/lit/ - Literature

>/lit/ doesn't read
It's poetic, really.

>>20644971

>>20627233
You must have the most superficial understanding of what makes any sort of literature good if you seriously think that. I would like to believe that you are trolling but since I have interacted with people who share your sentiment before I'm inclined to believe that you are being earnest here.
I'm going to spell it out very clearly for you: using lots of big words does not make what you write good. It's even worse when there's very little of substance hidden beneath those big words. The point of language is to communicate ideas. This means that for whatever you write there needs to be a theme or a plot or an argument within it. Simply throwing together a bunch of "smart"-sounding words gets you fucking nowhere. Moby Dick is considered a great work of literature, not because Melville uses a lot of big words, but because he captures and expresses transcendent themes about the nature of life. Your writing is terrible because you use a lot of big words but express absolutely nothing worthwhile within it - and that's not even touching on just how terrible the prose is aside from the overuse of a thesaurus. Your writing is the literary equivalent of a cargo cult. You assume that literary form entails literary function instead of vice versa. Putting together a bunch of scrap metal to look like a helicopter does not magically make the scrap metal into a helicopter.