/lit/ - Literature

>>9984992
That's it. I give up. You win. In this very post, you just repeat the same patterns as your last posts like a broken record:
1. Attacks me personally
> Go read Malazan or whatever spergs like you are usually into
Check.
2. Makes massive assumptions on who I am
>Jesus fucking Christ, all I can say to you is that you're either mentally retarded, have Asperger's syndrome, or are some sort of engineer or computer scientist that is incapable of understanding the world except throughout their small lens.
Check.
3. Cites an old post which i admitted was wrong and stupid
>Just look at this:
>On the other hand... it as a teenager.
Check.
4. Simply says that I'm wrong without explaining how or why
>A person who was serious about literature wouldn't even begin to approach a novel with the mindset that you have, like I said previously the way you approach art is fundamentally flawed.

Ya' know what? I'm done. I'm tired of responding to you. I gained so much more from other people in this thread, that I really don't care what you think anymore. And I've got two things I've learned from this thread:
1. I mistook Salinger's book, and it warrants a new read.
2. I picked up that book you recommended on how to read.
3. You're retarded or a troll.

In the end, I think I came out with more. Go ahead and have this victory. You win.

>>9985061
I did hear that this was one of Bush's favorite books, but I couldn't see why. I didn't like it when I read it in high school, probably because I was one of those people you described as never properly been in a depressed state. Throughout this thread I've realized that I probably wasn't looking at the book through the best lense to get the most out of it. I'll have to re-read the book to garner a better and more developed understanding.