/lit/ - Literature

>>3427938
Well first of all, TAR wasn't welcome from the very first issue. It didn't overstay anything. I personally don't like it because they're doing a bad job. An editor is meant to curate the content of a magazine, a magazine is meant to publish a curation of work. Any decent zine has a personal artistic vision it strives for, an aesthetic taste that embodies the standard and design.

TAR has little coherence, the standard is set very low, and the design is consistently in terrible taste, I'm not surprised Prole is unconfident in his personal vision because it'd probably result in a total pile of shit. Instead he just lets in whatever.

>>3414881
You're right. I'll reiterate the important points more clearly.
The quotes gleamed from philosophers are very diluted and generalized, they create meaning for an individual reading it only if the reader isn't wholly familiar with the speaker's work, appropriating the generalization to their own philosophy.
In the case the reader is familiar, they'll understand what the philosopher actually meant by it in the context of his entire worldview, not theirs. So with proper context, the purpose of the quotes will instead be to simplify certain points of the overall philosophy, easy to digest, remember and share. The meaning the reader will get out of the philosophy won't be a misinterpretation of it, but a possible reinterpretation or inspiration.

I'm having trouble finding a reason to intentionally write the generalizations you might find on a wikiquotes page simplifying the works of a philosopher, with no actual philosophy behind it. The generalizations are readily available in popular culture, or they wouldn't be common knowledge.
He's just translated them into purple prose.
So if it was simply meant to offer a book of common maxims, then it seems like it'd be best to collect and translate them in a readable, eloquent and concise form.