/lit/ - Literature

>>1954338
Off-topic, but i'm not even writing anything postmodern:

Is that you in the STALKER, Bioshock, 'atmospheric' games, etc threads on /v/, or do you have a doppelganger?

>>1954341
I have dropped in to stalker threads a bit more recently as of late, and I have posted disparagingly over peripheral bullshit like 'atmosphere' and 'linearity', but I've never been in bioshock threads

>>1954343
Oh, okay. I totally agree with you on the atmospheric stuff. No excuse for otherwise poor gameplay.

>the greatest writers (Scott, Balzac, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Mann, Fitzgerald)
>the greatest writers (Scott, Balzac, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Mann, Fitzgerald)

What on earth are you on? Fitzgerald? Really? Are you implying fucking Fitzgerald is better than, say, Shakespeare?

>>1954349
shakespeare is a given, obviously so. you think I want to spend all fucking day listing great writers or something

>>1954354
Just to be clear, we're talking about the Fitzgerald who wrote The Great Gatsby?

Even he admitted that it is a failure of a book. A minor classic at best. Fitzgerald was a good writer, and I enjoy his work, but he's by no means a GREAT WRITER!

>>1954357
you can substitute fitzgerald for shakespeare if you're going to get pissy over it

>>1954357

By this logic, should we also accept as great those works which the author declares are great?

yeah okay guys how about not indulging the nitpicker geez

>>1954367
what if i label my novel as new sincerity? is that cool with you?

Guys, chill. I just mentioned that Fitzgerald himself called it a failure to show that AS WELL AS the mainstream critical opinion deeming it so, even the bloody author himself thought so.

>>1954372
Um, obviously not?
>>1954363
Feel free.

>>1954372
only if you're sincerely sincere and not just insincerely sincere or sincerely insincere or any other fake-ass shit like that and make sure you're more sincerely sincere than the people were sincerely sincere otherwise i mean what's the point

>>1954373

>Feel free.

So if the next poster on /lit/ declares his work to be the greatest thing since the collected works of Shakespeare, you're going to believe that?

i would drag myself out of the basement if i wasn't too stupid to drag myself out of the basement

>>1954338
>2011
>not knowing that Scott was his century's Dan Brown
>name-dropping Balzac and Mann to appear erudite
>not understanding that Mann was always a second tier high modernist
>Not understanding that the great post-modern writers (Pynchon, Gaddis), and those succesful late, late 20th century writers with postmodern concerns (DeLillo, Wallace (bite me)) are reacting to general societal concerns over a lack of moral/cultural centre and the interchangeability of moral concerns, not just their own misgivings about this

This is poor

>aspiring writer
>you're a bad critic
>I don't want your advice

sage because stupid shit is stupid.

>>1954398
>not knowing that Scott was his century's Dan Brown
It's pretty depressing that our Dan Brown is nothing on the level of their Dan Brown. Maybe next you'd like to mention how Shakespeare was another generations Seth MacFarlane?

>not understanding that Mann was always a second tier high modernist
So Caralla who do you prefer kafka or thomas mann think carefully

>reacting to general societal concerns over a lack of moral/cultural centre
Since when were the degenerate thoughts derived from the excess of the bourgeois and elite classes general societal concerns? Say that to a chinese sweatshop worker's face not on the internet faggot

>>1954407
Thank god. But I knew you were at least reliable on this level.

sigh. i don't live in the basement. i'm actually rather extroverted. i go out to parties/clubs at least 2 or 3 times a week, take a lot of acid/mescaline, smoke a lot of weed, consider myself part of the 'top' social group of my area's relative stratum, and i went backpacking in europe by myself for 3 months earlier this year. i turned 20 not long ago. my mother killed herself from post-natal depression when i was 9 (she had electro-convulsive therapy and everything). abandonment issues due to this have sprung up in the past two years or so, especially when i'm attempting to form a relationship with a girl i like. i have depression, as a result of my genetics. friends consider me both aloof and eccentric and teachers/adults have told me i've the maturity of a 28 year old. at the end of this year i'm going to india and japan by myself to suss out buddhism, and maybe begin to take the practice of it more seriously (without the belief). there is also still a chance for me to play at an extremely high level of soccer.

i don't know whether or not you'd consider that an interesting life and one that could entail and merit good writing, but i still see my life as too comfortable and dull. i think that if i gave it all up and became a shut in who just wrote and read all day every day i'd produce far better work than what i think i will at the moment.

>>1954407
>It's pretty depressing that our Dan Brown is nothing on the level of their Dan Brown
He wrote poorcore jingoism for the intellectually addled British populace, featuring mawkish romanticism and overclocked prose. However, you might argue the fact that he was better than Dan Brown, although also a writer cynically currying popularity, mentioning Scott in conjunction with any sort of 'great writer' list, is pretty laughable.


>So Caralla who do you prefer kafka or thomas mann think carefully
Don't get the point of this, really. They're different writers in too many respects, Mann writing High Modernism, Kafka writing in the more pliable standard modernist canon. I'm tempted to cite Nabokov who claimed that Mann was just a game-player and created little of aesthetic merit, while Kafka had some awesome moments (for this, I would cite the statement above the law court in the Trial). That said, Mann has much more complex prose in the German and if I knew the language better, that might give me occasion to say his prose was more accomplished.

>Since when were the degenerate thoughts derived from the excess of the bourgeois and elite classes general societal concerns?
I'd like to think the lack of moral/cultural centres in postmodern society are classless concerns. Otherwise, you're forced into the pretty politically incorrect conclusion that such accesible concerns as moral/cultural centrality are somehow intellectually inaccessible to a certain class, etc., etc. Don't forget that contempt for your social milieu is probably one of the most basement-dwelling, isolationist things you can do (and seeing as that's your etiology for postmodern writing, I think this has already become pretty problematic for you).

>>1954425

You sound like the definition of the whiny bourgeois 'writer' that we need to exterminate.

>>1954430

why is that?

>>1954425

>To aspiring writers on /lit/
>You don't actually think you're fooling anyone when you label your novel 'post-modern' do you?

They hardly ever do this. In fact, a lot of them try to write in an old-fashioned or flowery way.

>mfw I'm in the army, deal with the harsh realities of life on a daily basis, live a life of "blood, guts, sex and danger", write speculative fiction, and deep and edgy still can't see the value in my work because nanobots don't real

pro-tip: you will never be any good at soccer until you realise that it's called football.

>>1954429
>He wrote poorcore jingoism for the intellectually addled British populace, featuring mawkish romanticism and overclocked prose
Okay dude that's a weird way to say that he was a member of a dying class whose writing was one of the last to uphold strong aristocratic values, and was in a legitimate position to provide insightful commentary on the rising bourgeois and the issues of his time but whatever

>Don't get the point of this, really
fair enough just a joke, i guess you'll get around to lukacs eventually if you're interested in continental stuff

>I'd like to think the lack of moral/cultural centres in postmodern society are classless concerns.
pfffftthbbhhff oh wow you don't have to be a vulgar marxist to realize this good grief

>such accesible concerns as moral/cultural centrality are somehow intellectually inaccessible to a certain class
That's presupposing a number of things about those centralities, besides that they're concerns, to begin with. Go cry about how the real has vanished in the face of the profusion of sign-value to a zulu spearchucker, see how many fucks he gives, maybe he'll genuinely give one or two after you've spend a few years drilling western ideology into his head but I wouldn't bet on it

>>1954388
...no? I didn't say I would believe you.

>>1954439
>in the army

where did it all go wrong?

>>1954446
>2011
>not being a zulu spearchucker yourself

dude you've really let yourself go

whenever I read a d&e post, I almost expect to see "that's what butthurt haters actually believe, cry more"

>>1954450

So why trust Fitzgerald?

i have a lot of interesting things to say about being an ugly neet and disgrace to my parents

>>1954446
>he was a member of a dying class whose writing was one of the last to uphold strong aristocratic values
I'm pretty sure he just played to the silly fantasies of that delusive group of nepotists. Surely the rise of the bourgeois affected a greater distribution of wealth and prestige? Surely this rise happened a lot earlier, with the 14th Century Hanseatic League and the rise of the Medici in Florence?

>fair enough just a joke, i guess you'll get around to lukacs eventually if you're interested in continental stuff
Lukacs was no Adorno or Horkheimer. Surely a Marxist realism would involve much more patently economic realities, and not some tenuous relationship between subjective and 'objective' realities? Balzac and Zola are the Marxist authors of choice in this regard.


>pfffftthbbhhff oh wow you don't have to be a vulgar marxist to realize this good grief
You were acting smarmy and elitist. I didn't think you realized this.

>That's presupposing a number of things about those centralities, besides that they're concerns, to begin with.
That they are 'centralities' and thus of concern, if they are faulty, yes, but those suppositions were made clear and I can't see anything wrong with that. If you dispute this, you dispute the efficacy of structuralist analysis on a cultural level.

>zulu spearchucker
Who's to say he isn't interested in Western ideology (it would be racist to suggest otherwise). I'm pretty sure the conversation had been implicitly focussed on Western mores, so poor strawman fallacy is poor.

This is the worst thread I've seen on /lit/ this month. Then I looked at the OP, and realised why.

What exactly is wrong with the postmodernism that people on this board (apparently) write? I haven't read any of it, but you make it sound like all postmodernmism is terrible, and inferior to other genres (lol @ that). Could you clarify your position? At least people are trying something new and fresh, staying away from the cookie cutter novels that most genres have, good or bad.

>>1954468
correction, Deep doesn't regard postmodernism because his degree didn't cover it

>>1954451
>2004 OIF
>kandahar province
>mounted patrol, receiving small arms fire
>IED flips humvee
>grab M4, take cover behind traffic barrier
>fucking wild dogs out of nowhere, snarling and running at us
>shoot one in the throat, screaming and blood bubbles
>the others run away
>hear another explosion, WTF
>lay down suppressive fire
>AAAAAHHHGGGGFFFFFTTTLLL MEDIC!!!!! MEDIC!!!!
>high crawl over to battle buddy, stuff his collar bone full of combat gauze
>drag him behind barrier
>start to return fire
>but then...
>"wait, wait. hold on you guys! I wonder what deep and edgy thinks of all this? I mean, we're pretty much just fighting these innocent, morally upstanding brown people who would never hurt a fly so that old rich white dudes can continue being fat and rich. it's pathetic, we should be in college learning about bloom's canon and making a difference in the world, you know? you're all hicks and I hate you anyway. hey you! yeah, you! terrorist! you're fucking dumb bro, I bet you've never even heard of infinite jest!"
>get shot in the face
>die

>>1954470

That explains it. We need how much D&E values his intellectual 'accomplishments'.

>>1954471
>AAAAAHHHGGGGFFFFFTTTLLL MEDIC!!!!! MEDIC!!!!

lol, i've played that game.

>>1954477
I don't play vidya much but you actually do yell for a medic when you get shot, well usually somebody else does

>>1954467

>Surely the rise of the bourgeois affected a greater distribution of wealth and prestige?
Of course, but that says nothing of whom received it or how it was distributed, or the effects, and that's what's we're talking about here.

>Surely a Marxist realism would involve much more patently economic realities
that would be late marx garbage with pseudo-scientific pretensions, no thanks.

>You were acting smarmy and elitist.
Where have I done this?

>those suppositions were made clear and I can't see anything wrong with that.
They're suppositions that I'm calling into question in the first place

>you dispute the efficacy of structuralist analysis on a cultural level.
Of course I do, structuralism analyses different cultures with its own tools and concepts which are ideologically dominated, and thus they tell us little about those cultures. Or rather, the object they describe ends up describing more about them than they do it, much like the efforts of marxism. Pure revenge of the object.

>Who's to say he isn't interested in Western ideology
It's an empirical claim, no shit, but I'd wager a rather large sum of money that if you go out to a primitive tribe in the african wilderness, you won't find anyone of such a disposition.

>it would be racist to suggest otherwise
How is it racist?

>I'm pretty sure the conversation had been implicitly focussed on Western mores, so poor strawman fallacy is poor
How is it a strawman?

Hey, D&E... If I'm writing post-cyberpunk should I just carry on with my day and ignore this thread?

>>1954471
>I wonder what deep and edgy thinks of all this?

thank heavens for our boys keeping uncle stan free of terrorists -_-7

>>1954486
probably

>>1954482
>Of course, but that says nothing of whom received it or how it was distributed, or the effects, and that's what's we're talking about here.
It's an egalitarian shift. What's at issue here? That the wrong people benefitted? Not necessarily, my friend, and certainly not across the board. I would suggest the effects have only been good: 19th Century Imperialism has been sublated into a less harmful economic imperialism, which itself will soon be subsumed by a more global consciousness. This has lessened the amount of wars that have been happening along with the amount of prejudice and suffering.


>that would be late marx garbage with pseudo-scientific pretensions, no thanks.
Marxism is primarily an economic theory, my friend. So, considering economic foci as 'pseudo scientific garbage' is not an attack on 'late Marx garbage' but on Marxism

>Where have I done this?
By suggesting that only the upper classes are socio-culturally aware

>They're suppositions that I'm calling into question in the first place
Well, give me an argument against them.

>Of course I do, structuralism analyses different cultures with its own tools and concepts which are ideologically dominated, and thus they tell us little about those cultures
I remember I had said that we were analysing Western Culture alone. Second strawman.

>>1954482
Part 2
>It's an empirical claim, no shit, but I'd wager a rather large sum of money that if you go out to a primitive tribe in the african wilderness, you won't find anyone of such a disposition.
>How is it racist?
Inductive logic is acceptable but in the end, moot. The problem is that you assume that they don't know this, and assume thus that they're unschooled, smallminded and unaware. This is a racial prejudice

>How is it a strawman?
You're arguing against a position that isn't mine, i.e. that I'm arguing from a universal ideological perspective. This was always going to be a thread about the Western Ideology, since this ideology is what spawned postmodern literature.

Evil Dead V: Deep and Edgy vs. Army of Retards.

>>1954509
You're the kid that found Nietzche tough reading. I'm not sure you have the level of knowledge to be providing commentary right now.

>>1954502
Okay. Later, bro. Have a good one.

>>1954503
>It's an egalitarian shift.
How is it egalitarian? It wasn't very egalitarian for the people who lost their power, and it wasn't very egalitarian for the people who continued to have no power.

>This has lessened the amount of wars that have been happening along with the amount of prejudice and suffering.
Two of the greatest delusions one could come up with on this subject. As though the number of wars is important or indicative of anything worthwhile. There are always wars, over whatever, and there will continue to be wars, over whatever. There will also always be "prejudice and suffering" in whatever form, and certainly to an appreciable extent. It's almost ludicrous to hear this idealist brainwashing propaganda from a guy who supposedly reads derrida, lacan and any continental writer at all in the last 100 years.

>Marxism is primarily an economic theory, my friend
Lol, get in line with Althusser & co. It's pretty surprising you don't see a division.

>By suggesting that only the upper classes are socio-culturally aware
How is it smarmy and elitist to do this? Besides the fact that that's not really, or only partly what I'm saying

>Well, give me an argument against them.
No, it's on you to demonstrate how your so-called centralities aren't simply presuppositions of a specific class, culture or ideology. Good luck.

>I remember I had said that we were analysing Western Culture alone
But you're the first person here who's said that we're specifically discussing western culture, and you didn't even specifically say this before now. I know I'm not, and I made the thread, and you're responding to me. Where's the strawman?

>>1954510
At least I did not Patronize Nietzsche as too simple and straightforward.

>>1954457
Someone didn't actually read what I said!

>Guys, chill. I just mentioned that Fitzgerald himself called it a failure to show that AS WELL AS the mainstream critical opinion deeming it so, even the bloody author himself thought so.

>>1954504
>Inductive logic is acceptable but in the end, moot
What is "in the end" supposed to mean?


>The problem is that you assume that they don't know this, and assume thus that they're unschooled, smallminded and unaware. This is a racial prejudice
No, I'm not assuming anything, I'm making an empirical claim about an epistemological question. And even if I was, that wouldn't necessarily make it unwarranted given that we have a rather significant (it feels foolish to even have to say this) amount of literature documenting that as an empirical matter most tribes DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO WESTERN 20th CENTURYSOCIAL THEORY, IN ANY FORM. How is that racial prejudice?

>that I'm arguing from a universal ideological perspective
But that's exactly what you've proposed your ideology as, "moral/cultural centres in postmodern society are classless concerns". A classless concern necessarily presupposes a universal perspective.

>This was always going to be a thread about the Western Ideology
Who said that? I certainly didn't

>since this ideology is what spawned postmodern literature
Soo...because one ideology produced one form of literature, we can't talk about any other ideologies? Why not, exactly?

Fact: Culture and economy are inseperable.
Postmodernism is the reaction to high modernism (id est Joyce), a hybridization of capitalist/consumerist society and the former elitist art, now catering to the larger audiences.
If your work has any mass appeal at all, it's postmodernism by definition. If you want to amuse yourselves, ask D&E to define postmodernism.

D&E, you didn't respond to what I said.

>>1954517
>Postmodernism is the reaction to high modernism
No, you're thinking of postmodern literature.

>If you want to amuse yourselves, ask D&E to define postmodernism.
Why would anyone want to derail the thread like that? This thread is about post-modern literature, not postmodernism.

>>1954519
break it down for me

>>1954521
>>1954468

It's right there, all of 2 paragraphs. What's the problem?

>>1954425
>Acid/mescaline/weed user.
>Top social stratum

fucking_nope.jpg

>>1954522
I have a lot of other people to respond to in the thread, and I'm busy. If you don't want to summarise what you've said for whatever reason that's fine, but I'm not going to respond to you otherwise in favour of responding to people who I'm already in a discussion with

>>1954526

where i come from, all the upper-middle class kids take insane amounts of psychedelic drugs


such is life in melbourne australia

>>1954425
THE OTHER GUYS I MET IN JAPAN WHO WERE THERE FOR BUDDHISM OR WHATEVER WERE ALL TOTAL FUCKING LOSERS.

YEAH.

>>1954528
In all fairness, being upper middle class in Australia means owning two kangaroos instead of one.

>>1954528
YOU MEAN, ALL THE WHITES, WHICH MAKE UP THE MINORITY?

MELBOURNE = CHINESE/VIETNAMESE, BLACKS, ARABS, WOGS.

>>1954529

really? =(
was it still worth it?

>>1954531
IN AUSTRALIA THE GOVERNMENT GIVES YOU MORE THAN ENOUGH MONEY TO FUEL MOST HABITS, EVEN WITH THE EXUBERANT PRICES COMPARED TO THE US

>>1954534
I DON'T KNOW MAN, I'M NOT ONE OF THEM.

DO WHATEVER YOU WANT. YOU GO TO JAPAN FOR SELF-ENLIGHTENMENT, I GO THERE TO ESCAPE THE SHIT HOLE THAT IS BRISBANE.

>>1954531

i went to a 21st last night on which the girl's whom it was spend 22 thousand dollars. would you consider that upper middle class?


>>1954533
no, not just all the whites. EVERY young adult in melbourne takes huge amounts of drugs. the divide between classes is that the upper ones take psychs/coke, whilst the lower ones take dirty shit like meth and amphetamines in general. everyone smokes weed though

>>1954536
i guess that's very reassuring unless you happen to want to play video games

so do they still shrink wrap bret easton ellis or what

>>1954536
That's fascinating, bro.

>>1954538

you jelly of my outer south east Melbourne residential living?

i think i'm in one of the top 10 or so areas to live in the world. apparently here in the south east is the best place in the entire world to be during a nuclear crisis, too. something to do with the winds

>>1954540
I BELIEVE THAT THE R 18+ CLASSIFICATION IS IMMINENT.

ALMOST ALL THE BOOK RETAILERS HERE HAVE SHUT DOWN THE PAST COUPLE YEARS.

>>1954512
>How is it egalitarian? It wasn't very egalitarian for the people who lost their power, and it wasn't very egalitarian for the people who continued to have no power.
The working classes got a little richer through minimum wage legislation and trade unionism (products of bourgeois liberalism) and the upper classes lost out a little with the collapse of agrarian land revenue and the aristocratic class. Thus affected is a narrowing in the differentials of means and thus, an increasing equality, i.e. an egalitarian shift. lrn2economics dood

>There are always wars, over whatever, and there will continue to be wars, over whatever. There will also always be "prejudice and suffering" in whatever form, and certainly to an appreciable extent.
Your vague understanding of this area is underlined by your repetition of 'whatever.' The economic motivation for both 'war' and 'prejudice,' for Marx the principle motivation, is lessened with increasingly economic egalitarianism; likewise, the power needed to assert a psychological etiology for 'war' and 'prejudice' has been more equally distributed and thus less cohesive and problematic. Thus, egalitarianism has mitigated these factors although it hasn't ended (that you're arguing against this is a strawman, since I never suggested that as such).


>Lol, get in line with Althusser & co. It's pretty surprising you don't see a division.
Yes there is a division between cultural and political marxism. However, a Marxist brand of realism should surely follow Marxist theoretics rather than cultural Marxist theoretics? Another strawman.

>How is it smarmy and elitist to do this?
Because it's suggesting that lower classes are too intellecutally blinkered to think like this.

>>1954542
NOT PARTICULARLY MAN. I WAS RAISED IN THE GOLD COAST, WATERFRONT PROPERTY, BEFORE IT WAS FILLED WITH FUCKHEADS.

EVEN SYDNEY AND MELBOURNE FEEL LIKE SHIT HOLES AFTER GOING TO MEGA CITIES LIKE OSAKA AND TOKYO.

Part 2
>>1954545
>No, it's on you to demonstrate how your so-called centralities aren't simply presuppositions of a specific class, culture or ideology.
What has the car factory operator got to work for? A series of empty desires, couched in his consumerist ideology. What has the car factory owner got to work for? A series of empty desires, couched in his consumerist ideology. I.e. the only moral imperative and grounding is 'to buy things and thus have fun.' Even sex is mediated by commodity, cf the nightclub, the bar, alcohol, etc etc. This is a pretty groundless, uncentral ideology that predicates Western life. Argue against it.

>But you're the first person here who's said that we're specifically discussing western culture
Correction I'm the first to make it explicit. We're discussing the motivations for writing post-modern literature, an entirely Western phenomena. Find me a Ghanian post-modern novel for this line to continue in any interesting direction.

>>1954513
Not suggesting that, kiddo, but you've got a ways to go before your theory's good enough to be engaging in this argument

>>1954539
That's new money. Upper-middle class wealth, lower class sensibilities.

>>1954520
>No, you're thinking of postmodern literature.
No, I am thinking about all the art forms that can fall under the blanket term postmodernism: literature, music, architechture, film, tv, etc.

Saying something is postmodern is completely neutral, as we happen to live in a late-postmodern society - this remark just so you don't get into your head that I'm arguing against you, because, hey:
>2011
>getting trolled by d&e
fo shame

>>1954548

i'm a derp, care to elaborate?


>>1954546

good to know, getting more and more amped for my trip over there. when i went to europe this year i fucking hated london and paris, grimy shitholes really... though at the latter i was in a dirty part of town, barbes le rocheraut or something. loved berlin however.

Class and money are two very different things.

>>1954550
You hated London and Paris and loved Berlin?

Berlin is a shithole full of empty spaces and horrible new buildings because the nice bits were destroyed in the war.

London is, if you avoid the obligatory horrible bits, a glorious gem in the British crown. It's a fine city indeed.

Paris is very pretty, again if you stay in the middle.

lrn2taste

>>1954550
THEY ARE BY NO WAYS EXACTLY THE CLEANEST CITIES, ESPECIALLY OSAKA. I MAY GET OFF OF MY ASS OTHER THAN DRINKING AND FUCKING AND SEE IF MY FRIENDS WANT ME TO HELP OUT AT TOHOKU SINCE A GUY I KNOW WAS THE FIRST VOLUNTEER GROUP THERE AND SINCE HAS BEEN THE ONLY VOLUNTEER GROUP ALLOWED CLOSE TO FUKISHIMA

>>1954555
FUKUSHIMA

ANYWAYS, I'M OFF. GOOD TROLLING ONCE AGAIN D&E.

>>1954516
>What is "in the end" supposed to mean?
That what you've written is vaguely irrelevant.

>I'm making an empirical claim about an epistemological question
So you've gone out to Africa to make a survey on the amount Westernism has disseminated out there? Otherwise, this can hardly be considered an empirical judgement, i.e. one that is derived from experience. It's no better than an assumption in fact.

>A classless concern necessarily presupposes a universal perspective.
A classless concern necessarily presupposes a universal perspective within a culture. Look at Maoism dood, class struggles differ widely between cultures.


>Who said that? I certainly didn't
I think I used the word 'implicit'

>Soo...because one ideology produced one form of literature, we can't talk about any other ideologies? Why not, exactly?
Because it would be vaguely irrelevant unless as some sort of comparison. You used it as a point in your argument.

>>1954545
>an egalitarian shift
You've already said it was an egalitarian shift (although you fail to recognise that such a shift is always necessarily egalitarian from a specific perspective). But I'm asking how it was egalitarian for those who lost their power, or those who still didn't have any. All of these things are good if you're not the class from which power was taken, then they're not. So you're just representing the interests of a certain class.

>Your vague understanding of this area is underlined by your repetition of 'whatever.'
No, I'm just not interested in wasting much time on this laughable nonsense, you'll have to forgive me.

>The economic motivation for both 'war' and 'prejudice,' for Marx the principle motivation, is lessened with increasingly economic egalitarianism
Is 'for marx' supposed to be your argument or something?

>the power needed to assert a psychological etiology for 'war' and 'prejudice' has been more equally distributed and thus less cohesive and problematic
There you go with your strange use of equality again. How is the fact that it's been more distributed among the bourgeois and proletariat supposed to represent equality? This is all besides the question of how that would even lead to more stabilisation rather than influence simply what wars are fought over, and as I've already pointed out, it doesn't say anything about the effects or level of such wars, regardless of the number of them.

>Another strawman.
What strawman? Are you just throwing these onto the ends of your sentences now or what?

>Because it's suggesting that lower classes are too intellecutally blinkered to think like this.
Now that's a strawman if I ever saw one. Where did I suggest that?

>>1954554

i can see how paris is aesthetically nice, with all the fantastic building and monuments etc. i actually really liked the pere lachaise. i think it's the majority of people there that caused me to raise my nose at it. as for london, try going on the first train from anywhere after a night out... so many fucking homeless people. all the stations smell like piss too, and the overcrowding is horrendous.

i was in the north-west of berlin, don't remember which town but it was very beautiful. i found the people much more amiable there than the other aforementioned two as well.

can we agree that amsterdam is a dirty, dirty city?


>>1954555

have you been to europe? any idea of the population sparsity there as opposed to, say, tokyo?


can't wait to go to korea for the GSL motherfuckers

>>1954567
You were probably in Potsdam or somewhere like that. Actual Berlin is really not very pleasant and a little disconcerting.

>>1954570

>>1954550
New money spends money to show that they have money, because they operate in the anxiously materialist lower class mindset. The only way to alleviate this inferiority complex is through showy expenditures.

The very fact that you know how much money the girl spent is evidence of this. While it isn't inconceivable that an upper-middle class family would spend that much, it is both highly unlikely that they would AND impossible that they would let anyone know how much it cost.

An easy schema to remember is the temporal concerns of each class.

Lower: The present - a concern with the immediate pressures of life, which, when money is acquired, becomes an ego-driven quest of tacky self-fulfillment (a $22,000 21st birthday celebration)
Middle: The future - Since most middle class people aspire to the upper class, they see the ticket there as saving and investing, both purely monetarily AND in their children's future. This competes with the other future concern: retirement, as both issues compete for limited resources.
Upper: The past - Old money and aristocratic families are concerned with the maintenance of traditions, as these are what elevated them to their height, and so those old values are seen as what will maintain their social position.

Although this is pretty heavily U.S. based, so it could be useless to Australian culture.

>>1954560
>That what you've written is vaguely irrelevant.
So "Inductive logic is acceptable but in the end, moot." is supposed to mean "Inbductive logic is acceptable but what you've written is vaguely irrelevant". How so? I made an empirical, inductive claim about primitive tribes, of course inductive logic is relevant.

>So you've gone out to Africa to make a survey on the amount Westernism has disseminated out there? Otherwise, this can hardly be considered an empirical judgement
I didn't say anything about judgements. I said I was making an empirical claim, a claim that would have to be verified by observation, and it would have to be. And as I said, I was thus not making any assumptions.

>A classless concern necessarily presupposes a universal perspective within a culture.
But that's what I've already said, so you putting forth a classless concern comes down to a matter of culture, rather than any universality, as I've already said.

>I think I used the word 'implicit'
You said you were pretty sure the thread implicitly focused on western ideology, which was your own mistaken assumption.

>You used it as a point in your argument.
Yes, to highlight a comparison I was making. What's the problem? How is it irrelevant? Even vaguely so?

>>1954576

thankyou for that, easy to digest.

New money spends money to show that they have money, because they operate in the anxiously materialist lower class mindset. The only way to alleviate this inferiority complex is through showy expenditures

so true.

>>1954562
>although you fail to recognise that such a shift is always necessarily egalitarian from a specific perspective
Egalitarian shifts affect a rise of the poor and a fall of the rich, that's why they're called egalitarian.

>No, I'm just not interested in wasting much time on this laughable nonsense, you'll have to forgive me.
Well, then try to say anything about it. You won't know enough.


>Is 'for marx' supposed to be your argument or something?
It's demonstrating the even keel in my argument and my critical awareness of the theories I'm using (as well as theoretical grasp).

>There you go with your strange use of equality again.
What's weird about the idea that 'equality' would mean the equal distribution of wealth? Its cognate is equal surely.

>How is the fact that it's been more distributed among the bourgeois and proletariat supposed to represent equality?
I dunno, because now the proletariat and bourgeoisee are more economically equal to the upper classes.

>This is all besides the question of how that would even lead to more stabilisation rather than influence simply what wars are fought over, and as I've already pointed out, it doesn't say anything about the effects or level of such wars, regardless of the number of them.
There's both less economic motivation and power for wars to be fought. It's not to hard to see this would effect a mitigation of global conflict

>What strawman?
That you interpreted my argument as an end to wars, rather than a mitigation, completely changing my position. If you were better at interpretation, you would be coming up with less of this poor argument.

>Now that's a strawman if I ever saw one. Where did I suggest that?
Your position is that socio-cultural consciousness is inaccesible to the lower classes, 'intellectually blinkered' was just a rhetorical flourish that otherwise stayed true to that position and its smarmy elitism

>>1954582
>>1954576

one question

isn't new money a person who has acquired their wealth in their own generation? does that extend to their parents?

>>1954591
Yes, definitely.

>>1954592

how far would you say it extends?

>>1954593
Generally, if you have to ask it about someone, it's probably true. In the UK, at least, it's basically impossible to enter the upper-classes if you're not born into it. These classes tend to be descendants of medieval aristocracy and relatively recent (I'm talking 1500-1800) mercantiles. Otherwise you're always going to be new money; there are, however, 'degrees of newness'.

>>1954586
>Egalitarian shifts affect a rise of the poor and a fall of the rich,
Yes, and as I've said, that's from a specific perspective.

>Well, then try to say anything about it. You won't know enough.
I've dealt with every point you've made so far so whatever knowledge I do have is sufficient.

>What's weird about the idea that 'equality' would mean the equal distribution of wealth?
Because it presupposes a large number of ideas about equality

>now the proletariat and bourgeoisee are more economically equal to the upper classes.
But you've jumped from the fact that wealth has been distributed more to those classes, to an assumption that they are thus more equal. How is that so?

>There's both less economic motivation and power for wars to be fought
What's an economic motivation supposed to be? And I don't know about anyone else, but I think it'd be pretty safe to say the power, not the capacity, for war to be fought has been higher than ever after the development of weapons of mass destruction such as the a-bomb.
>It's not to hard to see this would effect a mitigation of global conflict
It is if you don't want to take into account the profusion of conflicts that occur in Eastern Europe and especially Africa. But I guess that's not hard when you take some sort of generalising, airy "global" perspective. It's, I would suspect, a perspective that operates on the simpleminded notion that all wars have to be physical conflicts, in contrast to the very real cold war that occurred between America and Russia.

>That you interpreted my argument as an end to wars
Where did I do that?

>Your position is that socio-cultural consciousness is inaccesible to the lower classes?
You haven't answered me, you've just re-iterated what you think is my position. I'll ask again, where did I suggest that?

>>1954579
>How so? I made an empirical, inductive claim about primitive tribes, of course inductive logic is relevant.
Empiricism is based on personal experience, you should know this. Did you see enough tribes to be making these inductive claims? The reason why an inductive claim here is irrelevant is because it speaks for the majority and here, I'm suggesting that there could well be 40 or 50 tribesman out there with the knowledge we're discussing.

>I said I was making an empirical claim, a claim that would have to be verified by observation, and it would have to be. And as I said, I was thus not making any assumptions.
Replace my 'judgement' with your 'claim' and the argument amounts to the same thing.

>But that's what I've already said, so you putting forth a classless concern comes down to a matter of culture, rather than any universality, as I've already said.
What you said before was that classlessness presupposes universality (>>1954516). This contradicts what you said here. this is now well and truly an argumentative dead end for you.

>You said you were pretty sure the thread implicitly focused on western ideology, which was your own mistaken assumption.
I've argued better than you that postmodernism is a cultural reaction more than anything else. Cite some great critics that said otherwise.

>Yes, to highlight a comparison I was making.
No, you used it as an example of someone who couldn't understand western ideology while we were arguing about lower class westerners and whether socio-cultural thought is accesible to them.

>>1954593
While people shit all over new money, it isn't BAD, it is just different (which given upper class conservatism, is bad in their view). The middle class doesn't like new money because New Money achieve the Middle Class dream, but then it looks as if they so quickly lose the values that (perhaps) achieved that wealth.

The "new money" stigma disappears when the new money people wholly adopt the social/cultural values of the upper class who they rub shoulders with.

>>1954596


interesting... what literature would you recommend to a someone who knows nothing of social hierarchy and classes in the economical sense? or in general?

>>1954602

>The "new money" stigma disappears when the new money people wholly adopt the social/cultural values of the upper class who they rub shoulders with.

do they always adopt the values? or is this how new values are formed and prioritized?

>>1954604
I don't really know what to recommend since I haven't done any reading on it myself! This is just stuff I know from being a person living in a pretty class-heavy society. It's a passing interest of mine since I occupy a fairly odd position class-wise, coming from a family of nearly perfectly average income but with quite a lot of 'cultural capital'; both my parents are classical musicians, and one of them an academic. So while in terms of income I'm lower-middle class, in terms of cultural capital I'm upper-middle or even upper class; the closest thing that comes to describing me is probably 'bohemian' but that's really pretentious.

>>1954605
In my (limited) social stratification studies, I've never really thought about this idea, so I can't give you an academic answer. It makes a lot of sense, though, so you're probably right.

>So while in terms of income I'm lower-middle class, in terms of cultural capital I'm upper-middle or even upper class

my father is a doctor and his father was a professional sportsman/ pilot in the war, whilst my mother was a nurse and my stepmum is a nurse/grief councellor. my father earns over 300k a year. would you call this middle class?

though
>New money spends money to show that they have money, because they operate in the anxiously materialist lower class mindset

applies to all the families i associate myself with.


do you think someone like marx would be a good place to start?

>>1954617

response to

>>1954611

>>1954604

Here's a quick list of accessible, academic reads:
-Annette Lareau's work on class. Her work is builds on the work of influential stratification scholar, Pierre Bourdieu.
-One of the classics in the field, Ain't No Makin' It (MacLeod).
-Very readable books on the working poor: Nickel and Dimed (Ehrenreich) and No Shame in My Game (Newman).
-Interesting book on the unique position of the black middle class: Black Picket Fences and Black on the Block (Pattillo)
-One interesting comparative read on the upper class: Money, Morals and Manners (Lamont).
-Another foundational work on upper classes, although with applicability to the fashions of other classes as well: Theory of the Leisure Class (Veblen).
-Probably the most engaging, most caustic, and least rigorously academic is Paul Fussell's Class. God damn this book is tremendous, I can't recommend it enough.
-Lighter still and less incisive, but undeniably fun, is The Official Preppy Handbook.

>>1954612

i guess that if old values were to develop then that's how it would happen. but upper class values of tradition and heritage have remained fairly stagnant throughout history, have they not?
i'm totally speaking out my ass.

>>1954598
>Yes, and as I've said, that's from a specific perspective.
If it's across the board, which is what I'm arguing (cite some economic theories to suggest otherwise), perspective remains irrelevant. Egalitarianism is not the utmost benefit to every member of society but an equality existing between them.

>Because it presupposes a large number of ideas about equality
Define your version of equality.

>But you've jumped from the fact that wealth has been distributed more to those classes, to an assumption that they are thus more equal. How is that so?
Do the math, kiddo. If the upper classes lose some money that goes to the other classes, surely a little more equality has been achieved.

>What's an economic motivation supposed to be?
Oil in Iraq, the colonial underpinnings of the first world war, etc etc

>And I don't know about anyone else, but I think it'd be pretty safe to say the power, not the capacity, for war to be fought has been higher than ever after the development of weapons of mass destruction such as the a-bomb.
The level of power has increased but also its distribution. A great deal of countries have nuclear weaponry and seeing as one nuclear is a game changer, I'm struggling to see the logic of this argument

>It's, I would suspect, a perspective that operates on the simpleminded notion that all wars have to be physical conflicts, in contrast to the very real cold war that occurred between America and Russia.
No, these wars work perfectly fine by my perspective on causation. A trade rivalry coupled with a psychological difference in ideology.

>>1954599
>Did you see enough tribes to be making these inductive claims?
As I already said, I said I was making an empirical claim, a claim that would have to be verified by observation, and it would have to be. I would have to go to the tribes and do that to verify the claim, and you'd also have to do the same to discredit it. I'm willing to bet I'd come up tops on this issue.

>The reason why an inductive claim here is irrelevant is because it speaks for the majority and here, I'm suggesting that there could well be 40 or 50 tribesman out there with the knowledge we're discussing.
And that would be an equally empirical claim. You have yet to show how what I've said, the empirical claim that the majority of people in tribes, do not know western social theory of any kind, would be a racist.

>What you said before was that classlessness presupposes universality
Yes, as I've said.
>putting forth a classless concern comes down to a matter of culture, rather than any universality
And as I've said, any classless concerns, the "moral/cultural centres" which we are concerned with in our specific class-based culture, would not in fact be classless concerns for this very reason of being a matter of culture. I don't see any contradiction.

>I've argued better than you that postmodernism is a cultural reaction more than anything else
But no-one's even disputed that in this thread. That doesn't have a lot to say about culture.

>we were arguing about lower class westerners and whether socio-cultural thought is accesible to them.
Where were we doing that? And even if we were, why would that in any way prevent me from drawing on perspectives outside such thought? What, because you don't like it?

>>1954620

thanks so much! i'll make a note to get a hold of some of these :)

Part 2

>It is if you don't want to take into account the profusion of conflicts that occur in Eastern Europe and especially Africa.
These African countries unfortunately don't have governments and thus the means to any economic or political stability (that would effect egalitarianism). The Eastern European conflicts have been few and far between and mostly predicated on Russian economic imperialism, something I suggested would continue to cause international divides. Remember this is an argument about the West.

>Where did I do that?
Here: >>1954512. 'There are always wars, over whatever, and there will continue to be wars, over whatever.' This supposes that I suggested that war would end.

>>1954624
This is pretty silly stuff right here.

A lot of it is quick position changing, desperate semantic games and the 'prove it, prove it, prove it' psychology. Not once in this thread have you proposed any theories to counter mine, you've just tried in vain to discredit them. The game's vaguely on that account.

Now the onus is on you to come up with some theories to discredit the bourgeois uprising, to locate the causes of war, to characterize the moral aporia of today's society.

If you can't come up with something that isn't laughably bad (all the stuff you've come up so far has been), then I will leave with a smirk.

>>1954617
You're income is upper-middle. In this respect, you exist in the optimum band of making everyone below you super jelly. If you want an EVEN BIGGER ego boost, your class is unique in that you should be called lower-upper class (as you have more in common with uppers than middles) ,but that title would demean you, so you get the generous and modest title of upper middle.

Given your family history, though, you've got a serious dose of social climber going on. Doctors are often prime examples of this, since that is one field where working your ass off can yield delicious financial rewards.

>>1954629
*game's vaguely up

>>1954623
>If it's across the board, which is what I'm arguing
It can't be across the board because, obviously, the shift of power from upper to middle and lower necessarily involved a loss of power from the upper. It's not rocket science.

>Egalitarianism is not the utmost benefit to every member of society but an equality existing between them.
I'm aware of what Egalitarianism is, but I'm asking how it was equal for those who lost their power, or those who still didn't have any. All of these things are equalising if you're not the class from which power was taken, then they're not. So you're just representing the interests of a certain class. Your egalitarian equality presupposes an equalising power that binds all classes where no such equality exists from the different perspectives and claims to power by asserting itself from a position alienated from these perspectives.

>If the upper classes lose some money that goes to the other classes, surely a little more equality has been achieved.
How is that equal unless you presuppose some position of equality to be worked towards begin with? And if you do, I'd like you to substantiate such a presupposition.

>Oil in Iraq, the colonial underpinnings of the first world war, etc etc
But those aren't economic motivations, those are the means in which the motivations for accumulating power are fulfilled.

>The level of power has increased but also its distribution
>I'm struggling to see the logic of this argument
The logic is that the power for war, contrary to what you have said, has escalated in the 20th century, as demonstrated by the development of atomic weapons etc.

And just for the record, on this whole class question, you're middle class unless you're father or mother works manual labour.

The upper class is not something that particularly exists anymore, and the nouveau riche is burdgeoning class (at least, in Britain)

Another resource for those interested in social class, if you can stand really bad website design.

http://www.trinity.edu/mKearl/strat.html

upper-lower class ausfag here, thanks for the discussion, i feel enlightened. bed for me night dears xoxo

>>1954633
Likewise, for the record, even though you've lost all your money as an aristocratic landowner, you've become more equal to your fellow countrymen, and thus this change remains egalitarian for his perspective. Equality doesn't favour one over the other, that's the point of it.

As I said earlier, define equality

>>1954634
Go back to your masturbatory debate with D&E. People who actually know things are talking here.

>>1954642
Tell me how I'm wrong. And the D+E conversation is getting a little boring, he's recycling the same old crap and proving himself a little lacking in the process

>>1954626
>These African countries unfortunately don't have governments and thus the means to any economic or political stability
That doesn't somehow invalidate the fact that these areas have seen a large number of wars and conflicts, which was my point

>Remember this is an argument about the West.
No, you keep saying that it is but I've already told you several times that I'm not interested in restricting anything I'm saying to a specifically western persective. If you want to restrict your argument to it, fine, but don't cry about it when I use examples outside of it to demonstrate my points, which aren't constrained by any such concerns.

>'There are always wars, over whatever, and there will continue to be wars, over whatever.' This supposes that I suggested that war would end.
How does it do that? Where does that suggest I think you are arguing that wars would end?

>Not once in this thread have you proposed any theories to counter mine, you've just tried in vain to discredit them
Everything you've said is so poor I don't need theories to argue against them, sorry.

>the onus is on you to come up with some theories to discredit the bourgeois uprising, to locate the causes of war, to characterize the moral aporia of today's society.
No, the only onus on me is to respond to your points,

>not knowing that Scott was his century's Dan Brown
>name-dropping Balzac and Mann to appear erudite
>not understanding that Mann was always a second tier high modernist
>Not understanding that the great post-modern writers (Pynchon, Gaddis), and those succesful late, late 20th century writers with postmodern concerns (DeLillo, Wallace (bite me)) are reacting to general societal concerns over a lack of moral/cultural centre and the interchangeability of moral concerns, not just their own misgivings about this


which is what I've been doing.

>>1954641
>even though you've lost all your money as an aristocratic landowner, you've become more equal to your fellow countrymen
Only in some monetary sense. But that doesn't tell you anything about actual equality, because that landowner have been crippled, or socially ostracized or whatever doing this process of loss and he would still amount to being equal by this logic.

>As I said earlier, define equality
I'm perfectly happy to work within your definition. You may want to restate it if you feel I've misunderstood it.

>>1954645
You aren't wrong, just reductive. The idea of three absolute classes (lower, middle, upper) is too simplistic. There are identifiable gradations, both in terms of wealth and attitude, that complicate the structure.

Upper breaks down into Aristocracy, Old money, Nouveau Riche, and then Upper middle.

Middle splits into Middle-middle (counter-intuitive, yeah) and then lower middle.

Lower/working, whatever you want to call it, breaks down into the "true" lower and then the underclass.

>That doesn't somehow invalidate the fact that these areas have seen a large number of wars and conflicts, which was my point
How so? I'm not sure this has been mentioned

>No, you keep saying that it is but I've already told you several times that I'm not interested in restricting anything I'm saying to a specifically western persective. If you want to restrict your argument to it, fine, but don't cry about it when I use examples outside of it to demonstrate my points, which aren't constrained by any such concerns.
How so? I'm not sure this was ever part of the argument

>How does it do that? Where does that suggest I think you are arguing that wars would end?
Read yourself some Adorno.

>Everything you've said is so poor I don't need theories to argue against them, sorry.
Was this ever part of the argument?


>No, the only onus on me is to respond to your points,
Lawl, so it looks you never had much constructive to say.

>Deep&Edgy's definition of equality:
Everyone feels deep down that they're not being treated unfairly. lol

>>1954657
too troo, brother, too troo

Ermm.. excuse me, I'm new here, but who exactly is this Deep&Edgy that he (she??) gives advises so freely?

>>1954661
Seconding this.

>>1954654
>How so? I'm not sure this has been mentioned
>How so?

>It's not to hard to see this would effect a mitigation of global conflict
You talked about a mitigation in global conflict, and I pointed out how conflict has not been mitigated in areas such as Eastern Europe or more importantly, Africa.
You then responded:
>These African countries unfortunately don't have governments and thus the means to any economic or political stability
That doesn't somehow invalidate the fact that these areas have seen a large number of wars and conflicts
And my point was that these areas have not seen a mitigated number of conflicts and wars

>How so? I'm not sure this was ever part of the argument
It wasn't, but you've insisted on restricting everything we've been discussing in a western sphere, for whatever reason, and I've already told you multiple times that that doesn't interest me. You're free to do so for yourself, but that's not going to stop me.

>Read yourself some Adorno.
What does Adorno say, then?

>Was this ever part of the argument?
No, it's a response to something you've said. I guess it depends on whether what you said that I responded to was part of the argument.

>Lawl, so it looks you never had much constructive to say.
I'm not interested in whether it's constructive or not, and I strongly doubt it would need to be to respond to anything you've said here.

i almost opened this thread until i saw that it had been tripfagged into shit already. just let it die now

>>1954666
It really does not matter what the content of the argument is -- at the end of the day, D&E seems to be better trained in rhetoric, and is easily able to dispose of 90% of the riffraff around here, albeit the riffraff may be intellectually well informed.

Guys, just give it up, unless of course, you are having fun. Then by all means, argue on.

>>1954666
Doesn't get troll?

>>1954722
Cop-out, like a poetry slam.

>>1954693

his insights on the conflicts in africa and the middle east are truly illuminating and I'd love to continue reading if it weren't for the fact that I clawed my eyes out.

>There are always wars, over whatever, and there will continue to be wars, over whatever.

such poignancy. why is he obsessing over semantics when he could have a career in politics

>>1954693
He doesn't know what he's talking about half the time, dude. His only talent is to strawman every position to shit and to stubbornly stick by certain silly dogma (i.e. his idea of equality as everyone feeling fairly treated, rather than economically and politically equal, his belief that African tribesman don't engage in western culture as an empirical claim) without looking bad for doing so.

Metaphors are fun. Surrealism is fun. Abstract ideas are fun. Atmosphere is fun.

They give artistic value to their hidden meanings. You niggas need to enjoy yourselves more.

Caracalla, i don't think it's very fair of you to call D&E racist for pre-supposing the fact that Zulu tribesmen are uneducated, small-minded etc.

i think it's a generally accepted, reasonable social fact that they are indeed largely illiterate and unaware of the existence of Western philosophy. and that if they're small minded, let's not think it pejoratively, but in the sense that they have no choice.

>>1954844
You can talk about the issues surrounding education etc. in tribal Africa, but I think it's a little reprehensible to first of all call a tribesman, a 'spearchucker' and then to go on to make a generalization (without the commensurate social observation you've made)

>>1954851

google "Saul Bellow" "Tolstoy of the Zulus".

You can make those kind of moronic assertions and win a Nobel Prize, apparently.

>130 posts and 9 image replies omitted.
i'm-not-even-mad-i'm-impressed.bmp

>>1954860
>>1954860
I think he got the nobel partly for Humboldt the Rain King, which is on a slightly different socio-political stance to that comment, i.e. not being a little bit racist, although people say that it was just a journalist that caused it all

>>1954851
>but I think it's a little reprehensible to first of all call a tribesman, a 'spearchucker'

i generally agree with you
...but let's be real here

evolution demands it

to be fair, people like satan are the spearchuckers of western society

>>1954874
>implying evolution is cultural or technological, NOT biological
>your face when you realize humans and mammals in general are shit tier for evolution
>humanity's face when a tardigrade can reversibly suspend its metabolism, live for weeks in the vacuum of outer space and still come back to lay eggs, endure extremes of cold, hot and dry environments

look, i'm all for evolution, but let's put things in perspective

>this thread

ttly had an awesome nap b4 tho

>>1954425
>Poor grammar on /lit/
>"20-year-old with maturity of 28-year-old"
>Whatever the fuck that means
>Goes on a trip all by himself, d'awwwwww
>Thinks becoming a shut-in with no social interaction whatsoever will make him a better writer

HURRRRRR DURRRRR MULTITAKSING NOT POSSIBLE SCHMURRRRRR I'M SO ADVANCED BEYOND MUH PEERS BURRRRRR HAWWWWWWWW

>>1955092
>mfw I have a hairy scrotum
>mfw I can pluck scrote hairs to use as letters
>mfw I have enough scrote hairs to write a Bible with tape and paper

Yay, evolution.

are people really disagreeing with this?

>that feel when a mod deleted my post
>mfw a mod was being a faggot near me
>mfw this thread

ttly had an awesome nap b4 tho

> mfw nobody will ever write about the modern party culture

When you are done that organize a commune dedicated to insurrectionist anarchism.

>>1955170
>>1955170
For this, one free internet as a reward for awesomeness

>>1955177
>>1955177
never read rules of attraction or Easton ellis in general?

>>1955192
>>1955192

While the 80's is modern, I'm talking about now a days.

Though I am interested to look at Rules of Attraction now.

>>1954338
Woah, a good post from deep&Edgy! :O

>>1955192
That's not really current.

>>1955177
I hang out in raves and clubs just to drink and roll, I like to watch the people. When I write, some scenes just naturally take place in such parties and I like to think I have a decent grasp on modern party culture.

So someone will write about it. If a good writer will do so is an entirely different matter.

>modern party culture
getting drunk and having fun. gee, so much to write about.

>>1955212
>I hang out in raves

>>1955237
It's either that or buying my stuff from arabs uptown.

>>1955212
check out the wannabe hunter s thompson

>>1955262
i'm not political at all.

tl;dr know about people if you want to write for people.