= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Douglas_Knight comments on The mystery of Brahms - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (65)
No; thanks! Can you remember instances of people he put in each cluster? I'd think Mozart would be a young master, and Beethoven an old genius.
I don't know that anybody gets better over time in literature, at least technically. I wonder whether there's any correlation between a novel's (rank order / total number of novels) and its status. An analysis would be muddied by the anecdotally-observed effect that the more critically acclaimed an author's novels are, the slower he writes them. (Seems to be cause-effect, since the long interval, or cessation of writing, usually comes after the critically acclaimed novel.)
Galenson's example is Twain.
What do you mean by "better technically"? Joyce's work became more complicated and difficult to read. Does that count as getting better technically? I think most authors improve technically, but decline in inspiration.