/lit/ - Literature

>implying animals aren't superior to humans

Just look at them, they don't need conventions or collective myths or any of that shit in order to do the same thing we do by all those complicated and unnecessary (though necessary for us due to our inferiority) things: exist together.

I think it's usually posed in this sort of question in a strange way.

You only say someone has talent after something was done.

And this good job raises this question in those who did not see that coming (because it was, afterall, in some way creative or unique, if the others saw it coming, it was not a work of talent). So they ask in the form "were you meant to do this good? or did you train for it?". And the person is stunned by this question, it never crossed his mind, and he might answer something like "well, I always wanted to play the piano, but I do study it since I was 5". The general conclusion seems to be "you have an inclination, but only hard work can get you to be really good".

I think that's nice, but I also think it's incomplete. Because you see, the person speaks of "want" and I think that is a key factor. That people don't always want to do something good, they want to be good at doing things. In the sense that they are not really responding to the creative work, but responding to secondary things like recognition, acceptance, because they see in the image of the writer/artist/whatever something that they want for themselves.

That is, for me, something that the so called talented people don't have. Instead they are focused on the instrument at hand, even if only intuitively, they want to know what can or can't be done, not what they can or cannot do.

cont

Dear diary,

It has been 11 years, 3 months and 17 days. Still, as far as I can tell, no one on the internet has ever suspected that I am a dog.

The more you read, the more you'll surprise people.

It's not just a matter of saying "consumerism is bad and there is this and there is that", even if what you say makes sense. You have to bring something new to the table, either by saying the same thing in an elegant way that nobody said before or adding something that was missing. You have to aim for the reader's catharsis. There has to be a twist to it.

When we are talking about a subject to which everyone has something to say, that a lot was already said at all levels of education, then you have to go beyond. You have to be more fierce, more eloquent or more knowledgeable. Otherwise, it will be just tiresome and annoying to read, you'll be a parrot, a noise, a leftover of the collective mind.

The focus should be in making a claim to explain your epiphany on it, but to provoke an epiphany on the reader and make him take your claim as if it was his.

And for this to happen to someone who has read and seen a lot, it will certainly be harder than usual. So you have to give them something completely new.

>>3327738
When you turn 50, you'll look at the 20 year old guys and you'll have the same reaction as soon as they open their mouth, even if you agree with them. Be patient with that.

How can a Lacanian approach to the mind help in understanding oneself?

Language, the Other, drives... How could one go about this to acquire a new vision towards one's own problems?

>>2833194
I think you should either go through it all alone or show to the people you really trust, maybe a teacher, a fellow writer or an avid reader (also never just because they are close to you like a girlfriend or parent, unless you trust their opinion on literature). And only at points in which you need criticism, points which you have obviously reached a block or when you can't polish it anymore. That's when criticism might be great for you.

What people do here on /lit/ and which I don't subscribe to is to show what was written to a lot of arbitrary people. What's even worse, making a habit to have other people giving their opinions on your work. First because they may help you just as much as they can harm you, second because even when they help, they are only helping you in terms of what they want to read and not what you are willing to write.

Words are powerful. Make them yours. Be careful.
Do you think this is a motherfucking game?

What are your favourite plays?

Who are your favourite play writers?

Help lit,

I just checked the library summer schedule and it is fucking closed on saturdays.

I was planning to go and get some shit to continue my reading but im fucked and I'm not gonna waste 2 days.

So I decided to have a literature-only weekend, maybe 3-5 books.

Here's what I have:
BNW - Huxley
No longer human - Dazai
Un homme qui dort - Perec

What could I add to that list (maybe i can find the ebook)?

I know you have the knowledge for this. Thanks in advance

>inb4 r9k chart or more dystopias

So, what are those things that are out of question in todays society?

those things that you can't even mention cause you will be disqualified before you finish the phrase?

I have some: Infanticide, pedophilia, cannibalism, excision, incest.

got more?

>tfw you hate the looks of new books, look for one and the used one is more expensive...

a friend of mine asked me once if I knew the book,
I said no, and he said he was surprised cause he thought that
it was the type of books I liked...

what did he mean and should i read the book?
(only literature i read is dystopian fiction)

is it possible to understand and live life at the same time?

some say that understanding life is living it, but i'd say that whether u give yourself to ur desires withouth questioning them or u stop to understand how those desires have been constructed.