/lit/ - Literature

>>6882971
>If we kill one man, at least two people can survive off his flesh. Thus cannibalism is objectively good and all cultures should practice it.
But the human body has very little nutrients, you can't sustain yourself with it no matter how much you eat. The myth of the wendigo, that when a man eats another man it creates a hunger that won't go away no many how many he eats, was based on this reality.

Also considering moral issues is better when you try to understand big scale situations in which there is not a single solution. You're hungry so you'll justify eating, yes, but the way you tax a country or the relationships in a border don't have a simple instinctive solution and a moral system can help avoid unnecesary problems.

>>6648705
>defending something that recognizes itself as a lite version of wikipedia, an encyclopedia.
>not presenting real books about narratology and narrative theory
>saying that other anons are summer
come on, you can't be this new around and so unread and pretend to be superior to anyone here.

Also, creating your story from tropes is like learning how to build a house by mimicking the movements a builder does. You need to know what you're doing or it will end up looking like something that tries to be a house and you won't be able to fix it. You need to take to mindset of a writer and not of a reader, exactly the opposite that tvtropes does.

>>6644692
>no se me da naturalmente.
y? nada más vas a hacer cosas que te sean faciles? otras cosas como escuchar música o ver películas no se dan fáciles, se permiten consumir con el cerebro apagado como volcar agua en una jarra, obvio que la más minima demanda es superior a eso.
el cine es la herramienta favorita de la propaganda, te abre a que te laven el cerebro como pocas cosas, obvio que es más facil que la literatura.

>pero no se sintió más profundo que una película
si leés por "ver que pasa" obvio que no es más profundo que cualquier forma narrativa. estás extrayendo la sinopsis, para eso leé un resumen de wikipedia. estás leyendo mal, no culpes al medio de no tener propiedades mágicas que cambien tu vida nada más siguiendo una palabra atrás de otra.

>reemplazables
nada es reemplazable por otro medio, tienen cosas diferentes. si te parece que leer una novela o ver una película es intercambiable no estás haciendo ninguna de las dos muy bien que digamos.

>>6582791
For some reason you're equating dumb people using feminism as a color with the original ideas of feminism being wrong. We live in a society pointlessly antagonistic, the divide between men and women as if they were different species is just another symptom that should be recognized and treated with the rest of the disease.

>>6489357
>It is separate.
Well, I'm cool with separate too. It just don't see it as above something else, it just is.

>It is not defined by references to society.
I didn't say that, or at least I didn't mean to be understood that way. It is a result of society, whether it likes it or not, and you can see this in the evolution of painting (understood as a progression of changes, not improvement and ignoring technical material aspects like prices of oil and so on)

>Overly "intellectual" art or art which has some sort of socialist/ feminist message to it,
>is, in my humble opinion, a farce, as an end, that is.
Why point out only those two? Wouldn't a capitalist or chauvinist piece, done with a message first, be just as shallow?

>It is irrelevant, though.
You really think context payed no part in the vanguards of the early 20th century? or pseudo post-modern stuff? or classsicism? or romanticism? Do you think Mozart and Bach would had done the exact same pieces if they were born in another time?
Context is a huge part of a work, probably 50% of it.

>Art is not that,
>it is beyond that,
>some where my mind has not yet perceived.
Art is not what? biting fro desire or being fulfilled by a meal?

If you could answer to me in poem form but rhyming this time that would be really nice.