/lit/ - Literature

>>22693844
Wallace read LotR five times when he was a teen. So finish it for Dave's sake.

>>19269544
>he is in point with this. if you kill yourself you literally make the world a better place. and you probably know it.
he cannot "be in any point" because nothing he says can be of worth because he is a whore for laughs. Again, read Mister Squishy for more proof that you're wrong and then hang yourself like DFW did

>>17521851
here u go

>>16356401
>>16356377
WHY HAVE I FINISHED THE FIRST THIRTY PAGES OF A HUNDRED BOOKS I CANT FINISH ANYTHING

There was a five-year window there he could've written a 5,000+ word achingly personal dissertation on how a completely anonymous forum inherently invites damage to human dignity or some such. Why not?

>>15898480
>being able to name the subhumans in the picture

>>15899699
>that's why left-wingers don't have a real job, instead they are obsessed with the childish ida of constantly expressing themselves through whatever they call "art" now

What would /lit/ say the general population's view(s) on semantics is/are? Certainly in English, but also in other languages I've studied, people speak in a manner that, taken literally, implies that words have some necessary, objective meaning. They could, hypothetically, speak so because (a) It's easier to speak that way than to speak about language as it actually is, i.e. to speak about it a way that acknowledges its ultimate subjectivity, (b) Because those around them growing up spoke in such a manner, so they themselves picked up that manner of speaking, or (c) A combination of the two.

I think (b) plays into how they speak about language to some extent, but on the whole I think it's because they actually do view words as fixed, necessarily meaning this or that with any deviation being "objectively" wrong. This is to some extent exemplified, I think, by how some discussions/arguments fail, namely when people get hung up on a particular word and swear that the other is misusing it in some way; and not with respect to someone's particular definition, say, Schopenhauer's idiosyncratic 'will,' but in general (though the former does sometimes happen too).

Has this been your experience as well? I haven't really talked to anyone about this before, and I haven't read anyone's writings on the subject, so I was curious to hear what you guys thought. I feel like this might not be the most /lit/ related thread though, so to counteract that I ask that you give some recommendations on works that address this or other similar ideas. Thanks in advance.

Are there any books?

i miss this lil nigga like u wouldnt believe it

This place is dead. Less than 10% of the threads currently up are about literature, fiction, writing or writers. Other threads are mostly about: a) being a loser (tranny, manlet, NEET, depression, etc); b) religion bullshit; c) Guénon stupidity; and d) metathreads like this one.

Can /lit/ change or it's over? /tv/, /v/, /mu/, /fit/ and other boards might be terrible but at least they don't let their own subject matter aside. What's up with that?

>>14417085
I'll try to read IJ this next year, I've been putting it off since 2017.

>>14386919
Thanks for the tip, buddy.