/lit/ - Literature

>>17158235
mark all phone posts and enable a filter

>>17158235
Whatcha readin OP?

>>17158249
Currently reading the Peloponnesian War

>>17158255
Thucydides? There's the continuation of the war by Xenophon. You might already know that

>>17158255
lol I just read a book by a doctor who came out of retirement, where he planned to read Thucydides, in order to stop the overdiagnosis of autism.

Sometime around lockdown we suffered a heavy influx of leftypol cucks that I cannot stand

>>17158278
Whatcha readin bby?

double meta:
where is hiroyuki? is he doing well? what are his plans?

>>17158235
/lit/ is shit because 90 percent of its posters don't read at all. They're just here to shitpost about their new literary obsession. Another 9 percent may read, but are too young or dumb to contribute meaningfully (and even then would be drowned out by the majority).

>>17158266
I did not know that i will look into it. Thank you

>>17158278
I have noticed this aswell. Its especially bad with Mein Kampf threads and the like. They either get deleted by jannies immediately or raided by a shitton of screeching retards who have never even read the work in question. In the case of Mein Kampf its just “HE CANT WRITE” “BORING” “MAKES NO SENSE” “SCHIZO” its so tiresome i just want to discuss books

>>17158284
I’m going through Shakespeare complete works, an ethology book, and another one called The Imitation of Christ. What about you, anon?

>>17158303
It’s the screeching autism, everything-is-politics, and the fucking Marx threads over and over again. I don’t know why they don’t fuck off back to /pol/ and /his/

>>17158332
>marx is left
you're just as retarded as american "communists" kek, truth is this board would be better off with americans and everyone knows it

>>17158332
>Shakespeare complete works,
Which one are you on?
>What about you, anon?
Carreyrou's Bad Blood
>>17158294
>>17158289
Whatcha reading anons?
>inb4 hiro's diary desu

This board is good and I'm tired of pretending it's not

>>17158355
Thank you for saying it

This board is much better quality compared to my home-board.
t. /his/torian

>>17158368
/his/ is for niggers pseuds and commies. Kys

>>17158348
I don’t give a shit. Take your outdated worldview elsewhere, you fucking discord faggot.

>>17158353
>Which one are you on?
I finished Julius Caesar a couple of days ago. Loved it. I read the main ones so far (Hamlet, King Lear, etc). I’ll probably start reading the rest chronologically.
>Carreyrou’s Bad Blood
Is it good? Never heard of it. I may add it to my ever-growing reading list.

>>17158368
Yeah your board is just /pol/ with access to a thesaurus.

Also I'd love a philosophy board separate from /lit/.

>>17158235
Enforce this rule and ban people not respecting it:
>If you want to discuss history, religion, or the humanities, go to /his/. If you want to discuss politics, go to /pol/. Philosophical discussion can go on either /lit/ or /his/, but those discussions of philosophy that take place on /lit/ should be based around specific philosophical works to which posters can refer.
No image in the OP, or they are all marked as spoiler automatically
At least 300 characters in the OP
Ban "book for this feel" threads
Ban "book that explain this" threads
Ban thot posters
Ban people who mass reply with "based" or "cringe"
Ban underage faggots
Ban /pol/tards
Permaban anyone posting about e-celebs
Permaban anons that make twitter threads

>>17158380
Schizo's and revisionists would be better fitting.

>>17158235
Banning tripfags would be a nice start.
>>17158368
Indeed. I came here after leaving /pol/ about a year ago.
This board is leagues better.

>>17158392
Unironically /his/ has a bigger problem with bunkerfags than /pol/acks. They raided the shit out of that place in december.

>>17158235
what board is this post from

>>17158405
*september

>>17158278
This. The quality of posting heavily declined because these people are not interested in books or ideas, but only in propaganda and demoralisation.

>>17158400
The occasional good thread is gold though. Its the only reason why I'm even on the place. But 90% of the time its just bait or shizo-rambling.

>>17158395
>At least 300 characters in the OP
>Ban "book for this feel" threads
>Ban "book that explain this" threads
I don’t know about these three, anon. It’s a little too much. A little lighthearted fun is okay.

I would like to know why the fuck we can’t have Spanish General threads or any other language generals. Those threads had more book discussions in them than the rest of the board.

>>17158434
I think we shouldnt have rules beyond dont be a faggot bitch. Ban all commies and ban all nonwhites problem solved

>>17158389
>reading the rest chronologically.
I figured you were doing this in the first place, so I didn't want to spoil shit. Coriolanus is a good chaser to Julius Caesar if you don't start chronological order right away.
>>17158389
>Is it good? Never heard of it
It's about Theranos, the blood analysis company Elizabeth Holmes started and which she now faces several federal charges over. It's pretty comprehensive, though it was released close to when the scandal broke (through Carreyrou's reporting and a series of whistleblowers) so it doesn't cover the trial that hasn't happened yet. Interesting story about how vaporware doesn't work in medicine. Probably only worth it if you're interested in either of those things or fraud.

>all these other losers not talking books
Whatcha reading kids?

>>17158400
This, the problem with this board is most people are obnoxious shitheads who think they know everything because the young age of posters here and tripfags are the pinnacle example. Everytime I come here theres some new tripfag and we dont have that much compared to others but the ones here either derail the thread or say utter dogshit comments that help nobody. Also we cant do anything about it but theres a lot of women here and trannies and Im not even a /pol/ack its just really obvious after a point

This is currently the biggest problem facing /lit/

>>17158434
The point is to slow down the board, I can remember when I first came here I could answer to a low-activity thread, go to sleep, and answer to the only anon who had responded the next morning. Now if you don't post in a very active they quickly die and people have to bump them a lot and there are thus less opportunity for good conversation. That's why I'm only talking about OPs here, the fun can still happen inside the threads.

>>17158455
Ive noticed this as well. All of my mein kampf threads get shoahed by the nigger jannies

>>17158441
Ive been out of the loop and rarely come here anymore, did they really nuke the literature threads for languages? I popped in the French one for a bit and wanted to see if we could get a russian one started someday.

>>17158235
Concur. It's a psychological war against anyone who isn't alt-right.

>>17158476
Youre part of the problem kys kike

>>17158431
The schizo rambling is often quite amusing or offers a new perspective on things.
>>17158452
Age is certainly a factor, but I think it's not as big of an issue as you might think.
I mainly put it down to the fact that most people here are cut off from the world, regardless of age.
I'm no different being a uni student.
You can filter tripfags, but you can't filter the effect they have on the treads.

>>17158487
Fair point I wont disagree

>>17158294
I bet your contributions ain't shit.

>>17158470
That's the biggest issue I have for the other boards I frequent (except /out/).
Too often I weigh in on something, tab away to read something else/ watch something/ go out/ go to sleep and then I can't respond to counter arguments, questions for clarification or fun posts.
Sometimes the high velocity can make for good debates, usually it leaves me frustrated.

>>17158528
/lit/ is not remotely that fast

>>17158528
agreed
>>17158537
still too fast, and it's accelerating

>>17158474
Jannies wanted anons to speak in English. Nobody gave a shit, so jannies nuked the threads. There was a brief period when they allowed us to speak in our native language within the generals, peak /lit/

>>17158560
KILL YOURSELF

>>17158560
who fucking cares, this site is completely shit anyway
there is nothing of value here, people only reply to memes and shitposts
the whole internet is a giant dumpster of retardation thanks to the zoomers

>>17158537
I was referring to other boards when talking about board speed, but I have on occasion found this to be an issue on occasion here.
Mainly in a thread I've come to at near to 150-200 posts.
Even if on the front page I find they hit bump limit far too quickly.

>>17158610
Of course, no other generation is full of vapid idiots and self aggrandising faggots.
Especially not the generation which came before who not only has universal access to the internet but is busily engaged in all sorts of pseudo-intellectual masturbation on a society wide scale to the detriment of civilization.
Must be the zoomers.

idk man. i just post horses here

>>17158638
>Must be the zoomers.
yes

>>17158455
>>>/pol/

>>17158659
You either ban both ideologies or none at all. It’s not difficult to understand.

>>17158474
>>17158588
wow that’s fucked.
bring back language generals.

I saw multiple threads that were genuinely about books get deleted yesterday. The mods are cunts.

>>17158610
I believe that since it has gotten worse, it must be possible to improve it a little bit by removing as much as possible what elicits a reaction in low-IQ retards.

Why do jannies delete bad threads with great discussions in it?
Yesterday for example there was a bait thread about how there is no rational justification for faith. Now, while the OP was worthless, thr discussions in thr thread were all cogent and reasonable: just a bunch of people quoting relevant literature on the topic and offering sctual arguments.

What's the point in deleting threads like these? Who gives a shit if the OP is bad if the next 100 posts are excellent? Are mods just lazy bums eho check only the OP and nothing else in the threads they delete?

Also, why does this mostly happen with religious discussions? Why isn't religion and theology lit-related?

>>17158441
We can't have anything good because the faggots who constantly whined about this board needing more moderation got their wish.

>>17158692
>Are mods just lazy bums eho check only the OP and nothing else in the threads they delete?
This is usually why yeah

>>17158353
>Whatcha reading anons?
finished Be Not Content today, an autobiography by one of the first cali acid freaks. Pretty good book, sad. Not a good fate most of the time it seems. Also re-reading the Gita. Got a Dao De Jing in the mail today, very interested in getting into that. Generally I'm some kind of a seeker/fag who doesn't function, but reads complicated things and feels good about himself.

>>17158692
Religion is such a funny topic on this site.
I would say that /x/ gets more religion threads than either /his/ or /lit/.

>>17158692
>Also, why does this mostly happen with religious discussions? Why isn't religion and theology lit-related?
We used to have actual scholars come in who would answer questions about the bible and write essays but that was too interesting so it had to go. The mods here would tell me to go to /his/ and the mods at /his/ would ban me for posting the exact same threads.

>>17158235
I just want a space to discuss political philosophy and its literary canon without having to wade through a sea of gore, porn, shit-posting and race-baiting and even then get zero intellectual engagement.

>>17158750
If you don't want it to get deleted, make the OP about a book. This is the main criteria 99% of the time.

>>17158750
>its literary canon without having to wade through a sea of gore, porn, shit-posting and race-baiting and even then get zero intellectual engagement.
Uh, anon...

>>17158355
Checked.
I appreciate how many collaborations /lit/ produces, books, magazines, commentaries. I don’t think any other board collaborates (on art at least) as much as /lit/ does.

>>17158692
>Are mods just lazy bums eho check only the OP and nothing else in the threads they delete?
Bingo.
>why on religious threads
I suppose because they dont engage directly with literature and mainly discuss the ideas behind them.
And many of the threads are just bait.
However that is a rather charitable interpretation of the moderation of this board.
I've noticed it happens with far greater frequency with Christian threads, with Saracen bait threads being allowed up far longer or not even taken down.

>>17158727
I have America surrounded, by John Higgs is a very good book about Timothy Leary. Traces him from button down sincere university psychologist, to hiding out in Black Panther ruled African shitholes and wondering if it's better to be stuck with the Panthers or try to escape and find some CIA men to arrest him.

>>17158737
>>17158741
yeah that’s a shame. going to /x/ to discuss religion is pretty hilarious.

>>17158692
This is the #2 reason why I stopped posting anything of effort on 4chan
sometimes I get into a great discussion and chip in with a good post and the thread gets randomly deleted
there is no solution to this so I simply stopped posting thoughtful things

>>17158235
I used to have a really good wordfilter on the 4chan extension. For instance, I wouldnt have seen this thread due to the word jannies.

>>17158776
this.

>>17158395
>If you want to discuss politics, go to /pol/
This rule needs to go. News and current event shit, sure but meaningful discussion around political philosophy is anathema to /pol/, and any such thread would just get bumped off before anyone even had time to write out a thoughtful comment.

What even are the solutions to this issue though? Evidently the mods and jannies don't read these threads, so why bitch and complain when you could go literally anywhere else.
I kinda understand the plight, because I like the non-pseuds on this board and banter elsewhere doesn't quite tick the boxes, but is there really anything that can be done?
I'm a relatively new /lit/izen (not to 4chan), but I find myself frustrated more than engaged on this board, so I may as well vote with my presence and just leave.

>>17158878
Link me to the threads you're talking about.

>>17158857
>meaningful discussion around political philosophy

>>17158887
Im refering to the meta thread though I should have been more clear. Im just saying that fuckall will be done so it seems

>>17158857
/pol/ is just /bant/ and /b/ smashed together with slightly less porn and slightly more racism.
Sometimes amusing, rarely informative, mostly boring.
It's shocking how bad it's become even in the past four years.
I've seen greater effort posts on /gif/ during my degenerate period.

>>17158368
I appreciate/lit as well. Almost a decade of /pol inured me to shitposts, so i dont even notice them. the lack of coordinated raids on /lit makes this board one of the very few places people effortpost and legitimate conversations last for several hours or days. It's great

Separate /lit/ into /book/ and /phil/.

>>17158655
Based

>>17158235
>but also due to the absurd amount of people who I disagree with
Sounds like you're part of the problem.

>>17158235
>due to the absurd amount of bugmen losers here.
Seethe, chud.

>>17158913
If you can't do it someone else should
I want to see what people are upset about

>>17158235
I'd like Jannies to stop being so biased towards the left, and stop deleting threads that discuss ring wing topics in literature.

>>17158878
>What even are the solutions to this issue though?
Abandon ship, form other communities that can be handled by an individual or a couple of moderators, each with its rules and themes
donate to people who set up a board like this, or set up a board like this
we need more secondary imageboards

>>17158766
Nope, still gets deleted.

>>17158235
a few threads here and there try and force discussion on religion/politics and the like, instead of writing.

of course, in the process of discussing literature, those will inevitably crop up; but, the style and purpose of the threads i see cropping up have nothing to do with discussion of a writing, more about attempting to assert dominance and fake a sense of wider support for it.

mods sometimes catch it quickly, sometimes do not.

>>17158959
>so biased towards the left
Imagine being so delusional.

>>17158991
Example?

>>17158998
I have proof, and tested it multiple times

>>17158278
yes, the biggest issue /lit/ suffers from is the influx of political drones only interested in "winning the culture war".
they don't read books, they don't read the posts they reply to, they don't see anything wrong with making bait thread after bait thread to propagate the virtues of their ideology and demonize their political opponents.

>>17158455
Politicsniggers? I agree, you should all go back

>>17158235
Hmm, I wonder if you feel like leftists are the problem

>>17158983
so far the only alternative imageboards are about posting bannable shit dressed as free speech instead of actually forming a community

>>17159011
show me

>>17158878
There is no place to talk to people on the internet anymore.

>>17159041
as long as people won't drop the fomo and politics and porn and consumer culture it's only going to get worse

>>17159067
Well it's never going to improve then.
Politics has become inculcated in every single person, with the exception of those who have consumption instead of a personality.
Also what is fomo?

>>17158303
>Its especially bad with Mein Kampf threads and the like. They either get deleted by jannies immediately or raided by a shitton of screeching retards who have never even read the work in question. In the case of Mein Kampf its just “HE CANT WRITE” “BORING” “MAKES NO SENSE” “SCHIZO” its so tiresome i just want to discuss books
Now you know how literally everyone else feels when a /pol9k/ retard enters a thread and starts raving about women, niggers, and the jews. Now magnify that to an entire board. Hopefully this experience will allow you to develop some empathy and self-awareness.

>>17159082
"fear of missing out", social media addiction including (you)s on 4chan
sadly there will never be alternatives because they are immediately invaded by trannies
the thing with trannies is that they have so much fucking time on their hands, and they are everywhere
one tranny has the presence of 100 normal posters, you can't win against them

>>17158910
>The philosophies and ethics underpinning the rules of engagement with which virtually every aspect of our day to day lives is dictated are not meaningful

>>17158692
Religion isn't literature

>>17158235
/lit/ has too many midwits
Most boards have a healthy spread of retardation and intelligence
/lit/ only has teenagers and city-raised manchildren

>>17158799
>hiding out in Black Panther ruled African shitholes
I don't know why I laughed at this, I have no reason to have anything against Leary

>>17159139
Ahh the dopamine hit of the replies and upcummies.
Yeah, it's a fucking conundrum that I'm not free from.
Escaped from the other social media, but not the (you)s.
As for the trannies, I believe it can be done but only in very small groups.
I have a book club of between 4-6 people where we discuss that fortnight's book free from the nonsense of the internet.
Though easier in real life, I reckon it could be done online.

>>17159000
Here's just the other day:
>>/lit/thread/S17142374

>>17158750
no. you're just bringing the political bugmen with you. the fact that your off-topic /pol/bait gets deleted even when you try to include some kind of flimsy "what books to get into natsoc/leninism" alibi in the OP is as it should be.

It brings me immense pleasure to see all the precisely the posters who have been destroying the board for the last 4 years so frustrated. Wonderful catharsis, maybe this board isn't doomed after all.

It brings me immense pleasure to see precisely the posters who have been destroying the board for the last 4 years so frustrated. Wonderful catharsis, maybe this board isn't doomed after all.

>>17158995
>the style and purpose of the threads i see cropping up have nothing to do with discussion of a writing, more about attempting to assert dominance and fake a sense of wider support for it.
Who fucking cares. If it's about the author and their books, let people talk and fuck off.

>>17159256
Ehh, yeah, I agree with you. Theoretically this is the literature board, so not for politics, but in practice nowhere else do you get political philosophy discussions, and it's only natural to use real-world examples in a discussion on political philosophy. I think anyone against this simply has no experience with the topic. What needs to be deleted is the shitty politics threads that fall into left vs. right stupidity.

>>17158235
Holy fucking shit I hate jannies so much. Great job deleting an interesting, on-topic thread you fucking mongoloids.

>>17158416
>>>/qa/

>>17159421
see >>17159345
go back

>>17159304
How is your example off-topic if it's literally asking about books? Or maybe you just can't handle people discussing books you don't like so you'd rather ban and censor them like a weak and insecure little faggot.

>>17159506
is this nigger serious?

>>17159163
Religious texts are literature.
‘Fiction’ per se isn’t literature but fictive texts are. Your argument is semantical.

>>17158809
Some of us read these things and think about them. You aren't pissing into the wind, honest. Don't settle for a lesser version of yourself, not for yourself, others, not even for the Jannies.

>>17158235
Quick question, mods
How come the threads about the classics getting gutted from schools keeps getting taken down, even though it's entirely /lit/ related, but a goddamn thread that's literally "anon, why aren't you vegan" is left up to hit bump limit?
Do I need to request articles about the classics getting gutted for it to count? Or are you xirs really just hoping we stop worrying about it and let it happen?

>>17159530
>Some of us read these things and think about them. You aren't pissing into the wind, honest. Don't settle for a lesser version of yourself, not for yourself, others, not even for the Jannies.
I use this site to vent off some steam and talk shit, I reserve the better version of myself for myself and my family.

>>17158441
This.
I just want to talk about Neruda.

>>17159541
>why are bait thread getting deleted?
I agree that the vegan thread should have been deleted too, but you need to go back to where you come from.

>>17159599
I understand. Don't think, however, that if some of the more valuable aspects of the alloy that is yourself were to be discovered here that they would utterly unappreciated. We are really out here.

>>17159541
Stop posting twitter screencap threads retard

>>17159541
probably because of the novelty factor, no? not much harm in allowing one idiosyncratic veganism thread, while the constant "someone somewhere banned a book/removed it from a store/censored the new reprint" spam definitely plays a role in turning the board into a /pol/ colony

>>17159488
>Promotes ham-handed overbearing moderation
>Tells me to go back
Why are you even here? Your buggy bumper utopia already exists.

>>17159670
go back to your containment board

>>17159629
and? what do I get in return for being a better me here or anywhere on the internet? what do I care that somewhere there's someone who "appreciates" what I say yet gives nothing back?

>>17159678
Go back to your containment site.

/lit/ doesn't read anymore thanks to coomers, phone posters and election tourists.