How many books do you think a writer of serious literature has

>>8897327
At least 10

true writers are too busy writing to read anything

>>8897327
it really depends
every one before joyce (and including him) probably had read most of the classics

>>8897327
what about humorous literature?

>>8897327
A serious writer of literature today has read nearly all of the canon and then some. Also I couldnt imagine serious lit being written by someone who has zero knowledge of philosophy considering that all important writers of the past few hundred years have inched closer and closer to writing philosophy itself, at least in certain respects. That's why I dont get all the anxities this board has when it comes to publishing. Not only is it fucking tough to publish nowadays in the first place, especially literary material, but you really need to know your stuff. It takes a while, the stakes are higher, the margin for poor writing is zero.

No I don't. I imagine they've of course read some classics of the Western Canon, and probably upwards of 500 books at least in their life, but not all by any means

>>8897327
The entire western canon

File: 1475770497671.jpg (56KB, 540x361px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 540x361px

>tfw I will never write a timeless classic simply because I'm literally too dumb to understand philosophy

>>8897327
Reminder that Dante didn't read Homer.

>>8897327
Teddy Roosevelt read about an average of 2-3 a day. He also wrote his own.

>>8898903
No one reads 2-3 books a day

>>8898792
you could get off this board and make the effort to read it over and over

>>8898904
Are you calling Teddy a liar?

>>8898904
quite right.
for that you'd need a loose definition of "book"

>>8898904
I do, you just need good speed reading techniques and practice

>>8898904
He said he could read two to three pages a minute. At that rate he could read a 120 page novel in an hour.

It really depends. I think most well-known authors like Beckett has read indeed all the classics and many more. (We can only talk of "well-known" authors instead of "serious" authors). But there is no such thing that says that they have to in order to be successful about it.

I remember reading an interview in which David Lynch said he doesn't watch that many films and people seem to expect that of him because he is a creator, while he cares more about creating than anything. Tarantino has probably watched much more films than him. I think that it's totally possible to see this in literature as well. Some writers are more avid readers than others, some are more nerdy about the western canon than others.

What they have in common is that they all read. They all like to read. That being said, I don't think that's something you should worry about at all. I see a lot of people "trying" to read a lot of books, because they know that good writers have read a lot of books. But they are not thinking that these writers have enjoyed doing so or in someway are naturally always coming to new books. You don't have to think of it as a task to go through the western canon or something like that. If you like to read, you will read them. If it is a struggle to do so, don't do it "in order to be a good writer", because that won't work.

>It's another "How do I appear like a writer?" thread


Go back to reddit.

>>8898911
There's no way you can read anything even remotely philosophical at that speed. I don't read a lot fiction but I can't imagine you can really get a feel for great prose at that speed, either.

> Ctrl+F
> "reread"
0 of 0

Y'all know nothing about serious writing

>>8898907
I'm saying it has been historically commonplace to attribute intellectual prowess to national leaders