/lit/ - Literature

Absolutely nothing, you shitposting fool, you.

>>1951947
Why you so mad this thread is clearly on-topic did you not read the second sentence?

I think it's cute that despite the countless places more appropriate for discussing this news story you felt most comfortable posting it here.

>>1951947
>>1951947

>absolutely nothing

YOU'RE BLIND BABY
YOU'RE BLIND TO THE FACTS ON WHO YOU ARE
'CAUSE YOU'RE WATCHIN' THAT GARBAGE

>>1951957
>>1951957

i want to discuss what this term of events means for the future of literature.

>>1951961
>>1951961

turn of events*

>>1951961
Perhaps you should make a few predictions yourself to get the ball rolling.

>>1951957

What's wrong with posting it here? She was a songwriter. That means she wrote the lyrics for songs. Song lyrics are a form of poetry. Poetry is literature. Just because it doesn't come packaged as a leather bound hard cover, doesn't mean it's not literature.

I'd say that from now on literature will be bad.

>>1951964
I didn't say there was anything wrong with it.

Literature will crumble voluntarily. It will fall all over itself to never be recovered.
Never forget whatever day it is today.

Her death will bring around a generation of liberal artists who will not live in Camden, not do drugs and alcohol and let's face it, life minus those kinds of liberal artists will leave literature like Twilight.

A talentless coked up bitch dies and I don't give a single fuck.

>>1951980
I can't believe you got a trip, I'm disappointed in you.

Thank god

>>1951986

I had to, my good name was being besmirched over on /a/!

literature will be GOOD.

>>1951989
Also drop the mad scientist thing.
>/a/

>>1951989
i'd besmirch you, i'd besmirch you so hard

>>1951980
>>1951980

but what about literature?
with this hedonism running rampant how will this generation of writers subject matter differ from what we read now?

they tried to make her go to rehab but she said no, no,no

and look where it got her

>>1952076
It won't. What's there to deal with? Some singer dies from loving drugs, it isn't anything new. What's there to deal with?
Amy Winehouse was cool and all but it affects the realm of literature in no way at all.

Why does this thread exist?

1. Amy Winehouse dies.
2. Brownbear would like to discuss said death with someone.
3. Brownbear has no friend with whom to discuss Winehouse's death.
4. /lit/ is the closest thing he has to friends.
5. Brownbear posts Winehouse thread on /lit/, faintly linking it to the subject matter of the board.

the face of a generation

>>1952108
>>1952108

i#ve already discussed her death with my friends. Im not interested in talking about that anymore. Im more interested on looking at this as an example of hedonism that runs rampant in today's society, and how we as a literature board, can examine this and try to make some guesses about how this will infulence future writers.

We haven't had any real major war that has affected the western world on their doorstep, like WW1 or WW2 did, so what do our writers have? We haven't even had something close to the Vietnam war, just some pussyfooting thing in Afghanistan.

So im asking, is her death any real example of hedonism in today's society? and what does this mean for literature.

if you don't want to post on topic, go back to >>>/b/ kiddo.

EVICT BROWNBEAR!

>>1952117

hey man we're you're real friends

It means Tao Lin will right a book with a protagonist named Amy Winehouse

>>1952117
>what do our writers have?
several centuries of postcolonial guilt to diffuse through such uncompromising and culturally insightful texts as "White Teeth", "East is East" and special episodes of Eastenders that focus on the token punjab family

>>1952117
Our war was a spiritual one. A New Lost Generation has crawled it’s way out from the mud. This generation was not one born of war, at least not a great war, but one born of disillusionment just as the former had been, and also of a loathing and feverish detest of all things to do with Puritanism and Victorianism. This new Generations war was not fought in trenches, but in a brute struggle for some sense of record of having existed.

A faceless generation. This time not disillusioned by war, but instead by the lack of it.

>>1952127
>>1952127

>jibe at White Teeth

HOW ABOUT FUCK YOU

It means that literature will go back to its roots, in the form of opera libretto

AND THE ZED POASTED

>>1952119
>>1952119

>that picture

#nohomo

She joined the 27 club, meaning she will be legendary

>>1952117
Sure, BB.

Have you any explanations that are believable, or is this it?

>>1952142
>>1952142

do you have anything of value to say? Or is it just off-hand comments that try to demean what i said?

>>1952130
>A New Lost Generation
>bland realism with a side-order of social awareness
uhhh

If /lit/ was anything more than 4chan's toiler paper supply, we would've written actually pieces of literature about her life and/or death instead of proving our imbecility time and time again.

the proles are stirring

>>1952144
The one time, I'm vaguely agreeing with Deep.

This is novel.

>>1952144
>2011
>still mistakes bland realism for blunt honesty
I seriously hope you guys don't do this.

>>1952157
>between bland realism and blunt honesty

I'm not sure these are mutually exclusive....

"To hell with the lost generation and all the cheap, easy labels. All generations are lost, always have been, always will be."

-Ernest Papa Hemingway

So you see, I guess you could say looking back on it, that we were all along living in our own TEENAGE WASTELAND. IT'S ONLY TEENAGE WASTELAND.

>>1952164

A generation goes and a generation comes,
But the earth remains forever.
Also, the sun rises and the sun sets;
And hastening to its place it rises there again.

>>1952169
I'd hoped you'd be making some sort of argument...BUT NO....

>>1952178
I'd hoped the same from you. You really let me down.

>>1952191
Well, that's kinda obvious, breh...

First, 'blunt' only refers to the strength of the 'honesty,' not necessarily its compelling draw or its interesting features.

Second, 'bland' refers to the tedium found in this 'realism.'

This means this realism can be both 'blunt[ly] honest' and 'bland,' i.e. not mutually exclusive.

who are the representatives of this bland realism with a side-order of social awareness? or are you speculating about the quality of a future wave of literature?

>>1952208
pretty much any booker prize winner, shit sux

>>1952198
Excuse me, I'm not the one with whom you find yourself quarreling with, but I believe there is a grave misunderstanding on your part, relevant entirely to the discussion between yourself and the anonymous poster.

>>1952157
This poster seems to be saying, simply, that his referent "still mistakes bland realism for blunt honesty." In order to say this, both of these cannot be mutually exclusive, by nature, because one is mistaken for the other. Ordinarily, this tad bit of logic would go unspoken, assumed.

>>1952164
This comes out of nowhere, to which is replied, "YA BLEW IT."

No?

>>1952219
>This poster seems to be saying, simply, that his referent "still mistakes bland realism for blunt honesty." In order to say this, both of these cannot be mutually exclusive, by nature, because one is mistaken for the other. Ordinarily, this tad bit of logic would go unspoken, assumed.

There's a helluva lot of difference between intentionality (non-phenomenological sense) and semiology (i.e. what is imparted to receiver). You can't just create a false distinction.

Get through grad school dood and learn your language philosophers.

>>1952225
stop bring such a pretentious prick honestly, it's fucking annoying

driving by this thread to say that zadie smith owns and amy wino wasn't too shabby herself, peace

>>1952219
Yes.

Sad to see anyone die, particularly at such a young age.

>>1952225
I think you've missed >>1952130 's point. He was probably simply saying that you don't need a war to create literature worth reading. But then you had to ignore his point and dive right into his presentation of the point, didn't you?

The true mark of a hipster douchebag. laughinggirls.jpeg

>>1952227
Well, don't cash wolf tickets. What did you expect me to do, accept your unenlightened thoughts on language?

These, let me add, predicated some rather assmad rhetoric.

I've got a reputation to maintain, kid

>>1952227
this

it's not even good trolling

>>1952225
>Get through grad school dood and learn your language philosophers.
rich coming from a guy who spends all his time talking about derrida, lacan and husserl, who and never mentions Kripke, Quine, Davidson & co

>>1952232
This is the most amateur strawman, I've ever seen.

Take your shit to /a/ or something. It won't cut the mustard here

>>1952164
It doesn't matter if they aren't. Mistaking one for the other is just the same as pretending they /are/ mutually exclusive, you dumb fuck.

>>1952239
I've mentioned Quine plenty of times in onionring arguments. It's the standard response to any analytical philosophy claims on logic or language.

Don't get butthurt that you don't have the theoretical rigour to understand Lacan and Derrida. And, also what's with this Husserl slur? I only vaguely allude to him when using the word 'intentionality' to avoid confusion

>>1952244
the logic here is at issue, I think. Come back later

>>1952242
>new namefag says it wont cut the mustard
You've been here, what? Maybe a day or two?

>>1952253
been around a long time before getting a trip, dood. This is poor sauce shit.

If Infinite Jest gets a movie, I want Rehab to be on the soundtrack.

>>1952233
i wasn't the guy you were referring too.
you're just acting better than everybody because you're some rich privately educated white kid.

honestly just try and think for a second, why are you talking down to people so much? i mean really? the other trips (truman, brownbear etc) all have a laugh and a joke with everyone else, but you're here trying to be some super serious smart guy when really it just comes across as pretentious and annoying.

just take a chill pill and stop trying to shove the fact you're educated down everyone else's throats.

>>1952225
My post was simply pointing out that you had misread the post: >>1952157

I could care less about the content of your argument regarding intentionality and semiology.

My point is clear and distinct. You misread the post and flew off on a tangent, and now you are auguring with several posters, mostly of whom are disinterested regarding my actual post.

>>1952249

>i've mentioned Quine plent of times in onionring arguments

you've mentioned him twice apart from in this thread.
ever.

http://green-oval.net/cgi-board.pl/lit/?task=search2&ghost=&search_text=Quine+&search_da
tefrom=2010-07-19&search_dateto=&search_username=&search_tripcode=%21%21S1oOkTjvsv2&
search_del=dontcare&search_img=dontcare&search_spo=dontcare&search_int=dontcare&sear
ch_ord=rel

one just saying
>Read WV Quine, then kill yourself
but we'll count that.

>>1952256
You'd know if you had been that this is the regular quality of shit on /lit/.

>>1952267
>>1952267

>saging a Brownbear thread

>>1952264
If you think they teach you Deconstruction or Lacanian psychoanalysis at any school (private or otherwise), you're sorely, sorely mistaken.

And I'm surprised you omitted Deep, he's a reasonable poster...

Kids that talk down to me, have just lost their right to not be patronized themselves

>>1952249
>It's the standard response to any analytical philosophy claims on logic or language
Lol, even someone as dimwitted and mundane as Chomsky has taken a stab at quine, I needn't mention Evans and Hookway.

>>1952273

>>1952275
But you're not patronising anyone, you're acting like you're more intelligent and better than everyone else and it comes off as condescending and annoying. Just stop it, seriously, look at your posts and try to say that they're not a little douchey

>>1952266
>misread my post
This is a strawman ploy, do I need to tell you this again?

>>1952268
Second strawman, now I would have to have mentioned him several times to satisfy your criteria.

>>1952269
Maybe, that's right, but it's also wrong that it should be like this

>>1952281
It's true. It's so tactless and it's bad form, really. Trolling is meant to not look like trolling, and it's meant to have a designated target.

What he's doing is contradiction. He's lashing out at anyone and everyone, being a contrarian.

inb4 no I'm not.

>>1952285
Hate to tell you, but you fail at spotting strawmen.

>>1952277
a minute ago, he was an essential language philosopher.

also: >chomsky

>>1952281
This is weak. What is the difference between patronizing and condescending?

>>1952286
I said things first, the later posters were the ones being contrarian

>>1952280
>>1952280

>>1952289
How?

>>1952291
I SAID INB4 NO I'M NOT.

>>1952301
Oh, okay, well that's fine then

>>1952291
look, now you're saying 'this is weak' instead of just manning up and admitting that on here you act like a bit of a dick to everyone. you ignored the second half of my post because you know that your posts in this thread have just come off as massively douchey. i know you have this little vendetta against deep&edgy or whatever the fuck it is, but just stop being such a douche to everyone else in the meantime

>BB not shutting the fuck up.

Sorry, the majority seems to be against you and I have to follow trends to be accepted. Please forgive me.

>>1952298
Well, I can't speak for all the replies you accused of being strawmen, but I can tell you that you falsely accused at least one of them.

I know you think nobody could possibly disagree with you, and it's impossible that you might be one versus three or more people, but you are.

>>1952291
>a minute ago, he was an essential language philosopher.
He is, but he's not the "standard response to any analytical philosophy claims on logic or language", to an entire field of work of on different issues by different philosophers by any means whatsoever

>>1952285
"misread my post"

No. You misread his post. This is me, the very first post I made: >>1952219 and then responded with this post:>>1952164


I jumped into your conversation. I thought that it was funny that you clearly misread this post:>>1952157 and then responded with this post: >>1952164

Then you proceeded with the intellectualism, which may have been logical in its own right, but still a detour used to circumvent your silly error.

Man up.

>>1952309
Which one?
>>1952308
It's a free world dude.
>>1952307
Don't get too butthurt, kiddo

>>1952308
You are so fucking spineless.

>>1952308
>>1952308

fuck you.

>>1952266
>>1952316

>>1952307
>i know you have this little vendetta against deep&edgy
it's because we make fun of him a lot

>>1952316
>calling people kiddo
you're not brownbear so stop. you're saying im butthurt because in reality we both know i'm right. im not trying to attack you im just trying to tell you to stop being such a dick.

fucking christ take it on the chin instead of just dodging away from it jesus.

>>1952312
Awesome, but the fact is, Quine changed analytical philosophy's course forever and all you can bring up is Chomsky, to suggest that this was some sort of problem.

Don't forget Chomsky pretty second rate in the analytic/linguistic field, tendentious enough to make the effort to besmirch Quine.

>>1952285
"misread my post"

No. You misread his post. This is me, the very first post I made: >>1952219


I jumped into your conversation. I thought that it was funny that you clearly misread this post:>>1952157 and then responded with this post: >>1952164

Then you proceeded with the intellectualism, which may have been logical in its own right, but still a detour used to circumvent your silly error.

Man up.

A good opportunity for some hack director like Gus Van Sant to make her life story and tell us how Winehouse was "the voice of the 80s born Generation Y".

>>1952324
to be fair, no one likes you

>>1952324
Slinging insults instead of getting down to some rigorous argument, probably the most pathetic thing I've seen here.

>>1952325
>I'm right
Is this warranted? How do you know you're right?

>>1952324

>I screencap shitty retorts and end up looking like an idiot

>>1952334
>slinging insults
one of the most pathetic things in this thread is the fact you STILL act like you're better than everyone. Read back on your posts and try telling me that you don't come across as a douchebag.

you idiots are still going at it...

fuck this...this thread is now about birds abducting babies

>>1952317
Please don't hate me for it.
>>1952318
Fuck me, no, fuck you!
(I jest, you're right).

>>1952328
No one cares that you posted later on, you still posted.

Why is this '>intellectualism' a '>detour?

Also, what makes your petty moralism and misguided designations of 'courage' worth my time?

>>1952130
This post is, by the way, the windiest pile of shit, I have ever seen. Surely, these past few generations have struggled more against amoralism, purposelessness and the general postmodern condition, these fundamentalist clashes a silly way of attempting to reduce this moral crisis and lack of direction?

I'm happy to dispute this one, a little friendlily.

>>1952350
pushovers get nowhere in life

>>1952341
To be fair to me, the level of argument has remained pretty personal on both sides, although I regret that 'Stupid' image, it was a little unkind.

>>1952350
I don't hate you, I'm just disappointed I guess I expected better from you.

Don't expect any messages for a while. I don't think I can talk to you any more.

>>1952327
>Awesome, but the fact is, Quine changed analytical philosophy's course forever
No-one's saying he didn't, but the point remains, he's not the "standard response to any analytical philosophy claims on logic or language", to an entire field of work of on different issues by different philosophers by any means whatsoever

>>1952338
That was funny as hell tho, you butthurt just because you can't get people told like me

>D&E and Cara going at it again

>>1952363
What is the standard response to analytical claims to logic and language, if not Quine? Brotip: don't say Chomsky.

>That was funny as hell tho, you butthurt just because you can't get people told like me
I'll refer you to this, to show how that little escapade went down:>>1952338

>>1952352
I jumped into your conversation. I thought that it was funny that you clearly misread this post:>>1952157 and then responded with this post: >>1952164

Then you proceeded with the intellectualism, which may have been logical in its own right, but still a detour used to circumvent your silly error.

Man up.

Just man up.

>this thread

>>1952377
why did you post this twice?

if he didn't answer you, chances are he won't

recall, he is a tripfag

>>1952377
You keep on repeating this misreading. But, how in the hell am I misreading this? I've given you the reasons why I haven't, by your standards. And stop telling me to '>man up,' you've used the same argument over and over again, you need to have the courage to try a different tack.

>>1952371
Zed? I'm guessing

>>1952375
>What is the standard response to analytical claims to logic and language
There isn't a "standard response", that's the point. It's like saying there's a standard response to continental claims about being or society

>>1952388
I thought that it was funny that you clearly misread this post:>>1952157 and then responded with this post: >>1952164

Then you proceeded with the intellectualism, which may have been logical in its own right, but still a detour used to circumvent your silly error.

Man up.

Just man up.

Quit it with the detours and admit you made a mistake, a silly one, from which your tangent still spins.

>>1952354
I'm not being serious.

>>1952361
>Don't expect any messages for a while. I don't think I can talk to you any more.

That's cool, I'll just go back to looking awesome in my straw trilby and white v-neck.

>>1952391
Then, there's a common response, a tried and tested one. For me, this is as good and should be for you. There's a limit to the ways you can answer a question and a further limit on the ways you can answer it cogently. So far Quine has satisfied most of my needs for refuting the usual Frege shtick, Wittgenstein (of the philosophical investigations, NOT THE TRACTATUS) comes a close second.

>>1952395
This has become absurd.

>>1952350
>dat Sis

sure is the one and only npc I actually wanted to fuck in the damn game that didn't go anywhere

Threads like this fill me with hope for the future of our handsome board.

lol

>>1952413
You can't even tell how much assraep will happen if you even try an argument

and no truman this is a terrible thread filled with stupid like caracella or whatever his face

>>1952420
sorry hon i don't want to play with you

>>1952424
>doesn't get irony

>>1952424

You're probably the most concrete thinking person i've ever encountered.

>>1952410
>That smile as she tosses you her pistol.
Now I now how the Tali fags feel.

>>1952428
really stupid.

>>1952410

>I'm 40 and fantasize about having sex with video games

>>1952439
how is "I want my character to x" the same as "I want to x"

Amy winehouse is dead what the fuck my life is over

>>1952439
>Doesn't fantasize about fucking video game chicks.
What a faggot.

fuck everyone in this shitty thread.

and fuck the tripfags who think /lit/ is just a place to blog about shit

>>1952470
hey thanks faggot fuck you too!

>>1952456

nigga u gay

>>1952480
>>1952462

>>1952480
/thread

>>1952462
/thread

>>1952381
>>1952381

>that image

fucking saved