psychology for writing

>>8743343

I just read the masters of the genre(s) in which I wanted to write. No psychology. I don't really think you'd stand to benefit unless your subject matter was actually psychological in nature (eg a psychologist as protagonist, a psychopath or sociopath character, etc). Otherwise I don't think it'd be so conducive to writing well considered characters.

>>8743343
Psychology is nothing but spooks and ideology for idiots and cattle.

Psychoanalysis is where you want to be

>>8743394

What works of psychoanalysis would you recommend?

You don't need a good "understanding of the human mind" to write good books. You don't have to understand something in order to tackle it, that is the artist's suicide, because it will slowly poison the bravery necessary for you to stretch the limits of your characters or of your prose. Much like knowing all the names of the various figures of speech or all the tropes won't make you a better writer. On the contrary, it can undermine your work as some theory that will introduce itself as a law. You'll be looking for cliches, you'll interpret every move you make, you'll eventually come to a halt.

Even though it is important to "write what you know", I don't think it is important to "know what you write", in the sense that the minute you go after knowledge with the intention of writing about it, you're already cheating on your own desire for writing it, as if something was missing from it, as if it was not deserving of writing it at that point. Write from what you already know, from what you already see and feel. Write your characters without knowing anything about what it means for them to act in such and such in psychological terms, if only you can get in touch with what each element of your story means to each character. That is, pay attention to what you're writing and to what's going on, do not pay attention to how it relates to any external formula or how it reports to certain knowledges.

>>8743411
Lionel Bailly's "Lacan: A Beginners Guide" is a comprehensive and approachable start, you can read the major thinkers themselves after understanding the terms and basics of the field

>>8743419
Hurr don't over think just be urself

Fuck off to reddit scamp, we believe in the value of knowledge here

>>8743343

Really all you need to understand is that what happens to us in youth decides our entire personality and shapes how we see the world.

>>8743419
>write without knowing anything about your characters
I did that and some of my best chapters were when I felt the urge to research a little. After I finished the novel, I realized the whole thing was a psychological allegory story.
I was inspired by psychology, because it gave me an understanding of people that I didn't have.
Sure, I believe that if you read any text just for 'information' that it's not going to help your work, just like how spending ten hours just makes the characters spout unnatural lines about the world.

>>8743485
>ten hours
ten hours world building I meant

>>8743425
he's not wrong though

>>8743422
Thank you!

Guys I was asking whether you knew some psychology book that can be useful.
If you don't think they are useful at all, then you could maybe go arguing about the value of psychology somewhere else.

If someone has any other suggestion, they are welcome.

>>8743529
He's not right either, what he said is nothing.
Ideological posturing

>>8743597
but why do you think that what he said is purely ideology? I can't quite discern from "He's not right, what he said is just pure ideology", because a meta-ideological approach to knowledge is in itself just simply an ideology (even if most well-educated people do subscribe to it).

>>8743584
>Guys I was asking whether you knew some psychology book that can be useful.
>If you don't think they are useful at all, then you could maybe go arguing about the value of psychology somewhere else.
fuck off ignorant medfag narcissist scum

>>8743706
Its purely ideological from its very premise alone.

OP never stated he was going to waste effort trying to understand all the boundaries of the universe and pysche before writing, he's simply interested in learning more and believes it will help his writing.

The poster then jumped to the assumption that he is operating on some ideological extreme and is attempting to correct his path despite zero indication that was going on. Hence why its purely ideological, he's not helping towards any request or adding any real information, only trying to fence a boundary of action he seems to feel is very important without any due course.

>>8743788
I never assumed any attempt of his to criticize I assumed an attempt to posture. Its in the same vein as when a /pol/tard senses a thread has some left wing air about it he starts posting frogs and infographs.

Also fuck Dunning-Krueger

>>8743800
whatever man, it was good advice, btfo

>>8743807
Not an argument

>>8743343
"How to write a lot" by Paul Silvia.

Its written for academic psychologists who have trouble cranking out papers at the current publish or perish rates and draws on the authors academic work into motivation etc.

Its good hard kick up the arse productivity-wise with data and graphs which makes it really hard to shrug off what you are being told about your favourite excuses.

Possibly this is a bit oblique to what you were asking but I recommend to anyone who is trying to get stuff down on paper.