Writer's growth curve

Why do great authors gradually become better and better before peaking generally between 35-55 and then getting gradually worse before becoming, in some instances, genuinely shit. I mean how did the man who wrote Gravity's Rainbow at 35-ish, then write Bleeding Edge at 75-ish? I know he wrote M&D in between but the point stands and it seems to be the acknowledged trend for artists in all mediums, really. I just don't understand what happens to the ambition and talent of these writers. There are exceptions I know like Dante and Joyce, but as I say they are exceptions. Has any writer written about this phenomenon?

I know Ishiguro said that most writers will write their defining and best work at around 30 years old or before. I think its a question of the exhaustibility of revelation. Writers are writing about themselves and their internal relation or distance to the world, even if they're using incredibly far out plots all the electricity that makes it run is from their own internal friction. Some people get too comfortable, complacent, or they've just unloaded such a huge reserve of their own angst and capacity for revelation that they don't have anything left to write with. They've closed the distance between themselves and the world or identified their view of the world too closely so their writings come off as almost ripoffs of their old stuff. What makes great art is tension and friction, youth is full of that, but its rarer in old age.

makes sense thanks

The first things that a writer creates are based on ideas they have been thinking about their entire life. The very first works suffer from being unable to communicate those ideas clearly, and the very late works suffer from depleting their idea reservoir.

You pretty much start dying of old age after like 25 years. Some people care less about appearances and more about self-expression as they get older. If you want concrete answers, you will need to consider each writer individually. Read their biographies or something.

because you start reading seriously around 20, you spend your 20s reading stuff, trying to find out what you believe, then by about 30, you've done enough homework, you start producing your own stuff, with your own ideas, and by 50, you're old, you're not being inspired, you have your ideas, you're sticking to them, and you're probably just rehashing stuff you've already said.

Mainly this, but also mental faculties declining with age.

>Oedipa settled back, to await The Crying of Lot 49
fucking seriously?

Quality post

>What makes great art is tension and friction
hmm.. so do you think it is necessary for an artist to be in conflict with himself in order to make a great work? could a great work of art come from a place of serenity?

agreed

the trips confirm COL49 ending is shit. but really it was never about the mystery but the characters, which I dug yeah, but when pynchon spend pages droning on about the possibilities of the conspiracy i grew quite annoyed being aware that the 'mystery' was irrelevent

It depends. I mean I would say yes, maybe not in conflict with himself specifically but in conflict with something. If you have serenity why make art about it? why not just enjoy it? Can you give an example of art from a place of serenity? free of any traces of conflict?

I'm just asking if you think its required that an artist feel a certain conflict to be able to channel that conflict into their work. Could a conflict exist only in the story, or is it required that the artist have some level of personal ties to it? I'm not taking sides, I have this question on my mind all the time. Could a work exist separate from its author, detached from the artists own experience, and still be emotionally powerful (good)?

I'm not sure either. I don't think I'm informed enough about it but I know there's tons of in depth post modern critical theory about that question of authorship and sublimation. I'm of the thought that even if an author chooses a plot thats the farthest away from his own personal experience there will still be traces of his psychological map inherent in it.

not that guy, I think like a lot of these theoretical questions of "could this unlikely thing occur", the answer is yes but realistic circumstances rarely if ever arise in which the unlikely thing has a chance of happening.

Its like the question of could a great author only take interest in fiction at age 40 and then become great by the age of 70. Sure, it could happen, but in real life the vast majority of cases will follow the usual route, and for your question the usual route is that a very passionate and well read person finds something they want to reveal to the world and they work hard to do so through literature.

If you are just asking if in general a work could be made without a conflict in the narrative that the author is invested in, sure, look at beckett for an obvious example. but if its worth reading there will always be some point, narrative or philosophical, being made, and the author will have some passion and personal involvement in it.

i had no intention of theoretically arguing for it. lots of things can happen in theory. but what can happen in practice? thats what im concerned with. I agree with pretty much everything you said.

Yeah, it would be impossible for an artist to completely remove themselves from their work. I guess what I want to know is where is the cut off point? How much of yourself can you distance or eliminate while still making a work with, as the other user pointed out, a 'point' that is being made?

There's a business side to it, too. Normally you have the idea for one great book. And you have a lot of time to write it, because there's no publisher who always asks you if you've got something for him. Maybe there are ideas for two or three more books that hive off this idea, but after you've published that one great book (and the two or three more), well, that's pretty much it.
But you're still a professional writer - that means, you have to earn your money with writing. Your publisher and the writing industrie want to make money with your writings and they know they can make some money with it because you had this one (two, three) great book/s - you're kind of a brand now. That's basically the time, your name on the book gets bigger than its title.

Now you have to choose: either you're going with the flow and make money with shitty books or you stop writing until you come up with another great idea. In terms of money, not many authors are able to do the latter.

Good question. If we're talking about art in general I'm starting to think about your question in relation to contemporary ambient music like Stars of the Lid, or Kyle bobby Dunn or abstract expressionist painters like pollock or Franz Kline. I'm not sure what the literary analog to that kind of minimalism would be. But again it gets swallowed up in theoretical and philosophical concepts of context and authorship, which to be honest are not very rewarding to explore.

Another thing to consider is the age of the recipient. If you're 30 and read a book someone wrote when he was 30 you are kind of at the same level considering taste, experience of life, stuff like that. If you're 30 and read a book someone wrote when he was 70... well, that's not the case. Maybe an author considers a certain style he (and you) liked when he was 30 pretentious when he grows older, maybe he reviews some of his ideas and will reach different conlusion later on. Maybe you should just read those books again when you are 70 yourself.

Old people write for old people. One day we will be mature enough to understand the books that you're calling ''trash''.

I'm 19 so I never really have any idea where people are in life and what their experience of life is when I read their books, the whole thing is a bit of a mystery to me which is a big part of why I asked this, because I really won't have a personal insight for a decade or so. I suspect you're right, or at least the authors just focus more on family and personal relationships, things that could be considered sentimental compared to the vigorous focus required when they were younger, hence work that is often more saccharine and conventional. (The Pynchon example in OP, or McCarthy's The Road vs Blood Meridian for two meme examples). Whatever the reason is I have to believe I can find out somehow without just waiting to turn 70 myself. Imagine the disappointment if I still found them shit.

first post best post

>so do you think it is necessary for an artist to be in conflict with himself in order to make a great work

this is sort of a meme. the great artists made great work in spite of inner conflict and tension, and often mental health issues. not because of them. things like depression don't make you creative. it saps your energy and creativity away and makes you duller. all good work comes from a place of joy. sometimes that joy comes after a bout of depression. but it isnt necessarry.
MC Escher

You're wrong. "all good work comes from a place of joy" that's objectively wrong, it makes me think you've never actually created anything. Escher's work is an exploration of mathematical, architectural and visual relations and conflicts. The main gimmick of his works (impossible structures) are the conflicts between what's possible in 2d vs 3d. Just because it doesn't have a cookie cutter emotional or societal drama doesn't mean it doesn't rest on a representation or allusion to conflict.

I think people reach their creative peak around 27 for some reason. This is when almost all great Musicians release their magnum opus or are thought to be at their peak

MC Escher's work came from admiring Roman architeture and the Italian countryside, as well as mosques in Spain. He delved into mathematics and interacted with mathematicians. He wasn't some troubled conflicted guy. You might sens some "tension" in his work but that's literally just your opinion. Escher the person did not create out of inner conflict, he actively searched for beautiful areas to be inspired by.

>it makes me think you've never actually created anything.

I'm a musician, artist, and graphic designer. I interact with creatives everyday as part of my job.

with some respect, what the fuck have you ever done? Write a few limp-wristed poems and short stories? Get over yourself. Writing isn't even an art.

Escher sounds comfy as fuck

>Writing isn't even an art.
come on man you were doing so well until you exposed your true inner shitpost

>I'm a musician, artist, and graphic designer. I interact with creatives everyday as part of my job.

Did you write this shitpost on a Macbook Pro?

>Writing isn't even an art.

That sounds very anti-intellectual. Are you actually implying that there's nothing artful in the basis of communication?

Keep going man, I'd like to see some of your work, especially that "Graphic design"

Also a musician, painter, writer etc. haha, Have indeed written poetry and short stories, but i'm not sure they'd qualify as "limp wristed"