/lit/ - Literature

>>4460163
>instead gifted a burden

WHY A BURDEN? HE IS NOT BEING COERCED OR COMPELLED TO READ; IF HE DISLIKES IT, HE CAN STOP READING IT.

A BURDEN IS SOMETHING FROM WHICH ONE CANNOT ESCAPE/SOMETHING OF WHICH ONE CANNOT GET RID.

>Have you never given someone a gift that wasn't well received?

I DO NOT KNOW.

>Have you never got one that you thought was rubbish?

YES, I HAVE.

>Or do you just have trouble empathizing with humans?

YES; MY EMPATHETIC ABILITY IS PARTIAL, BUT THIS IS UNRELATED TO EMPATHY; THIS RATHER CONCERNS THE GIFTER'S IRRATIONALITY AND EMOTIONAL OVERSENSITIVITY.

THE GIFTER HAS NO REASON TO FEEL OFFENDED, OR "EMOTIONALLY HURT" DUE TO THE RECEIVER NOT LIKING THE NOVEL; THE GIFTER'S INTENTION BEING IRRELEVANT.

>>4415337

SO ACCORDING TO YOU, "DELIBERATE" IS SYNONYMOUS, OR COGNATE WITH "CREATIVE"?

>>4402535

ENGLISH, PLEASE.

>>4377300

THAT IS ACCURATE; NOT YET; I WOULD NOT BE HERE, POSTING IN "4CHAN", AT MY COMPUTER, IF I WERE ENLIGHTENED.

>>4373938

>"RECOMMENDATIONS".
>FRIENDS.

>>4347296

"OBJECTIVISM" IS NOT A PHILOSOPHY EXCLUSIVE TO WOMEN.

YOU ARE AN IDIOT.

>>4319751
>How long until the YA market starts to realise that they are being pandered to

>>4312472

ENGLISH, PLEASE.

HELLO.

I HAVE A HYPOTHESIS THAT MIGHT EXPLAIN WHY JEROME DAVID SALINGER MADE “HOLDEN CAULFIELD” –AND HIS FAMILY– A “GINGER”, AND WHY AYN RAND MADE “HOWARD ROARK” AN “ORANGEHEAD”.

SIMILARITIES BETWEEN “HOLDEN CAULFIELD”, AND “HOWARD ROARK”:

>THEY HAVE “REDDISH”/”ORANGE” HAIR COLOUR.
>THEIR FIRST NAMES BEGIN WITH THE LETTER “H”.
>THEY ARE OVERLY INDIVIDUALISTIC; EGOTISTS.
>THEY ARE ANOMALIES IN THEIR RESPECTIVE HABITATS.
>THEY SMOKE.
>THEY DRINK ALCOHOL.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN “HOLDEN CAULFIELD”, AND “HOWARD ROARK”:

>”HOLDEN CAULFIELD” IS HYPEREMOTIONAL.
>”HOWARD ROARK” IS HYPOEMOTIONAL.

>”HOLDEN CAULFIELD” IS OVERLY CONCERNED WITH OTHER PERSONS’ BEHAVIOR.
>”HOWARD ROARK” IS INDIFFERENT TOWARD OTHER PERSONS.

>”HOLDEN CAULFIELD” IS A TRADITIONALIST WHO DISLIKES CHANGE.
>”HOWARD ROARK” IS A PROGRESSIVIST WHO DESPISES STAGNATION.

>”HOLDEN CAULFIELD” WANTS TO PRESERVE.
>”HOWARD ROARK” WANTS TO REFORM.

THEY ARE OPPOSITE FACETS OF THE SAME ARCHETYPAL QUALITY; “THE EGO”.

"HOLDEN CAULFIELD" FITS THE "INNOCENT" ARCHETYPE.

"HOWARD ROARK" FITS THE "HERO" ARCHETYPE.

"HOLDEN CAULFIELD" REPRESENTS THE "SATTVA" (PURITY) "GUNA" OF VEDIC PHILOSOPHY.

"HOWARD ROARK" REPRESENTS THE "RAJAS" (MOTION) "GUNA" OF VEDIC PHILOSOPHY.

"HOLDEN CAULFIELD" IS VISHNU, THE PRESERVER & SUSTAINER.

"HOWARD ROARK" IS THE FOUNTAINHEAD SHIVA, THE CREATOR & DESTROYER.

HYPOTHESIS:

THE “TUATHA DE DANNAN” WERE A RACE OF NONHUMAN BEINGS, REGARDED AS DEITIES IN IRISH MYTHOLOGY. THEY ALL HAD “RED” HAIR.

JEROME DAVID SALINGER WAS FIFTY PERCENT (50%) IRISH.

PERHAPS AYN RAND, AND JEROME DAVID SALINGER, INDEPENDENTLY MADE THEIR CHARACTERS HAVE “REDDISH”/”ORANGE” HAIR, TO BE HOMOLOGOUS TO THE “TUATHA DE DANNAN”.

IF YOU FEEL LIKE YOU NEED TO ELICIT THE READER'S ATTENTION, THE READER IS NOT WORTH YOUR EFFORT, AND YOUR WRITING IS NOT WORTH READING.

>>4247843
>Thoughts are information on your brain

NO; THOUGHTS ARE INFORMATION IN MY MIND.

>everything you think, say, or do, is just chemicals in your brain

NOT JUST CHEMICALS; ELECTRICAL IMPULSES ALSO; AND SINCE I AM ECTOMORPH, MOSTLY ELECTRICAL IMPULSES.

>Ever heard of the subconcious?

HOW DOES THAT RELATE TO DEPRESSION?

>Do you actually think it's another brain or just the remnants of information that was once processed and stored?

WHY THE NONSEQUITEUR?

THERE IS NO "POINT" IN YOUR POST.

>>4240858

IT IS NOT LITERALLY ONE PERSON, IDIOT.

IT IS A CONCEPT OF A SUPERINDIVIDUALIZED KIND OF HUMAN.

>who I have vague ties to

WELL, IT IS CERTAIN THAT GRAMMATICALLY, YOUR NOVEL, OR NOVELLA, OR SHORT STORY COLLECTION, IS SUBPAR.

>>4210491

WHAT IS KNOWN AS "ALT LIT", IS MILLENNIAL LITERATURE.

>>3908982

THE "POINT" OF TEACHING "PHILOSOPHY" AT SCHOOLS IS TO STIMULATE ANALYTICAL THINKING.

NOONE MENTIONED ANYTHING REGARDING "TEACHING PEOPLE HOW TO THINK".

YOU OUGHT TO IMPROVE YOUR "READING COMPREHENSION".

>>3735792

ONLY IF IT IS TOO "DEEP" FOR YOU.

>>3716915

I DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW THAT WOULD BE AN "ISSUE".

>>3633105

THE QUOTE READS THAT THE CYNIC FACADE IS FICTILE, NOT THE "SURFACE" TO WHICH IT IS FIXED.

>>3601178

MY EYES WERE BRIMMING, AND THREE TEARS ROLLED DOWN MY FACE.

I DID NOT CRY, I JUST SHED THREE TEARS.

>>3570354

IS THAT A "NON SEQUITEUR"?

>>3546267

WHY DO YOU ASSUME THAT THERE IS SOMETHING "WRONG" WITH HIM?

HAVE YOU EVEN READ "THE CATCHER IN THE RYE"?

>>3503422

"BELIEF" IN THE OBVIOUS DIFFERENCES BETWEEN BODY, AND MIND IS IRRELEVANT. IT WOULD BE LIKE CLAIMING THAT ONE "BELIEVES" IN SCIENCE.

BODY, AND MIND ARE DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF THE HUMAN ORGANISM, THAT IS A FACT.

YOU ARE IGNORANT, AND CONFUSED.

>Do you agree with this statement?

NO.

I DO NOT KNOW WHOM YOU ARE QUOTING, BUT IT READS AS HOKEY & TRITE EXISTENTIAL ANGST FROM TWENTIETH CENTURY FRANCE.