>a bad writer will never be a good writer What did he mean

What would he know about being a good writer?

>>9338758
well, he's been trying for about 55 books now, so who knows

>>9338760
fpbp

>>9338758
Stephen King being a hack aside, he's not really wrong. Writing is one of those things that you either get or you don't. Throwing yourself into a study of the classics will definitely help you write decently, but if you're not naturally gifted at writing then it's highly unlikely to ever be considered great, or good. There's a reason why writing is a profession that's filled with pseuds and hacks.

>>9338758
Why do you want to write?

>>9338762
underrated

>>9339500
I'm an artist and need a creative outlet.

I write and read good so writing a novel seems logical.

>>9338758
One of the worst How To books ever and it only gets a pass because it's Stephen King.

>>9340988
You're weird.

Maybe he's referring to that idea about great art only being created by what some culture called divine inspiration and ours sometimes calls natural talent.

Take, for example, Plato's Ion (or: On the Iliad). In it, Socrates claims that the majority of poets he has known, when they try to explain the meaning of their poems, they would often be clueless about it (remember that post about John Green being the less qualified to talk about his own work?), and even the non-trained public would be able to say more about the poems than the poet himself.
He says it is so because great 'poetry' (this word used to include several disciplines, as discussed in Aristotle's Poetics, and means more or less what we understand as 'art'), he claims, comes not from human work, but it is indeed inspired by some gods (for example, the Muse that Homer invokes in the first verse of the Iliad: "Sing, o Muse" &c. Remember also the "inspired nature" of the books on the Bible and the "revealed condition" of the Qur'an. This distinction is also interesting), and as such there is nothing a human can do to become a good poet/artist, because gods will always excel more at poetry/art than men.

>>9341140
The reason why I say divine inspiration and natural talent are two wordings of the same phenomenon is because in a post-religious materialist society as ours, we have to find explanations to the strange phenomenons that, even when the death of God is an unacknowledged accepted fact even for religious people, still keep happening and don't have an obvious scientific explanation. So the creative sparkle, the eureka, the sometimes-words-are-just-in-your-head-and-you-just-write-them, I-just-kept-writing-and-the-words-flowed or however-you-call-them are poorly and timidly attributed to genes, in what they cal '''''natural''''' talent.

>>9338762
kek

>>9341140
Get outta here tensaifag

>>9339460
>naturally gifted
>laughinggirls.gif

I find King thoroughly entertaining. Just started Pet Sematary and it seems to be up to standard. I do get a bit annoyed by the 1 page chapters though.

>>9341219
About what Stephen King said, I disagree.

I have seen posted here some claims that Herman Melville was stylistically an uninteresting author before he went and studied Shakespeare and the Bible, persuaded that his ambitions for a new novel were far too high for his current abilities. And then he went and wrote Moby Dick.
I have also read that the other works by Bram Stoker are rather dull compared to Dracula. I even read that said about Joyce's poetry, and Plato himself, in the work mentioned above, provides an example of one great poem composed by an otherwise 'medium' poet.
My own example is Stephen King himself. He wrote the opening chapter of IT, but he also wrote Christine.

>>9341257
What does that mean senpai?

>>9341272
I enjoyed Pet Sematary when I was 13. Enjoying Stephen King, and similar books past that age becomes questionable.

>>9341349
Becoming a snob becomes unquestionable.

Speaking of King, I noticed he's recently written something of a crime fiction book 'Mr Mercedes' anyone here read it? It'd be interesting to read something of his that strays from the fantastical in some ways. That said, I'm sure it suffers from the same problem that all of his stuff does.

>>9339500
I don't know. I'm compelled to.

>>9341219
>sometimes-words-are-just-in-your-head-and-you-just-write-them, I-just-kept-writing-and-the-words-flowed
Isn't this just something successful people say to distance themselves from average people, to appear even more special and unreachable? Even I had bursts of this so-called inspiration, but usually followed by hours upon hours of hard work to make something of it, I can't imagine it being so different for them. It's easy to say 'it was easy' after it's done.

Even King in this book seemed to put himself in a pedestal, always handling his reader at arms length, like he was telling something to a kid who would have no hope of understanding it.

>>>>9341946
It may sometimes be what you describe, I agree, but I personality have experienced it multiple times since I was like 13. I have never written anything 'of merit', but the characteristics of my writings are notably different when I write on inspiration and off it. Also, it feels really different when you write 'inspired', there's like a nice anxiety attached to it.

>>9339460
>naturally gifted in writing
Is the newest meme?

>>9342014
Basically any human talent has a genetic component. The best writers are genetically gifted with superior language skills. You can't be a great writer without being born with talent.

>>9342014
It's not that new.

>>9342036
Are you a darwinist shill or do you work for free?

>>9342045
>Are you a darwinist shill or do you work for free?
How am I shilling? We know genetics have a large role in personality, athletic ability, susceptibility to various illnesses, intelligence, and many other things. Is it that outlandish to think language ability would be genetically determined?

>>9342062
Have you actually studied these things or are you just aware of them because your argument is immediately btfo by the principles of genetic recombination

>>9342089
So are you disputing that genetics have a role in the things I listed, or that it has a role in language ability, or both?

>>9342097
haha genetics have nothing to do with humans because We Are Just So Special

>>9342097
Is the sense of sight necessary to learn how to read? You're making a stupid argument. What would genetics matter if the the best possible writer in the world only speaks patois? Genetically speaking, there are a lot of great writers who were mouthbreathing savants, and maybe that appeals to you because you can relate to it, but the fact is that a work of art is still work and someone who you would say doesn't have this "writing gene" could still produce quality work.

>>9342062
If literary talent is, as you say, determined, read it well: not affected in some way, but actally eudetermined by genetics, how do you explain the artistic burst explained in >>9341219 ?
How do you explain it has affected thousands, if not millions, of persons all around the world, from different races and in many cases without any previous case of artistic genious of the sort in the families of the inspired artists?

>>9342097
>>9342188
>Heil Hitler
The shitty thing about genetics is it's literally a lottery. The Russian composer Boris Tchaikovsky's daughters are completely worthless composers, but what good is this inherited "composing gene" to them if they can't seem to use it?

Have his kids written anything good? I know his one kid has hit best seller. It's odd that it's a family business.

>>9342238
Look for 'regression to the mean'

It's all in the education you fags.

>>9341331
Which one is the good one? I've only read the one that takes place in Maine.

>>9338758
I disagree with, Stephen. He seems to imply you either are born with the skill or you'll be average forever and you'll ought to mostly rely in inspiration. I see inspiration as likely just one of your millions of random thoughts you have in the day, but somehow caught your attention or was amusing in some way. The longer you think the more likely it is for you to stumble on something inspired.

Or maybe that was exactly what he meant, that some people just love to write and think about it 24/7, thus being more inspired. The average jon just thinks about writing while he is doing it, thus will forever be a 'bad writer'.

File: boston-fire-truck-high-speed-24760015.jpg (103KB, 1300x960px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 1300x960px

>>9342238
Perhaps it's because Tchaikovsky was garbage too.

>>9340968
Subtle b8 anon

>>9342260
While it is true that many of the authors who are actually regarded as the greatest by academia were themselves avid readers and literature erudites, I give you this fun fact:
in Plato's dialogue Ion, Socrates demonstrates that the catalogue of the ships made in an early chant of the Odyssey could have never been composed by Homer himself, since the catalogue goes profuse in details about the aspect of a lot of ships, and Homer was blind.
Think about it. Go reread the ship catalogue and think about it.

>>9342299
jesus christ that's stupid

Homer's blindness is based on a popular etymology of his name ;

Ὡ μὴ ὁρῶν

which doesn't work if you consider the rough aspiration on the omicron in "horôn".

>>9342268
I appreciate it.

>>9342308
Don't be silly. Wouldn't you trust Socrates for saying the truth?

>>9342318
Etymologies in Plato are uncannily fantastical.

>>9342270
What you describe is different from inspiration.

>>9342341
If you believe so, don't let me stop you.

>>9339460
>>9338758
>"But there's no trick of meditation or self-mastery that brought it about. I got older, that's all. I was not a born novelist (if anyone is). I had to grow into novelhood."
- Don DeLillo

>>9342329
First answer my question or fully explain what you're trying to imply.

>>9342348
Read the Cratylus, little one. You'll see what I'm talking out.

>>9342346
See, for example, >>9342299 . What Plato describes is Homer being able to produce literature that describes with precision the perception of a sense which Homer did not possess, nor possessed at any point in his life.

This isn't the only case of something that extraordinary witnessed by many. There are even witnesses' records of Muhammad in extasis prior to his recitations of the Qur'an.

>>9342366
Didn't you understand it enough well to be able to clarify YOUR point?
There is a great chance that, even if I read Cratylus, I will still be unable to reconstruct what YOUR point is.

>>9342370
I think Plato was not being exactly being truthful in what he was saying. Irony, sarcasm? Who knows.

>>9342378
My point is that Socrates' argument on Homer's ships stems from a popular etymology of Homer's name and Plato's etymologies are as serious as Isidore's ; thus you shouldn't take at face value arguments based on etymology if they're found in Plato, who, like the rest of Antiquity, didn't have the methods necessary to the production of 'serious' etymologies.

>>9342382
Be sincere: do you really think Socrates would lie on purpose?

>>9342405
He was not lying. He was taking a piss at us. There was no way Homer wrote those catalogues, if he was indeed blind. That's probably what he was trying to say.

>>9342398
Maybe the widespread notion that Homer was blind didn't have anything to do with modern Linguistics-based etymologies, huh? Have you think about that?

Hint: it derived from tradition.

>>9342425
>Maybe the widespread notion that Homer was blind didn't have anything to do with modern Linguistics-based etymologies, huh?
Whom are you quoting ?

>>9342416
Do you think Socrates would need to lie to be able to laugh at others? Wouldn't ol' Soc know better?

If Homer didn't write the catalogue, then who did? :^]

>>9342449
Anon, that's the joke... there probably was no Homer.

>>9342442
I'm guessing. See:
If The Greeks® had a so-reliable oral traditions, such as to be able to rely on them for centuries to keep the full text of motherfucking Homer intact, we can rely on the same oral traditions that spread the fact that Homer was blind.

>>9342459
Do you understand the weight of what you just said?

>>9342482
Yes. Homer didn't exist.

Btw aren't we going a bit off-topic here?

>>9342504
If Homer didn't exist then who is the author of the Iliad and the Odyssey? You better rely here on your sources, /fit/.

>>9342473
But that's not how it works.

>>9342504
If you go back in our conversation you will see why Homer's existence is crucial for this argument here.

>>9342514
How does it work, then?

>>9342521
Yeah, but do you really expect me to take some guy who passed his work over mouth-piece more that two thousand years ago as proof that there's some divine power granting inspiration to selected few?

>>9342538
I think that's Plato's argument indeed, but not exactly mine.

>>9342531
1) Homer (or call him the P poet if you will) used writing ;
2) His works weren't preserved from a single source ;
3) No statement on his blindness is contained in his works ;
4) The tradition on his blindness is characteristic of Ancient Greece where etymologies about a name are turned into facts about their existence, and vice-versa ;
5) Apocryphal anecdotes on archaic and familiar figures are extremely common in Ancient Greece and should NOT be taken seriously whatsoever. See for example Homer being driven to madness by a riddle told to him by children. You'll often find such anecdotes about philosophers.

Ask yourself what blindness means in Ancient Greece ; what it is associated with, what it conveys. As all mythology, this anecdote on Homer isn't "false" as it represents a deeper truth ... but not a physical reality on Homer's eyes.

>>9342557
>Homer (or call him the P poet if you will) used writing ;
Oh, so can you provide us a picture of Homer's beautiful handwriting?

>2) His works weren't preserved from a single source ;
They were literally memorized in its entirety by many, many people, some even from.childhood. Do you think it's not possible? Go ask a Muslim what a hafeez is.

>3) No statement on his blindness is contained in his works ;
His '''''works''''' do not talk about him.

4) The tradition on his blindness is characteristic of Ancient Greece where etymologies about a name are turned into facts about their existence, and vice-versa ;
Look closely what you said.
>and vice-versa
>vice-versa
>vice-
>-versa

5) Apocryphal anecdotes on archaic and familiar figures are extremely common in Ancient Greece and should NOT be taken seriously whatsoever. See for example Homer being driven to madness by a riddle told to him by children. You'll often find such anecdotes about philosophers.
Do you seriously think Socrates would use unreliable sources.to back up his claims?

>Ask yourself what blindness means in Ancient Greece, &c.
So, you're saying that Homer was not phisically blind. Care to back up your claims?

>A good writer is based on where they are comfortable living within a life of contradictions:

>The first writer, like the second, has an idea for a story. The first writer attempts a first draft of this story and completes said first draft.

>The second writer attempts their own idea for a story and completes a first draft.

>The first writer cleans up their first draft and is content with the story they have told. The second writer is not satisfied and attempts a second draft.

>Both publish their work. It is subjective who has written the better material. However the second writer is more likely to have written a more influencial, engaging, and thought-provoking story due to their own innate desire to redraft, try new things, rework material, with the aim of reaching satisfaction in their work, which requires more drafts and more effort as a consequence of time spent in this work.

>If the first writer was content to declare, on their own terms, the first draft as the complete work: it is evident of their day to day satisfaction of other works which have been made to the same standard.

>You will find the second writer seeking out works which show, for the most part, the same ideal of reworking the created material beyond the first attempt.

>This ignores any social, political, or historical bias when looking at 'talent'

>The first writer may have subjectively written a better story than the second, however it is considered near fact that revising one's work is a needed stage in creating better material

(there is no source its just easier to clear my thoughts on this in greentext)

>>9342661
In this case you mean 'second draft' by completely rewriting the work based on the first attempt?

>>9342678
I mean a revision that is more than superficial to the story that's been written. Something that results in a push away from 'good enough' to 'better than my previous 'good enough''

>>9342347
That was awful, was he trying to prove OP's retarded point

>novelhood

Look at me, the writer, writing about writing. Writing's so hard, lemme write about that. Writing, right? Right? Writing, writing, write, write, write.

Writer's right?

>>9342661
Does this hold up considering the books you have read?

>>9342062
We're still waiting for you to answer >>9342218 .
What does Genetics say about Homer?

>>9342751
I think a good example of this is the current state of the film industry:

We are seeing classic stories or copyright materials being adapted by people who, whilst creative, aren't writers by trade but are instead filmmakers who are trying to make a good film.

Take for example the new adaptation of Stephen King's 'It' -- whoever is directing this has already made the distinction that they are satisfied to work on a material that wasn't born out of their own life experience and anxieties, but is instead satisfied to add their own storytelling abilities to a narrative that has already been created by someone else: in this case Stephen King.

Stephen King is a prolific writer. When you read a Stephen King book you know it has all the quirks of his voice as a writer. This has been built by Stephen King by a constant yearning on his part to try new things, always drawing on his own ideas and life experience to tell his stories.

This is also why the best filmmakers are auteur writer / directors who write their own screenplays. (Tarantino, Kubrick, Paul Thomas Anderson, Kaufman, etc).

To specifically answer your question, I think it is far more reliable to choose to read a book based on my liking of the author than the genre or other selling points of the story itself: as most often these writers will be effectively writing the same story within a different context.

There's a fuck ton to say here. Another aside could be how people follow comedians who have a unique point of view and write their own material, rather than 'personalities' who have jokes written for them.

>>9342811
Have you read Plato's Ion? If not, I highly recommend it to you. In it, Socrates explores the nature of art and proposes a beautiful myth to explain how the artistic inspiration works:
He says that 'artistic inspiration' shares a characteristic with a rare stone called magnetite: first, it attracts a metalic object and attaches it to itself. But then the metalic object attached to a magnetite also gains the power to attach other metalic objects to itself . So, the goddess that inspired Homer to produce his works is like the magnetite, with Homer attached to it, and then Homer has the ability to inspire other lesser poets/artists, as the Rhapsodies that memorize and sing his works, and they are lesser poets/artists because they are inspired by other artists rather than by the gods themselves.

The example you provided with Stephen King's IT remembered me of that. I think the film industry is not a good example, since we're talking about two different kinds of art here.

>I think it is far more reliable to choose to read a book based on my liking of the author than the genre or other selling points of the story itself
Has your instinct played well with you? Personally I have received a few good surprises from authors which I don't previously know at all, or know just a few.

File: 1491298247767.jpg (84KB, 312x321px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 312x321px

>mfw reading this thread

>>9342927
It went far above you then.

>>9342944
>le Stephen King, the fucking hack, is no one to give advice, despite my not having published a single work of fiction

If you say so, anon.

>>9342270
None of you have read the fucking book. Stephen king scorns inspiration entirely. Completely. He says that its literally a skull crushing grind to get good. The fact that most people just do not have it in them to be a writer has nothing whatsoever to do with inspration.

>>9342947
Point proven.

>>9342948
Stephen King is wrong about inspiration. The other anon also disagrees with him.

File: 1491235440047.jpg (26KB, 275x295px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 275x295px

>>9342953
>Point proven.

That everyone in this thread is choosing to not read his book and form conjectures of it? Yeah, my point exactly.

Move along, kiddo. You don't belong here.

>>9342948
Anon, the guys doesn't even plot his books in advance. Yes, he spends hours and hours upon his books (as every author does), but he relies entirely on inspiration as he goes. He says it himself he doesn't plan anything, doesn't give much thought to anything. He is completely a 'what if' writer.

>>9342947
The point was not if SK is a hack or if he gives sound advice, but if his interpretation that talent comes from birth is correct or not.

>>9342963
We are not talking about the book at all.

ITT:
>huuurrr duuuurrr nature or nurture
>we gonna solve it once and for all!

>>9342944
See:
>>9342974

>>9342964
>The point was not if SK is a hack or if he gives sound advice, but if his interpretation that talent comes from birth is correct or not.

It's a little of both, like for any art form, anon. It's not as black and white as "it can either be this or that".

>>9342980
I got the numbers wrong.

>>9342981
Anon he does even say that in his book, we're arguing if it holds even a little bit of truth. He says, 'a bad writer will never be a good writer, a good writer will never be a great writer, but a competent writer, through hard work, can become a good writer'. We're arguing if a bad writer could, potentially, become a great writer.

>>9342991
You got everything wrong.

But what exactly are you claiming is above someone's head? The discussion about whether writing ability is genetically determined or a gift of grace? Nah, not over my head, just completely fucking pointless because it really does boil down to:
>huuuuuuurrrr duuuurrrrrr nature or nurture
>we gonna solve it once and for all!

Writing, like every. Single. Behaviour. Ever. Is expressed as a combination of genes and environment. We are patterns of genetic potential being conditioned by learning. Done.

>>9343003
>were arguing whether a bad writer could potentially become a great writer
Are there any writers whose published legacy looks like this upwards curve? I mainly see people saying the opposite, great writers get worse as they lose the urgency of communicating their key ideas.

>>9343008
Point proven.

>>9343016
See:
>>9341331

>>9343016
I don't know. Published? Probably not, but who knows if Shakespeare's first thousand poems weren't complete dog shit he was so ashamed of them he threw them in the river?

>>9342953
>>9343020
>I am only interested in confirming my own bias of superiority.
Great discussion, cunt.

>>9343035
We were having an actual great discussion until you came in and went full /b/. Go on, read it.

>>9343048
>you just don't understand
Insufferable

>>9343053
Cry as much as you want.

>>9343058
Thanks man, I will.

>>9342811
What about the Shining adaptation? That became it's own beast. One that King didn't like. But yeah, movies made to be movies first are a lot better.

>>9342218
Not him, but genetically gifted writers could have more of those artistic bursts, better ones, or longer ones.

People of different races could be gifted writers just as there are gifted athletes, doctors, electricians etc. of different races.

The giftedness could be found in people with no family hostory of it for the same reason genetic disorders "hide" in families for generations. Or because being a good writer also takes devotion, and writing is not exactly an occupation that attracts devotion from a lot of people. Especially those who must worry about putting food on the table (read: almost all of the world population).

>>9342964
That's good news for me. I always try to plan a book and it goes off the rails immediately. Then I plan again based on the new idea. It chugs on after that.

>>9343120
I think Stanley Kubrick's Barry Lyndon is one of the greatest movies that exist, and the plot wasn't intended as a movie at first.

>>9343126
And how do you explain the moment of inspiration? Is it your genes going momentarily crazy?
>Or because being a good writer also takes devotion, &c.
But that's a completely different explanation. Which one do you think is the most accurate?

>>9343153
It is not your genes going crazy, more lile your mind going crazy, but your mind is an emergent property of your brain, whose properties are largely genetically-determined.

On the second point, I am saying that there could be many people who have the genetic potential to be great writers, but for some reason never pick up a pen.

>>9342661
>attempts their own idea for a story
what does this mean

>>9342811
>whoever is directing this has already made the distinction that they are satisfied to work on a material that wasn't born out of their own life experience and anxieties, but is instead satisfied to add their own storytelling abilities to a narrative that has already been created by someone else
Is this why I have so much trouble coming up with film ideas? Because I have little life experience?

The only idea I feel really attached to is my Wizard of Oz adaptation, but I molded it to fit my life.

>>9343170
So, are you saying that everything is determined by your genes? You will need to provide your evidence or.your reasoning behind it. But, as I said to >>9342459, that proposition is huge.

>there could be many people who have the genetic potential to be great writers, but for some reason never pick up a pen.
What's your reasoning for it?

>>9342915
>and they are lesser poets/artists because they are inspired by other artists rather than by the gods themselves.
How do you apply that outside of a religious context?

>>9339460
This natural gift you speak of, could you provide evidence for it?

>>9343197
No, I wasn't saying everything is determined by genes.

I was merely answering your questions of how some things would presumably happen if there were a genetic component to writing talent.

>>9343197
My reasoning for why many writers do not fulfill their potential is that to do so would take a lifetime's dedication, and some people do not have the economic freedom to do that. Or they don't like writing as much as, say, being a firefighter. Or they are a woman in Afghanistan who has not been given an education to even be able to write. The reasons go on and on.

I wonder how many potential William Shakespeares wasted their talents being accountants...

>>9343240
William Shakespeare isn't that special.

>>9343202
Take away the godess in Socrates' example, replace it with some secular interpretation, and you'll see it still works.
That being said, I think the religious component of the argument is essential in all of Pistons body of work.

>>9343225
Does it hold up to any kind of evidence?

>>9343259
K

>>9343271
Not that I know of, because I was just speculating on possible explanations.

But it does prove that at least plausible explanations do exist.

>>9343240
Are you implying that literary merit depends on erudition? If that's the case, how do you solve the question of Homer and the catalogue of ships?
If that's not the case, please explain your viewpoint further, as Inm still unable to get it right.

>>9343259
That's another big claim we've got here.

>>9343288
'''Plausible''' explanations that don't hold up to any known evidence? What are you basing your reasoning on, then?

>>9342250
Yeah it's barely relevant because Boris Tchaikovsky already comes from a family that is musically accomplished. Attributing this success to genetics is more fallible than attributing their success to God, because at least with theology you can make claims about things you actually understand less than the concept itself is even quantifiable. scientism shills need to die

>>9343260
what the fuck are you even saying? why can't anyone on this board use common language and get straight to the point, it's annoying.

The whole art is diluted by being inspired by art idea is interesting, and as an aspiring artist who isn't religious I want to understand it. If being inspired by other artists makes my art lesser, then where/who do I turn to? Please don't say "life", I'm insecure and have anxiety.

>>9343307
>God
>you actually.understand

/lit/ really really likes to make up big claims

>>9343303
They are plausible explanations. I make no claim that they are true, or backed by historical or scientific evidence. Nor am I qualified to make such claims.

But the fact that they are plausible explanations does mean that such explanations do exist.

>>9343292
Homer and the catalogue of ships? I didn't completely follow that when it came up earlier in the thread.

>>9343313
With 'secular interpretation' i meant any of the ones proposed here: genes, erudition, or inspiration as such, if it is possible for it to exist without an actual source from which it emanates.

Though, in my opinion, there is no 'secular interpretation' that can fully explain the whole implications of this myth. I personality believe that the thing we called "inspiration" above (see >>9341219 for clarifying) does actually exist, but I'm not convinced that it procceeds from the gods (by the way, the goddess that Homer calls is not the same as Yahweh, so different approaches have to be taken right here), maybe they can also become inspired?

File: 2a54daa3acbf0a10a1cf55a1c6bf2365.jpg (203KB, 600x396px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 600x396px

>>9343292
Pic related is Arnold Schwarzanegger.

Had the Arnold's family stayed in Austria, he likely would have grown up poor, worked on a farm eating bread instead of protein, never touched a steroid etc.

However, he grew up in America, where he had the economic freedom to pursue bodybuilding, becoming one of the greatest of all time in that particular sport.

Had he not done so, he might have grown up a little bit jacked, but I'd bet he would look mpre like pic related than '70s bodybuilding Arnold.

>>9343349
Plato says that great art goes far above what erudition (or any kind of experience actually) can reach. For example, Homer, being blind, was able to describe the visual appearance of an incredible amount of ships. So Plato argues that Homer could not have produced the Iliad by himself, but only through the support of someone who not only was physically able to see, but was indeed an eye witness of the event.

>>9343367
My argument is that it's plausible that many people are like Arnold, but for writing. They have the genetic potential, but for whatever reason never touch a weight in their lives.

>>9343367
Is bodybuilding an art, /fit/?

>>9343374
Perhaps Homer was simply describing the ships as they were in his imagination? Or maybe he used to be sighted but went blind later? Or somebody else told him what they looked like?

>>9343380
No, I was just using a example to convey my meaning.

>>9343384
How can a blind person imagine visuals? Tradition says he was born blind. If '''''someone''''' told him, who? Remember Homer's Iliad came to be centuries after the described events.

>>9343358
Took some time, but I understand this post, it's not really helpful though.
"Secular interpretation" cannot explain the myth, but I'm sure someone online has come up with a pretty reasonable explanation.

It's accepted and expected that artist steal from the works of other artists, and sometimes it works, like Quentin Tarantino, but more often than not I feel like it does do nothing but create shallow diluted imitations.
Maybe it's because people steal elements that think are cool without examining why they like them and what it means to them.

I love Satoshi Kon and the way his movies are edited, and I realized that it's because as a mentally ill person, his movies (and their editing) evoke a surrealism I feel on an everyday basis.
I also love Brian De Palma, but I haven't really analyzed why, so if I were to make a movie and use De Palma like elements I'd misuse them and it'd feel shallow.
De Palma stole a lot of shit from Hitchcock, but he obviously knew why he was stealing those things which is why he's considered a great director on his own.

>>9343392
We're discussing the nature of art here. Not art-related disciplines cannot be good examples of what art is like.

>>9343399
Oh I see. I didn't know that about the tradition.

I think that Homer was working from an oral tradition, though. Also it's possible he wasn't really blind; my understanding is that the man as a historical figure is not that well-known.

>>9343407
>but I'm sure someone online has come up with a pretty reasonable explanation.
Go ask for it then. I would not be that convinced.

>Maybe it's because people steal elements that think are cool without examining why they like them and what it means to them.
Or maybe it's because art that derives from.art derives from a secondary or tertiary source of inspiration, while great art derives from the primary source itself.

>>I love Satoshi Kon, &c.
So you know how to begin. Go and explore.inspiration for yourself.

>>9343412
On the contrary, I maintain that it was a good analogy, but you think otherwise and that's fine.

But you get the point I was trying to make right?

>>9343422
>think that Homer was working from an oral tradition
Big claim up here. If you really believe this, provide your evidence for it.

>My understanding is that the man as a historical figure is not that well-known.
That was.not the general opinion in Socrates' time.

>>9343433
I get your point, but I maintain my position that the nature.of what we call art is different from bodybuilding.

>>9343449
Following the seminal work of Milman Parry, most classicists agree that, whether or not there was ever such a composer as Homer, the poems attributed to him are to some degree dependent on oral tradition, a generations-old technique that was the collective inheritance of many singer-poets (or ἀῳδοί, aoidoi). An analysis of the structure and vocabulary of the Iliad and Odyssey shows that the poems contain many regular and repeated phrases; indeed, even entire verses are repeated. Thus according to thie theory, the Iliad and Odyssey may have been products of oral-formulaic composition, composed on the spot by the poet using a collection of memorized traditional verses and phases. Milman Parry and Albert Lord have pointed out that such elaborate oral tradition, foreign to today's literate cultures, is typical of epic poetry in an exclusively oral culture. The crucial words here are "oral" and "traditional". Parry starts with the former: the repetitive chunks of language, he says, were inherited by the singer-poet from his predecessors, and were useful to him in composition. Parry calls these chunks of repetitive language "formulas".[6]

>>9343449
Many scholars agree that the Iliad and Odyssey underwent a process of standardization and refinement out of older material, beginning in the 8th century BC[citation needed]. This process, often referred to as the "million little pieces" design, seems to acknowledge the spirit of oral tradition. As Albert Lord notes in his book The Singer of Tales, poets within an oral tradition, as was Homer, tend to create and modify their tales as they perform them. Although this suggests that Homer may simply have "borrowed" from other bards, he almost certainly made the piece his own when he performed it.[7]

>>9343454
Yes. I do not disagree with you there.

>>9343449
>That was.not the general opinion in Socrates' time.

Your turn. Provide evidence for your claim.

>>9343459
While it is.true that the Iliad contains formulaic verses, that itself doesn't explain at all the non formulaic aspect of Homer's poems (which is extremely original and represents more than the 90% of both compositions). And, again, it doesn't explain how was he able to describe what he couldn't have possibly known.
Have you read the Iliad?

>>9343486
It explains that he could have just remembered the ship details from a different bard.

Or maybe he wasn't blind at all and the general opinion aroud Socrates' time was wrong.

What is your alternative explanation? That the muse was actually telling him what to say? Because if so, that supernatural explanation is a lot less likely than any of the natural explanations put forth.

Anyways It's been nice chatting anon; I'm going to bed.

>>9343465
Homer's poems were treated with extremely high reverence by the greeks, both as books of sacred history and as the finest existing examples of poetry. They were also memorized by many. Do you think a Rhapsode could just change the poems' text and get away.with it?

>>9343477
In Plato's Ion, Socrates' claims about the existence and blindness of Homer are presented as uncontroversial and remain uncontroversed. Do you think Socrates could lie or provide possibly false, controversial claims and get away with it?

>>9343510
>Do you think Socrates could lie or provide possibly false, controversial claims and get away with it?

Absolutely. I think people generally believe what they want to believe. I think a rumor that Homer was blind totally could have caught on. Maybe Sorates wasn't lying but just repeating what he hkmself had been told.

Even today when you can fact check anything, people believe all sorts of false things so I don't think it's a stretch that sometime in the 400-or-so-year stretch between Homer and Socrates that "fact" got made up somewhere.

>>9343508
I think that Homer was indeed inspired and he attributed that to the Muse (or at least he calls upon her to be inspired), but, as I implied before, I do not fully subscribe to the idea that gods are themselves the source of inspiration.
See, I don't think gods are supernatural beings, I see them as intelligent creatures of a (or many) different species. So yeah, I think it's fairly reasonable to.think that the Muse did indeed inspire Homer. Also, Homer would not be the only inspired author out there, nor the most amazing case of them all.

Good night anon.

>>9343523
>Absolutely. I think people generally believe what they want to believe. I think a rumor that Homer was blind totally could have caught on. Maybe Sorates wasn't lying but just repeating what he hkmself had been told.
You seem to be completely unaware of whom Socrates was. Have you read anything by Plato, anon?

>>9338760
Well his personal experience would inform his opinion that a bad writer remains bad.

>>9338758
I was glad I had picked up on most of his advice on my own. It becomes sorta obvious if you read a lot.

They won't make you a master, but it's sound advice.

File: tmp_20799-chinese-jesus-212122749543.jpg (66KB, 400x534px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 400x534px

>>9344381
>following advice that wont make you a master
why?

>>9338758
In king's mind, the "bad writer" is a person who lacks an enthusiasm for reading and writing, and the "good writer" is a person who enjoys those activities, and goes about them regularly. Recall the anecdote about the saxophone.

Enjoyment/lack thereof translates into good/bad because practice makes perfect. His argument is really something like "If you don't have some level of passion for written language, then you'll never be a good writer."

You can't magically start enjoying something. You either do or you don't. Thus, good/bad is a permanent category, or at least a category you can't directly escape.

This is why he spends a paragraph or so later on bashing college-kid poets — they don't read or write for enjoyment, but for attention. As /pol/ would put it, they "virtue signal."

>>9345771
>You can't magically start enjoying something
But you can start enjoying something.

>>9339460
Maybe.
My experience reading some early stories of great writers is the opposite.

Pynchon Slow Learner is just plain awful, except for The Secret Integration. I would have never thought that the man who wrote this short stories could write something like Gravity's Rainbow.

>>9338758
Well first you have to decide what a 'good writer' is. Stephen King may well be a very 'entertaining writer', but is he a 'good writer'? Apply that to any author, it's all a matter of opinion, and yours is the only one that matters.

on a related note- Stephanie King has a novel about a preacher who has a fat wife, and one night while they are in bed she tries to get some sexy time from the preacher and he tells her to don't embarrass herself. does anyone remember what story this scene was from?