why do writers seem to peak early on? wouldn't you just

youth, ego

File: image.jpg (64KB, 899x674px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 899x674px

Selection bias.

Yes because life just keeps getting better and better.

It's like a video game.

>>8296515
Because they're more accessible at that point and to some extent consider the aspect of pandering towards potential audiences for their personal material gain because of more sales.

>>8296574
Are you actually retarded? If you're not constantly improving you are doing something wrong in your life.

>>8296639
You'd never get to the final boss!

Plus, you'll never start dying.

>>8296705
>>8296574

yikes

>>8296515
which writers?
my man JJ surely didn't

>>8296709
Heaven awaits!

or your Princess.

Whatever goal you have, life should move linearly.

>>8296716
>>8296705
>>8296574
what point is this guy trying to make lmao

>>8296716
are you ok? you sound mentally challenged

>>8296718
Life progresses like simple mathematics.

First it's 1 + 1. 1 step at a time. Then 2, and so on and so forth.

As you grow, things get exponentially better!

>>8296722
You like a mental challenge?

>>8296723
lmao this guy sounds so bitter about something poor guy

>>8296735
I'm happy all the time.

Every moment keeps getting better and better.

Why?

I'm on the internet, and I'm smart.

File: K6oMm.gif (576KB, 400x300px)

576KB, 400x300px

>>8296741
this guy is too much.

>>8296744
I know I am.

Haters gon hate.

Please ignore the poster who is obviously on drugs.

>>8296753
Drugs are bad, okay?

What age do you peak though? 35?

>>8296786
48

>>8296515
to write well you need to have some understanding but still believe others want it.

>>8296813
Understanding is a spook.

>>8296786
You peak when you die, obviously.

>>8296515
Because, like great rock bands, they stop studying other people's work and focus solely on churning out a new hit to keep the gravy train rolling.

>>8297158
Probably something akin to this, once you've established a name it's much easier to get stuck in your own thoughts and ideas and become your own yes man, since it's so much easier to be dismissive towards serious criticisms. Letting an artist's ego completely run away with everything tends to work out terribly except in some rare cases

>>8296735
>>8296722
>>8296744
seriously not that guy, whatever, he's trying to articulate, very poorly I'll admit, that life is not a linear progression you don't just get better, inspiration isn't a skill that just grows exponentially. This is a very common misconception in modern society caused by the commercialization of the arts in general.

>>8296515

They don't. People who make out they do are confusing novelty for inspiration.

>>8296515
Getting published ruins people, or most people. Several authors I respect have written explicitly about this. Keats even has a poem about it.

>>8299552

It doesn't. I'm published, shit is cash.

>>8296515
Their early stuff has the backlog of their entire lives up to that point in it. After that, the dam has been burst, the reservoir drained and it just becomes the skill of manipulating words.

Phillip Roth definitely improved with age. Around Operation Shylock/Sabbath's Theater/American Pastoral was probably his peak.
Hemmingway, Faulkner and Fitgerald did not but that may have more to do with alcoholic deterioration than anything else
Hunter S. Thompson is another one, drugs alcohol and early success seemed to have a bad effect on him

>>8299664
Eugene O'Neill is another one who wrote some of his best stuff late in life. He quit drinking fairly young so that may have something to do with it

The Brothers Karamazov was Dostoevsky's last novel.

>>8296515
I disagree with the premise of the question. Asimov didn't peak early. Steinbeck didn't peak early. Pynchon didn't peak early. Henry James, Dostoevsky, Shakespeare, Twain--none of them peaked early.

>>8299558
>memeing in response to Keats
You have to first be worth something to get ruined as a writer, asshat

>>8299814
It's obviously an embarrassing low I.Q. question.