/lit/ - Literature

>>16555814
Hey thanks for the feedback, genuinely that’s great criticism.
Can definitely see the cultish aspects. I need to tweak this a little: hoping for more of a secular light/airiness feel than strictly religious, though I see it there.
All images are of my library or were made by my studios. Happy to hear that you’ve seen them here before, actually—might mean that people are actually liking and positing my stuff.

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to critique, anon—much appreciated. Looking forward to reading your submission.

>>16527067
He was extremely promising at one point. One got the sense that he actually had some window into the work at hand, and his performance was a valuable type of “translation” where somewhere between figuring out his take on the text and text itself, you actually got a pretty good dose of insight. He used spectacle in the service of something deeper/higher.
He seems to have shifted, and now is just about the spectacle. A cursory glance/preview of this “book” is really disappointing, and his last works on Heidegger have been kinda derivative interpretations and performances, at best.

Cmon, Q. You’re thinking to hard about what it is that we want. (We never wanted anything).

>>16491099 #
>>16490395 #
He’s right about some people, sure. His universalizing is totally off.

Rich people, poor people—both read, both don’t. The rich people that collect massive libraries? It’s just as mixed.

That he/you would assume the world is simply a certain “way” instead of a multiplicity of “ways” is the greatest indicator that he/you, whether rich or poor, are almost certainly in the “no-read” group.

I know this because I have a 25k private library and know other wealthy anons who have similar endeavors.
I’m guessing it’s simply not a world that you have a real window into.

>>16491099
>>16490395
He’s right about some people, sure. He’s universalize go is totally off.

Rich people, poor people—both read, both don’t. The rich people that collect massive libraries? It’s just as mixed.

That he/you would assume the world is simply a certain “way” instead of a multiplicity of “ways” is the greatest indicator that he/you, whether rich or poor, are almost certainly in the “no-read” group.

I know this because I have a 25k private library and know other wealthy anons who have similar endeavors.
I’m guessing it’s simply not a world that you have a real window into.