Oh, for the love of humanity!

[tickingstitch]

Their is no such thing as a shitty writer. Everyone is conditioned on what is Good. Fuck all that shit. No one is outside of the box who is still judging art, music, writing, dance as Good or Bad. Challenge yourself to think for yourself. Challenge yourself to be wild, untrained... you know like the girls who wore pants to school for the first time... people thought they were mad. No one responded to them well...

[L'Oiseau Noir]

Originally Posted by tickingstitch

Its a post your not so "perfect" ungothic poetry if you like... Mir you should post something :~)

How did my criticisms come to being about how "gothic" or "ungothic" someone's writing is? It just seems to me that's what you're trying to say. I could care less if it was a gothic story, or the most upbeat, flowery story ever fathomed. Point is, I look at quality, and when I see terrible quality, I point it out. I'm not an elitist--if that's the impression you got--I'm just someone who actually knows a thing or two about writing and grammar because I studied it.

And also, I don't discourage all new writers. In fact, I encourage them. It's just the individuals who post nothing but shit and are under the impression they're Oscar-fucking-Wilde, when they don't know a noun from a pronoun.

Also, to who said writers who aren't published aren't writers--bullshit! If you write, you're a writer. If you're published, you're a professional writer. Writer doesn't identify someone who's employed by a publisher, it identifies people who put things down on paper, or type in their word processors to simply write their ideas out. If you'd like, I'll be glad to post the definition up.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by tickingstitch

Their is no such thing as a shitty writer.

So you're saying that:
"I'm so goth
I'm so dark
I cut myself
To feel satan in my veins"
Is not shitty writing?

[LaBelleDameSansMerci]

There is such a thing as a shitty writer. If nothing else, grammar is one thing that a lot of people fall short on.

It works with art too (sorry to do this again, but art is REALLY my specialty). Tastes change and shift and vary from age to age and person to person, but there are paintings that are just shitty (believe me, I've produced enough of them and seen enough of them to know). Often awkwardness and inability to get one's idea and intentions across properly have a lot to do with it. Artists who haven't quite found a groove yet often suffer from this.
The same applies to writing or music or dance. Things need to flow and work.
I think it's really only in this age of "Anyone can do [insert art form here]!" that anything goes, and people can say "It's intentional" instead of working to improve and equip themselves with the tools and mental faculties that are needed to effectively communicate what's in their head.
This applies to modern art, too.

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

That's what postmodernist art is: The soul without talent. Equally, I feel much of the old stuff was plain talent with no soul, like much of the Baroque period.

I dunno... I find that Baroque tends to have soul. I'm of the mind that the Rococo period more the one with all talent and no soul. It's largely aristocrats with grey wigs on picnics and hunts.
Which artist(s) are you thinking of?

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by LaBelleDameSansMerci

I dunno... I find that Baroque tends to have soul. I'm of the mind that the Rococo period more the one with all talent and no soul. It's largely aristocrats with grey wigs on picnics and hunts.
Which artist(s) are you thinking of?

True, but I was thinking more of the fact that Baroque art tended to be a show of superiority and power as a whole.

[LaBelleDameSansMerci]

How do you mean, superiority and power? That of the artists or that of the people depicted, or that of the people who paid for the art? If you mean the latter, a lot of Western art throughout history has been like that. Rich people commission works from the most influential or famous artists...
And don't forget about the genre scenes. A lot of Caravaggists did scenes that took place in poor peoples' houses.

[Apathy's_Child]

Originally Posted by blackwater1110

re: L'Oiseau Noir's post:

I most definitely get aggravated when I read something shitty. I can't sit through it. I read the first few sentences, realize it's a bad train wreck waiting to happen, and bail before I spontaneously combust.

That said, I don't hold shitty writing against their authors unless:
a) they think they are God's gift to writing. If shitty writers are honest with themselves, I can forgive them; but nothing is worse than a talentless narcissist.
b) they go around calling themselves a writer. Until you are published, you aren't a writer. I play the guitar, but I am by no means a guitarist. You have to reach a certain level of artistic perfection and commitment before you can call yourself by the trade name of the field in which you are endeavoring to succeed. Public notoriety seems to me to make a fine benchmark.

*edit* The public notoriety thing only works, really, if you pursue art as a career; if you do it for personal reasons, you would have to establish a much more intangible goal. But for the purposes of this particular thread, I think the other definition suffices.

Utterly true. Writing's supposed to be fun, or, at the very least, cathartic, and you don't have to be a literary genius to enjoy yourself.

At college this one girl used to start practically every sentence with "as a writer........" It was annoying as hel.

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by blackwater1110

...
b) they go around calling themselves a writer. Until you are published, you aren't a writer.

I am published, so I are a writer!

http://angst-zine.com/archives/57

and

http://angst-zine.com/archives/83

[Solumina]

I can legitimately call myself a poet as I have been published but I know that my work can continue to be improved. I have found that there is an over abundance of people (mostly young "artsy" types) who enjoy calling themselves writer, artists, musicians, whatever without really knowing, or even seeking to learn, the basic mechanics of the art form they claim to excel at. That (if my opinion) makes them, and their art, crap because they claim it to be so much more than it is

[CSSLZT13]

Never been published here, but I've been writing for quite a while now. I won't post anything here, since I happen to be my own worst enemy, though I'm sure you can find some stuff of mine on a few sites if you go Googling. Concur completely with L'Noir about how teens these days have no sense of write. Fortunately for me, I've always been concerned with correct spelling and grammar, though there's one thing about most books that are written and subsequently published I've noticed that might help you gain some recognition: Plot development. Have a whole bunch of plot twists that no one will see coming, and you've a bonafide bestseller. Seriously, Dan Brown's only real merit comes from his ability to explain the technical aspects of his novels in a colloquial manner and including twists that are damn near unpredictable. Remove these factors, and his writing is sub-par at best.

Good luck to you, and to everyone out there currently writing. (Let's face it -- you don't want them to die or disappear, you just want them to improve, or even develop, their skills immensely.)

[Smile]

I've read a lot of books, ranging from classics such as Bram Stoker's "Dracula" to the Halo series. What I've noticed is that publishers will publish almost anything these days. It's not like the 19th century where writers used fancy writing and thought provoking lines, good writing, at least in my opinion, is dying. Most people just want cheap thrills, I think that's what CSSLZT13 was trying to prove by using Dan Brown's writing skills as an example. Of course, there are many good books that have been published recently, but in my opinion, the best ones were published long, long ago.

[gothicusmaximus]

Originally Posted by blackwater1110

b) they go around calling themselves a writer. Until you are published, you aren't a writer.

I actually concur with this, in essence. While of course there exist talented people who have, for whatever reason, never sought recognition or profit from their writing, I feel that if those who had yet to accomplish something of some merit through their work, be it publication, a prize in a reputable contest, or whatever, would stop calling themselves 'writers', I'd feel as frustrated as I do after reading this thread far less often.

[GratefulGrunger]

*sigh* They'll grow up.

[tickingstitch]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

So you're saying that:
"I'm so goth
I'm so dark
I cut myself
To feel satan in my veins"
Is not shitty writing?

No
Because the writers only job is to create
not to meet standards...
Shitty, good and bad is really is not my goal in reading nor writing but expression and advancement
In my opinion of course
It is all in what one is attracted to
That writer is goth, he cuts himself and feels satan.
He did his job, he wrote it.
Created.
His job is not to meet my attraction nor yours,
Despite what the audience may think...

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by tickingstitch

expression and advancement

Advancement to what? You said there are no standards?
And a mirror doesn't express; it merely reflects.
See, that sentence above is much more poetic than most of the stuff in this section.

[prophecyofdoom]

Originally Posted by tickingstitch

That writer is goth, he cuts himself and feels satan.

Beautiful!! I've laughed out loud every time I re-read that line!

I agree. I enjoy finding out what's inside other people's head, even if it's expressed as awful poetry. I frequently end up enjoying awful poetry, so long as it's genuine.

[tickingstitch]

Godslayer....
The only standard are the standards generated by the author
Like a designer fashioning words to dress his moods
With time his skill and intuition is expanded
At first it may be boring
But creative for that individual
But with time
Mating with many frustrated nights in a dim room
One begins to create
Those poems, jingles songs stories prose and folded napkins with blurred ink that he aspires to craft
It takes time
And talent
Is seldom
Appointed
By ones genetics
Advancement:
Ones personal ability to break open and paint with words, a unique expression that matches the creator’s personality mood and goals
This is writing advancement
In my opinion

It is different for everyone
And shit writing really is not relevant
In my opinion
I’ve written countless papers full of jumbled words that meet not my standards but I would never say it was bad
It was
Created
It exist
Because it had to

Prophecy hit it on the head...genuine

[tickingstitch]

Originally Posted by gothicusmaximus

I actually concur with this, in essence. While of course there exist talented people who have, for whatever reason, never sought recognition or profit from their writing, I feel that if those who had yet to accomplish something of some merit through their work, be it publication, a prize in a reputable contest, or whatever, would stop calling themselves 'writers', I'd feel as frustrated as I do after reading this thread far less often.

Im going to call bullshit
Do you have to have a record on the radio to be a musician
Do you have to have cloths in vouge to be a designer
Do you have to be a member of peta to be an activist
Do you have to run a marathon to be a runner

Publishing does not make someone a writer. My first post on this thread expresses my hatred of this mentality.
Human is a writer, what do u think?

[Cyntrox]

L'Oiseau Noir, I love that song in your signature!

</offtopic>

[Cyntrox]

Originally Posted by blackwater1110

Until you are published, you aren't a writer.

I've read unpublished stuff that's a lot better than published, popular writing. Hence, your argument fails.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by tickingstitch

The only standard are the standards generated by the author

Therefore everything goes. So how do you choose which books to read? And you hell better have not have mentioned a favorite author.

[L'Oiseau Noir]

Originally Posted by Cyntrox

L'Oiseau Noir, I love that song in your signature!

</offtopic>

Yes, Lilium is quite an awesome song.

[gothicusmaximus]

Originally Posted by tickingstitch

Im going to call bullshit
Do you have to have a record on the radio to be a musician
Do you have to have cloths in vouge to be a designer
Do you have to be a member of peta to be an activist
Do you have to run a marathon to be a runner

If you'd read my post, you would know that I never said talented people whose work has never seen publication don't exist. I just said that I personally would be far happier if people who'd not been published refrained from referring to themselves as writers. I'd encounter fewer irritating, self-deluded poseurs that way.

[L'Oiseau Noir]

Since when was the definition of writer changed to someone who is published?

If you write, you're a writer.

The ones that are talentless, self-proclaimed Neil Gaimans should just be ignored. That's what I do, anyway; it's easier for me. Let them revel in their delusions.

[gothicusmaximus]

Originally Posted by L'Oiseau Noir

Since when was the definition of writer changed to someone who is published?

Again, never said that it was.
However, people who think they're good at writing when they aren't annoy me. Generally, to be published, one must be a skilled writer in at least some respect- therefore, hypothetically, if those who hadn't been published would refrain from calling themselves writers, I would be a far happier person.