/lit/ - Literature

>>16859995
There is something fundamentally disgusting about the idea of wanting to become a great writer. You really want to do "eeehehee *typing sounds* eeehhe" for two thirds of your lifetime?

>>16860002
Quentin is that you? if true, answer my massages. sincerely yours, horny argie boi

>>16859995
if you never read you'll have a shit tier vocabulary

>>16860009
>never read anything
>unironically believing "uhm" is an adverb.

>>16860007
Nah I'm not Quentin. Just a little fan of his.

>>16860009
Implying people read books for the vocabulary. Only armchair retards who read books to feel intelligent (because they aren't, they just want the feeling that they are) care about stuff like that. Plenty of successful books out there that have horrible vocabulary.

>>16860019
>successful
Spook

>>16860023
>spook
zoomer, get out

>>16860028
Not even a zoomer. But do you think comercial sucess is something we on lit/ should strive for?
Do you think that's our ideal?

>>16860009
What if I read but never look anything up and just assume the definition from the context?

>>16860041
that's my point; just because a book doesn't or does have success doesn't mean that not having a good vocabulary is good.

A good writer should develop very well the intricacies of the lexicon (alongside the intricacies of grammar)

>>16860041
I am writing a book but it's not for commercial success. I just like writing stories and don't got time to rewire my brain for autistic vocabulary.

>>16859995
There's plenty of evidence to the contrary. Just check the writing generals and all the faggots trying to write a light novel or some fantasy shit because they're bored and they manage to write 50 pages of pure rubbish.
Alternatively, name 5 good writers who didn't read hundreds of books.

>>16860019
Almost every great author has an encyclopedic knowledge gained from reading a lot like Dante Alighieri

>>16860053
You have never read a japanese novel in your life anon. Almost 100% of them use simple vocabulary because younger audience don't know that much Kanji. Japanese writers like Tappei Nagatsuki literally only read a few series before beginning their writing journey.

>>16860002
This is dumb, almost all of the great writers wanted to be great writers, that's why they fucking did it.

>>16859995
You really don't, the only actual prerequisite is having had a tough life

Most writers have some cringe shit they copy paste from other writers when describing something. I don't need cornball shit in my story to say that a building is tall or that it's noon.

>>16860049
>I just like writing stories and don't got time to rewire my brain for autistic vocabulary.
But bro, the more "poetry oriented" of us will care a great deal and derive a great part of our aesthetical pleasure, while reading, from your sequence of words and your careful selection of them and the rhythm of the whole period.
So it's really worth considering your choice of lexicon, after all a guy like Nabokov wouldn't be what he is without his work of panning the most precise gold-words in a text.

>>16860065
>has an encyclopedic knowledge gained from reading a lot like Dante Alighieri
I'm still trying to gather what he ACTUALLY read.

>>16860097
I just want to write a good story anon and vocabulary has nothing to do with it. I don't understand your reply btw, can someone translate.

>>16860102
everything that was available at the time

>>16860114
>everything that was available at the time
Which was?????

>>16860103
>can someone translate.
filtered

>>16859995
Just like cooking a lot wont make you good at it by itself, reading or writing a lot will not make you a good author. You have to constantly reflect about how to be a better writer and then put your thoughts into practice, just like a good cook would.

>>16860142
but you can do that without reading lots of books. heck you can just read 1 book over and over and analyze everything you need to get to where you want to be. You don't need to read lots of books to get to that point. Heck I will argue that anyone who needs to read lots of books does not have the intelligence to reflect on and analyze other peoples work. If you can't pick 3 of your favorite books and use that to find out how to write your own then you're NGMI

>>16860066
I own most of Soseki's books.
>light novels
lmao
I thought OP called for good writers.

>>16860119
>is interests brought him to discover the Provençal poetry of the troubadours, such as Arnaut Daniel, and the Latin writers of classical antiquity, including Cicero, Ovid and especially Virgil.

>>16860159
go to chinese cartoon board to complain about chinese cartoons, typical.

>>16860097
>writing
>writes period before using a period
kek

>>16860156
Maybe you could learn all writing motifs from analyzing the same book over and over again. In fact, it might be a better idea to do that. But you will lose in terms of culture and vocabulary in comparison to reading a lot.
And I agree with you. I don't think you need to read a lot to be a great writer. Hell, I don't think you need to be literate to be a good speaker.

>>16860009
bro just read the dictionary, that way when you are done you have like, all the vocabulary

>>16860222
The words will barely enter in your passive vocabulary, you will not be able to use any of that.

>>16859995
>satisfied with being a "good" writer

>>16860070
How do you learn prose and stuff then

>>16860212
Anon this can sometimes be a good thing. Missing knowledge can cause you to veer off into a different direction from other writers and it will show in your work, you will start to stand out more. I am of the opinion that it can sometimes help a writer to not understand everything about writing. Story structure for example, if you use an existing template instead of crafting your own based on the context of what you're trying to do, it can make you lose the original intentions you had when writing the story. I was reading a structure book but it didn't fit the narrative I had for my story so I said fuck it and began writing my own. I'm not going to waste my time on prose. It's just a way to cover up a shit story and make the reader not find out the story is shit till it's over.

>>16860285
>getting baited by a bukowski faggot

This is true unless you're Homer

If I can capture what it feels like to read something excellent in my own writing, that is the minimum success I need. I want to contribute just like all the great men that took time out of their day to give me something beautiful did themselves.

>>16861694
Is Homer superhuman? Why can't other people achieve what he did?

>>16863249
His works were passed from from troubadour to troubadour, then collected and written down, then translated. Editing is what makes great literature, refining the sculpture once it's finished, and Homer's poems were in editing for hundreds of years.

>>16860007
>Answer my massages
Is he not responding to your massages? Gib me prostate massage.

>>16859995

>>16859995
Yes. Otherwise your books will be shit. I can't imagine being this arrogant.

>>16859995
Ask me how I know you're never going to be a good writer.

>>16860009
>know the most ubiquitous word to describe something
>type [word] synonyms into google
>grab something that sounds a lot better
>professors praise my language skills
>literally haven’t read a book in over two years
It’s so fucking easy /v/ros

>>16859995
Is there even one example for a great writer who wasn't an avid reader at at least one point in his life?

>>16864314
I haven't read DFW yet, is this real? Amazing if so
>>16864331
>>16865638
I think the only trap is falling for consoomerism and reading all sorts of schlock
you probably only need to read the good books

>>16866116
What books are those

>>16866123
Well at least the classics, no? I can't see becoming a poet without having read Wordsworth, that's what I am saying. But I'm a pleb and know nothing. I just think people are easy prey of just consuming things as if that made them better writers. You can see that in other fields where people just hoard the "learning" stuff and never do the thing.

>>16866026
Homer

>>16866139
>I can't see becoming a poet without having read Wordsworth, that's what I am saying.
Keats you mean?
But I get you're the btfo OP of the other thread. Ge out of here!! We're still mad at your ignorance.

>>16866181
>Homer
He was a great LISTENER, I bet, at some point.

>>16860009
>read a word i don't understand
>skip it and move on

>>16860285
You first write what you want to say in the clearest way possible then you consider if it has anything to gain by making it more adorned by pretty words.

>>16860019
Read .05 books this year??

>>16860156
So sure of himself
wow

Can composers make good music without listening to other composers and musicians? Can directors make films without having watched other films? Can sculptors? And so on? How can you learn the rudiments of a craft without any exposure to examples of it?

How can you be a writer if you don’t love to read? Why should anyone bother reading you then?

>>16867335
How can you write a book if you're not sure of yourself

>>16866773
I agree with this statement. I'd also recommend just writing out 3-5 pages of efficiency without a second thought, and then scan for your procedural errors.
For instance I found that I kept describing things in lists. While this very efficient word-wise, it's boring and clunky. Now I know to stop every so often and convert the descriptive lists i've written into a couple sentences that describe within the flow of the narrative.

>>16867388
Fucking hell this argument
Why should other people read you then?
Because I wrote
You wanna read? Maybe read that
How does that connect to my choice of not reading

>>16867388
>>16867573
For the most part I think you're both right, but there's always the one-in-a-million folk art exception.
It is unhealthy to think you are the folk art exception, because the folk art exception never recognizes themselves as such

>>16860009
Wong. I literally made up words in my head and one day someone showed me the English dictionary and all the words I made up were in there.

>>16859995
small chungus holy shit

>>16860097
you write like a man who saw nothing wrong with neuromancer

>>16867573
you're basing yourself on some retard shit here.
Simple point of fact: humans are humans. This means we're a little bit animal and a little bit of something else. We're mechanical and spiritual devices.

It means we learn to speak from our parents and develop emotional stability from learning to shit on command.
Writing, like every human endeavor, exists as a function to our existence. It's like building the vocabulary to drink wine properly or learning to give the gift of romance to a woman.

Anyway, you're a shithead who ruined his brain with pornhub, youtube and halo. And 4chan

It's cope. You don't believe reading is a poor use of your time, you just can't do it anymore. The mechanism of your mind has been corrupted and will no longer serve you, unless you beg for simple dopamine hits.
I pity you and encourage you to change. It doesn't need to be this way

you can read again

>>16860009
Incorrect

>>16866181
Yeah, because there weren't that many books around. We don't know how good his "writing" itself really was. But seriously, from the invention of the printing press onwards, are there any such examples? I don't think so.