A bad writer will never be a good writer

Maybe he's referring to that idea about great art only being created by what some culture called divine inspiration and ours sometimes calls natural talent.

Take, for example, Plato's Ion (or: On the Iliad). In it, Socrates claims that the majority of poets he has known, when they try to explain the meaning of their poems, they would often be clueless about it (remember that post about John Green being the less qualified to talk about his own work?), and even the non-trained public would be able to say more about the poems than the poet himself.
He says it is so because great 'poetry' (this word used to include several disciplines, as discussed in Aristotle's Poetics, and means more or less what we understand as 'art'), he claims, comes not from human work, but it is indeed inspired by some gods (for example, the Muse that Homer invokes in the first verse of the Iliad: "Sing, o Muse" &c. Remember also the "inspired nature" of the books on the Bible and the "revealed condition" of the Qur'an. This distinction is also interesting), and as such there is nothing a human can do to become a good poet/artist, because gods will always excel more at poetry/art than men.

The reason why I say divine inspiration and natural talent are two wordings of the same phenomenon is because in a post-religious materialist society as ours, we have to find explanations to the strange phenomenons that, even when the death of God is an unacknowledged accepted fact even for religious people, still keep happening and don't have an obvious scientific explanation. So the creative sparkle, the eureka, the sometimes-words-are-just-in-your-head-and-you-just-write-them, I-just-kept-writing-and-the-words-flowed or however-you-call-them are poorly and timidly attributed to genes, in what they cal '''''natural''''' talent.

kek

Get outta here tensaifag

>naturally gifted
>laughinggirls.gif

I find King thoroughly entertaining. Just started Pet Sematary and it seems to be up to standard. I do get a bit annoyed by the 1 page chapters though.

About what Stephen King said, I disagree.

I have seen posted here some claims that Herman Melville was stylistically an uninteresting author before he went and studied Shakespeare and the Bible, persuaded that his ambitions for a new novel were far too high for his current abilities. And then he went and wrote Moby Dick.
I have also read that the other works by Bram Stoker are rather dull compared to Dracula. I even read that said about Joyce's poetry, and Plato himself, in the work mentioned above, provides an example of one great poem composed by an otherwise 'medium' poet.
My own example is Stephen King himself. He wrote the opening chapter of IT, but he also wrote Christine.

What does that mean senpai?

I enjoyed Pet Sematary when I was 13. Enjoying Stephen King, and similar books past that age becomes questionable.

Becoming a snob becomes unquestionable.

Speaking of King, I noticed he's recently written something of a crime fiction book 'Mr Mercedes' anyone here read it? It'd be interesting to read something of his that strays from the fantastical in some ways. That said, I'm sure it suffers from the same problem that all of his stuff does.

I don't know. I'm compelled to.

>sometimes-words-are-just-in-your-head-and-you-just-write-them, I-just-kept-writing-and-the-words-flowed
Isn't this just something successful people say to distance themselves from average people, to appear even more special and unreachable? Even I had bursts of this so-called inspiration, but usually followed by hours upon hours of hard work to make something of it, I can't imagine it being so different for them. It's easy to say 'it was easy' after it's done.

Even King in this book seemed to put himself in a pedestal, always handling his reader at arms length, like he was telling something to a kid who would have no hope of understanding it.

>>
It may sometimes be what you describe, I agree, but I personality have experienced it multiple times since I was like 13. I have never written anything 'of merit', but the characteristics of my writings are notably different when I write on inspiration and off it. Also, it feels really different when you write 'inspired', there's like a nice anxiety attached to it.

>naturally gifted in writing
Is the newest meme?

Basically any human talent has a genetic component. The best writers are genetically gifted with superior language skills. You can't be a great writer without being born with talent.

It's not that new.

Are you a darwinist shill or do you work for free?

>Are you a darwinist shill or do you work for free?
How am I shilling? We know genetics have a large role in personality, athletic ability, susceptibility to various illnesses, intelligence, and many other things. Is it that outlandish to think language ability would be genetically determined?

Have you actually studied these things or are you just aware of them because your argument is immediately btfo by the principles of genetic recombination

So are you disputing that genetics have a role in the things I listed, or that it has a role in language ability, or both?

haha genetics have nothing to do with humans because We Are Just So Special

Is the sense of sight necessary to learn how to read? You're making a stupid argument. What would genetics matter if the the best possible writer in the world only speaks patois? Genetically speaking, there are a lot of great writers who were mouthbreathing savants, and maybe that appeals to you because you can relate to it, but the fact is that a work of art is still work and someone who you would say doesn't have this "writing gene" could still produce quality work.

If literary talent is, as you say, determined, read it well: not affected in some way, but actally eudetermined by genetics, how do you explain the artistic burst explained in ?
How do you explain it has affected thousands, if not millions, of persons all around the world, from different races and in many cases without any previous case of artistic genious of the sort in the families of the inspired artists?

>Heil Hitler
The shitty thing about genetics is it's literally a lottery. The Russian composer Boris Tchaikovsky's daughters are completely worthless composers, but what good is this inherited "composing gene" to them if they can't seem to use it?

Have his kids written anything good? I know his one kid has hit best seller. It's odd that it's a family business.

Look for 'regression to the mean'

It's all in the education you fags.

Which one is the good one? I've only read the one that takes place in Maine.

I disagree with, Stephen. He seems to imply you either are born with the skill or you'll be average forever and you'll ought to mostly rely in inspiration. I see inspiration as likely just one of your millions of random thoughts you have in the day, but somehow caught your attention or was amusing in some way. The longer you think the more likely it is for you to stumble on something inspired.

Or maybe that was exactly what he meant, that some people just love to write and think about it 24/7, thus being more inspired. The average jon just thinks about writing while he is doing it, thus will forever be a 'bad writer'.

Perhaps it's because Tchaikovsky was garbage too.

Subtle b8 user

While it is true that many of the authors who are actually regarded as the greatest by academia were themselves avid readers and literature erudites, I give you this fun fact:
in Plato's dialogue Ion, Socrates demonstrates that the catalogue of the ships made in an early chant of the Odyssey could have never been composed by Homer himself, since the catalogue goes profuse in details about the aspect of a lot of ships, and Homer was blind.
Think about it. Go reread the ship catalogue and think about it.

jesus christ that's stupid

Homer's blindness is based on a popular etymology of his name ;

Ὡ μὴ ὁρῶν

which doesn't work if you consider the rough aspiration on the omicron in "horôn".

I appreciate it.

Don't be silly. Wouldn't you trust Socrates for saying the truth?

Etymologies in Plato are uncannily fantastical.

What you describe is different from inspiration.

If you believe so, don't let me stop you.

>"But there's no trick of meditation or self-mastery that brought it about. I got older, that's all. I was not a born novelist (if anyone is). I had to grow into novelhood."
- Don DeLillo

First answer my question or fully explain what you're trying to imply.

Read the Cratylus, little one. You'll see what I'm talking out.

See, for example, . What Plato describes is Homer being able to produce literature that describes with precision the perception of a sense which Homer did not possess, nor possessed at any point in his life.

This isn't the only case of something that extraordinary witnessed by many. There are even witnesses' records of Muhammad in extasis prior to his recitations of the Qur'an.

Didn't you understand it enough well to be able to clarify YOUR point?
There is a great chance that, even if I read Cratylus, I will still be unable to reconstruct what YOUR point is.

I think Plato was not being exactly being truthful in what he was saying. Irony, sarcasm? Who knows.

My point is that Socrates' argument on Homer's ships stems from a popular etymology of Homer's name and Plato's etymologies are as serious as Isidore's ; thus you shouldn't take at face value arguments based on etymology if they're found in Plato, who, like the rest of Antiquity, didn't have the methods necessary to the production of 'serious' etymologies.

Be sincere: do you really think Socrates would lie on purpose?

He was not lying. He was taking a piss at us. There was no way Homer wrote those catalogues, if he was indeed blind. That's probably what he was trying to say.

Maybe the widespread notion that Homer was blind didn't have anything to do with modern Linguistics-based etymologies, huh? Have you think about that?

Hint: it derived from tradition.

>Maybe the widespread notion that Homer was blind didn't have anything to do with modern Linguistics-based etymologies, huh?
Whom are you quoting ?

Do you think Socrates would need to lie to be able to laugh at others? Wouldn't ol' Soc know better?

If Homer didn't write the catalogue, then who did? :^]

user, that's the joke... there probably was no Homer.

I'm guessing. See:
If The Greeks® had a so-reliable oral traditions, such as to be able to rely on them for centuries to keep the full text of motherfucking Homer intact, we can rely on the same oral traditions that spread the fact that Homer was blind.

Do you understand the weight of what you just said?

Yes. Homer didn't exist.

Btw aren't we going a bit off-topic here?

If Homer didn't exist then who is the author of the Iliad and the Odyssey? You better rely here on your sources, Veeky Forums.

But that's not how it works.

If you go back in our conversation you will see why Homer's existence is crucial for this argument here.

How does it work, then?

Yeah, but do you really expect me to take some guy who passed his work over mouth-piece more that two thousand years ago as proof that there's some divine power granting inspiration to selected few?

I think that's Plato's argument indeed, but not exactly mine.

1) Homer (or call him the P poet if you will) used writing ;
2) His works weren't preserved from a single source ;
3) No statement on his blindness is contained in his works ;
4) The tradition on his blindness is characteristic of Ancient Greece where etymologies about a name are turned into facts about their existence, and vice-versa ;
5) Apocryphal anecdotes on archaic and familiar figures are extremely common in Ancient Greece and should NOT be taken seriously whatsoever. See for example Homer being driven to madness by a riddle told to him by children. You'll often find such anecdotes about philosophers.

Ask yourself what blindness means in Ancient Greece ; what it is associated with, what it conveys. As all mythology, this anecdote on Homer isn't "false" as it represents a deeper truth ... but not a physical reality on Homer's eyes.

>Homer (or call him the P poet if you will) used writing ;
Oh, so can you provide us a picture of Homer's beautiful handwriting?

>2) His works weren't preserved from a single source ;
They were literally memorized in its entirety by many, many people, some even from.childhood. Do you think it's not possible? Go ask a Muslim what a hafeez is.

>3) No statement on his blindness is contained in his works ;
His '''''works''''' do not talk about him.

4) The tradition on his blindness is characteristic of Ancient Greece where etymologies about a name are turned into facts about their existence, and vice-versa ;
Look closely what you said.
>and vice-versa
>vice-versa
>vice-
>-versa

5) Apocryphal anecdotes on archaic and familiar figures are extremely common in Ancient Greece and should NOT be taken seriously whatsoever. See for example Homer being driven to madness by a riddle told to him by children. You'll often find such anecdotes about philosophers.
Do you seriously think Socrates would use unreliable sources.to back up his claims?

>Ask yourself what blindness means in Ancient Greece, &c.
So, you're saying that Homer was not phisically blind. Care to back up your claims?

>A good writer is based on where they are comfortable living within a life of contradictions:

>The first writer, like the second, has an idea for a story. The first writer attempts a first draft of this story and completes said first draft.

>The second writer attempts their own idea for a story and completes a first draft.

>The first writer cleans up their first draft and is content with the story they have told. The second writer is not satisfied and attempts a second draft.

>Both publish their work. It is subjective who has written the better material. However the second writer is more likely to have written a more influencial, engaging, and thought-provoking story due to their own innate desire to redraft, try new things, rework material, with the aim of reaching satisfaction in their work, which requires more drafts and more effort as a consequence of time spent in this work.

>If the first writer was content to declare, on their own terms, the first draft as the complete work: it is evident of their day to day satisfaction of other works which have been made to the same standard.

>You will find the second writer seeking out works which show, for the most part, the same ideal of reworking the created material beyond the first attempt.

>This ignores any social, political, or historical bias when looking at 'talent'

>The first writer may have subjectively written a better story than the second, however it is considered near fact that revising one's work is a needed stage in creating better material

(there is no source its just easier to clear my thoughts on this in greentext)

In this case you mean 'second draft' by completely rewriting the work based on the first attempt?

I mean a revision that is more than superficial to the story that's been written. Something that results in a push away from 'good enough' to 'better than my previous 'good enough''

That was awful, was he trying to prove OP's retarded point

>novelhood

Look at me, the writer, writing about writing. Writing's so hard, lemme write about that. Writing, right? Right? Writing, writing, write, write, write.

Writer's right?

Does this hold up considering the books you have read?

We're still waiting for you to answer .
What does Genetics say about Homer?

I think a good example of this is the current state of the film industry:

We are seeing classic stories or copyright materials being adapted by people who, whilst creative, aren't writers by trade but are instead filmmakers who are trying to make a good film.

Take for example the new adaptation of Stephen King's 'It' -- whoever is directing this has already made the distinction that they are satisfied to work on a material that wasn't born out of their own life experience and anxieties, but is instead satisfied to add their own storytelling abilities to a narrative that has already been created by someone else: in this case Stephen King.

Stephen King is a prolific writer. When you read a Stephen King book you know it has all the quirks of his voice as a writer. This has been built by Stephen King by a constant yearning on his part to try new things, always drawing on his own ideas and life experience to tell his stories.

This is also why the best filmmakers are auteur writer / directors who write their own screenplays. (Tarantino, Kubrick, Paul Thomas Anderson, Kaufman, etc).

To specifically answer your question, I think it is far more reliable to choose to read a book based on my liking of the author than the genre or other selling points of the story itself: as most often these writers will be effectively writing the same story within a different context.

There's a fuck ton to say here. Another aside could be how people follow comedians who have a unique point of view and write their own material, rather than 'personalities' who have jokes written for them.

Have you read Plato's Ion? If not, I highly recommend it to you. In it, Socrates explores the nature of art and proposes a beautiful myth to explain how the artistic inspiration works:
He says that 'artistic inspiration' shares a characteristic with a rare stone called magnetite: first, it attracts a metalic object and attaches it to itself. But then the metalic object attached to a magnetite also gains the power to attach other metalic objects to itself . So, the goddess that inspired Homer to produce his works is like the magnetite, with Homer attached to it, and then Homer has the ability to inspire other lesser poets/artists, as the Rhapsodies that memorize and sing his works, and they are lesser poets/artists because they are inspired by other artists rather than by the gods themselves.

The example you provided with Stephen King's IT remembered me of that. I think the film industry is not a good example, since we're talking about two different kinds of art here.

>I think it is far more reliable to choose to read a book based on my liking of the author than the genre or other selling points of the story itself
Has your instinct played well with you? Personally I have received a few good surprises from authors which I don't previously know at all, or know just a few.

>mfw reading this thread

It went far above you then.

>le Stephen King, the fucking hack, is no one to give advice, despite my not having published a single work of fiction

If you say so, user.

None of you have read the fucking book. Stephen king scorns inspiration entirely. Completely. He says that its literally a skull crushing grind to get good. The fact that most people just do not have it in them to be a writer has nothing whatsoever to do with inspration.

Point proven.

Stephen King is wrong about inspiration. The other user also disagrees with him.

>Point proven.

That everyone in this thread is choosing to not read his book and form conjectures of it? Yeah, my point exactly.

Move along, kiddo. You don't belong here.

user, the guys doesn't even plot his books in advance. Yes, he spends hours and hours upon his books (as every author does), but he relies entirely on inspiration as he goes. He says it himself he doesn't plan anything, doesn't give much thought to anything. He is completely a 'what if' writer.

The point was not if SK is a hack or if he gives sound advice, but if his interpretation that talent comes from birth is correct or not.

We are not talking about the book at all.

ITT:
>huuurrr duuuurrr nature or nurture
>we gonna solve it once and for all!

See:

>The point was not if SK is a hack or if he gives sound advice, but if his interpretation that talent comes from birth is correct or not.

It's a little of both, like for any art form, user. It's not as black and white as "it can either be this or that".

I got the numbers wrong.

user he does even say that in his book, we're arguing if it holds even a little bit of truth. He says, 'a bad writer will never be a good writer, a good writer will never be a great writer, but a competent writer, through hard work, can become a good writer'. We're arguing if a bad writer could, potentially, become a great writer.

You got everything wrong.

But what exactly are you claiming is above someone's head? The discussion about whether writing ability is genetically determined or a gift of grace? Nah, not over my head, just completely fucking pointless because it really does boil down to:
>huuuuuuurrrr duuuurrrrrr nature or nurture
>we gonna solve it once and for all!

Writing, like every. Single. Behaviour. Ever. Is expressed as a combination of genes and environment. We are patterns of genetic potential being conditioned by learning. Done.

>were arguing whether a bad writer could potentially become a great writer
Are there any writers whose published legacy looks like this upwards curve? I mainly see people saying the opposite, great writers get worse as they lose the urgency of communicating their key ideas.

Point proven.

See:

I don't know. Published? Probably not, but who knows if Shakespeare's first thousand poems weren't complete dog shit he was so ashamed of them he threw them in the river?