/lit/ - Literature

>GOD SHE'S SO GREAT AND IM JUST TOO NICE FOR MY OWN GOOD: The Novel, extra self-unaware edition

cont.

What I do notice about this text is there's a section where he goes "and, and, and, and", as if its an outpouring of words. I feel a very strong sense of flow from the text, as in if someone was speaking the text, then he would start slowly, speed up around "and she had...". Theres also a slight feeling that the change in flow is mechanical, sudden, as if it goes up without justification.
Am I speaking sense? or does this all sound stupid. Is there a text by another author that tries to do the same thing and is "good", so I can compare and see if the other author inspires me more, and maybe try to see why?

>>15938842
I see your point. It really isn't a flattering view of the narrator - he wallows in his own self importance. But if the novel would go on and show how this vain man interacts with the world and is foiled by his own vanity... maybe it can be a good book?

>>15938795
John Green is the only man I know of who has managed to be despised by /lit/ /tv/ /his/ and /pol/. That takes some effort.

>>15938795
Read La Vita Nuova and you'll be able to discern literature from trash

>>15938866
Yeah if it was a different book written by someone else it might've been great, I guess. But John Green and his audience are completely, thoroughly, unironically, this kind of person. "I'm not like other guys, I don't just want women for sex, I'm nice, I'm special, I'm the shoulder to cry on that wins the girl in the end, I'm better than other people" should be carved into their foreheads for how obvious and easy to spot they are.

>>15938795
Because it has the complexity and nuance of a high school jock trying to sound emotional

>>15938929
Translation recommendation? And should I look at it as an example of good writing or as a text discussing prose?
>>15939245
So you're saying the problem is in the contents, not prose. I find myself using this kind of prose "and and and and..." Sometimes, and I think it's pretty when used right, or should be. Is there any good author who uses it?

>>15939270
Can you tell me why you think so?

>>15938795
There's several problems. Personally I find this casual conversational style of writing distasteful.

>like in those movies
What movies? Pornos? The narrator expects you to know what he's talking about here.

>Not fuck...Not even have sex
This is stupid and redundant. What exactly is the difference between fucking and having sex?

>Just sleep together, in the most innocent sense of the phrase
"Just sleep together" Isn't a phrase. Nobody uses that as an idiom.

>But I lacked the courage and she had a boyfriend and I was gawky and she was gorgeous and I was hopelessly boring and she was endlessly fascinating
This is a bit melodramatic. It flows alright but it's hard for the reader to believe this character is worth getting to know if he has such a crappy opinion of himself and is "hopelessly boring."

>if people were rain, I was drizzle and she was hurricane
I actually like this metaphor and image. But the omission of the indefinite articles "a drizzle", "a hurricane" makes it read awkwardly.

>>15939279
>I find myself using this kind of prose "and and and and..."
I feel this can convey a feeling of frantic, juvenile enthusiasm in short bursts. In the given passage, John Green's self insert is frantically enthusiastic about explaining in a childlike way how she's so amazing and he's not, which works because he's trying to set up his character as a young, immature guy suddenly overcome with emotions.

You ever ask an excited child "What happened?" It's exactly how they talk. It's annoying and unpleasant, but accurate. I have no idea how it comes across or is supposed to in your writing because I don't have an example.

>>15939327
>>15939335
Thanks, I'm digesting your posts, just
>The indefinite articles
What does that mean?

>>15939292
Why I think what? It’s a matter of observation. Why do I think a cat is a cat? That’s just how it works

>>15938795
There's nothing wrong with that passage imo.

>>15938795
It rimes nicely

>>15939245
I personally have no clue who John Green is, but that little paragraph is pretty nice.

It's a middle aged man trying to sound like his platonic ideal of the "noble teenager"

>>15939438
Sigh. The indefinite article is a basic part of English grammar. It is used to pick out an item of a class of things, "a" or "an". Contrast it with the definite article, "the" which singles out one and only thing, "the thing."

>>15938795
>Not fuck, like in those movies.
not a sentence
>Not even have sex.
not a sentence
>Just sleep together, in the most innocent sense of the phrase.
also not a sentence
plus all three of those non-sentences have exactly the same meaning

>>15938795
Because it could be voice-over from a direct to VHS romcom.

>>15938795
It's stylistically very twee but it doesn't really imply anything interesting, like there's no subtlety or interesting observation to dissect here, he's just mimicking the cadence of something profound

Part of what provokes the gut-feeling of disgust you get when you read this passage is the author's unmitigated and humiliating self -exposure of his low position in the social sexual hierarchy. John Green is what is known as a "Gamma." While most people aren't consciously familiar with the terminology, everyone, and women in particular, recognize this behavior pattern instantly as one to be avoided. Women are sexually repulsed by this behavior pattern, but at the same time relate to it because it is the pattern of male behavior that most closely resembles their own, hence the popularity of Harry Potter (who is also a gamma archetype) and John green.

So, it's not really the writing itself per se (though it is relatively poor and childish), but the way it reveals the author's socio-sexual status in such a palpable way that makes it horrific to read.

>>15939703
Gamma is a cult term. It doesn't really mean anything beyond 'I consider you beneath me'. The socio-sexual hierachy is no better at figuring out people, and maybe is even worse, than the Myers Briggs personality test.

Just like INTJs, autists will believe themselves to be Sigmas to make themselves feel better. The social-sexual hierachy is massive cope, ironically, for the very people who want to be seen as anything other than 'Gammas'.

Whilst there is some truth to the hierachy, it is a useless tool since it looks at people without an empathetic lens. It is used by midwits who seek to aggrandize themselves whilst giving positive tags to those they like, and weak tags to those they dislike. You 'feel' someone is a 'gamma' the same way you 'feel' someone is whatever star sign you assume they are (if you're the type to do that).

Human beings are more complicated than that.

>>15938795
It's proficiently written but represents values and an aesthetic that people here despise which an assessment I agree with, especially since john green has this inflated sense of himself as this writer who exposes the poetry of human experience. The worst part is that his worldview isn't particularly developed or examined it's more a collection of stylistic tropes than any coherent philosophy so it's not compelling to read where as author's who's view I find repulsive that have bothered to put in the effort to develop their system of thought are at least interesting

>>15939327
>Like in those movies
>not even have sex, just sleep together
I understood that as he meant "I dont want to fuck her, not even want to make lover to her (as in, sensually)", but you're right, the "like in those movies" doesnt make a lick of sense.

>just sleep together
I Understand intuitively that 'just sleep together' is... weak. But I don't have a better term for it. Sometimes phrases just feel weak, as if they fit the purpose but not well, and could be replaced.

>i lacked the courage...

that's the better part for me, because Im a bit of a sucker for being childly dramatic, perhaps because im young. I still feel childish in many things, sometimes I also like to wave about dramatically.

>were rain...

Did you mean it would be better written as 'if people were rain, I was a drizzle and she was a hurricane'?
To me 'If people were rain, I was a drizzle and she was hurricane' sounds better, only putting 'a' on the drizzle.

let me try and rewrite the section, and you say if i made it even worse or a bit better.

'I wanted badly to lie down next to her, wrap my arms around (her), and sleep. not fuck, not even make love, but to just sleep, as a child does with a sister, before either have awakened.
But I lacked the courage and she was taken and I was awkward and she was tasteful and I was hopelessly boring and she was endlessly new. So I walked back to my room and collapsed on the bottom bunk, thinking that if people were rain, I was a drizzle and she was hurricane."

after writing that i understood what you meant more. 'gawky' felt so weak. what does that word even mean? on the second 'and she was' i wanted to say she was grace, graceful, but graceful felt wrong and grace didnt felt the meter, so i put in 'tasteful', unsure what to do otherwise.
>>15939335
Your description of it as childish made me click. its exactly those childish dramatic urges, and I like them because I feel them a lot in my own life, and I think children talking are sweet.
I can think of things this child talk would be more suitable to represent, maybe fairy tales, or first loves, or down to earth childish views. How do you think one can use style well, without being annoying?
>>15939450
Why is this passage juvenile, and not other passages from other authors? why specifically do you feel that feeling. For me I feel some things intuitively, but till i start to intellectualize it a bit my intuition is very low. Only when I start trying to reason it out does my intuition starts working.

>>15939279
>Translation recommendation? And should I look at it as an example of good writing or as a text discussing prose?
I read it in the original but, in English, Gabriel Rossetti's. You should read it as a model of masterful writing with which you should compare any other subsequent texts that treat the topic of romantic love.

>>15938795
It's childish.

The End.

>>15939653
Sometimes I read wonderful prose that repeats itself, using the repetition to heighten the emotion or message. Why do you think here it's wrong, and maybe in other places it's right? Is it because it feels like repetition for the sake of repetition?
>>15939645
what then, is 'she was hurricane'? I see many uses where the indefinite/definite article is dropped. 'I am sand'. 'I am x'. Is it, formally, a mistake?
>>15939662
Yes, it's very cliche.
>>15939665
>mimicking the cadence
Im slowly understanding this from all the replies, that he's copying the style without substance.
i think >>15939736
you are saying the same thing, yes? adding that the world view of the author is repelling to you as well
>>15939703
I mean, that's your opinion. I don't like the person it portrays, but I don't like many other characters I read about.
>>15939763
Thank you, Ill give it a look. Currently my non-fiction is lord dunslany's king of the elfland, ill read yours afterward.

>>15939327
>But the omission of the indefinite articles "a drizzle", "a hurricane" makes it read awkwardly.
kek, just how inflexible is your mind?

>>15939735
Fundamentally wrong. For the record, I do not consider myself a sigma or an alpha, so I am not using the concept to make myself feel better.

The social sexual hierarchy exists because everybody recognizes it, whether you consciously acknowledge it or not.

> it is a useless tool since it looks at people without an empathetic lens

That's exactly the point, it's not about empathy, it's only about observable behavior. The alphas at your high school were playing and succeeding at sports and were attractive to women. The gammas were fucking annoying and unattractive to women, and they have a wide variety of tells that everybody else picks up on and categorizes them based on it. It's completely about how people perceive you. And people perceive John Green as a fucking annoying, dorky hopeless romantic who was unattractive to women for most of his life. They just know it unconsciously. That's what the socio-sexual hierarchy is.

>>15939807
It's pretty much what you're picking up, the writing itself is fine it's just that as an artist green is devoid of anything interesting to say but thinks he's conveying the depths of the human condition. I will say though as far as actual prose goes the writing is very obviously for YA, speed and ease of digestion are prioritized over depth of observation, there's no sentence that makes you stop and consider what it implies as is the case in a lot of actual literature and that's intentional, YA editors aren't looking for masterful explorations of the form, they want something sleek and proficiently written even if it doesn't have much artistic merit

>>15939747
.You just made it worse

>>15939877
fair enough, why? though on reading my own writing again it seems stunted and awkward.

>>15939884
Any changes to the prose itself is just bike shedding, the passage itself is fine, it's just that what it depicts is bad.

"before either have awakened" is a hacky metaphor and changing around a couple of words like gawky to awkward doesn't do anything or worse gets rid of the natural flow of language that's the one strength of YA writers

Eat cum.

>>15939962
Understood.
I tried to say that he wanted to lay down with her innocently, so like a child. But I first wanted to say like a child lays with his mother - but green said he wrapped his arms around her. So like a toy?
anyhow, on another note
>reading my own writing again it seems stunted and awkward.
reading this again, i noticed that i didn't mean to say 'stunted and awkward'. I meant my text is stunted, stuttering. I added in 'awkward' out of some kind of automatic addition, as if I had to add two descriptors. Is this me complying to some unconscious styling?

>>15939979
There is a natural pattern to language that people like to fall in, the pattern varying a lot based on the speaking style of the person writing. Also 4chan posts are a different medium than fiction which has a different set of priorities and has way less effort put into it so I don't know how much you could glean about writing by analyzing your own 4chan posts

>>15940012
alright. I'll keep working on the my own work and post it on a crit thread later. Thanks everyone, I feel as if I progressed a step.

>>15939735
good post
human behavior is too complicated to fit people into a neat, clearly defined sexually hierarchy.
i have sex often and ive had one-night stands, but i definitely dont fit into any "alpha" category. im a thin gangly recluse who knows how to use tinder and occasionally flirt
>>15939736
also good post. probably best description in this thread

Alright I’ll admit it, I read this book in high school. And I liked it. Jest all you want.

>>15940084
There's nothing wrong with liking YA in high school, I think also that writing like this is a lot more impressive if you've never read any serious literature because you haven't seen how much better people can do with the form

>>15940120
reading list for how much better it can be?

>>15940146
Depends on what you like in literature but if the craft of writing itself is compelling to you unironically anything in the canon is a good start. If you're a genre fiction guy though specifically book of the new sun is really fucking good as long as you have the brain cells to grasp the prose

>>15939245
He was huge a few years ago but has he written anything recently?

>>15938795
For me it breaks down with the second sentence.

"Not fuck, like in those movies." is something I imagine an old man or some granny say and makes the rest read like a parody.

Outside of that, it's just boring. And takes too long to say that the narrator is a sheltered and insecure fuck, and that information offers me pretty much nothing.

I wouldn't say it's "bad" writing since it's obviously functional but I don't see how anyone would enjoy it either. I've seen more interesting user guides for a mainboard.

>>15940165
im a psychological guy. I like exploration of characters. I liked the dispossed and left hand of darkness, I don't have a lot of literary background, reading a bit of YA till now and recently trying to read more. I also like magical fantasy, lord dunsany is gripping me right now, but I'm not really interested in worldbuilding fantasy. in nonfantasy I remember loving catch - 22 and down and out and the first chapter of the trial, which was my first ever literary work i liked as a kid beyond YA stuff. The rest of the book filtered me a year ago, maybe ill try again.
By canon you mean the /lit/ canon, as in all the charts?

>>15940259
Canon as in the like classic literature like mobby dick

>>15940268
alright, ill give book of the new sun a try, and moby dick ive been wanting to read.
thanks for taking me seriously and helping.

>>15940259
Book of the new sun, Viriconium, or Blood Meridian. In increasing order of dense, archaic, and prose-poetical language.

>>15938795
saccharine and trite

>>15939747
>How do you think one can use style well, without being annoying?
I have no idea, it's kind of like you're asking me how to provide a deep and thorough simulation of getting thwacked in the nuts without causing pain. Children speak like that because their brains are underdeveloped. They get excited, their thought process outpaces their ability to communicate, and you end up with a pile of run-on sentences, sentence fragments, imprecise language, etc. I don't know how one could turn the definition of poor writing into a style of good writing. A kid falling off his bicycle because of poor balance isn't a new way to ride a bicycle, and although children with poor balance may relate to the kid that fell more than the one that didn't, that doesn't mean the best representation of children with their bicycles should be one full of scraped knees and teary eyes.

>I can think of things this child talk would be more suitable to represent, maybe fairy tales, or first loves, or down to earth childish views.
More suitable than what, though? Do you mean this childish style is more suitable to childish matters than proper technique would be, or do you mean this childish style is more suitable to childish matters than it would be to anything else?

It’s bad because it is shameful for a man to have such a blatant lack of testosterone. I’d like to see John Green fight for his life in a gladiator match and feel what it’s like to be a man for a split second before he’s stomped like a bug.

>>15940340
maybe by using childish prose, you can try and look at magic/wonder in fresh, childish eyes? idk, you make a good point.

>>15940327
/thread

>>15940375
Portrait of an artist as a young man is intentionally childish in the beginning to reflect he fact that the protagonist is a child, other anon is a psued who doesn't read

>>15940433
Once upon a time and a very good time it was there was a moocow coming down along the road and this moocow that was coming down along the road met a nicens little boy named baby tuckoo...His father told him that story: his father looked at him through a glass: he had a hairy face.He was baby tuckoo. The moocow came down the road where Betty Byrne lived: she sold lemon platt.O, the wild rose blossoms On the little green place. He sang that song. That was his song.O, the green wothe botheth. When you wet the bed first it is warm then it gets cold. His mother put on the oilsheet. That had the queer smell.His mother had a nicer smell than his father. She played on the piano the sailor’s hornpipe for him to dance. He danced:Tralala lala,Tralala tralaladdy,
A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man4Tralala lala,Tralala lala.

Like this is in one of the greatest works of literature ever

>>15940433
your favorite painter shat on a canvas because reasons, that makes shitting on canvas good painting

>>15940621
>Joyce is a shit writter
No

>>15940663
Oh, forgive me for violating the /lit/ orthodoxy, I should have known that your favorite author is perfect and is incapable of doing something bad.

>>15940698
You haven't even read him and are ass mad that someone pointed out you're bullshitting, you didn't know who I was talking about in your initial post. You shouldn't opine on topics you don't actually understand

>>15940725

>>15940725
>>15940698
Here's almost the first two pages of the book, go on and tell us what's wrong with the prose and how amateurish it is

>>15938795
I remember when this used to get posted on /b/ as pasta and people would shit themselves over how great it was.... old 4chan really was so much like reddit people forget

>>15939327
>What movies? Pornos? The narrator expects you to know what he's talking about here.
is that what sprang to mind? then sure. plenty of people think Hollywood sells sex way too much, could easily mean that as well. it's not important dingus you know he's talking about crass films.
>This is stupid and redundant. What exactly is the difference between fucking and having sex?
teenage/millenial lexicon makes a big difference between "fucking", "having sex", and "making love", they have way too many ideas in their head about sex because they are very saturated by media at this age and Greene knows that.
>"Just sleep together" Isn't a phrase.
.... no, but "sleep together" is you literal asshole. and he means he wants to sleep next to her, not sleep with her. are you a real person or not?
>This is a bit melodramatic. It flows alright but it's hard for the reader to believe this character is worth getting to know if he has such a crappy opinion of himself and is "hopelessly boring."
the only honest criticism you've made.
>I actually like this metaphor and image. But the omission of the indefinite articles "a drizzle", "a hurricane" makes it read awkwardly.
again, it's not an eighth grade English essay... you don't seem smart just by nitpicking grammar and phrases. I think he's YA schlock as much as the next man but it's clear he's just being creative, you've got to be autistic if you can't be flexible with language like this.

>>15939807
Indefinite articles aren’t used for uncountables. “I drank a wine” wrong because wine is a volume and not a group of discrete quantities.

*”a wine” is acceptable if we use it as shorthand for a specific sort, but not if we refer to an amount of liquid

>>15938795
Cringe but he writes for teenagers and teenagers are cringe

>>15940725
I know who Joyce is, I don't know if you noticed but I'm on /lit/ too. You're not special.

>>15940750
>>15940763
Have you ever heard the phrase "Ironic shitposting is still shitposting"? It still stands here. Writing like you don't know how to write properly is still poor writing, even if you actually do know how to write and are doing so intentionally to make a point. Yes, it accurately portrays how a child would write, in the same way a shit smear on a canvas does indeed accurately portray how shit would look smeared on a canvas.

>>15941564
>Ironic shitposting is still shitposting
Not him or anyone in this thread

but man

I post so much shit

>>15941323
Why are you so triggered? All my points are valid. It's lousy self-consciously casual writing. I get that it's a YA book and it has to be accessible but the way he writes sounds dimwitted.

>no, but "sleep together" is
Regardless, it's a stupid line. It would have worked better if it was just "sleep together in the most innocent sense."

>again, it's not an eighth grade English essay.
A real write, which you have demonstrated that you are clearly not, thinks carefully about these small details. Saying "she was hurricane" sounds objectively awkward. Now promptly fuck off.

>>15941624
>A real write,
writer*
>which you have demonstrated that you are clearly not
you don't need "that" there, it's superfluous.

>>15939327
>"Just sleep together" Isn't a phrase. Nobody uses that as an idiom

>>15940750
>>15940763
Silent Hill 2 has intentionally terrible combat. The idea is to make the enemies scarier and the player feel more helpless by making combat clunky, slow, awkward, and generally not fun. This was a deliberate decision and contributed to the overall quality of the game. The gameplay mechanic being made intentionally bad made the game better.

However, if we're getting together talking about how to make a good game and the topic of combat systems comes up, we don't bring Silent Hill 2 into the room, do we? Because while SH2 is an example of a good game because of it's combat system, it's combat system is a bad example of combat systems. Does this make sense? Do you now see why Joyce writing like a child in the first chapter does not unilaterally demonstrate that childish writing is good, just because it's in a good book?

>>15941564
I know you know who Joyce is, it's just obvious that you weren't aware that A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man was written by him or else you would have said something about him or the book before I pressed you on it. You also still haven't given a reason why the presented prose is bad besides that it breaks from certain rules of grammar and style which is so tangential to what makes good writing that it's not really a valid critique

>>15941721
The original post was about how it's impossible to use intentionally childish writing to create a desired effect in a piece of art. I don't think you're the original anon but if you are you're back peddling from your original argument

>>15938795
How's this for a re-write of that passage?

>>15939327
>>>if people were rain, I was drizzle and she was hurricane
>I actually like this metaphor and image. But the omission of the indefinite articles "a drizzle", "a hurricane" makes it read awkwardly.
This would be fine if he capitalised and reused these as proper nouns.

It's bad writing because it's not real.

Noone thinks to themselves: "If people were rain, I was a drizzle and she'd be a hurricane."

Writers come up with that shit - and not good ones. Sounds like it was written by a 15 year old emo on Myspace.

>>15941863
Not nearly as pretentious as the original passage it lacks any flavor or character though because it's just the original minus everything cringy, that's probably the limits of the exercise though

>>15941792
Of course I knew it was Joyce's book. Again, I'm on /lit/ too. I don't think you can be here for 10 minutes without having "how to get into joyce" reading charts thrown at you, ffs.
>You also still haven't given a reason why the presented prose is bad besides that it breaks from certain rules of grammar and style which is so tangential to what makes good writing that it's not really a valid critique
If someone talked to you with marbles in their mouth, you wouldn't be able to understand them. They intentionally chose to put marbles in their mouth, but despite it being a choice, their ability to communicate effectively is compromised nonetheless. You can keep saying that what the speaker has in their mouth is irrelevant with regard to the words prepared for their speech, but that doesn't make the speech itself compelling to listen to.

>>15941813
>The original post was about how it's impossible to use intentionally childish writing to create a desired effect in a piece of art
No, it was about how while it's possible to do that, it's not possible to also be good writing at the same time. You're compromising the quality of the writing for stylistic purpose, which can work in some situations and not in others. If that excerpt you posted existed in a vacuum without the context of the novel around it, it would be rightly disregarded as meaningless garbage. Or, if you wrote the entire novel in that style, it would be painfully unpleasant to read. That's why I said it works in short bursts earlier, because sometimes you need to illustrate something ugly within a larger beautiful picture. The ugly thing is no less ugly by being put in the beautiful picture, so if we're arguing about whether the ugly thing is still ugly despite being in a beautiful picture and the illustrator proving themselves quite competent at composing beauty, I would posit that the ugly thing is still ugly because of how we've defined the term 'ugly'.

>>15940763
I actually don't mind the writing on this page. Proof of the old adage that a writer should burn their first paragraph. They are always overworked to the bitter end.

>>15940750
What isn't wrong with the writing here?? lmao. It reads like he's having a psychotic break.

>>15938795

>I'm such a good person I love women for their soul.

I can taste bile. This guy is like the Family Guy sketches where Brian Griffin is a writer.

>>15941888

>No one thinks it
>Yet someone wrote it down

What did he mean by this?

>>15941933
I mean a normal person in this specific situation would not think in this overly dramatic / poetic way.

Obviously I didn't mean no-one in history has ever thought of that specific phrase you cretin.

>>15941921
Your post is literally right there talking about how stylistically shifting into childish language is always a bad idea and then when presented with Joyce as a counter example you go on to attack Joyce instead of clarifying, which would fine if you would have stuck to Joyce being bad, but instead you back peddled because you didn't actually know what you were talking about

>>15941994
Do you have a learning disability? You not only can't read a reply chain, but you can't even read the post you're replying to.
>talking about how stylistically shifting into childish language is always a bad idea
Where? Was it in the earlier post where I said the exact opposite of this? Or was it just now when I said the exact opposite of this? Why are you trying so hard to convince me I'm trying to say something I'm not and arguing with that? What do you hope to gain by saying "No! No! You mean X! Not Y! And X is wrong! I know you just said multiple times that X is indeed wrong and you're talking about Y, but that's just you backpeddling! You're shifting the goal posts! Now defend this point you're not making and stop trying to tell me, someone who joined the conversation late, that you understand what you're trying to say better than I do!"

Read what I said and argue it specifically or fuck off. I don't know how many different ways I can explain it, but I'm not going to dumb it down for you any further.

>>15941863
>even if that was not the case

YIKES

>all the words used to explain why it's bad itt
It's just gay as fuck.

>so badly
Redundant and ugly on the nose

The fact that so many /lit/ posters have an opinion about some "young adult" author tells you everything you need to know about this place.

>>15940348
Kek

>>15941721
Wait what?
SH2 doesnt have that bad of a combat system, in fact the game literally holds your hand. By the time I finished my first run on hard I had a good amount of ammunition left. I don't even play a lot of video games either. It's a scary game but not for the reasons you listed

It's like 50 shades of beta. Glorifying the friendzone in your own books in a completely unself-aware manner smacks of a poorly hidden sublimation of perceiving oneself as identifying with such a coping narrative.

>>15938795
its whiny and uninspiring. I want to knock John Green's block off because hes a faggot. his prose is just lame and unexceptional.

and yet this little bitch sells books worldwide, makes you think huh?

>>15938795
The real answer? You have to read more to see how bad it is.

>>15938795
Style is average I guess. Nothing bad but nothing great either. It's mostly bad because it's shallow and doesn't provide any deep human insight

>>15938795
It's got terrible flow, and what it's saying is really shallow and common. It's basically what's wrong with minimalist trends in commercial modern literature. There's a movement to make literature "accessible," and that ends up churning out workmanlike and artless passages like the OP by the boatload. "If people were like rain, I was a drizzle and she was a hurricane" is one of the most genuinely insipid attempts at wordplay I've ever read.

>>15939645
le sigh

>>15941863
Terrible

John Green sucks and he’s reddit incarnate (literally), but the writing in that passage is perfect for YA garbage. Melodramatic, with good prose. He knows his audience, that’s for sure.


I challenge any of you to fight me I will crush your fucking head between a copy of portrait and a copy of 12 rules to life you pencil dick faggots.

>>15938795
All of John Green's "novels" are about him fantasizing about his High School years.

>>15941863
>even if that WERE not the case

>>15938795
The answer to your question: that is not bad. It's the quality you find in Young Adult novels.

>>15946568
>even were that not the case

>>15938795
I'll fix it for you:

"I wanted to lie down next to her on the couch, to wrap my arms around her and sleep. It wasn't my intention to have sex, but to share the bed if only for one night. I lacked the courage and she had a boyfriend -- not to mention she was gorgeous while I was gawky and boring.
I walked back to my room and collapsed on the bottom bunk, thinking that if people were rain, I was a drizzle and she was a hurricane."

>>15946527
>

>>15938795
>i can never put my finger on why it's considered bad
While I think a lot of people can relate to the general sentiment that is being conveyed here, and the idea isn't bad, what it's lacking is execution. It sounds like a page from an angsty teenager's diary. Then again, I looked it up, and it's a YA novel...

In any case, that kind of themes can be done in a more refined manner. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolce_Stil_Novo

>Poetry from this school is also marked by adoration of the human form, incorporating vivid descriptions of female beauty and frequently comparing the desired woman to a creature from paradise. The woman is described as an 'angel' or as 'a bridge to God'. Rather than being material in nature, the 'Love' of the Dolce Stil Novo is a sort of 'Divine Love'.
> The two main concepts (introspection and love) are thus brought together as the poet enters his interior world to express his most inner feelings which are caused by an excessively divine female beauty

>>15943509
>SH2 doesnt have that bad of a combat system, in fact the game literally holds your hand
What? Are you saying SH2 has good combat because it's easy?

the prose is fine but it's so fucking cucked

>>15938914
damn, that's likely true, really makes you think

>>15938795
>tfw no gf and pretty girl is out of my league but I wanna cuddle
maybe /r9k/ would be into it?

>>15939736
>It's proficiently written
come on

>>15939747
>still using "fuck" in this context
Revolting. Anyone who can't find a better way to put it than to use that word in this context shouldn't write.

>>15941863
That's a bit dry, but let's be honest, the whole essence of the original paragraph is "boo hoo me so ronery I just want to smell a pretty girl's hair", it's hard to make something good out of it. If Greene really insisted on going that route he could have gone full erotic fantasy and talked about how he dreams of sneaking up on her while she sleeps and wait patiently for 30 minutes with his face close to her hips just to get his first whiff of her succulent braps.

>>15941888
Yep it's only acceptable for a 1960s R&B song at best.

>>15946536
Do Americans really? They really give the impression that they think their life peaked at 17 and it's all downhill from there.

>>15938795
It’s bad writing if your character is a Cuck

>>15939327
>these are john green's "'""critics"""
embarassing desu

>>15938795
It’s easy to read and relates commonly felt emotions. The autistic NEETs here who have neurochemical issues, zero experience of real life, and who take philosophical “wisdom” from meme schizophrenics like Evola and Nick Land can’t relate.

>>15938795
It makes the people here feel personally attacked, because they've all wanted it at some point another before they were shamed out of doing so.

>>15948578
>if you don't think highly of >tfw no gf melodramatic drivel you're an autistic NEET with neurochemical issues and no life
calm your tits John, Jesus.

>>15938795
He makes it clear that he is not the type of person who is able to sleep with a woman in a truly innocent way. His lechery for the underaged is most apparent in spite of his vain attempts to appear virtuous. He is coom-brained (oversexualized) to the point that in his mind intimacy is inherently sexual, ironically due to a lack of intimacy and a lack of sex in his life. Were he a person worthy of being read, let alone being read by the youthful, innocent girls who he targets with the sludge he manages to extract from his dopamine-addicted water brain, there would be no abscense of sexuality and genuine intimacy in his life that would cause such error.

John Green is a man who with desperation longs for the respect he does not have for himself, who longs for the sex and love he feels he does not deserve, who fails to channel his intense desparation into reshaping his mind and his body into the man he must become should he ever wish to be happy, with the world, with women, with himself. John, I do not know if these things are true at the present, nor if I am 100% accurate for what thought process brought about the selection. It is only what one, what all anons can infer based on said selection. Pathetic writing from a pathetic mind, pathetic soul.

Fortunately there is a cure. Read classics. Read the bible. Read all the works, from ancient times to the modern era, and everything in between, and develop a personal canon of literature from which you take inspiration. Let the words of god and man wash away the sin, let your mind be reshaped by all the good literature of the past, just develop a sense of fucking perspective for your place, not in your mind, but in ours, in your readers. Now is the time to devote yourself to creating something truly special, something worthy of canonization, something to be remembered by beyond your pseudo-history program and beyond your irrational works of the past. Write either as if your previous writings had never existed, or as if you were set out to redeem them, in addition to making something worth reading, worth writing.

He's just DFW for kids.

>>15950181
I agree with more than 90% of this post, but I'd like to point out that,
>due to a lack of intimacy and a lack of sex in his life
It is possible that he has lacked intimacy, but he has not wanted for sex. Anons in other threads have mentioned that his public face is a persona that masks an arrogance and an overweening that he has used in his personal life to get many women into bed.
But perhaps that's not what you meant.

>>15939807
>Is it, formally, a mistake?
It's formally chuck's

>>15938795
It's corny, pathetic, teen affected, and metaphorically juvenile.

>>15938851
>Is there a text by another author that tries to do the same thing and is "good", so I can compare and see if the other author inspires me more, and maybe try to see why?
look into Faulkner's use of stream of consciousness

i'm not a writer, but if i ever have to write something i want to make sure it doesn't end up looking like that. when i read this excerpt i feel this visceral aversion but i can't pinpoint exactly why it is bad. any advice on how to not write like a faggot?

>>15941870
proper noun gang here

>>15938795
Either by design or coincidence it reads exactly like what a teenage girl might fantasize a boy’s thinking about her being like. If it’s interesting to read it’s only because its a pleasant fantasy; it’s not really an illumination of human experiences or emotion based on playing off the reader’s empathy like good fiction is supposed to be.
In it’s style it’s wildly melodramatic and not at all how any real person articulates their thoughts unless they’re being disingenuous for dramatic effect.