When was super depressed, I wasn’t working—I was always too depressed. Hemingway did his best work when he didn’t drink, then he drank himself to death and blew his head off with a shotgun. Someone asked John Cheever, “What’d you learn from Hemingway?” and he said “I learned not to blow my head off with a shotgun.” I remember going to the Michigan poetry festival, meeting Etheridge Knight there and Robert Creeley. Creeley was so drunk—he was reading and he only had one eye, of course, and had to hold his book like two inches from his face using his one good eye. But you look at somebody like George Saunders—I think he’s the best short story writer in English alive—that’s somebody who tries very hard to live a sane, alert life.
You’re present when you’re not drinking a fifth of Jack Daniel’s every day. It’s probably better for your writing career, you know? I think being tortured as a virtue is a kind of antiquated sense of what it is to be an artist.
In an interview with The Fix, Mary Karr debunks the toxic mythology that it is necessary to be damaged in order to be creative. My own vehement defiance to that mythology is what led me to choose Ray Bradbury – the ultimate epitome of creating from joy rather than suffering – as the subject of my contribution to The New York Times’ The Lives They Lived.
Pair with Karr on why writers write.
(Source: , via fuckyourwritinghabits)
I’m basically stumbling around blindly when I’m doing digital art because I’m too lazy to do the smart thing and look up tutorials and learn everything
so when I actually manage how to make something look nice
this sense of bliss just washes over me
I don’t get very good first impressions from people who say they enjoy debate. It’s a matter of semantics really, but word choice reflects a person’s character. I say I like discussion.
Debate is inherently rooted in conflict. Two parties with conflicting views attempt to assert their respective position, in an attempt to assume dominance, perhaps swaying the other party, or at least staking some claim in legitimacy. There are important skills required in debate, being able to present a logical argument with factual information, but also playing on ethos and emotionally manipulating people; sometimes there isn’t even a difference between the two, an impressive number out of context that plays in favor of your argument, masquerading as an informative statistic In a debate, neither of the participants are likely to back down, and in the end, regardless of the outcome, neither are going to be any the wiser.
Discussion opens up the forum to varying ideas. There’s always the chance for conflict, but just as much opportunity for peaceful resolution. Debate’s aggressive, and bright minds often lose the words or ideas they want to express, simply because some arsehole’s shouting over them. Discussion’s multifaceted, so you have ideas coming in from varying perspectives, as opposed to two polarized ones. The multitude of information may create change in your own world view, and facilitate growth in all parties.
I mean, I understand debate in an academic or political environment, where it’s a formalized event, or a part of implementing important policies, but if you’re casually going to debate with someone, you’re basically saying you get off on verbal domination.
Maybe I’m just reading into it too much. Maybe I’m wrong.
Alternatively, you could always just go the easy route and say, “haha stop being such a pussy lmao”