I've written extensively about writing on this forum in half a dozen threads. Perhaps you should actually read what I wrote before trying to shove words in my mouth.
The idea that writing is harder for writers than other people is obvious bullshit. Anyone who practices a skill gets better at it unless they have some sort of mental disorder. When I called it bullshit, you tacked on a bunch of extraneous points that were not originally made. And all that craftsman shit you talked about? I already talked about it in my first post in this thread. Guess you couldn't be bothered to read it.
Then you brought up the incredibly overrated Hemingway, whom you said wanted people put off publishing until after fifty, as if that's at all a good idea. That's absolutely retarded and antithetical to developing real skill. Do writers get executed if they don't produce masterworks? No, of course not. It's not a big deal to produce mediocre work if it's on the way to brilliance. Use a pen name if you're that worried about it. Or are you under the impression that not getting feedback from readers is somehow a good thing?
I know exactly what kind of writer you are, and it's the kind nobody else should listen to. You're so obsessed with the language that the story is an afterthought. A clear bit of evidence is your anklebiting attempt to nitpick my phrase "faux deep nonsense" as redundant. It isn't redundant at all. Something can be nonsense without being faux deep. Something can be faux deep without being nonsense. Nice try, though, and even if I did make a minor grammatical mistake it would have nothing to do with my actual point. It's just a petty non-argument.
If you believe the shit you apparently believe, you're nothing but a grammarian with a typewriter.
Meanwhile, I'm a pulp writer so feel free to ignore everything I say and keep on keeping on with your high brow literature. Whether I'm writing fiction or non-, I care about the story or the message first. The actual language I use comes second and is dependent on both the story and the audience. Guess which of us is likely to reach more readers?
The idea that writing is harder for writers than other people is obvious bullshit. Anyone who practices a skill gets better at it unless they have some sort of mental disorder. When I called it bullshit, you tacked on a bunch of extraneous points that were not originally made. And all that craftsman shit you talked about? I already talked about it in my first post in this thread. Guess you couldn't be bothered to read it.
Then you brought up the incredibly overrated Hemingway, whom you said wanted people put off publishing until after fifty, as if that's at all a good idea. That's absolutely retarded and antithetical to developing real skill. Do writers get executed if they don't produce masterworks? No, of course not. It's not a big deal to produce mediocre work if it's on the way to brilliance. Use a pen name if you're that worried about it. Or are you under the impression that not getting feedback from readers is somehow a good thing?
I know exactly what kind of writer you are, and it's the kind nobody else should listen to. You're so obsessed with the language that the story is an afterthought. A clear bit of evidence is your anklebiting attempt to nitpick my phrase "faux deep nonsense" as redundant. It isn't redundant at all. Something can be nonsense without being faux deep. Something can be faux deep without being nonsense. Nice try, though, and even if I did make a minor grammatical mistake it would have nothing to do with my actual point. It's just a petty non-argument.
If you believe the shit you apparently believe, you're nothing but a grammarian with a typewriter.
Meanwhile, I'm a pulp writer so feel free to ignore everything I say and keep on keeping on with your high brow literature. Whether I'm writing fiction or non-, I care about the story or the message first. The actual language I use comes second and is dependent on both the story and the audience. Guess which of us is likely to reach more readers?