So it's pretty much established at this point that people with certain mental illnesses (depression, bipolar, substance abuse) are more creative and make much better writers, right? All of my all-time favorites fit that descriptor and my peers and people I respect greatly all agree on this fact.
My question to you is this: What kind of balance of talent/valetudinarianism makes for the very best? How much is just talent, and at what point do you get too ill to produce anything of real value?
The real reason I'm asking is because I have all 3 aforementioned afflictions and I should dearly like to be a great author someday.
Thanks.
swallow the eudaimoniapill
>>9079379
Self-pity is bad, friend.
>>9079379
>correlation is causation
No.
>>9079379
>So it's pretty much established at this point that people with certain mental illnesses (depression, bipolar, substance abuse) are more creative and make much better writers
No.
>>9079379
>(depression, bipolar, substance abuse) I have all 3
It's a lazy angry short-tempered neet who does prescription drugs, I guarantee it.
Mental illnesses are all products of the particular time and serve a political purpose to diagnose and 'treat' them.
>>9079379
Don't romanticize this stuff, mate.
Don't get meme'd on.
Maupassant went crazy and let me tell you it didn't help dying early.
Gerard de nerval went crazy, let me tell you, killing himself didn't help him create more.
You're a meme op
>>9079379
I guarantee your problems are internet-tested/self diagnosed. Also it's probably the other way around. Because they are that creative/talented/whatever the english word is, they get depressed and addicted.
To answer your question I'd simply recommend buying a fedora and wear it every day.
>>9079379
It's all bullshit. People with severe mental illness (at least concerning depression and anxiety) wouldn't have the energy/ability to create.
w2c mental illnesses