/lit/ - Literature

>>8848077
autisically undoubtedly

That's why there are memes.

>despite, or on the contrary because of the very fact that_

>>6486691

>he still reads fiction

>>6473790

#S H O T S F I R E D

>>6473793

I'm against freedom of speech and love me some fucking censorship actually.

What is the point of literary criticism and analysis?

This might sound ultra pleb to say, but even after doing it, I just don't get why. What value does it hold. I feel like i'm a reporter, slanting the story to one side of something to make a point, when the author probably didn't mean that at all.

I feel like i'm putting meaning where there really might not be. Symbolism that was left there on purpose is one thing, but I feel like not every phallic object in a book represents a dick. and not every girl that gets rescued has to represent something, or some plight of people, when really the author just wanted to write it that way.

I feel like maybe an author just writes things because he wanted to write them that way, not so we could bend it around to express something

Again, sorry if this seems pleb, I just can't get my head around this.

>>6451379
Bro. . . they are really "in" to horses. Super I N to them if you know what I mean. They are really sincere trust me.

>>6449732
I am reading.

>>6415622
That's actually not true. The origin of the myth, old window panes being thicker at the bottom (giving the impression that its running downwards extremely slowly) is actually just due to dated methods of making said panes.

let's get a pepe streak going

>>6314829
I'm not complaining, I'm posing a question. Did I touch a nerve?

>>6314832
Only if they aren't "graphic novels" :^)

>>6313364
Both memes and cliches are unoriginal ideas that people repeat and share.

A "babbling brook" is just a much a meme as Pepe is.

>>6306763
>I'm sorry, are you somehow suprised by anti-rationalist strains of continental philosophy? Do you not know any history of philosophy? Do you believe yourself qualified of speak of it, int hat case?

No and your reading comprehension is poor.

My point is: simply because anti-rationalism has a history it does not follow that it is a valid philosophy. Would you like to present a rational argument to convince me otherwise?

>>6261354
We looked at the data and what we found surprised us.

>>5115631
officially #rekt by
>>5115664