/lit/ - Literature

When did you realize /lit/ is filled with underage plebs that dont even really read?

>>17315436
>>17315438
>>17315458
leave this board and never return

>>14893766
>irony
Cringe.

>>13562522
are you really so spooked by the concept of intellectual property that the personal wishes of a man dead nearly 100 years have become a fixed idea for you?

"“Saying 'I notice you're a nerd' is like saying, 'Hey, I notice that you'd rather be intelligent than be stupid, that you'd rather be thoughtful than be vapid, that you believe that there are things that matter more than the arrest record of Lindsay Lohan. Why is that?' In fact, it seems to me that most contemporary insults are pretty lame. Even 'lame' is kind of lame. Saying 'You're lame' is like saying 'You walk with a limp.' Yeah, whatever, so does 50 Cent, and he's done all right for himself.”
― David Foster Wallace

do you really need to ask?

>delving into character psychology instead of employing characters as ideological vessels

>re-invents the book but in an obfuscated way
>known for being an asshole
>likely a schizophrenic
>the only worth of his is his penchant for grammar
I hate that he was born in my State. Just icing on the cake on the long, list of famous Arizona morons.

>>10887408
I don't quite understand why both those things cannot be true at the same moment. A spirit can judge itself, as if it were distinct, from within itself as that is the nature of a spirit. What we know that is weird but true is that the spirit is hard to put your finger exactly on but the inverse of that notion is also true. It's hard for the spirit to put It's spiritual finger on the thing that is the thing trying to put it's finger on it. As far as I know I don't know anything, and a particularly particular spirit may or may not be judged by the thing that is not me but is also me but is also you but is also Him. Also, I've done many hallucinogens in my day and a common theme I've found is how open the mind is to suggestion. One can convince themselves of just about anything but the sad but true truth to the matter is that this portal we see through is not quite capital-A A+ rated according to environmental guidelines if you catch my drift. At the end of the long year you will find that many things that seem distinct actually share a lot of things in common and are not as distinct as you originally thought. Eventually words will bend and blend in strange ways and meaning will obscure until you are looking as a thing which is different but the same as the thing you looked at before this thing. Also, also I don't know if I even believe in a spirit as the thing I think I assume to see as spirit is the thing that I assume to think I see when I think of the totality of reality (which is just one particularly particular reality extrapolated to the whole singularly particular reality), as when I look close to the thing (but not directly at it) I find that they are not as distinct as I or my spirit had previously thought and thought to have thought.

>>10263664
Probably because there are funny moments in you fucking pseud.

Was this man on the spectrum?

>>10164688
Without resorting to name-calling, can someone offer a sensible critique of Wallace's writing? I read Oblivion and Brief Interviews, and I liked both of them a lot.

>>9919599
>hate the blacks because they're poor and uneducated
>hate the jews because they're rich and educated

why do you need scapegoats so bad, /pol/?

What is /lit/'s opinion on DFW's opinion on John McCain?

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/david-foster-wallace-on-john-mccain-2000-rolling-stone-story-w493273

>In his problem, Taylor presents us with a situation and an argument. Suppose that I am an admiral. Suppose that, in the context of the totality of circumstances obtaining, if I issue a certain kind of naval order, a sea-battle will inevitably occur tomorrow. The giving of such an order we designate O, the state of affairs in which a battle occurs tomorrow we designate B, and the relation in which O is sufficient for B we designate (O → B). Suppose further that, if I issue any other kind of naval order, here including no order at all, this will ensure that no sea-battle takes place tomorrow. We designate the any-other-kind-of-order O′, the state of affairs in which there is no battle tomorrow B′, and the sufficiency-relation between the two we designate (O′ → B′). By presupposition 4, since O is sufficient for B, and O′ is sufficient for B′, then B is necessary for O—this means that (~B → ~O)—and B′ is necessary for O′— meaning (~B′ → ~O′). And presupposition 1 allows us to import LEM/PB to say that either it is true that there will be a battle tomorrow, B, or, if not, then it is true that there will not be a battle tomorrow, B′; that is, that either B is true or B′ is true: (B ∨ B′). We note that this is an exclusive disjunction, that if B is true then B′ will be false (since B′ is the same as not-B), and vice-versa. We also remind ourselves of Taylor’s presupposition 5, that no agent can perform a given act if there is lacking some condition necessary for that act, which certainly looks reasonable, and then as I stand on the deck of my destroyer we ask ourselves whether it is now in my power to do O if I choose and also now within my power to do O′ (instead) if I choose. Taylor’s answer is no:
>I-1) If B is true, then it is not in my power to do O′ (since if B is true then there is, or will be, lacking a condition necessary for my doing O′, namely the condition of there not being a battle tomorrow).
>I-2) And if B′ is true, then it is not in my power to do O (for an obviously similar reason).
>I-3) But either B is true, or B′ is true (since presupposition 1 licenses the application of LEM/PB to future contingents).
>I-4) So either it is not in my power to do O, or it is not in my power to do O′.


>tfw this is water

>>9567417

>>9458205
and by dogs I mean young boys and by sticks I mean dicks

“I gotta tell you, I just think to look across the room and automatically assume that somebody else is less aware than me, or that somehow their interior life is less rich, and complicated, and acutely perceived than mine, makes me not as good a writer.”

>>9002549
Don't waste your time with someone who offers you nothing but heartache. If you aren't moving forward towards a relationship with this girl, look elsewhere.

>>8960934
>using Jew as an argument


there is nothing wrong with Jewish people or Jewish writers, only to scared /pol/tards who believe in a ficitious worldwide conspiracy.

Hey, lit.

I edited together that DFW interview that you get the memes from into a shorter format.

Please watch it and tell me if it makes sense in the way it was edited or if I need to re-edit it to be easier to understand.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8juL7cdGj40&feature=youtu.be

?????????????????????????

What are some interviews, or discussions, or even documentaries that get into the mind of an author or any kind of person that interests you.
Similar to pic related or not similar, I don't care, just interesting conversations.

>>6255949

>I haven't heard of it

are you sure you're on the right board?