/lit/ - Literature

Because it generates discussion and discourse, the purpose of a forum. Why would you post here if you DIDN'T want to disxuss the merit of an idea?

>>14979483
the OP indicated that he wants to talk about the book with users who have read the book or he wants to know if the book is worth reading since amazon reviews don't cut it

>>14979483
Pragmatics, my dear autist. When people ask for 'books for this feel' they aren't actually asking for books for that feel. Likewise, people asking if something is /lit/ approved or if X is /lit/ really have no interest in /lit/'s approval or disapproval.

>>14979496
Would you consider that starting a thread by asking someone if they approve an idea is a good way to generate discussion and discourse?
Once in a while, okay, but every five or six posts is that necessary?
Also, this sort of issue has never been seen in classic forums, as users were encouraged to make quality non-repetitive posts.

>>14979520
>>14979518
I'm pretty skeptical that /lit/ and 4chan in general knows what they really want.
Maybe I've inadvertently fooled you into thinking I'm so autistic and I'm asking LITERALLY what "it's something /lit/" means.
I'm not a native English speaker, but what I was really trying to ask was why are these kinds of threads so prevalent?
Is /lit/ that insecure of picking a book AND MAKE A THREAD AFTER READING A BIT OF IT AT LEAST?

The majority of the users here are twitch zoomers who use words like "simp". There is not much intelligence on this board.

>>14979643
>Would you consider that starting a thread by asking someone if they approve an idea is a good way to generate discussion and discourse
Yes
>Also, this sort of issue has never been seen in classic forums, as users were encouraged to make quality non-repetitive posts.
Moderation is an issue(ie that one guy sperging about marcus aurelius and the 1700 wojak threads) but the lack of strong moderation also provides a lack of filter. You'll encounter your fair shair of irony and shitposts here, but you're also likely to see every one of your ideas geniunely challenged in some way. It's why I post here

>>14979643
>Is /lit/ that insecure of picking a book AND MAKE A THREAD AFTER READING A BIT OF IT AT LEAST
The fuck did he mean by this. No, really, I can't tell what issue he's trying to convery here

>>14979483
This happens on every board Ive been on

>>14979696
>your ideas geniunely challenged in some way. It's why I post here
I shit my pants, thanks.

I accidentally used /lit/ in the name, sorry

>>14979704
Its obvious. He means that anons will ask the board's view on an author or work rather than actually reading the works and coming up with meaningful questions. Just think about all those "What do you think of Jordan Peterson" threads.

>>14979696
If your ideas are genuinely challenged by the ramblings of anons here, you don't have any ideas of actual depth. Sincerity doesn't translate into intelligence.

>>14979734
>and coming up with meaningful questions.
That's the key point, thanks.
And shameless bump.

>>14979643
>I'm not a native English speaker, but what I was really trying to ask was why are these kinds of threads so prevalent?
Okay, i'll make it explicit. People use these generic additions like 'books for this feel' 'what does /lit/ think of x' 'is x /lit/ approved' etc. to talk about non-literature subjects while trying to avoid getting their thread deleted by Jannie. Many people here don't read but seem to think the discussions on /lit/ will be better than whatever board the topic is appropriate to, so they just post it here under the guise of the aforementioned BS. People do the same thing on /sci/ but tag in 'scientifically speaking' at the end of their thread.

>>14979922
Thanks.
/thread
Done.

bump