/lit/ - Literature

>>4239279
>Argumentum ad hominem
Does this mean you haven't read any of his works? Because if so, then you have no right to comment on his literature. Sure, you might not like his politics, and yes, that is occasionally pertinent to the quality of an author, but there are plenty of examples of authors with rightist politics that put out fantastic work. I seem to remember a long series of threads on that just last week. Further, if he were ultra-rightist, do you really think the Swedes would have given him the Nobel? Of course not.

Now, as I said, if you haven't read anything of his, then shut up and go read more. Then people will care about your opinion.

Pic always related

>>4223156
You are everything that is wrong with what /lit/ has become.
>I didn't read it
It's evident that you don't read very often. You probably opine on books all of the time based upon what marginal and unsubstantiated rumors you have heard regurgitated by others instead of reading them and the canon upon which they are based and forming your own opinions.

Unfortunately, you are unable even to perform the basic task of perusing text on Andrea Coates blog. I don't find her work compelling. In fact, I rather dislike it. But I at least read the blog. Read a couple of posts. She is not posting "chaos for the sake of chaos." She enumerates certain structures, (no, she's not a total anarchist) in a number of posts, including this review of Sanderg's Lean In (http://andreacoates.blogspot.ca/2013/05/sheryl-sandbergs-lean-in-quest-for.html)) and almost all of those on the "DIYAnrky" portal. Read them. She's not an utter nihilist. I forget which post it was (read it a couple of weeks back) but in fact she calls out that very trend in youth and in ironic authors, assering that in adopting and behaving nihilist philosophy, they are sacrificing their responsibility to work to create better structures.

The discussion in this thread has been pitifully shallow. It is misogynistic. It is not taking her obsession with nudity and promiscuity into consideration (I don't think it's very substantial myself, but at least I took the time to think about it before dismissing its significance), but instead immediately reducing it to "nudes" and debasing her sexuality as a conquest for yourself. That's misogyny. That's exactly what she's criticizing. Y'all are so infuriated by her, and yet you're not even reading the content that infuriates you, simply raging against the temerity of Coates to throw tits in with her tirades. How fitting. Maybe I shouldn't be so quick to write off the salience of her nudity.

tl;dr: Read before you criticize. No, she's not fantastic and her writing is not particularly innovative. But she's making some serious points against you and you're not even reading it because you're too busy staring at the breasts that she is calling you out for reducing her to.
Pic related.

>>4187977
lol'd at shooting up the college

>>4187965
lol'd

>>4171135
>Baudelaire
>Spinoza
mah nigga.

>>3981864
recommending these books without a minimum of irony would be a /lit/ suicide.