Good writer, good idea makers exist without the need to have been good at reading.
But enough to fill a single person's lifetime regardless? So whether you take Shakespeare or Murakami, their individual perspectives are not that different since either of them could have filled their lifetimes with reading.
> The content of way back then was negligible to content that exists now
The burden of proof remains on you. You need to find us an example of an outstanding writer who didn't read much. This doesn't even hold for the classics (eg, Marcus Aurelius or Plato) as far as I can tell.
> your messiah PG
This is low-level, disrespectful, intellectually dishonest and a phallacy. GP said nothing about Graham and you are pulling this out of nowhere.
> The burden of proof remains on you. You need to find us an example of an outstanding writer who didn't read much. This doesn't even hold for the classics (eg, Marcus Aurelius or Plato) as far as I can tell.
I think it's fair to say that we don't actually know much about Plato. All stories being told about plato are in third person narrative. I think you are contradicting yourself, Socrates and other ancients were a big proponent of discarding writing in place of dialogue. I think this should suffice as point.
> So you are under the belief that the written output of one man born in 1564 was of greater quantity than all “good” writing prior to his time? Are you sure you thought this through?
This is not the point i was trying to make.
I haven't downvoted you, but if I did, it would be for the tone of your comments alone. I don't care about PG one way or another, but I am sick of the total level of glibness on the Internet, and while I gave up on mainstream social media, I would prefer HN to stay a little bit friendlier and less toxic than Twitter or Reddit.