/lit/ - Literature

>>14670204
>do you have a point to make?

>>10576757
I really like writing in a vintage fashion though. But mainly I want to describe everything with the highest economy of words, even if it means using very obscure words for common ideas (look up "batten"), dated terms or even slang or informal speech where the language wants an alternative. All this would combine to make me not that coherent to somebody that's not experienced a few books prior.

I won't be bothered that the lowlier readers won't "get" me but I'd be pretty upset if there were no more higher readers to do that.

>>9513101

you dont play tricks we are the ones that do

u stobbit okay