/lit/ - Literature

>>6476872
>is like picking on the handicapped kid.
Welcome to 4chan.

>>3854087
>outer space smells like gunpowder

welp

quite

You see, "quite" is like the 19th century equivalent of "really" or "very." It doesn't quite add anything to what you're saying, and you can get away with peppering it quite often into your sentences. People tend to believe that the word can quite improve the authority of your voice, but the only people who fall for this have quite the minuscule IQ.

Example:
>"I thought Sucker Punch was a cerebral film."
No, you fucking cock stain, you sound like a god damn idiot.
>"I thought Sucker Punch was quite a cerebral film."
Hey, this guy clearly knows what he's talking about. Let's all listen to what he has to say.

How does it feel knowing that the only people who don't block tripfags are other tripfags and newfags fresh from Gaia Online?

>>1041726
take your random "fun" bullshit to /b/ where it belong.

Here in /lit/, discussing literature is fun. I know it seems strange to an illiterate fucktard such as yourself, but /lit/ was created for discussing literature.

>>882878
>>882868
>>882866
>>882860
sure is samefaggotry in here

I like how the "Illustrations by Bantha_Fodder and..." goes right over the signature of the guy who painted the cover image.

Also, you should get Chris chan to do the next issue cover. God know he has the time and the crayons to get the job done.

>>842940

>>743507
this is a place for discussing literature. You're childish scribblings are not literature.

Imagine if /co/ was a bunch of faggots who only talk about their shitty self-drawn Sonichu comics, or if /tv/ was a bunch of faggot youtube users who only talked about the crappy videos they upload. That's what /lit/ is. A bunch of morons who can't discuss books, only the shit that they write that nobody wants to read.

you should stick to drawing comics, Chris-chan.

>>463401
>doesn't realize it's a bannable offense to have non-literature related discussions on /lit/.

my book is about the horror of the mundane, the superficiality of vision, American obsession with happiness, and the ravages of time and the impermanence of memory.

I've only attended one creative writing course, and I doubt they're all like this, but my understanding is that they essentially teach you two things: (1) read lots and lots of books that aren't shit like Harry Potter, (2) write as often as you can. If you do those two things constantly you'll get better at writing. Everything else we did were just writing exercises, word games, reading published work and student work, and we'd learn about author's writing process. The teacher would give us some critique, but we rarely ever did student critiquing (thank god), instead we would do something called a recall exercise, where we would just say what we remembered from what was just read or what was read the previous week, usually students only tend to remember the well written stuff.

Helpful? Yes, but you can only take away so much from it and then you're off just as well on your own. And there are some students who take the classes for two years and don't improve at all just because they're stubborn dumb asses.