/lit/ - Literature

>>10847796
Explicitly, absolutely, unequivocally, categorically: NO.

All of the poets who pioneered free verse had extensive experience with every kind of rhyme and meter, much like Picasso mastered classical painting styles before venturing to invent cubism. If you shit your feelings onto a page, break the lines in senseless places, and call it "poetry," you will end up as Rupi Kaur, at best, no matter what your feelings are, be they lust, sadness, joy, or chastity.

>>10155071
Then it would still be shame in the past, with just as little necessity as one's present shame which we call "embarrassment." This definition doesn't lead me to believe that one or the other is in any way "eternal."

>>9522036
He's baitposting or an idiot, my dude. I'm inclined to the former. I wouldn't worry too much about him.

>>9474978
I'm not demanding perfect sense. I'm saying that, if I were hungry, and you offered me the choice between the "perfect description" of a ham sandwich and a ham sandwich, I would take physical thing over the representation of it without question.

>>9429447
>>9429466
If you're really that desperate to die, why not just kys? Why do you need to fabricate an external goal that, by accomplishing it, will end your life?

>Nazi Literature

Such as?