>Eat speed from the pharmacapitalist
>Argue this somehow makes me intellectually superior on Veeky Forums by referencing a handful of mediocre authors

Yes. I am a drug attic. I am usually full of cardboard boxes and dust. Sometimes sketchy things happen in here.

So I guess what we can infer is that in chronic speedheads, writing ability deteriorates not only under the influence of speed, but also as a lasting effect in sobriety.

I'm not really surprised. The oxidative stress is no joke.

I hope that you're writing isn't this shit when you've got your fix.

I never argued I was intelectually superior with any author at all do you have ADHD

>So I guess what we can infer is that in chronic speedheads, writing ability deteriorates not only under the influence of speed, but also as a lasting effect in sobriety.

I guess you could if you could suggest who the we is. Is it your ability to pretend to be smug because you can't debate me on facts without misunderstanding my argument fourty eight times?

Don't worry it is.

>b-but Allen Ginsberg and Jack Kerouac did it!

And so did the equivalent of Veeky Forums from 1935 to the 1950s. Basically everyone who was into literature at this level was doing a bunch of speed to get through a ton of novels, poetry, get the gumption to write. The fact you're only hearing of this now while pretending to be an expert on what literature is, is pretty funny to me ngl

If you look closely, you can see OP degrading before our very eyes.

OP PLS DON'T ABUSE ADDERALL THAT SHIT WILL FUCK UP YOUR HEART

>If you look closely, you can see OP degrading before our very eyes.

They say you can see anything in something if you post it five times

It' like you've never read a book in your life.

I admit this wasn't a good insult at all. You're going to say I'm on speed again. That is legitimately my fault, this was an awful come back.

What did my post have to do with literature? It was just as related to the argument we were having of various excessive factors leading to more creative literary prowess, as the posts I was responding to. That is to say nil. You should have been here before someone started spamming about someone they disagree with being on speed as if they're on speed.

Tbqh user that was my first jab at your speed addiction, but now I'm just concerned. I think you should get some help before your heart explodes - or take a shit ton of adderall and write the greatest novel to ever be read before your body self-destructs.

I can't even read this, please go back to /x/.

>I think you should get some help before your heart explodes - or take a shit ton of adderall and write the greatest novel to ever be read before your body self-destructs.

You sound like you're on speed more than I. Nobody has to pretend to be this sarcastic for over a sentence without being committed to it too hard.

/x/ probably cares more about literature than Veeky Forums at this point yeah

OP it's getting progressively worse and I'm not being sarcastic. I'm genuinely concerned for your well-being. How long have you been up, and when was the last time you took amphetamines?

On one hand I want to keep replying because I want to see if you're going to do this for over an hour of time but on the other hand I could be doing speed

Please don't do any more. I've been here since the beginning OP; I feel like we've bonded over your crippling retardation and speed addiction - I just can't let you die on me.

>Please don't do any more
I'll stop if you stop. Which is to say, none of us will escape this thread

If I buy you a heart monitor will you OD on amphetamines?

well listen it's good to get fresh blood pumping in the brain but might i advise jogging or strength training a bit

>then don't argue

Our point of dispute is that I do not think mania actually enhances creativity in a useful and productive way, even though the state is related to creativity.

But you're too strung-out on kiddie-speed to hold a train of thought, I realize.

>>Our point of dispute is that I do not think mania actually enhances creativity in a useful and productive way

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergraphia

Adderall definitely makes you write more, flows more easily but I think the quality definitely suffers. Write on adderall and edit sober

Dick admitted that speed ruined his health and made him write shitty sci-fi filler for years.

Fun fact: Infinte jest wasnt written on Cocaine and other stimulants

DUH
you fucking moron anyone who doesnt edit is a failure by default
the only upside of adderal is exactly what you said, it helps your thoughts flow out unhindered, which for dumb people who insist on editing as they go (and up getting nowhere), is a huge benefit

was written*
DFW loved speed.

>Defending taking drugs for any reason
Fucking degenerates. If you can't write well without drugs, then you just don't have the skill or talent to do so. I hate drug addicts so much, they always have to validate themselves to other people, and usually spend more time doing that than being productive.

this guy's a hack, i bet he doesn't even seriously use speed but gets a little a jumpy after 1 or 2 addies lmao op ever seen spots and shit? what's your max dose and do you really just baby addies? u kno b.e.e. played around with zips of meth don't you? it's all they had in the 80s and desu ain't that bad. u try that vyvanse? them dexies? railing ritties? what do you prefer instant or time released?

child's play.

desu op take some opiates.