There is a tradition that sees journalism as the dark side of literature, with book writing at its zenith. I don't agree. I think that all written work constitutes literature, even graffiti.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I see journalists as the manual workers, the laborers of the word. Journalism can only be literature when it is passionate.
People become writers in the first place by those things that hurt you into art, as Yeats said it. Then they become separated from what started out affecting them. Journalism forces you to look at the world so you don't get cut off.
It's perceived as an accolade to be published as a 'literary' writer, but, actually, it's pompous and it's fake. Literary fiction is often nothing more than a genre in itself.
I always thought writing was the foundation and the basis for journalism in the same way being able to draw is the foundation for art.
Today there is a division between those who write about literature and those who create it. I, obviously, don't think that should be there.
The difference between literature and journalism is that journalism is unreadable and literature is not read.
I think journalism is useful training for a writer in the way it takes the preciousness out of the pragmatic side of the craft.
Journalism is literature in a hurry.
I think the job of writing and literature is to encourage each one of us to believe that we're living in a story.
Nowadays I'm not even sure if newspapers take into account whether a person is a good writer.
No opposing quotes found.