/lit/ - Literature

>>2054186

>Ecclesiastes is the best thing in the bible.

So true. I don't get the love for the book of Job though.

My favorite bits are Genesis, Solomon's Proverbs, and the gospels are all pretty OK.

Worst shit: Deuteronomy, Revelations.

>>2054161 was me, forgot my trip.

>>2054172
>>2054166

Yeah fair enough. I accept that reasoning as justified.

Awesome, I see this thread just when I feel like taking a metaphorical shit. Here you go /lit/:

_________________________________________
Dear hipster girl,
I know that if I was ever going to fuck you
It should have been when you were 17
And model thin, and innocent.
Now you are 22, and you've had a string
Of shitty boyfriends and abortions
And your thighs are slightly fat, but you know what?
The last five years have been no kinder to me.
You've had your expectations lowered,
And I've learnt how to be cruel.
So let’s fuck, and then maybe we could go out,
And I could turn you on to cigarettes and bulimia,
And you could look like you did five years ago,
for at least another five years.
And then we'll be almost 30,
Your social currency diminished,
Mine accruing interest.
So I'll dump you and marry some attractive young grad student from a middle upper class white family.
It'll be like one big romantic comedy,
only not romantic and, you know,
not so funny.
_________________________________________

In other news: pedophiles can't write poetry for shit.

In terms of your plot however, I can't say I see the angle. The general notion is that modern work environments cause people to become dysfunctional? It's quite a strong premise; in the sense that it might be too strong to really defend. If your office is just an ordinary office, is it really realistic that every single person would be fucked up? Could work really have such a strong effect on people's lives? I'd limit it to maybe one or two characters having some sort of problem. If the majority of people got on OK, that would create a more interesting dynamic - especially if you disregard the above and stay in first person, because then it raises questions about whether you can trust the narrator. Also, the problems need not be so big. Suicide/murder can be very melodramatic/unrealistic. Maybe one of your characters family relationship breaks down because of the stress of work. Maybe he takes it out on his kids. Small, snowballing problems. The angle being that the dysfunction of the modern office environment is insidious, that beneath the polished corporate veneer and the opulence of middle upper class professional life, we are losing?

I don't know, just some food for thought.

I'll be honest with you OP.

In terms of style, you're pretty good. Even though you're dealing with a mundane topic, it was actually readable enough that I could finish it. I usually give up on most of the shit people post on here after the first paragraph.

I sort of agree with the Faulker quote posted above; advice isn't all that useful. I'll give you some anyway though.

Avoid unnecessary swearing. Especially in the narrative voice. It contributes very little, maybe something to tone (though that can be achieved more subtly), and it means that the words lose their force.

>or some shit.

Was the most jarring example of this.

I also found your exposition a little lacking in detail and repetitive - too much focus on 'the screen', and your narrator's boring inner thoughts. I think this might work better in third person.

I liked your dialogue though. Crisp, sparse, to the point. I liked the artificial way that Mr Johnson spoke.

>>2053885

I didn't mean Dostoevsky endorsed the argument. I mean, even if he put it in the mouth of a character, that he created it. And I don't think OP understood it.

>>2053887

Ohhhh, you repeated yourself. That must make you right. I've already advanced sufficient reasons for why you are wrong. You have failed to understand them.

>>2053868

>look up your definition of beauty
> Wikipedia article
>sentence followed by "[citation needed]"

nice.

Checkmate my ass. You were doing so poorly, it was so obvious you didn't know how to play chess, that I've long since put the board back on the shelf. We're playing intellectual tiddlywinks now.

>>2053862

>Does this mean I win?

Nope.

I don't think you understood Dostoevsky at all and, frankly, I find it repugnant that you are trying to link you illogical spiel to him.

>>2053850

Your failure to grasp basic logic is comical as hell. Are you 12?

>"Beauty is what we attribute to something we desire."

I desire money but I don't think money is beautiful. Problem?

I desire food but I don't think food is beautiful. Problem?

I'm just playing around now though. I can't argue with you on my level after your last riposte.

>>2053835

If you can get emotional about the dumb shit people do, the only conclusion is misanthropy. because all of us do dumb, emotional, irrational, shit

Also, isn't your propensity to judge others and to derive powerful, negative, emotions from their actions, symptomatic of the 'stupid emotional shit' you don't like?

On another note, sex workers are objectively terrible people. I, personally, hope I never have to work for sex.

>>2053830

Is there more coming OP? Or should I proceed directly to the part where I intellectually emasculate you?

>No one launders their money except for a few.
>no one
>except for

>>2053779

Good work dealing with my arguments man. you didn't deal with my arguments.

>>2053759

Jesus Christ kid, you've misinterpreted everything I've said. Arguing with fools eh?

I'm not going to painstakingly point out where you've gone wrong for a third time. Clearly my prior efforts are wasted on you. I will deal however, with your contention that everything I have said furthers your argument.

Saying a concept of beauty is genetically useful is not the same as saying "man cannot live without it." Hearing has a genetic advantage, but you can live without it. Many species have no notion of beauty, yet flourish. Within our specific niche, beauty might provide a competitive advantage; but it isn't necessary for survival.

Further, as I have twice said, it is more likely beauty is a spandrel. That is, a useless side effect of something that has genetic survival value.

>what are the evolutionary advantages of creation of art?

>what are the evolutionary advantages of a peacock's tail?

One of the problems with this argument is that you have asserted something as if it was an axiom, when it is not. Address this now:

What is your evidence that man can't live without beauty?

Why do you think that 'important' or 'valuable' are synonyms of 'we need it to survive?"

_________________________________________
I think this is a good time to invite the other participants of this thread to join me in a chuckle at OP's initial assertion that he was going to provide us with a 'challenge.'

>>2053755

You're ignoring the importance of cultural milieu. The Mosuo are able to flourish without a family structure because their wider socioeconomic structure makes this possible.

The Western capitalist system is geared towards nuclear families, and there is compelling empirical evidence that within this system, children of single parents are disadvantaged. Sure, you might have anecdotal evidence to the contrary, but this is the wider statistical fact.

If you want to advocate the de-emphasis of the family unit, you need to advocate radical changes to the entire social structure. The problem is that while the Mosuo, within their milieu, get on fine without family units, their wider system provides them with a pretty substandard quality of life compared to ours.

>>2053754

That's a shame.

>>2053748

Because you asked me I suppose. At least, I can't think of any plausible 'or'? so I'll ask you; why did you ask me?

It confused intelligent people.

>>2053700

why? what?

>>2053725

>not everything considered healthy is beautiful. Explain that conundrum.

>>2053730


>If your argument is that beauty is merely a tool of the will to live, doesn't that prove my argument that beauty is more important than science, socialism, and equality because one can live without the latter and not the former?

This had nothing to do with my green text (which was pointing out that you imply objectivity). You seem to have changed your argument to a weaker and more defensible form. What is your basis (in argument or observation) for the contention that one cannot live without beauty? I'll give you my answer. One cannot live without a concept of beauty because we have an innate module for it via genes. But you have it the wrong way round. We don't need beauty to exist; beauty needs US to exist.

tl;dr fuck you are stupid; just give up.

>>2053682

>1. if beauty is simply the tool of the will to live, wouldn't that support my original argument that beauty is more valuable than science, socialism, and equality?

Only if you accept that 'value' means 'what is most genetically advantageous.' Genes are self serving, but that doesn't mean we have to be gene serving. Science is valuable because it increases our quality of life. As for socialism and equality, I'm not going to argue that they are more or less valuable than beauty, value is subjective, but I will point out that just as beauty has a genetic basis, equality (at least in-group) probably does also.

> you equate that fear of death and sex are the only forms of human activity and drive

I didn't do this. You're the one that is dogmatically asserting one central driver for human action. I'm denying this, and I cited two potentially greater drivers. I never said these were the ONLY drivers. Nor did I 'equate' anything.

>this is based on your argument that sex and fear of death is the primary drive which is insufficient explanation...

I don't know where you got this from. The argument is ACTUALLY based on the fact that our concept of beauty is derived from evolution. This means it can't be a primary drive (just like death and sex aren't primary drives) because they arise out of the genetic drive.

>>2053678

I'm 22. Yourself?

>>2053676

Ah fair enough, I still think you'd benefit from getting an inside run though. If you befriend a hooker you'll get access to all her hooker friends.

Wow, /lit/ related captcha.

I don't know if you live in a country where this is legal OP, but just go visit brothels. Pay to have sex with various hookers. Make it a regular thing with your favorites. It might be a slight financial investment but it's worth it. Even a hooker you've never met will make small talk after you fuck (as long as you don't go the full hour), and if you become a regular then getting an interview will be easy and you'll be able to have a more meaningful one.

Maybe you don't want to sully yourself with this sort of business. Artistic duty man. If you really want to understand the sex industry to the point that you can write a good novel about it, you have to immerse yourself in it. A couple of brief interviews just isn't sufficient.