Is life experience a requirment to being a good writer?

you're deluded lmfao

Point taken. It is an artists flair that makes for subjectively good writing.

Can the proponents of le genuine living experiences define what makes dragging your physical body across various parts of the world any more real and vital than engaging in the intimate act of reading, seeing the inner world of the author, his visions, anxieties, and hopes?

The artist need not drag him/herself across the world in order to create something artisticly worthwhile, but really ought not be a shut in. Take Kafka’s Amerika for example. The setting was all just a large Prague.

nobody thinks
>le traveling xD
is genuine experience. but if you live your life locked in your room you aren't going to be able to write interesting fiction, because you'll never have felt the emotions you're hoping to convey, and when you try to write about something so fundamental that you've never experienced you'll immediately out yourself as a loser.

You get to witness and gauge your spontanoues reactions in situations that you wouldn't encounter otherwise, thus learning valuable insight into your own character. You get to meet people with different histories and characters to which you can compare your own.
That's already much of what you need to grow a mature and learned sense of self that will leave you better-armed for introspection.

Basically it allows you to do all you listed but much better. Compare the intimate act of reading many books several times with the intimate act of reading the same book over and over. Would you choose the latter ? And why bother reading since meditation and introspection is just as intimate as reading ?

As you can see your implicit opposition of intimacy and exploratory experience only lead to blindsight you.

If Montaigne thought traveling was very valuable for his writings do you really it's foolish to expect to gain something from it ?

>le genuine living experiences

This is a meme, staying at home is no less "genuine" than traveling the world, but it is more likely to lead to narrow-mindedness and less likely to lead to profitable exposure.

By this definition, being born in Luxembourg is extraordinary.

Absolutely not nothing has to do with being a good writer, just b urself and write from your heart user, that way you will make sure that everything that you write is true.

I've wondered this.
I have a story I want to write, but I feel like I haven't experienced enough or lived enough to be able to tell it properly or with any substance

The only two things you really need are talent and something interesting to say.

I think life experience can certainly enhance your own inner world but it's not necessary to be a good writer.

Whatever you write will be like a reflection of your own thoughts,emotions and experiences

Yes, it is. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying to themselves. Everyone writes with their life experiences. Do you need an intimate knowledge of a place to use it as a setting? No, but, a base knowledge of locations and culture will flesh out characters better. The vast majority of these interactions, personalities and dilemmas will be a direct result of life experiences though.

No, anyone saying otherwise is just a bitter failed writer who blames their lack of life experience for their inability to create insightful writing.

>thinks he is insightful
>has never left moms house
My fucking sides. Losers at life have nothing to teach.

no, it's a meme. use intuition and intelligence

>something interesting to say
How do I acquire this?

Attached: whatIlearned.jpg (476x349, 24K)