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.

[Pike Bishop]

Wolf, that was a baroque, irrelevant rant that didn't address my posts or the arguments in them in any way. So, since you're no longer addressing them and just talking at yourself, I'll just leave and let you do so. Good luck in your "discussion."

[WICKES]

Well, I doubt any of the great writers were dim. Most probably had high IQs, if that is what you mean. But I guess there is a difference between being smart and being an intellectual. Ezra Pound and T S Eliot were what I'd describe as 'intellectual writers'. Shelley, Coleridge and Milton were also 'intellectuals'. Yet Blake, Dickens and Shakespeare were not. Were they any less intelligent? I doubt it.

[cacian]

intelligence is nothing to do with books or literature
the minute one can put a sentence together the minute one can write
it just depends on who choses it and who does not.
those who chose to write are driven i believe by the feeling of language and the art of expression
those who dont are less fortunate because they have other circumstances on their minds of their lives does not give them the opportunity to experience
writing,
they are not encouraged either.

[Pike Bishop]

intelligence is nothing to do with books or literature
the minute one can put a sentence together the minute one can write
it just depends on who choses it and who does not.
those who chose to write are driven i believe by the feeling of language and the art of expression
those who dont are less fortunate because they have other circumstances on their minds of their lives does not give them the opportunity to experience
writing,
they are not encouraged either.

Intelligence has everything to do with good books and literature
The minute one puts together a sentence without intelligence is the minute one writes poorly
It does not depend on who choses it and who does not; that is completely irrelevant
Those who choose to write may be driven by feeling of language and art of expression; intelligence is still necessary
Those who don't write with low intelligence are less fortunate because they will never have the opportunity to write a good book or write literature
They are encouraged to write too often.

[axolotl]

Intelligence has everything to do with good books and literature
The minute one puts together a sentence without intelligence is the minute one writes poorly
It does not depend on who choses it and who does not; that is completely irrelevant
Those who choose to write may be driven by feeling of language and art of expression; intelligence is still necessary
Those who don't write with low intelligence are less fortunate because they will never have the opportunity to write a good book or write literature
They are encouraged to write too often.

i agree with you, except i dont think IQ can measure correctly intelligence.

[Pike Bishop]

I never said it could.

[cacian]

Intelligence has everything to do with good books and literature
The minute one puts together a sentence without intelligence is the minute one writes poorly
It does not depend on who choses it and who does not; that is completely irrelevant
Those who choose to write may be driven by feeling of language and art of expression; intelligence is still necessary
Those who don't write with low intelligence are less fortunate because they will never have the opportunity to write a good book or write literature
They are encouraged to write too often.

i could not agree on intelligence being related to writing books
lets put it this way
do you need to be intelligent to read a book?

[Pike Bishop]

i could not agree on intelligence being related to writing books
lets put it this way
do you need to be intelligent to read a book?
You don't have to agree with intelligence being related to writing books; it is.
let's put it this way
The intelligence needed to reading a book is irrelevant to the intelligence needed to writing it

[Ecurb]

The intelligence needed to reading a book is irrelevant to the intelligence needed to writing it

The ability to write grammatically is probably positively correlated to intelligence, but the correlation is not absolute.

[Pike Bishop]

I read your post, since I knew you would respond to mine. Your response is a false straw man of your own creation. I never said anything about "writing grammatically." I correctly said intelligence is needed to write good books and literature, and it is. I also said the lower intelligence required for reading a book is irrelevant to the higher intelligence required for writing a good one, and that was true as well.

[cacian]

You don't have to agree with intelligence being related to writing books; it is.
let's put it this way
The intelligence needed to reading a book is irrelevant to the intelligence needed to writing it
i disagree it is very much correlated
because writers are the product of what they read
if one is able to read a book he or she is able to write one too.
those who go on writing books have had better opportunities in life to do so
those who do not have not been encouraged and not because they are less intelligent or not,

[Pike Bishop]

i disagree it is very much correlated
because writers are the product of what they read
if one is able to read a book he or she is able to write one too.
those who go on writing books have had better opportunities in life to do so
those who do not have not been encouraged and not because they are less intelligent or not,
You are now changing the argument and making an irrelevant statement...you do that too often.
You equated the intelligence needed for reading a book to that needed for writing one...that was quite wrong.
Not everybody who can read a book can write a good one...it is astonishing you can't see that.
Many poor people with less opportunities wrote books...so your statement was irrelevant and wrong.
Your "encouragement" statement is irrelevant as well...try to stop making irrelevant statements.

[WolfLarsen]

Well, imagine a bunch of primates in a cage at the zoo screeching at each other about whatever they’re screeching about as they scratch their balls.

Are we really that much different?

Are human beings very smart? Compared to what? Snails? Other primates?

If you are satisfied with what little literature has accomplished then surely you will not help literature to advance.

Just because all of the books you’ve read had plots doesn’t mean a book has to have a plot. Most of my books do not have plots. I’ve read great stuff on the Internet that had no plot.

And you do not need to be intelligent to write a great book. Some of the best books I’ve ever read were written by “stupid” people. And some of the worst books I’ve ever read were written by smart people.

Almost anybody can write a conventional book. When writing a conventional book someone who’s good at sizing up personalities can capture them on the page, and thanks to voice recognition software he can do so without even being able to write. In other words, even an illiterate person can write a good book these days.

[YesNo]

I hear slime mold are pretty intelligent as well: http://www.nature.com/news/how-brainless-slime-molds-redefine-intelligence-1.11811

[WolfLarsen]

Yes no: your sense of humor has improved in my absence!

[ennison]

Illiterates would surely have to have an amanuensis.The voice recognition I've tried fails utterly to recognize Anything I say

[Eiseabhal]

That's because they don't do Teuchterisms. There are it seems a lot of people especially educated people who don't know what the heck a plot is. They think it means a story. That's what they heard on primary two and they've never got beyond it.

[tonywalt]

I was reading this thread and noticed something I always noted: no one, or virtually no one, admits to being an intellectual. It's almost stigmatic. And nowadays it's quite trendy to say, "I'm not the smartest person," and then go on to end it with, "but I've got smarts." Saying you have "street smarts" is the acceptable statement to be honest.

The vast majority of writers are intellectuals. Hell, the vast (if not all) majority of litnet members are intellectuals. Otherwise I wouldn't be here. Of course, I'm no intellectual, "I just love reading! (Ping! toothy smile!)

[Clopin]

I've noticed that too, but honestly it's just sort of a goofy title to confer upon yourself. And it's harder to qualify what being an 'intellectual' actually means compared to other attributes you might possess. It's not like your heard grows bigger and bigger as your knowledge grows whereas if you're an athlete or just particularly athletic that's something which you can demonstrate and will be pretty visible to anyone who sees you (depending on the sport).

But, conversely a lot of people who are perfectly capable of frankly appraising many of their other strengths and weaknesses will nearly never venture to say that they themselves might be unintelligent, or even just sub average. Most people are perfectly capable of admitting that they aren't the most beautiful, or maybe not beautiful at all; or that they are physically weak or out of shape, or that they have absolutely no talent for music or drawing or no practical ability in any number of areas, and yet I haven't met anyone, even (or especially) among people I do/did consider quite stupid, who would own up to being unintelligent, or who genuinely believed themselves to be so.

[YesNo]

The label "intellectual" seems as obsolete as "proletariat" or "bourgeoisie".

[Pompey Bum]

I embrace it as some gays do "queer."

[Pompey Bum]

I was reading this thread and noticed something I always noted: no one, or virtually no one, admits to being an intellectual. It's almost stigmatic. And nowadays it's quite trendy to say, "I'm not the smartest person," and then go on to end it with, "but I've got smarts." Saying you have "street smarts" is the acceptable statement to be honest.

The vast majority of writers are intellectuals. Hell, the vast (if not all) majority of litnet members are intellectuals. Otherwise I wouldn't be here. Of course, I'm no intellectual, "I just love reading! (Ping! toothy smile!)

Try graduating from a famous school. I don't know what it's like in 'ol Blighty, but over here you have to cover it up or people become desperately intent on proving (to themselves--why would I care?) that: 1) you're bragging--no matter how hard you try to hide it; 2) learning doesn't matter: they're the ones with "how-to smarts"; and 3) you are an elitist. That's my favorite. I'm not as good as you guys because I'm an elitist. Now that's funny. :)

[Poetaster]

Try graduating from a famous school. I don't know what it's like in 'ol Blighty, but over here you have to cover it up or people become desperately intent on proving (to themselves--why would I care?) that: 1) you're bragging--no matter how hard you try to hide it; 2) learning doesn't matter: they're the ones with "how-to smarts"; and 3) you are an elitist. That's my favorite. I'm not as you guys because I'm an elitist. Now that's funny. :)

I've found this when I tell people I did Classics at school. Just because I did GCSE Latin, I must be a member of some elite group and consider myself above everyone else. It's really silly really, as if having to read Homer instantly makes you a better person.

[YesNo]

That's a relief. I didn't go to an famous school, so I don't qualify as an intellectual. With a little luck, since I am familiar with Indiana farms, I might be a red-neck.

[North Star]

I've noticed that too, but honestly it's just sort of a goofy title to confer upon yourself. And it's harder to qualify what being an 'intellectual' actually means compared to other attributes you might possess. It's not like your heard grows bigger and bigger as your knowledge grows whereas if you're an athlete or just particularly athletic that's something which you can demonstrate and will be pretty visible to anyone who sees you (depending on the sport).

But, conversely a lot of people who are perfectly capable of frankly appraising many of their other strengths and weaknesses will nearly never venture to say that they themselves might be unintelligent, or even just sub average ... and yet I haven't met anyone, even (or especially) among people I do/did consider quite stupid, who would own up to being unintelligent, or who genuinely believed themselves to be so.

One needs intelligence to know how much of it one has.

[Pompey Bum]

I might be a red-neck.

You're not going to do a standup routine, are you? :)

[Pompey Bum]

One needs intelligence to know how much of it one has.

On the other hand, stupid people are usually too stupid to understand how stupid they are. I think Socrates got this one right long ago. :)

[Pompey Bum]

I don't qualify as an intellectual.

Right, right. I'm not an intellectual but my critique of panentheism and quantum is. Come on, man. It's great to be out.

[ennison]

A Catch 22 situation. If I was clever enough to know I was thick I would admit it but as I amn't why of course then I can't

[Clopin]

Right, right. I'm not an intellectual but my critique of panentheism and quantum is. Come on, man. It's great to be out.

Mathematics degree holder who spends his time discussing literature and philosophy online? Yep, we've got one boys. Lets haul him in.

[YesNo]

I figure an intellectual, at the bare minimum, must know what James Joyce is jabbering about in Finnegans Wake.

[Pompey Bum]

If you know already know he's jabbering you move up a step.

[YesNo]

Come to think of it, since I do like to shoot my mouth about what i have only passing familiarity with, I probably am an intellectual.

[Pompey Bum]

Elitist!

[tonywalt]

Try graduating from a famous school. I don't know what it's like in 'ol Blighty, but over here you have to cover it up or people become desperately intent on proving (to themselves--why would I care?) that: 1) you're bragging--no matter how hard you try to hide it; 2) learning doesn't matter: they're the ones with "how-to smarts"; and 3) you are an elitist. That's my favorite. I'm not as good as you guys because I'm an elitist. Now that's funny. :)

So true. When Mitt Romney ran for president they had to downplay the fact he spoke fluent French, because it would actuall hurt his campaign. That was quite sad.

[MANICHAEAN]

Putin speaks fluent German, (from when Head of Station in Berlin during the Cold War) but it does not seem to have affected his political advancement.

Perhaps Mitt should have ridden bare chested, on a white charger in Washington to have furthered his chances.

A lot of the Victorian Prime Ministers came from "good" schools and were well versed in the classics. I suppose that was an assumed pre-qualification for high office in those days.

But Harold Wilson (Double- First Degree) always struck me as possessing a formal intellect and subsequently did not know what to do with it.

[Emil Miller]

But Harold Wilson (Double- First Degree) always struck me as possessing a formal intellectual and subsequently did not know what to do with it.

Even if he did, he wouldn't have been allowed to. Labour was firmly shackled to the trades unions and they ensured that he kept on the road to ruin. How else could he have made a speech in which he claimed the government deceived the unions on a concilliatory economic policy with the phrase: "And so it's out with the allegro and in with the agro."

Not very double first.

[Eiseabhal]

I think that's quite a quip from 'arold

[Emil Miller]

I think that's quite a quip from 'arold

How about informing the electorate of his government's devaluation of the pound with: "This doesn't affect the pound in your pocket."

[Eiseabhal]

That doesn't fit my definition of a quip - more political flim-flam. However it was in my experience that the working class in the sixties and seventies made great strides in material comfort in the UK. This was not maintained. It is now the haves who make most material progress while the have less and have little are once again falling behind. I offer this as my own personal experience with no overt political statement attached.

[MorpheusSandman]

The creative act is part instinct, part intuition, part intellect, and part knowledge. I think any artist (not just writers) can excel at a few of these and be (relatively) weak in a few of these and still be a great artist. There is plenty of great art that didn't require great intelligence or knowledge to conceive, but might require greater intelligence and knowledge to appreciate. Likewise, there's plenty of great art that clearly took a lot of intelligence and knowledge that is immediate and visceral. I don't think there's a one-size-fits-all answer to the mixture of these elements. I suspect that when one is innately oriented towards one or two of these aspects they tend to rely on that more when it comes to creativity, so an intelligent/knowledgeable person depends more on abstract conceptions, drawing on what they know, planning, design, etc., while an instinctual/intuitive person is more apt to just let their creativity free. Both approaches can produce greatness. I suspect, though, that the best works are when we get a certain amount of balance between them, like where intelligence and knowledge is used to edit or shape what the instinct and intuition produces, or instinct and intuition are used to correct those moments where intelligence and knowledge seems to not work on some ineffable level.

So, I guess this is a very long way of saying: it depends. :)

[UlyssesE]

The creative act is part instinct, part intuition, part intellect, and part knowledge. I think any artist (not just writers) can excel at a few of these and be (relatively) weak in a few of these and still be a great artist. There is plenty of great art that didn't require great intelligence or knowledge to conceive, but might require greater intelligence and knowledge to appreciate. Likewise, there's plenty of great art that clearly took a lot of intelligence and knowledge that is immediate and visceral. I don't think there's a one-size-fits-all answer to the mixture of these elements. I suspect that when one is innately oriented towards one or two of these aspects they tend to rely on that more when it comes to creativity, so an intelligent/knowledgeable person depends more on abstract conceptions, drawing on what they know, planning, design, etc., while an instinctual/intuitive person is more apt to just let their creativity free. Both approaches can produce greatness. I suspect, though, that the best works are when we get a certain amount of balance between them, like where intelligence and knowledge is used to edit or shape what the instinct and intuition produces, or instinct and intuition are used to correct those moments where intelligence and knowledge seems to not work on some ineffable level.

So, I guess this is a very long way of saying: it depends. :)

Very well said! I would have to agree.

[Gutted]

There is a bare minimum of intellegence required to write good literature (basic critical thinking, a triple digit IQ, etc), but some level of life experience seems to be important in order to tap into the human condition in a way that is relatable and engaging to the reader. Many writers are just starting to dip their toes in the water in their late twenties and early thirties, while those of a similar age in other artforms are already past their prime and on the decline.

[pyrophile]

I think you have to be reasonably intelligent if your work is going to be "great"; acute observations of humans and societies don't come without inspiration and logical thought. Furthermore, it takes more effort to portray philosophical ideas in fiction than it does simply to state them.

[ennison]

You are right fire-lover. It is fundamental to good fiction that it illustrates ideas well. When it simply states ideas it is dull dull dull

[Nikonani]

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.

I sometimes feel that I'm one of the most physically challenged members of this Football team. Maybe it's my genes. Maybe I read too many books as a kid without standing up and taking walks, but whatever the reason I'm not very strong.

However, I am also one of the most creative members of this Football team.

Sometimes I think that being strong has nothing to do with playing football.

Actually, being strong seems to have nothing to do with throwing footballs whether it's creative or conventional.


Stop looking for an easy out, you have it or you don't. Figure out that divide with practice and intensive and directed reading.

[Margerma]

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.
Last phrase reminds me Haruki Murakami. I love his books! I feel about them the same as about a music. Pleasure to read / listen. Once it is stopped - you do not hear it anymore. His books are as a melody... That is why he is unique.

[YesNo]

"Unique" is the way I would describe WolfLarsen's writing as well. I haven't seen him around lately. Maybe he will show up. BTW, welcome, Margerma!

[HCabret]

"Unique" is the way I would describe WolfLarsen's writing as well. I haven't seen him around lately. Maybe he will show up. BTW, welcome, Margerma!
Vulgarity is not unique.

[YesNo]

Perhaps it is a blessing, but I haven't seen anyone else write like him.

[HCabret]

Perhaps it is a blessing, but I haven't seen anyone else write like him.
He threatened to castrate me.

[Margerma]

"Unique" is the way I would describe WolfLarsen's writing as well. I haven't seen him around lately. Maybe he will show up. BTW, welcome, Margerma!

Thanks YesNo:-) I do not know WolfLarsen books, but after reading the comments and googling him, it seems he is one of those "scandalous" people?
Anyway, back to the question re Intelligence/writing books, I think Intelligence is impossible to define. My 8 year old son is obsessed with Science and space. When he tells me about space junk and my opinion what is the best option to deal with it - I do not know what to say. I am absolutely dull with all that. How submarine gets radio waves, how plane knows a way in the sky, why Venus does not have water anymore - am I not intelligent enough?
I believe (maybe it is utopical way of thinking) that every person has it's own talent. There are not stupid or non-talented people, the question is how to find your talent. Your intelligence depends on your talents, natural skills.

[YesNo]

Yes, I agree that people's talents are different. I can't get my feet into those yoga postures, for example, but we are all intelligent enough to get through the day. And "scandalous" is another good description of WolfLarsen. Sometimes "annoying" comes to my mind as well, but then I think isn't it fortunate that we are not all alike?

One thing you could do with your 8 year old is introduce him to the internet, if he doesn't have it already. I have a 2 year old great-niece who has no problem using her mother's phone to get the cartoons she wants to listen to. Luckily her mother's phone has a protective case around it since it does drop out of the high chair often. Then all you have to do is help him search for the information he wants at a level suitable for his age.

[YesNo]

He threatened to castrate me.

:) Yeah, that doesn't surprise me.

[North Star]

Then all you have to do is help him search for the information he wants at a level suitable for his age.
Then again, it might not be long before he wants something that is not suitable for his age.

[Vota]

I believe writing a good book requires a fairly high level of intelligence, but possibly just as important, and maybe more so, that they have creative genius which cannot be quantified in the same way IQ can. It is true that all writers are subject to their own experiences, environment, and the books they have read, but that doesn't guarantee a good writer, hence the creative aspect.

I would also argue that reading WELL requires a fairly high level of intelligence, or at least a fair amount of knowledge and experience to be able to understand the many nuances and references contained in a challenging book. One person may read a book and miss 90% of what the author was trying to say, whereas another person might understand everything the writer said or implied, which would imply that the reader's comprehension and knowledge are nearly equivalent with the author's, but this still doesn't guarantee that the reader could have produced the same kind of book if they lack the requisite talent and drive to do so.

[YesNo]

One person may read a book and miss 90% of what the author was trying to say, whereas another person might understand everything the writer said or implied

That's a good point. On some threads people ask how many books can you "read" in a year. A better question would be how many books did you actually "understand" last year. Of course, it would be hard to answer that second question since one may not know that one did not understand the book.

[HCabret]

That's a good point. On some threads people ask how many books can you "read" in a year. A better question would be how many books did you actually "understand" last year. Of course, it would be hard to answer that second question since one may not know that one did not understand the book.
Thoreau tells you not to read. Not not to read, but not not not to read. Read the Iliad!

[HCabret]

"To read well, that is, to read true books in a true spirit, is a noble exercise, and one that will tax the reader more than any exercise which the customs of the day esteem. It requires a training such as the athletes underwent, the steady intention almost of the whole life to this object. Books must be read as deliberately and reservedly as they were written."

" A truly good book attracts very little favor to itself. It is so true that it teaches me better than to read it. I must soon lay it down and commence living on its hint. When I read an indifferent book, it seems the best thing I can do, but the inspiring volume hardly leaves me leisure to finish its latter pages. It is slipping out of my fingers while I read. It creates no atmosphere in which it may be perused, but one in which its teachings may be practiced. It confers on me such wealth that I lay it down with regret. What I began by reading I must finish by acting."

"I do believe in simplicity. It is astonishing as well as sad, how many trivial affairs even the wisest thinks he must attend to in a day; how singular an affair he thinks he must omit. When the mathematician would solve a difficult problem, he first frees the equation of all incumbrances, and reduces it to its simplest terms. So simplify the problem of life, distinguish the necessary and the real. Probe the earth to see where your main roots run."

[YesNo]

Thoreau tells you not to read. Not not to read, but not not not to read. Read the Iliad!

Those sentences are a perfect example of the difference between reading and understanding! I read them, but I did not understand them.

[HCabret]

Those sentences are a perfect example of the difference between reading and understanding! I read them, but I did not understand them."Words do not express thoughts very well. they always become a little different immediately after they are expressed, a little distorted, a little foolish. And yet it also pleases me and seems right that what is of value and wisdom to one man seems nonsense to another."

[YesNo]

My daughter asked me this last night which I wrote down as follows: "There are 30 cows in a field, 28 chickens. How many didn't?"

So, as a test of intelligence, just how many didn't?

[Sancho]

10

OICU812

Well to answer the OP's question I suppose we'd have to define intelligence, and that might not be as simple as it seems. Are there different kinds of intelligence? For instance: word smarts, number smarts, abstract-thought smarts, mechanical smarts, interpersonal smarts, diplomatic smarts, geometric or spacial smarts, musical smarts. Can somebody have one kind of intelligence but not another.

Howard Gardner wrote a book about it in 1983: Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences.

Oh yes, and I need to remind myself from time to time to never confuse intelligence with education. There are plenty of poorly educated yet highly intelligent people out there, and conversely there are plenty of well educated people who aren't particularly intelligent. Proper grammar connotes a certain level of education, but grammar that's too proper comes across as stilted or academic, which is appropriate in certain situations but inappropriate in others (and quite possibly reveals a low linguistic intelligence).

[YesNo]

10

OICU812


And we have a winner of the intelligence contest!

[Sancho]

Haha.

Well that's a first. The kind of contests I usually win are for things like spitting watermelon seeds, or belching, or farting, or back in my college days - puking through the nose for volume and distance.

[ennison]

Now THAT is Mad Cow Disease!

[HCabret]

#Grammar

[mal4mac]

That's more a test of accent than intelligence. Does ate rhyme with eight? Maybe in Spanglish...

[YesNo]

Where I'm from, "eight" and "ate" go beyond rhyme. They sound exactly alike.

Unlike Sancho, my daughter had to give me too many hints before I figured it out. My mental barrier was that I didn't think cows ate chickens. They probably don't as ennison suggests.

[Clopin]

I also don't think I pronounce eight and ate differently; how would you?

[Calidore]

#Grammar

Rhymes with spammer. Would you be willing to delete the quoted part from your post so his site isn't getting the indirect advertising?

[HCabret]

Rhymes with spammer. Would you be willing to delete the quoted part from your post so his site isn't getting the indirect advertising?
Kelsey Grammer, the Spammer, always remembers to use good grammar.

[Sancho]

Well the riddle is much easier now that I'm semi-fluent in texting-language than it would have been ten years ago. In fact, Y/N, I seem to remember you and I writing text-language limericks a while back. Oh yes, I also used to listen to a lot of Van Halen.

Another riddle that's easy now but was almost impossible 50 years ago goes something like this:


A man and his son are in a bad automobile crash. The man is killed and the boy is rushed to the hospital. The surgeon comes in and prepares to operate but says, " I cannot operate on this boy. You see, he is my son."

Fifty years ago we'd all be scratching our heads and thinking - how can this be? It makes no sense at all! Nowadays we just shrug and say - the surgeon is the boy's mother...duh!

Times change, eh?

[Vota]

Sancho, I interpreted that riddle differently. I assumed that one man was the boy's biological father, and the other was his step-father, which is just as plausible, and to this day, more so, than the surgeon being his mother. Some might say I'm closed minded, and I admit I'm not one of the guys that's jumped on the feminist bandwagon. That said, my interpretation is just as valid, and can be backed by statistics that show, on average, that generally there are 2-3x more male doctors than female. I don't buy into patriarchal dominance in the medical field as women have had more than ample opportunity to improve the ratio for several decades.

I realize I went off on a bit of a tangent there, but there may never be equality in all things between men and women and I'm not convinced there should be. Both sexes have their strengths and weaknesses, and together they make each other more complete, which is why I don't subscribe to feminist thought, which more often than not leads to a negatively biased "us vs. them" attitude.

[YesNo]

The step-father idea might work. A sign of intelligence is being fluid enough with one's assumptions to allow other possibilities to emerge, that is, having a few windows open on the box one is in. Does a doctor have to be a male? Do families all stay together? Do cows not eat chickens?

[Sancho]

This is what I love about this website: We can start talking about the mental agility of those who write books, but then wind up talking about gender distribution in the medical profession.

I first heard that riddle in the 70s (during the heyday of the women's lib movement) and it was designed to call us out for being an inherently sexist society. I think it did that superbly. We were supposed to think - oh yeah...women can be surgeons too...ain't I a sexist bastard! Anyway a woman doctor is just not all that usual today. In fact, I think I read somewhere that more women than men graduated from medical schools in the United States last year. I am willing to bet, though, that surgery is still predominately a male sport.

So here's what I like about your post, Vota. It calls me out for my own prejudices. I have always considered father-and-son to be a blood relationship. Father and son, or for that matter, mother and son, share 50% of the same DNA. To my mind a step dad is a legal construct - related by a marriage contract, and you can change who you're married to, but you can't change your blood. That is in no way meant to diminish the bonds of affection between a step dad and his step son.

[WolfLarsen]

"Proper grammar connotes a certain level of education, but grammar that's too proper comes across as stilted or academic, which is appropriate in certain situations but inappropriate in others (and quite possibly reveals a low linguistic intelligence."

- Sancho

yep. He's right......................................

[PeachSodaLover]

No. Vocabulary makes you smart.