Does Being Intelligent Have Anything to Do with Writing Good Literature?

[WolfLarsen]

I sometimes feel that I'm one of the most intellectually challenged members of this Internet site. Maybe it's my genes. Maybe I played too much football as a kid without a helmet, but whatever the reason I'm not very smart.

However, I am also one of the most creative members of this Internet site.

Sometimes I think that being smart has nothing to do with writing creative literature.

Actually, being smart seems to have nothing to do with writing great literature whether it's creative or conventional.

[Pike Bishop]

If by being smart, you mean intellectual or well-educated, then, no, it is not a necessity. Everyone knows Shakespeare was poorly educated and Ben Johnson and others often ridiculed about it. There have also been many poorly-educated auto-didacts such as Jean Genet who have written brilliant work without proper education. However, if you mean "smart," period,then I disagree. All excellent writers have to be smart at some, if not all, of the following things:

1. They need to have a smart and creative grasp of the language in which they are writing. Very few writers--Philip K. Dick perhaps being one--can write great works without such smartness.

2. They need to be smart at creating psychologically complex characters who successfully reflect in some way real human nature and qualities. Nobody, of course, is as good as Shakespeare was at this. However writers don't have to be Shakespeare to succeed at this; and some Naturalists, Realists, and Formalists can succeed without creating such characters at all.

3. They have to be smart at creating compelling stories and/or intriguing plot structures that tell those stories.

4. They have to be either smart at composing a web/matrix of different contributing/competing narratives or a central narrator who effectively tells the story and/or effectively tells us about his or herself.

So, writers certainly don't have to be Einstein, but they do have to be pretty smart at what they need to be smart about.

[ajvenigalla]

^ what Pike Bishop said, though some of the greatest writers of all time, like Tolkien, Lewis, Auden, DeLillo, Pynchon, and Bloom, were all educated in intellectual matters

[YesNo]

I sometimes feel that I'm one of the most intellectually challenged members of this Internet site. Maybe it's my genes. Maybe I played too much football as a kid without a helmet, but whatever the reason I'm not very smart.

However, I am also one of the most creative members of this Internet site.

Sometimes I think that being smart has nothing to do with writing creative literature.

Actually, being smart seems to have nothing to do with writing great literature whether it's creative or conventional.

Glad to see you back!

I also consider myself intellectually challenged although I suspect there are members of this site that might be more so. That doesn't stop me from shooting my mouth. I also played football and even rode a bike without a helmet.

I don't think being smart or having the right genes has anything to do with writing creative literature. Smartness gets in the way by building a box around the imagination. Genes have better things to do.

[axolotl]

so a writer like Dante can be a 'genius' like Einstein? mmh... Science can be measured by better standards. I dont know if exists "writer's" intelligence.

[Pike Bishop]

so a writer like Dante can be a 'genius' like Einstein? mmh... Science can be measured by better standards. I dont know if exists "writer's" intelligence.

Absolutely..."if exists 'writer's intelligence." Nowhere in the definition of "genius" does it say "genius" is limited to scientists. And nowhere in the definition of intelligence does it say "intelligence" is limited to scientific thinkers either. There is genius and high degrees of intelligence in writers, musicians, mechanics, quarterbacks, chemists, and many other members of many other fields.

Here, by the way, are the definitions of genius and intelligence:

Genius: a person who is very good at doing something: great natural ability : remarkable talent or intelligence

So, yes, there have been thousands of writers who were/are very good at writing, have shown great natural ability, and have remarkable talent or intelligence. If you want to try to show otherwise, knock yourself out.


Intelligence: (1) : reason; the act of understanding: mental acuteness.

Again, thousands of writers--including Shakespeare, Joyce, Proust, Montaigne, and Dostoevsky--have shown reason and/or the act of understanding and mental acuteness in their writing. Again, if you would like to prove otherwise, knock yourself out.


P.s. I hope you noticed neither the definition of "genius" or "intelligence" mentioned anything about science at all.

[WolfLarsen]

If by being smart, you mean intellectual or well-educated, then, no, it is not a necessity. Everyone knows Shakespeare was poorly educated and Ben Johnson and others often ridiculed about it. There have also been many poorly-educated auto-didacts such as Jean Genet who have written brilliant work without proper education. However, if you mean "smart," period,then I disagree. All excellent writers have to be smart at some, if not all, of the following things:

1. They need to have a smart and creative grasp of the language in which they are writing. Very few writers--Philip K. Dick perhaps being one--can write great works without such smartness.

2. They need to be smart at creating psychologically complex characters who successfully reflect in some way real human nature and qualities. Nobody, of course, is as good as Shakespeare was at this. However writers don't have to be Shakespeare to succeed at this; and some Naturalists, Realists, and Formalists can succeed without creating such characters at all.

3. They have to be smart at creating compelling stories and/or intriguing plot structures that tell those stories.

4. They have to be either smart at composing a web/matrix of different contributing/competing narratives or a central narrator who effectively tells the story and/or effectively tells us about his or herself.

So, writers certainly don't have to be Einstein, but they do have to be pretty smart at what they need to be smart about.

I strongly agree with point number one.

Regarding points number 2 to 4 I think that might be true of conventional writing. However, with unconventional writing it may be a completely different story.

Thank you for welcoming me back yes no.

[Pike Bishop]

No, its' not just true with conventional writing, although I'm curious to hear your explanation on that. I'll address each one:

2. I don't know what you mean by "unconventional writing," but all great literary writers are inherently unconventional, including Shakespeare, Faulkner, Melville, and James. They were all smart at creating psychologically complex characters who successfully reflect in some way real human nature and qualities. So, please explain why doing so was unnecessary for them.

3. Unconventional writers in particular are smart at creating compelling stories and/or intriguing plot structures that tell those stories. Such writers are Borges, Dick, Faulkner, Chandler, and Woolf. So, again, please explain why this skill doesn't apply to "unconventional" writers.

4. Again, why would being smart at creating complex narrative or narratives not apply to unconventional writers? They're the ones who do so. Nobody is more skilled at that than "unconventional" writers like Faulkner, James, Conrad, Woolf and Melville. So, finally, how does this smartness not apply to them?

[WolfLarsen]

No, its' not just true with conventional writing, although I'm curious to hear your explanation on that. I'll address each one:

2. I don't know what you mean by "unconventional writing," but all great literary writers are inherently unconventional, including Shakespeare, Faulkner, Melville, and James. They were all smart at creating psychologically complex characters who successfully reflect in some way real human nature and qualities. So, please explain why doing so was unnecessary for them.

3. Unconventional writers in particular are smart at creating compelling stories and/or intriguing plot structures that tell those stories. Such writers are Borges, Dick, Faulkner, Chandler, and Woolf. So, again, please explain why this skill doesn't apply to "unconventional" writers.

4. Again, why would being smart at creating complex narrative or narratives not apply to unconventional writers? They're the ones who do so. Nobody is more skilled at that than "unconventional" writers like Faulkner, James, Conrad, Woolf and Melville. So, finally, how does this smartness not apply to them?

I agree with you that all great literary writers are OFTEN unconventional. However, there are some conventional writers who are extremely good.

Plot structure is something that can be thrown out the window. Most of my books have no plot structure.

The psychologically complex character was great when it was new. But, like anything that's been done over & over again, it can become stale. The character can be shallow, and very good.

All the rules are meant to be broken. Even if you don't want to break them, you often have to in order not to become stale and fall into clichés.

[Pike Bishop]

1. I agree with you that all great literary writers are OFTEN unconventional. However, there are some conventional writers who are extremely good.

2. Plot structure is something that can be thrown out the window. Most of my books have no plot structure.

3. The psychologically complex character was great when it was new. But, like anything that's been done over & over again, it can become stale. The character can be shallow, and very good.

4. All the rules are meant to be broken. Even if you don't want to break them, you often have to in order not to become stale and fall into clichés.

1. I never said conventional writers couldn't be very good; they just can't be great. No conventional artist can.

2. Plot structure can never be thrown out the window. Please tell me a great book, much less a good one, that does so. Also, you didn't address my showing why plot structure is important to both conventional and unconventional writing.

3. What you said has nothing to do with your incorrect claim psychological complex characters don't apply to unconventional literature. And I never said the characters were being done "over and over again;' you just did.

4. That may be, but that has nothing to do with your inaccurate claims about what literary elements have "nothing" to do with unconventional literature, and my replies that debunked those claims.

[WolfLarsen]

Good evening, or morning...

Plot structure can always be thrown out the window.

What do you need a plot for?

Lots of my books don't have plots.

[Pike Bishop]

Good evening, or morning...

Plot structure can always be thrown out the window.

What do you need a plot for?

The plot, no matter how complex or vague is the structuring of the spatial and temporal elements of the story or stories of the novel.

So, again, I ask the same question: which great book, or even good book has no plot?

I, myself, have sure never seen one.


P.s. You still haven't explained how plots are important to nonconventional literature. Faulkner, James, Melville, and many other great nonconventional writers had plots in their novels
.

[kiki1982]

Plot structure can always be thrown out the window.

What do you need a plot for?

Lots of my books don't have plots.

Hmm, I think there is a discrepancy between what you consider 'a plot' and what PB thinks is a plot.

Am I right in thinking that you consider something like Mrs Dalloway, excluding the bit about the soldier with shellshock, to have no plot and The Old Man and the Sea to be very thin in plot? Whereas a well-rounded story like Moll Flanders would have a plot?

[YesNo]

I wonder what the plot is in Finnegans Wake? There is some discussion of its plot here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnegans_Wake

[WolfLarsen]

Why not try writing a book that has no plot?

Why not have deliberately shallow characters?

Why have characters at all?

Why does a book need words?

Why can't the book be a series of images & words & faces & voices & random sounds & symphonies & architecture & modern dance? (Multimedia?)

Why can't a book be a four dimensional experience?

We only use about 12% of our brains. Imagine if you could implant a book into someone's brains. The results could be devastating.