No, Morvin, I think this all has more to do with kashchei not being able to discern the points of a rational argument. Look, I'm new here and I only just stumbled on this thread that's been dead for 2 days. And I'm sorry if I'm overstepping my bounds, but I couldn't let kashchei win this.
At the risk of restarting something that maybe should be left alone, I'm going to see if I can clear this up. kashchei, it seems like you're trying to say a couple things.
1: You personally prefer works that have been written from first-hand experiences that most people have not had.
Night did not dispute this.
2: You are unsure as to the quality of writing produced from vicarious experience.
He didn't dispute this either.
3: Quality writing can still be produced from the reimagining of first-hand experiences into similar experiences with identical or nearly identical emotional responses.
This wasn't disputed either.
4: Writing well and writing from experience are not mutually exclusive.
No dispute here either.
5: Calling yourself a writer doesn't make you good at writing.
Still no dispute.
Here are Night's claims, as I understand them.
1: Most writers do not write solely from first-hand experience.
kashchei did not dispute this.
2: That is not necessarily a bad thing, as it allows writers to simulate experiences that are impossible to actually experience.
He didn't directly dispute this, but his third point implies that experiences that are impossible but are still written about bear many similarities to experiences that are possible, and can therefor be described as written from experience.
3: There are good writers and there are bad writers.
keshchei actually supported this claim when he said calling yourself a writer doesn't make you good at writing. He implied that there is good writing and bad writing, and therefor good writers and bad writers.
4: Good writing adds to a work, above and beyond whatever first-hand experiences the writer is using as a basis.
keshchei did not dispute this.
5: Writing with skill but no experience is better than writing with experience but no skill.
Still no dispute.
And here's my point:
This is not actually an argument. This is two people saying things that are related only by a common theme. keshchei, you continually try to argue against Night without providing any relevant counter-points or even knowing what his points are in the first place.
And Morven, take a better look at the thread. There are more people supporting Night's ideas than there are supporting keshchei's.
Now the actual point that you guys seem to be dancing around is this: Which is more important in writing? Experience or skill? keshchei seems to support experience, although he hasn't categorically stated it. Night definitely supports skill. Now let me repeat this, keshchei, in case you didn't catch it: we all know that skill and experience are not mutually exclusive. Even Night knows it. However, all of your points have revolved around a hypothetical situation in which someone must choose between writing with skill but no experience, and writing with experience but no skill.
Got it? Great. I'm sorry, but the incredible amount of stupid just pissed me off.
edited 29th Sep '11 8:23:25 PM by jagillette