Is he right?

is he right?

litreactor.com/columns/your-heroes-suck-how-drugs-and-booze-completely-screw-the-creative-process

this is what i picture wolverine would look like if he had no super powers except liver regeneration

No

He's right.

Are Abos human?

Being a drunk myself, I can say it's done nothing but hurt my writing.

I think up great ideas, and I've written books I'm proud of, but the drinking really didn't have anything to do with it. In fact drinking just hurt my output a shitload. Took me a year to write a book while drinking, I can write one in a few months while sober.

Creative types are vulnerable to being addicts, but they're not creative because of their addiction, it's just a side effect of being creative.

They'll be creative with or without the drugs, probably way more without them.

>But wait, you say! Steven king and xxx did their best work when they were an addict!

Ah, my young faggot, please shutup. These people also just happened to be in the prime of their careers, and life at this time, regardless of whether they were addicts or not, it's pretty usual for people like this to produce their best stuff when their career has peaked. The addiction had nothing to do with it, it was just where they were in their life at the moment. They would have produced this stuff even without the booze or alcohol, then they naturally would have began sucking after some time because they peaked, the addiction had nothing to do with it.

No. I can defeat his argument in four words:

Ludwig van Motherfucking Beethoven.

Thank you and good night.

What about him...?

Beethoven wasn't an addict.

that was such a useless read i'm actually a bit pissed off

He certainly was, he was a world class alcoholic who had to move house 71 times in only two cities owing to his behaviour.

Nah, he was just nuts. Nobody near him said he drank any more than everyone else did.

No.

>People tend to write about things they care about
>Surprised

Do you expect Bukowski to write about being a drunk in one book and being a fourteen year old girl during the Civil War in the next? Eat shit, author of linked article. People write about what they know. Yeah, it runs together. Get over it.

No, he is not right. Different things work for different people, it's up to you to find out what works for you. Not doing drugs hasn't made "Keith Rawson" a household name.

This guy sucks. Did he even take a minute to think about how there are tons of authors who weren't abusers who also struggled with the problem of only having enough ideas for one or a couple great works?

the author's not the type of person who needs alcohol or drugs just to face people and/or not blow his brains out. how could he ever hope to have any insight or ever hope to understand the people he mentioned by name in the article. he's some hack drone; fuck him

I'd say yes. Once serious addiction kicks in the scope of your life narrows considerably and you stop developing as a person, since instead of being forced to seek new and interesting input to remain intellectually and emotionally stimulated, and growing as a person as a result, you can manage (and in most cases, are forced) to subside on ever greater levels of the same stimulus.

Addiction is a more or less binary existence (do I have my drug of choice? if yes, then I'm happy, if no, then I'll go find the easiest route to obtaining it), and it just doesn't make for the development of interesting personalities or concepts.

And that's without touching on all of the cognitive problems which develop (especially with booze and amphetamines).

Don't get me wrong, I think you can learn a lot about yourself and the world if you go through addiction and come out the other side, but someone who never manages that is pretty much in a perpetual state of arrested development.

no.
most authors write more or less about the same thing/theme over and over again whether they are addicts or not.
also he doesn't talk about the quality of their writing. to me it's almost more important than what they write about

Quality posts

Yeah the only good writers these days are reasonable, wholesome, nice and self-conscious MFA degree holders who jog regularly and get CBT for their mental illnesses if they have any, and of course they do.

Really like how CBT can also refer to Cock and Ball Torture

>n fact, Burroughs’ novels are so obscenely unreadable that I’ve thought about initiating a nationwide campaign to have the books banned (By the way, I'm joking, so don’t get your panties in a bunch.) because of their overall crappiness.
Dropped.

That's a German-American man you're looking at

It's easy to mistake him for an abo, as he's been drunk for a week straight, hasn't washed or shaved, and is wearing rags for clothing

is Bukowski the biggest hack in poetry?

If he's maya angelou, then sure

You can read almost every author's body of work as pretty repetitive if you want to, because people tend to be influenced by their own personal experiences and often pursue similar themes in different works. Most great writers are great because they developed a unique style. If they departed radically and successfully from that style it would be impressive, but they might as well be another author at that point. The whole point of reading everything by one author is to read it as a unified project. Not only is it not surprising that most authors are repetitive, it's not at all a problem. And it almost certainly has nothing to do with whether or not they abused alcohol and drugs.

This is the only correct answer