/lit/ - Literature

I mean, obviously these are books completely retarded, full of stupidities, lies, hate, contradictions and scientific errors, any intelligent person knows that, there's no even need to argue about that. But i'm not talking about that, i'm talking about literary point of view. Even from a literary standpoint it's incredibly SHITTY asf.

It's so, so boring to read... i nearly fell asleep few times, i had to force myself to finish these books because damn it's boring asf. They aren't inspiring, or interesting, or soothing books, they're just... empty. Empty and dreary. The old fags who came up this crap really had shitty imaginations, no inspiration. They didn't even manage to create cool fictional stories, they created boring and dreary fictional stories.

The Bible/Quran/Torah are bad, very bad science fiction books, i have already read much better sci-fi books than that. For example, sci-fi books of Huxley, Orwell and Stephen King are vastly better than books of abrahamic religions. Sci-fi books of Tolkien, Asimov and C. Clark are largely, LARGELY better than books of abrahamic religions, Asimov is on an infinitely higher level than abrahamic bullshit. Even greek mythology are more cool and interesting than abrahamic religions. Even some mangas are better written, far more interesting and more cool than abrahamic religions. Even fucking DRAGON BALL Z is far more interesting and cool than abrahamic religions, i'm not exaggerating.

From a philosophical point of view, Epicurus is largelly superior to abrahamic religions. Same for Spinoza and Plato, they sometimes said bullshit but overall their writings are better than abrahamic religions. From a literary and romance point of view, Victor Hugo, Allan Poe, Kafka, Diderot, Voltaire, Nietzsche, Kant and Marx write LARGELY better than fags who invented abrahamic religions.

And some will dare to tell me these books come from a "god"? Hahahahahahaha, it's a fucking joke? You want me to believe that a "god" wouldn't even be able to write better than Nietzsche or Asimov? You kidding me? If a "god" would have written or dictated a book, it would be an book absolutely perfect and magnificent on everything, it would be an incomparable book, it wouldn't be such pathetically shitty books like abrahamic religions books. There is no god who created, wrote or dictated the books of abrahamic religions. Not only the Bible/Quran/Torah have been invented by humans, but in addition by humans who were particularly stupid and bad at writing, very bad at writing. It's absolutely not "geniuses" who invented these shits.

What is the WORST book ever?

Do you capitalize Black when referring to a people? Many authors do, while others decry it.

>She said she dreams of a new kind of “fourth-person” narrator in fiction who could encompass the views of each character in a novel.
>“We can regard this figure of a mysterious, tender narrator as miraculous and significant. This is a point of view, a perspective, from which everything can be seen. Seeing everything means recognizing the ultimate fact that all things that exist are mutually connected into a single whole, even if the connections between them are not yet known to us,” she said.

suddenly i have even less respect for the nobel prize.

>>13991679
>reading dellilo unironically
isygddt

>>12619497
>Rails against Spectacle
>by making a Spectacle of himself

What did he literally mean by this?

>>12619130
Isn't Pascal's Wager primarily an argument for antinatalism?

>>12594804
Tell me why aren't you pouring acid on your ballsack as we speak?

Has my social satire concept been done? I don't want to waste time writing something if its already been created by someone else. Anyway the idea is this.

Set in an anarchic state, an opportunist decides there is no more economically efficient way to accrue power and wealth than to start a cult, however as the main character draws greater attention to himself, he comes to learn something about the true nature of this "utopia"; there is a tendency for popular figures in this state to be the subject of many coincidental events, including having their closest followers seduced by opposing ideas, interruptions of public speeches and even assassinations. By the end it is revealed that the state is, ironically controlle, surreptitiously by an underground governing force started by anarchist idealists.

Obviously I don't think the idea has been done EXACTLY this way of course. But has anyone ever done a critique of anarchy using the idea of a government that maintains the pretense of anarchy?

>>12490524

>>12474065
This. In another thread a Finnegans Wake reader said "The book is riddled with beauty". Perhaps he would have a better command of the English language if he read books with actual English words.

marx is, like, the minotaur at the center of a labyrinth of inanity; his most earnest readers, theseus with a severed thread
who is pursuing whom?

>>11375792
deep

>>11376080
>>11376055

>>11291064

>What I also don't believe that anybody is able to imagine back a world without capital.

Your phrasing is really off, but I agree with the sentence "We are no longer able to come up with a project of modernity that is not fully entwined together with capital".

>I really don't get it. If value is not just derived from labor time, what is it?

For this, let me just copy and paste the direct quote by Adam Smith (and I copy it directly from Wiki):

"The real value of all the different component parts of price, it must be observed, is measured by the quantity of labour which they can, each of them, purchase or command. Labour measures the value not only of that part of price which resolves itself into labour, but of that which resolves itself into rent, and of that which resolves itself into profit."

As you can (or should be able to) see here, to Smith and many, many contemporary economists, value is indeed derived from labor, but not that of the producer/laborer, but instead labor the buyer must expend to be able to afford (directly, or indirectly by trading) the product. The value for X in other words lies in relation to the labor it demands or purchases not merely to justify its production, but also rent and profits involved. Marx (supposedly, but he didn't actually do that as far as I can recall) does away with this concept with a mere reversal, establishing the value of X as directly proportional to the labor put into making it. This is a gross approximation of Marx's actual stance that we should not assume is true (neither your post is), because he did not indeed deny such things as supply and demand and the presence of rent, as well as the investment that has to be put in by the buyers.

another thread in which girardfag talks to himself for 7 hours

>>11021454
He liked being alive I guess

>>11025248
Yeah, sure, but too stupid to understand the book Godel's Proof too? Really?

>>10945318
No, people who treat it as a serious work are retarded. Its the intimate, esoteric ravings of a fragile schizophrenic mind. Reading it is almost like a form of voyeurism for pseudointellectuals. There is no reason anyone ought to be able to make sense of the book. Yes, its possible, but its also possible to make sense of the crayoned hieroglyphs in a rubber room at your average psych ward. That also isn't an intellectual pursuit.

>>10912658

>Only then will I know if you're an idiot or not.

>>10867920
>implying God changes

>>10861937
did they fuck?

>>10836573

>This novel sucks, allegories suck and analogies suck! Read this non-fiction with actual factual facts instead of doing the same while also thinking about the underlying issues of society

>>10775126

>"They made a movie about it so it must be good"

This is literally untrue as proved by every single Jennifer Lawrence movie that has ever existed