When a nobel author claims to be the best

I love your avatar, Tenderiser, it suits you!

Hello Void, nice to see you're still around, get ready for the massive plot twist...!!!

I know that, minstrel. I posted that page to explain a few things that don't need understading of Spanish. As for the question, I meant what would you expect this manuscript to be, after what I said about Apotheosis. Nevermind that tho, I'm goinna say it right now...!!!

So... here I go: I am the most important person that ever lived, and I'm not even jocking.

This book, The Wise, just proves it. Therefore, The Wise is actually the best book ever, and no... there is no contradiction. What happens is that Apotheosis is just an appendix of The Wise that I am going to sell as a separate novel (because it is a separate novel).

Note: What I said about being humble still stands. Knowing who I am doesn't change my personality... but since nobody will buy that, please try to ignore thinking and posting about me as an individual and let's focus in the claim.

 

If you wish to risk erupting into a ball of flames on reentry by claiming to have written the best, at least be consistent in your trajectory.

 

The avatar is pretty much my face reading this thread, yes

 

Wait, so Apotheosis, the novel with characters and plot, is the appendix to the actual story, The Wise, a novel with no character names, no setting, no narrative, and only dialogue? Is the big reveal that these two things seem backwards, or have I mixed up the names again?

 

You got it right, Void.

Now, I don't know where to start. Perhaps some of you can help me out.

Check this article: http://discovermagazine.com/2007/aug/unsolved-brain-mysteries

I'm pretty sure you'll be able to figure it out.

 

Oh and, as for consistency, Australis... I'll further ellaborate in the appendix comment later on. Right now I can tell you that Apotheosis and The Wise are one novel, pretty much like Don Quixote is one novel in two books, but by no means in the same fashion.

 

We're not working as your assistants. It's your job to explain your claims and requests.

 

I'll hazard a guess and presume the "most important person that ever lived" part is not actually to do with being the fastest, strongest, most wealthy, most influential, most intelligent, most powerful and most attractive person, but rather, some kind of philosophical idea about the nature of identity and subjective value. Something more akin to rational egoism, rather than narcissism or hubris. And in fact, The Wise and Apotheosis collectively are an exploration of this idea, no?
I suppose that's where the name Apotheosis come from. Edit: Actually, I suppose it's more to do with the theological aspects.

 

I suppose the "most important book ever produced" is to do with the fact that it's the most important to you, and if you accept yourself as the most important person, then it's the most important book. Presumably, by proving it you mean that it espouses this idea, hence, it's own existence, if accepted to be true, renders it the most important book.

 

Its a good guess, Void.

Here is the thing: the article basically says neuroscientists doesn't have an answer to any of the most important questions of how the brain works. It has been argued that human beings cannot get to understand the functioning of the brain because they're using it to try to understand it, so it should be beyond their reach.

In order to be the most important person that ever lived, I should be able to solve the biggest mystery ever, and that would be thought.

Very well, around five years ago I started working on it as a result of a few ideas that came to my mind. I started working on a system that could explain emotions, and... well, I suffered a drive crash and lost a lot of information. So I stopped that and decided to work in Apotheosis.

Eventually I started asking myself how to get my theory out, even when it was not completed... and it wasn't until about a year and a half that I got the crazy idea of creating a novel with it. Hence, The Wise was born.

Now what is this theory I am talking about, exactly? Well, it is a revolutionary eassay that explains, not just human thought, but thought in any thoughtful species. It is also consistent with biology and with the theory of evolution and it proves itself not only in living beings, but also in human societies, as societies are a subproduct of human mind.

What I am saying is that this theory explains EVERYTHING. It proves itself as truth simply by looking at anyone's behavior. So... I am pushing it as a hybrid between novel and philosphical essay, but once I get it out it is going to change society as we know it.

Sounds crazy? Probably. But it is what it is.

I still have to explain the literary part and how this work relates to Apotheosis. Once I finish, you'll be filled with scepticism but will understand better my claim of having written the best novel when I was talking about Apotheosis, as well as this one claim.

Notice that, if the premise is accepted, I am automatically what I said I am. It's all a matter of evaluating the thesis, I believe. Any objection to this?

 

I'm done. There's not enough reality here to support any discussion.

 

I knew this was going to happen. After all, it is impossible that human mind can be explained by a person who came into this forum. It's like I were talking that I was abducted by aliens, right? Only that in this case it is somehow offensive.

I know that. Thanks for participating so far tho!

 

Short answer:
Sort of.

Long answer:
I understand the logic behind the idea of unravelling the greatest mystery rendering someone the "greatest" person ever, but the very idea of a greatest person is not something everyone agrees upon. I'm sure there would be plenty of people who'll contest the very premise of this feat rendering you the most important person. There are some philosophical systems that assert all people to be equal, and others, as I mentioned above, that assert the individual to be the most important person. You'll have a hard time convincing them that this feat would render you the most important.
Not only that, but the key word is if. If you can manage to solve all these mysteries, then I guess so, but you'll no doubt have plenty of other philosophers contesting your ideas. If these ideas hold up to scrutiny, and subsequently trump all other ideas, then I guess you can crown yourself as "the best", whether others will accept it or not.
Me, personally? I don't know, really. I guess, if you've actually achieved what you claim, then it would render you important. You'll no doubt realises how sceptical I am that you've managed to solve these mysteries in any conclusive manor, but I guess only time will tell whether your name is recognised as a great philosopher, or not recognised at all.

Although, this has somewhat steered away from the topic of publishing, and if these books are indeed part philosophical essay, part novel, then you'll definitely have to market it as such. I personally have no idea how publishing of essays works, so you might want to read up on how exactly to market such a thing. As I've said before, most people don't really care for philosophical papers, and would rather not have to think too hard while reading, so you'll definitely face an up hill struggle getting commercially viable sales.

 

Unfortunately the claim 'best book in the world', says lots about your personality and very little about your book.
The natural reaction when focusing on this claim is to think that the person making the claim is either bullshitting or delusional. Essays about the technical intricacies of your work aren't going to change that reaction.

If you want people to think about your book and not your personality, then you couldn't have picked a worse way to go about things. You've so effectively focused people onto your personality that one or two even think that you're a troll who is doing it deliberately.

 

Void: I agree to everything you said. It is about time for me to go to sleep, so I'll come back to this tomorrow and further develop the literary part and answer whatever posts I find.

To be honest, this essay has given me a lot of problems and I've faced rejection like you have no idea. This includes close family members. So I am pretty much alone. It did not help me one bit to try to explain anyone my findings, as it seems all I manage to do is enfuriating people, and if you think about it, there's no way I can say this last bit (the mind theory) in a non pretentious way, so that's why I came here and said it directly.

It is not even funny, really. Seeing ChickenFreak's reaction triggers a lot of bad memories in my head.

Plothog: I totally know what you mean.

Eitherway, I still have a few more days before my vacation period ends, so I am planning to return and share some more stuff. I will just ask people in general to be easy on me.

 

@Augusto: I certain type of person can claim to be the best, and pull it off. I had an uncle like that. He would proclaim that he was the best, and people would believe him. So it's entirely possible to do.

But..., judging from your reactions here, I don't think you're such a person. You don't even believe it yourself. I'd suggest a different line if I was you.

 

I forgot how easy trolls have it on this forum. They get away with so much, and they are taken so seriously!

Look at this sentence, users of the forum. Just read it aloud to yourselves.

Homer, the father of European poetry didn't 'touch the reader'. Dante, a man who gave his entire life and talent to immortalising the woman he loved in what Bloom called the greatest poem written by mankind did not 'touch the reader'. Shakespeare didn't 'touch the reader'? A person who writes this is either ignorant of all those writers or a troll. And considering this user has already said he couldn't finish Dante's Commedia because it was too hard for them, their comments on Dante and his work should be instantly suspect.

I mean, really folks, it is not this hard.

 

Australis: You're right. I'm just a regular person and I don't believe I am the best. That would be stupid.

I just said I'm the most important one.

Lemex: You're not getting my meaning. I meant those books are not as popular today. I am well versed in literature. Trust me. What I wanted to say is that you can write a story that is more appealing for today's readers than any of those classics. Yes, to certain people, but honestly, that has its value. I mean, for example, Stephen King. He writes horror books and you just pick one and finish it and enjoy the whole thing. It is not "art" propperly speaking, but it is exciting and it may even be awesome. So what I wanted to say in that sentence you quoted is that the line that separates literature from regular books is not related to enjoyment, as great masterpieces can be less enjoyable for a lot of people than regular contemporary books.

Eitherway, my wife just got up from bed and is making coffee. I spent the whole night posting here because it was fun and now I can't sleep. I'll wait for that coffee and keep on posting a little longer.

The page of The Wise I posted a while ago shows a conversation between two persons. One of them has the dialogue line and is represented in italics, while the other one is the entire opposite in such a way that if you don't know Spanish you'll think that's narrative. Well, it's not. It's pure dialogue.

Notice that this is not the format of theather scripts, like:

John: Yes, I understand.
Martha: Why is that?
John: I don't know.

And there is no information (like in theather screenplays) regarding the settings either. Nor there is any mention to the name of the characters. It's just dialogue.

This is the main innovation of The Wise, but I would like some corroboration as anything is possible. Does anyone ever heard of a novel like this? I haven't, so I believe this is a completely new format in literature.

There are just two main characters, so whenever you see the dialogue long line and the italic format you'll know who is talking. The same for the other guy. In the case of the few extra characters that make an appearance, I used the dialogue line but without italics, so there is no confusion either. It is a very intuitive reading, but it comes with a high cost: I just cannot move those characters freely and I cannot explain their voice tone, or make any refference to their actions or gestures. I had to write the dialogues in such a way that the reader could infer that information from the conversations.

As you can see, this is a radically different approach from what I did on Apotheosis. It is almost as if this book were the entire opposite to the other one.

So, I already said this is a hybrid between an essay and a novel. Yeap, pretty much. I included a very brief synopsis at the end with the basic concepts. This is something the reader will need to consult in order to understand several (most) conversations. I added a few footnotes at the end of key chapters, advising the reader so they can go to the theory and consult the essential concepts that are going to be needed in the following chapter. This way, the reader won't need to read the whole theory at once, but rather little by little, as he progress reading the novel.

It's fairly easy but I know a lot of people won't be willing to do it, so it's not for everyone.

The story goes like this: a philospher comes out with a theory of thought but everyone reject it and refuse to listen to him. He loses his work and family and end up trying to kill himself. He ends up confined in a mental hospital in which he is attended by a psychologist who happens to have a copy of his book in his office, so they start talking.

Yeeees, I know you can see the trick, but the story is pretty good, seriously. So the philosopher becomes interested in convincing the psychologist about his work and... that's about the essense of the story. Most of it happens within the psychologist's office during his regular seasons with his patient.

 

Whatever merits you think your work has - Homer was first sung around 3,000 years ago, Dante penned La Commedia about 1,000 years ago, Shakespeare, 400 years ago. They aren't going to be to modern popularist tastes, but that does not mean they were not popular in their own time. They have now moved into the realm of accepted 'classic tests'. How things stand in this 'hall of the classics', and remain taught? They are always being questioned and forever fight off criticism with the life in them. That's what makes them stand out and remain read.

There was a move in the 1980s to find new Victorian novels to mix up university seminars a bit and lead to the resurgence in popularity of things like The Beetle by Richard Marsh, but that doesn't mean that The Beetle has now an assured place in the hall of the classics just because academics are now taking an interest in it. Even 'good writers' pass out of popularity with the universities and rot away in obscurity - have you read Mina Loy? In the 1970s and 1980s she was part of the major feminist overhaul of Modernist studies that brought writers like Marianne Moore and Elizabeth Bishop and H.D. to prominence. Who is reading Mina Loy now?

I think it's frankly foolish to think your works are set to be instant entries into the hall of classics, if you are actually being serious. If you are being serious, then I wait for actual evidence of it. I have to admit I found the part of your post waxing lyrical about how clever your own work is was not very interesting, and I don't think I'm much alone in that. I've read Joyce, I've read Pound, and Stein, and all those weird experimentalists - what you presented I've seen before. I've seen that from undergraduates.

I will assume you have read Borges' 'El Aleph'? You can, like Carlos Daneri, talk about how clever and theoretical and sophisticated your own work is, but none of that matters if readers and editors don't actually take to it. And there is absolutely no way of predicting that.

As a previous poster noted, you can end up saying you are some misunderstood genius - well, the reality of the world is genius is all well and good, but it doesn't matter if you aren't successful in getting your work actually out there. And there is absolutely no guarantee of success. I'm not trying to put a downer on your ambition, reach for the stars, but if you think you are great then get it out there. Also, watch the way you word things, because most people hate boasts if they aren't followed up with evidence.

I'm willing to take a lot of this back if in 10 years time I see you on TV being interviewed by Bill Bailey. That's about all I feel I need to say.

 

"I reject your reality and substitute my own." - Adam Savage from Mythbusters.

First time I ever found his quote applicable here. The arrogance from Augusto here is palpable. It's perfectly cool to think your work is awesome, you kind of have to if you want to be a writer, but this? By the Gods...

I'm with Lemex though, if he can back it up, I'm willing to recant my statements. Until then, if you say you're the biggest thing over, you've got to prove it. Words matter for shit unless you can back 'em up.

 

Lemex: You're sort of repeating what ChickenFreak already said, that the objective literary qualities from a formal literary study availed by two university literature teachers is not an evidence, regardless of the fact that those qualities have no precedent in literature at all.

I think that's plain denial of an actual solid argument, but whatever. Here is something I want to share with you and with other fellow members: https://www.writingforums.org/threads/i-just-gave-a-negative-critique-and-now-i-feel-bad.136692/page-2#post-1378898

That link will lead you to part of a conversation that I had with another writer that blocked me on facebook. I did not go into the details but I will now. See, I translated The Wise and asked him to fix my obvious grammar mistakes in order to get my second novel fully translated. He accepted and started working on it. However, when he saw what it said and what that novel meant, both at a literary level and at an intellectual level, he felt incredibly offended.

Things went out of control after I gave him a couple of critics to a novel he offered me to read. So this is what happens: most people cannot help to be offended by my work. It doesn't matter how I put it or what I say. The work is offensive in its nature because people read it and feel envious about the prospect of being in front of someone that is better qualified than them, specially when this person has not earned recognition yet.

The man went on a rampage and tried his best to criticize my novel (The Wise), and specially the theory. He told me I needed to study budhism and other irrational stuff and finally claimed that he wasn't going to tollerate my attacks and blocked me.

Is this what is going to happen here? I certainly had a similar experience with my own father, who is a university professor, and with my brother, who is a dentist. In real life I don't tell anyone about my work. I carry the burden of having to remain silent about it. Would it make you happy if I leave? I will leave in a couple of days...

In the mid while, you can either join the troll train of people who post random attacks and leave, or you can show some genuine interest in what I am saying. There's a lot you can gain from this as long as you stop trying to measure dicks with me. What is more ironic of all this is that I KNOW everyone talking about the importance of being humble and everyone attacking me are doing so because their ego is being hurt. That's the whole reason of my problems.

I cannot go anywhere with reasons without getting the door shut in my face. I tried to contact several people with my thesis: several university professors and one neuroscientist (Joseph E. LeDoux) and they all ignored me as soon as they heard my claim. The irony, the huge irony in all this, is that I fully understand why this happens, but I cannot avoid it from happening.

Eitherway, enough of this already.

 

Our egos aren't being hurt. We are, in fact, trying to save you from the heavy bitchslap that is reality if you keep on like this. Clearly, going around saying that your work is the 21st-century equivalent of Shakespeare is going to give you a lot of sneering, mocking, and door-slamming-in-your face. We all want to be great, but a dosage of humility doesn't hurt. A dosage that no, our work may not actually be the biggest thing in this current century can help us in the long run.

The people who were offended at your work were probably offended at things other than your 'genius'. Your attitude, maybe? Maybe they thought your work was full of crap and ridiculous? Maybe they felt you weren't worth their time?

 

I'm not going to spend my time answering to that kind of posts.

If you have something to say or something to ask that is a real question rather than afirmations disguised as questions, go ahead and I'll gladly reply.

Otherwise, feel free to label me as a deluded fool (rejecting my reality and substituing it with your own) and find something else to do with your spare time.

 

Well, what is your theory? I haven't seen anything of it, and I'd be interested to read it if you think it is some ground-breaking, new philosophy. That's the kind of thing I actually work with.

I'll level with you: I don't care one way or the other if you leave or if you stay, and what I think or wish should not have any affect on you either. I'm not important, especially not to you. If you believe anything about at least me personally, believe this: you aren't hurting my ego. I'm both a writer and teacher by profession, and a thick skin is needed for both. I work with people smarter than I am and better qualified than I am; and I work with people who are often stressed, and do not really have the time to be particularly civil - you need to leave your ego at the door to get anywhere in my line of work. It's not about 'dick measuring', and I'm not wanting to belittle you - I have no reason to do that. I don't know you.

As for everyone else here - well, this forum is typically fairly level-headed. I'd be surprised if anyone was offended by a pretence of superiority, especially if (as I said before) it is even justified in some way(?).

 

I wasn't offended at all either, just surprised at the posts. Though maybe I could've cut back on the snark...

So...who are the characters? What is it that they're trying to do? What are they trying to prove?