>"There's no such thing as good or bad writing.

>>10002655
>I'm an accomplished, award-winning novelist with several works in print.
Sure you are

>>10002655
why did you attach that video?

>>10002655
So what am I supposed to now? Stop liking things I like because it isn't good enough as decided by by some unknown objective standard?

>>10002662
It doesn't matter if I am or not. Anyone familiar with even the basics of craftsmanship in ANY art can tell you there are objectively good works and objectively bad works. I could be an apprentice carpenter living in a flop house and tell you there are shitty tables and amazing tables. The only people who disagree are people who know nothing about anything, ignoramuses such as yourself.

This post is laughable. Good job. Tell us what other knowledge you have for us.

>>10002671
Why didn't you watch it?

>>10002677
>So what am I supposed to now?
The difference.

>Stop liking things I like because it isn't good enough as decided by by some unknown objective standard?
The objective standard is not unknown. It is simply unknown by you. Or rather, you REFUSE to know it. You're allowed to like art that is objectively bad for subjective reasons. But you aren't allowed to pretend that there is no such thing as objectively good and bad art to justify your shit taste.

>>10002691
>It doesn't matter if I am or not.

Then why did you bother mentioning this in the first place?

Stop lying on the internet. It's pathetic.

>>10002711
Phallogocentrism is natural.

>>10002711
I've spent decades honing my craft and learning vast quantities of knowledge that I could fill out entire volumes with. You aren't ready to hear most of what I have to say, if anything.

So let's start with the basics.

Learn standard spelling, grammar, and punctuation.

You can intentionally overlook them if the work calls for it, but you need to know them first, otherwise you are a blundering idiot.

If you don't have these down then you have nothing. This is job one.

'good writing' largely rests on novelty. The 'greats' that are remembered, are largely just remembered for doing something first.

>>10002754
I will not provide evidence of my career or identity. I have you at a disadvantage here. You are not in a position to conceal your stupidity.

>>10002655
Most, if not all people on e/lit/e, would agree with this sentiment. It's more than likely coming from some poorly educated postmodern relativists, wishing to deconstruct the foundation of aesthetics for the imagined sake of progress™. You know, the same artsy types who marvel at blank canvases and canned feces.

On the other hand, to be "accomplished" and "award-winning" in this day and age is not a good sign of your literary merits. I'm reminded of Robert Louis Stephenson, who, surprised to learn thay Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde had become quite successful, exclaimed – "there must be something wrong with me, or I would not be popular". There is of course exceptions to this rule, but I wouldn't brag about it.

What's your novel about anyway – does it make delicious references to the titanic oldtimers only a patrician could wet himself about, does it engage with the thoughts of profound philosophers and theologians, is it cathartic, maddening and world shattering?

Or is it, dare I say, fluffy entertainment fit for the never-ending pit of trash?

>>10002786
Not him but are you autistic? Are you really that amazed by a guy doubting you in an imageboard? Do you really think he's an idiot for that?

>>10002655
Now prove it.

>>10002655
Perhaps it is the effect of (((critics)))

>>10002786
Nigger I've written 8 secret noble prize winning novels and can tell you, everything you say is wrong. Shut up.

>In his long-awaited return, John Green, the acclaimed, award-winning author of Looking for Alaska and The Fault in Our Stars, shares Aza’s story with shattering, unflinching clarity in this brilliant novel of love, resilience, and the power of lifelong friendship

I think we found OP.

>>10002655
Hi Dan Schneider. Big fan of Cosmoetica.

>>10003129
You mean the same people who pretend objective standards exist so they can have a career bitching about how a work didn't reach them or cream about how it did? Being a critic is much harder when you have to explain your opinion without relying on muh authority.

File: 30a.jpg (59KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 600x450px

>>10002655
>I'm an accomplished, award-winning novelist with several works in print.