/lit/ - Literature

Every single one of these applies to me and I'm alright with that

>>12383929
>no understanding of literature outside or inside of your cultural horizon
>= no understanding of literature
so why are you here

>>12383914
didnt you post this yesterday

>>12383914
Dan Brown is unequivocally the greatest artist of the 21st century and there's nothing you can do about it, dustybookfag

>>12383914
>making an elitist post on 4chan(nel)
seeing as you're such a cultured individual, why don't you go out and associate with other intellectuals rather than shitposting on a turkish kabalah farm?

>>12383914
>you read for entertainment

Yeah, fuck that. This is why I only read E.M. Cioran. I don't want to be titillated, amused, entertained. Cioran, there's no enjoyment there- he's very pessimistic.

>>you read any form of genre fiction
Not since I was 16
>>you barely know your classics
I don't bother myself with them
>>you tend to believe that if you like a given work, it is justified on an artistic level
Retarded logic
>>you think everyone's opinion should be accepted and respected
Fuck no
>>you speak a single language
Why do I need another one? t. Burger
>>you read contemporary versions of Shakespeare or Milton
I don't even read them
>>you read for the plot
No
>>you read for entertainment
No
>>you rarely read nonfiction
I haven't read fiction in years
>>you don't have a solid grounding in philosophy
I do
>>you don't have at least have some understanding of the Three Tragedians and Homer
I recognize the name Homer as a Greek
>>you have little to no understanding of literature outside of your cultural horizon
All I read is German and Russian authors
>>you have little to no understanding of literature within your own cultural horizon
Name me two good american writers that doesn't deal exclusively in fiction
>>you mostly read contemporary literature
1700s+, so maybe
>>you believe 'the author is dead'
Their body is, but not their spirit
>>you make your literary analysis proceed from ideology
No
>>you think intricate prose is 'pretentious' and that the author 'should just get to the point'
I think Stephen King is a faggot for this, but I enjoy intricate prose
>>your rarely read poetry
I rarely read lmoa
>>you think Rhythm and Rhyme is just useless rules and laws restricting creativity
It restricts accurate expression if done so for the sole purpose of having meter, but some expression is much more powerful through these rules
>>you have a hard time explaining why you like a given work
to normal (read: hardly literate) people.
>>you have a hard time forming structured and relevant literary criticism
I'm just not well-read enough to have valid criticisms
>>you tend to refuse to judge works for yourself, rather relying on the opinions of literary authorities
Never
>>you rarely read for more than one or two hours straight
I rarely read

genre fiction does suck but once a piece of literature becomes a classic it essentially becomes a meme

search for obscure books rather

also rhyme is not an indication of formal brilliance metre is rhyme isn't an indication of anything really its piss easy & makes poesy seem artificial

i suffer from a lot of this tho

>>12383914
>Leave this board and never return if any one of these apply to you:
>you read any form of genre fiction
I don't
>you barely know your classics
I do know my classics
>you tend to believe that if you like a given work, it is justified on an artistic level
I don't tend to believe that
>you think everyone's opinion should be accepted and respected
I don't think that
>you speak a single language
I speak more than one language
>you read contemporary versions of Shakespeare or Milton
I didn't
>you read for the plot
I don't
>you read for entertainment
I don't
>you rarely read nonfiction
I often read nonfiction
>you don't have a solid grounding in philosophy
I do have solid grounding in philosophy
>you don't have at least have some understanding of the Three Tragedians and Homer
I do
>you have little to no understanding of literature outside of your cultural horizon
I do
>you have little to no understanding of literature within your own cultural horizon
I do
>you mostly read contemporary literature
I don't
>you believe 'the author is dead'
I don't
>you make your literary analysis proceed from ideology
I don't
>you think intricate prose is 'pretentious' and that the author 'should just get to the point'
I don't think that
>your rarely read poetry
I often read poetry
>you think Rhythm and Rhyme is just useless rules and laws restricting creativity
I don't think that
>you have a hard time explaining why you like a given work
I don't have a hard time explaining why I like a given work
>you have a hard time forming structured and relevant literary criticism
I don't have a hard time doing that
>you tend to refuse to judge works for yourself, rather relying on the opinions of literary authorities
I don't tend to do that
>you rarely read for more than one or two hours straight
I often read for longer than that

Can I stay?

>>12383942
I'm here to learn

>you read any form of genre fiction

Is Poe genre fiction? Is Alexandre Herculano?

>you barely know your classics

My Latin is still weak, and I have no Greek.

>you tend to believe that if you like a given work, it is justified on an artistic level

No.

>you think everyone's opinion should be accepted and respected

No.

>you speak a single language

No.

>you read contemporary versions of Shakespeare or Milton

No.

>you read for the plot

Not only for it.

>you read for entertainment

Not only for it.

>you rarely read nonfiction

No.

>you don't have a solid grounding in philosophy

I don't. This takes many, many years to properly establish. Most great authors didn't either. Just look how many were influenced by Freud - they obviously didn't know anything about how actual science works, they never read Popper. Even Borges didn't know much, as he thought Russell's History of Philosophy was a great book and it is actually a very bad one.

>you don't have at least have some understanding of the Three Tragedians and Homer

I've read them all in translation.

>you have little to no understanding of literature outside of your cultural horizon

I've read Chinese poetry in translation.

>you have little to no understanding of literature within your own cultural horizon

I do.

>you mostly read contemporary literature

I don't.

>you believe 'the author is dead'

Literary theory is a hack discipline established by people who don't know anything about the scientific spirit and philosophical rigor.

>you make your literary analysis proceed from ideology

No.

>you think intricate prose is 'pretentious' and that the author 'should just get to the point'

Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't: in Jane Austen it is, in Ulysses it isn't.

>your rarely read poetry

Everyday.

>you think Rhythm and Rhyme is just useless rules and laws restricting creativity

I am a formalist. Petrarca is vastly more important than Whitman.

>you have a hard time explaining why you like a given work

Sometimes.

>you have a hard time forming structured and relevant literary criticism

No literary criticism was ever relevant to me. Literary analysis? Yes. Criticism no.

>you tend to refuse to judge works for yourself, rather relying on the opinions of literary authorities

No.

>you rarely read for more than one or two hours straight

Yes, as I mostly read poetry and it makes no sense to read poems for more than two hours straight, for they demand a high level of concentration. I can read novels for ten hours straight, but only when they grip me by the neck (Cervantes, Eca de Queiroz, sometimes Pynchon, James Joyce).

>newfags answering Novalispasta like it's a quiz

You forgot:

>"If you want to get reading done and not waste your time in this idiotic forum space supposedly about literature."

I got like 120 pages during my 3 day ban, looking forward to the next one.

Adios, pseuds. Have fun watching Youtube and pretending to know things!

>>12384388
Nobody fucking cares idiot, it's an anonymous forum.

>>12384402
Was your ban really worth posting those roastie vaginas?

>>12384432
A woman's visual aesthetic comes from her body's curvature, her face and the eroticism of her posture, not her genitals.

>>12384402
based pussy poster

>>12384402
why do they look so ugly?

>>12383914
heh, OP. Thanks for the dank meme

>>>85193690

>>12384480
hot

>>12385945
Don't you want to feel her navel fuzz rubbing against your cheek?

Mods sticky plz

>>12385963
I do.
Love happy trail fuzz

That's not Novalis

>>12383914
But this is my first time on /lit/

>>12386853
fuck off newfag, lurk before posting

>>you read for the plot
narrative structure matters, but not in the way brainlets on goodreads who complain about book having no plot think

also, /lit/ is the opposite of the same spectrum, a bunch of brainlets who see alliterating words, go "UUUH PWETTY PWOSEl," and think that constitutes sufficient appreciation of literature

>>12383914

> you read

Ftfy OP

Leave this board if you don't know the guy in the op

>>12383914
can i get the short version? bit of a long read

>>12383914
I like picrelated and stuff like that, I'm not going anywhere, and you can't do anything about it.

What a coincidence, I just ordered a few sword & sorcery tomes.