/lit/ - Literature

>>18253412
What the fuck do you know about English prose? You're a dirty fucking ESL.

Maybe try reading prose in your first language

bait

>>18253416
i don't need to know much about the English prose. i've tried to read about half of the meme chart, extensive readings on Sylvia Plath, Lazarus stuff, Woolfe, Robert Frost, lots of poems,... and over hundred of PhD papers.
my experience with reading is that you don't need to know much BIG words. the basic normal words are enough for daily use. you don't have enough time to memorize and (((understand))) all the useless words from the dictionary, it's just a game they play, no need to take part in.
the use of language, especially in this modern time, where countless problems are emerging, is to solve problem and deliver messages, lessons in the fastest and shortest way possible, with a clear purpose. stop immersing yourself in those wordy books, go out and experience real life. you don't even need to read those books to understand the inside meme jokes. let them play their stupid game. GET OUT! NOW! BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE! YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO LIVE THIS SHORT LIFE!

>>18253453
>>18253412
This might have worked if you had gotten a native speaker to write it for you. A valiant attempt nonetheless.

>>18253468
It might have worked if he actually picked a word that most native English speakers don't still understand.

>>18253419
well, i didn't created this thread to bait or fool you or any deceptive or political purpose. i just want you to realize the reality we are living in. words like 'antidisestablsihmentarianism' or 'metiflous' or 'impeccable', uhhhh, we don't use it in real life, real word. no. no use.
live in reality, live in the real world, the simple world. don't fall for the fantasy (((creative))) game those arrogant authors play, and stay away from Hegel and his stupid games. the more you try to sound smart with BIG words, the more stupid and unacceptable you become.
use language in a short, direct, practical, and use it with a purpose to solve problems, not to brag about how much (((book))) and (((knowledge))) you have in your mind. because people don't care. GROW UP, KID!

>>18253486
kys tranny

>>18253522
haha, not a tranny. i'm a real straight male with a real two testicals in my hairy ball bag. better try harder next time, pathetic guess and assumption

>>18253412
cope

>>18253564
well, i'm showing you the good way to live accordingly with the real simple world. if you don't follow my guide, then, sadly, it's you who cope. just talk to your friends using that 'stately' and BIG incomprehensible words you find in Infinite Jest or any of the meme chart, see what will happen. i'm dragging you out of this mess just to give you the best good

Alright I'm gonna guess Chinese

>>18253604
kys bugman

>>18253453
I've got some bad news for you, anon. I get the feeling this may come as a shock, so I'd like to invite you to take a second and sit down. Ready? Alright, anon. I regret to inform you that the only person who experiences your personal opinions as anything remotely approaching fact is you. The rest of us, ostensibly independent entities with our own opinions, see you as an idiot who can't distinguish his opinions from gospel. What you're doing is actually the singular most disingenuous argumentative tactic there is: restating your opinions over and over again with bombastic language to give them the illusion of being factual. Sure, you reference a bunch of things you may or may not have actually read. I'll grant you that. The problem is that you cite your extensive readings and then go on to just let them sit. You demonstrate no actual knowledge of any of it. More to the point, you don't actually lay out an argument based on the authors and papers you're citing. You don't actually connect anything to your argument. You leave the connection between your reading and what you're saying completely ambiguous. Frustratingly, you seem to think that if you invoke enough of the symbols of knowledge that someone will come along and conflate the symbols for the knowledge itself. I'm not fooled. I'm gonna guess nobody else is either.

Say something of actual substance or fuck off. Nobody wants to read the pipe-musings of someone who can barely string a coherent sentence together. And sure as fucking shit, nobody wants that person to be giving them a diatribe in broken English on the aesthetics of the English language.

>>18253412

>>18253412
What a rare kind of idiot, unlike what we come across more wontedly.

>>18253638
that retard didn't deserve an effortpost

>>18253412
Of course you'd find no value in clever prose, you seem barely literate enough to put two coherent paragraphs together. Sure, I get your point, your miserable way of expressing yourself is proof enough that you simply try to cope with your inadequacy. Maybe try learning the language first before you attempt any criticism of some of its best prose.

>>18254501
so you still stuck in those rules and orders that the textbook tell you? top kek. grow out and stop living in your own delusional prison

>>18254721
If you aren't even willing to learn any of the rules you are supposed to play by when conducting yourself in English, why are you even trying to read? Are you seriously telling me, in your broken english, that textbooks are useless? If you truly are claiming that you are the peak of what the autodidact ESL has to offer, then I truly am sorry for your kind. Most of the beauty in any language oft comes from the vague speficity of a good metaphor, some of which do require these so-called "useless" words of yours. You are too lazy to even get to the starting point of literary appreciation. What are you doing here?

>>18253453
>>18253412
>>18253486
>>18253604
reminder that this guy wrote all those paragraphs because he didn't know the word "stately"

>>18253412
the reality is that anglos need to use big words because they can't write quality sophisticated prose with just intricate use of grammar. the language is too poor for that.

S, the initial letter of Part I, is Stephen Dedalus's initial; as the initial letter, of Part II, M (4.1[p. 54]) is Molly Bloom's; and P, the initial letter of Part III (16.1[p. 612]), is Poldy's (Leopold Bloom's). The initial letters thus suggest the central character in each of the three parts Stephen self-preoccupied in Part I; Bloom preoccupied with Molly in Part II; and both Molly and Stephen preoccupied with Bloom in Part III.

S, M, and P are also conventional signs for the three terms of a syllogism: S, subject; M, middle; P, predicate. While the three terms do not necessarily appear in the same sequence in all syllogisms, medieval pedagogy regarded the sequence S M-P as the cognitive order of thought and therefore as the order in which the terms should initially be taught. Medieval pedagogy also established an initial order for the syllogism's three propositions: Proposition 1 would combine terms M and P; Proposition 2 would combine terms S and M; Proposition 3 (the conclusion) would combine terms S and P. S and P are subject and predicate of the conclusion-to-be but not necessarily the subject and predicate of the propositions themselves. M, the middle term, drops out when the conclusion is formed. In the original edition of Ulysses (restored in the Critical Edition) there was a large black dot or period at the end of Episode 17 (17.2331[p. 737]). A dot or period is a conventional sign for Q.E.D. (quod erat demonstrandum, Latin: "which was to be proved"). The analogue of the syllogism (as the overall analogue to The Odyssey) suggests a logical and narrative structure, which the reader can grasp but of which the characters in the fiction are essentially unaware.

>>18253412
Meanwhile, at stately Wayne Manor