/lit/ - Literature

>language

>>17347694
>might just have to buy it again.

>>12729958
>>12729958
>checking your own dubs

I'm gonna check it

She's a stupid cunt but STEMfags should seriously kill themselves.

>>8799113
>visual hallucinations
Visualizing something in your head does not mean you are having a hallucination, it just means you have a functioning brain. Do you honestly not try to visualize a scene in your head when you read? Like, if the author is describing some majestic landscape, or a character's bedroom, or some fortified military installation, do you just let the words wash over you without trying to visualize the scene?

I'm genuinely asking, and I was also trying to not use the word "imagine" since you yourself said you don't know what it means.

To state that a work of art or literature is misogynistic is to place oneself on a level with the kind of person who looks at a painting and says “my five-year-old could do that”. It is to single oneself out as the person who doesn’t “get it”. Silly, silly you! You’re not meant to confuse art with real life! Haven’t you grasped that yet? And so it is that rather than look at, say, the work of Allen Jones or the writing of Brett Easton Ellis and conclude that far too much of it incorporates gratuitous misogyny, one is expected to offer a thoughtful, nuanced take on things, demonstrating that even if one feels regret at one’s own flawed response, one nevertheless respects the complex interactions that have taken place between the artist, his oeuvre and the world at large.
For instance, Irvine Welsh has written a piece on why Easton Ellis’s 1991 work American Psycho remains “one of the greatest novels of our time”. I remain unconvinced, but that may be because I’m one of those people who “childishly insist on confusing protagonists with their authors”. Or perhaps I “lack the ability to abstract [myself]” from the violent scenes. Or it could be that I “couldn’t get past [my] own shock and discomfort to ascertain [the book’s] true nature”. Sad to say, I just don’t know. Certainly I can admire the slickness of the work, the repetition, the satire, the clever-but-not-all-that-clever study into the self-destructive nature of status obsession. I can see why it “works”. Nevertheless, I still see a book saturated in misogyny and revenge fantasies, holding women’s bodies ultimately accountable for the fin de siècle cultural crisis it depicts.

>>4989199
kill yourself.

>>4973998

>twelve years