/lit/ - Literature

>>23129453
Any language that has a classical period thus has a classical version of it, whether you like it or not. I remember coming to this thread many years ago and being told to fuck off simply because the topic wasn't about Latin, Greek, or Classical Chinese. When I told another anon in /lang/ over on /int/ about that, after he had recommended me this general, he was perplexed and said that wasn't true, and now I'm here again. Turns out you still stand by this mentality.

>>21357649
>Anarcho-Ligottist || Insurrectionary Horror Writer || Cosmic Futilitarian || Tibetan Buddhist || Trans || Om Suryaya Namaha

>OP: reading shitty philosophy is making me depressed
>/lit/: NO MY BOOKS ARE BETTER READ MY BOOKS AAAAH PRAISE YESHUA

>>18160535
>Push Mix

>>13914305
Hell no! DFW wrote the masterpiece line

>Wardine be cry

Anyone know a good place to torrent audiobooks? TPB is pretty lacking
inb4 >audiobooks
My commute to work is an hour and I'd rather spend it listening to books than music or the vacuum of silence.

Can someone explain why should the antagonist in my story have any kind of depth? Who even thought of this? And why do I, as an author, have to do this? For some reason, unless I do this, my work may be deemed “flat” and “two-dimensional".

Imagine that we have a hero who believes in X, then we have a villain who believes in Y. But the reason the hero believes in X is because I also believe in X and I want people to believe in X. I do not want people to believe in Y. On the contrary, I want to show that Y is wrong and it's wrong to believe in it.

Sure, my story can theoretically have a detailed description of the antagonist's beliefs and opinions, how they came to believe in Y and what specific life circumstances influenced them. But, as an author, is this really necessary for me? My readers may end up actually sympathizing with the antagonist more than I want them to, and some may even believe that the antagonist is right and that they should support Y. This is the opposite of my goal.

Here's what I think: for me as an author, it would be best to write the antagonist to be as contemptuous, unsympathetic and monstrous as possible. Then, in the end, to utterly destroy them and their beliefs so that no potential reader would even consider believing in Y. So my question is: why is it considered "bad writing"? Why do people think that I, as an author, should devote a portion of the book to the justification of the very position I'm going to be refuting? This doesn't make any sense.

>>11646990
>There are 5 of them in every thread
>They all support each other even when there's no underlying logic or consistency to what they collectively hate
>Driven entirely by spite to present themselves as patrician in such a superficially false way that it can't even justly be called "pretending"

>>10802769
>You probably edit as you write.
This is my problem as well. I still manage decent speeds despite it, probably because I always make sure I have a very detailed outline before writing anything, but I'm too self-conscious to just let things be shit and fix them later.

I will never understand people with disgusting nails and shit. If mine get too long it makes me uncomfortable every time I touch anything for the whole day.
I'd be willing to bet people who chew their nails are almost one-to-one with people that keep their homes disgusting. I don't understand how somebody can live being revolted by the place they sleep, eat, and relax without being on edge the whole damn time.

>>10662068

>A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

>>10372665

>>9474289
>>9474294
>hitler

>>8207623
>I want to speak against Communism
>But I don't know what it is
How about you read Marx to read Marx, rather than setting yourself up to debate him?