Saturday October 30, 2010 at 1:10
15 notes“I’ve gotten convinced that there’s something kind of timelessly vital and sacred about good writing. This thing doesn’t have that much to do with talent, even glittering talent…. Talent’s just an instrument. It’s like having a pen that works instead of one that doesn’t. I’m not saying I’m able to work consistently out of the premise, but it seems like the big distinction between good art and so-so art lies somewhere in the art’s heart’s purpose, the agenda of the consciousness behind the text. It’s got something to do with love. With having the discipline to talk out of the part of yourself that can love instead of the part that just wants to be loved. I know this does’t sound hip at all…. But it seems like one of the things really great fiction-writers do—from Carver to Chekhov to Flannery O’Connor, or like the Tolstoy of “The Death of Ivan Ilych” or the Pynchon of Gravity’s Rainbow—is to “give” the reader something. The reader walks away from the real art heavier than she came into it. Fuller.”
— David Foster Wallace (via wearebasiclight)
(Source: leopoldgursky)
This post was reblogged from leopold gursky.
-
ameritoon liked this
-
effervoire liked this
-
thelegendofdodo liked this
-
blockitout liked this
-
tustella liked this
-
cupofawesome liked this
-
ryannjoy liked this
-
lrigdarts liked this
-
lrigdarts reblogged this from leopoldgursky
-
thesaltwaternight liked this
-
emptylight liked this
-
leopoldgursky posted this