/lit/ - Literature

I just read the first two pages and man is that some purple prose. He seems pretty bad at making up names and words too, which is a major fault in a fantasy writer. Does it get better?

Hahahaha, are you fucking serious?

You're praising characterization in the book where the tall, pretty guy has the superpower to manipulate anyone to do anything?

It's the characterisation that comes from the reactions of the flawed, weak, vice-ridden people affected by Kellhus that shows the series' depth.

Anascûrabbletilemur Kellmarysûh.

I think I got to page seventy–five or so and just couldn't take it anymore.

I was about to be interested and then you insulted Gandalf. Fuck you, asshole. You're a son of a bitch.

Gandalf the Gay

>>2133746
I'm with you all the way OP. Bakker is a fucking genius, even if people who can't handle made-up words don't think he is. I haven't heard anything new about The Unholy Consult, but he's also working on a series on short stories called The Atrocity Tales.

>>2133938
I can handle made up words, I just don't think he's very good at making up words. Fucking dieresises everywhere, jesus christ.

>>2133950
I dunno, those don't really bother me. If I don't have to read a made-up fantasy word out loud, I don't care how it's pronounced.

bumping for a bro tier novel

>I always saw fantasy as kind of lame and trite

well weren't you an edgy little hipster

try reading before you make judgement calls next time

story involving magic does not equal pointy hats and weak plot-twists under the guise of magic, just how stupid are people here?

fantasy is such an amazing genre, an author can work with elements of religion, create new rules for how the world works, for how society works, he has a fresh start on how anything works, then he makes it feel believable and real, that is, if he's not as shit as people who post their latest novellas here are most of the time

my fantasy recommendations: Wheel of Time, Old Kingdom Trilogy, The Black Company Chronicles, The Name of the Wind, Mistborn, Way of Kings

>>2133817

Anasûrimbor Kellhus is simple as fuck.

I hate it when people whine about names just because they aren't clearly derived from english. Just deal with it, cunt.

Having names like this attributes to the atmosphere of the series. The world of The Second Apocalypse feels much more "ancient" than, say, the world of ASoIaF. Mostly due to the names, I feel.

>>2135301

>Wheel of Time

>>2135310
you clearly haven't read the series since Sanderson's taken over to finish it

>>2135312

Of course not. Why would I when after 3 books it was obvious the series is pure shit.

>>2135314

In all seriousness, I can't read more than about 4 paragraphs of fantasy.

It's the same reason I can't watch movies that depend on CGI.

Everyone knows it's fake. I know it's fake. I know it's fake the entire time.

I simply cannot suspend disbelief long enough to enjoy any fantasy.

>>2135318
read the Way of Kings

it's not like fucking star wars where you're presented a world and you have to take it or leave it, it's introduced in a manner in which you think you're reading a story about characters which happen to be in a world a bit different from our own

They write about characters, not about the world.

>>2135318

So you can't read fiction?

>>2135322
Fiction has its basis in reality. I can believe it. I can suspend disbelief.

It's when people are elves or purple or clad in armour 24/7 that I can't believe a word of it.

>>2135324
>clad in armor 24/7

are you 12 years old? what have you read that has people doing that, fairy tales?

just read any one of the series mentioned in >>2135301 then come back and tell us how stupid you were today


seriously, faggots here keep bashing this genre

Try reading real authors instead of what drivle you see spewed here by wanna-be's.

>>2135326
>waaa waaa the genre i like is fucking stupid and people keep telling me that

>>2135326

Except Wheel of Time. Don't read that.

>>2135324
I genuinely feel sorry for you. I'm not being sarcastic or trying to make a rhetorical point; I really think it must suck to not be incapable to enjoy anything with fantastical, surreal or science fiction elements.

>>2135308

Yes, the names are so super meaningful and the âccents really add a lot to the reader's understanding. I mean, Tolkien used accents so maybe we should too, amirite? I mean, yeah, he invented a whole linguistic context in which they made sense, but that's a lot of work.

It's not that it it's hard to remember or pronounce, it's just retarded. Anascûrabbletilemur Kellmarysûh, I stand by it.

>>2135455

And I stand by

>Having names like this attributes to the atmosphere of the series. The world of The Second Apocalypse feels much more "ancient" than, say, the world of ASoIaF. Mostly due to the names, I feel.

>>2135435
I like sci fi. Bradbury is one of my most favorite writers. I like Kafka, too, so "magical realism"

Your pity is unwarranted. I'm specifically talking about garbage like GRRMartin.

>>2135462

But there is no elves or purple men or people clad in armor 24/7 in ASoIaF.

>>2135460

It mostly feels more ancient because Bakker is drawing on older history for his works than the late–medievalism of ASoIaF. And besides, I don't really think Martin is hot shit either, but at least most of his names just don't seem like a pretentious joke.

Unless you are going to base it in a real language, or do the work to really make your own, keep it simple on the names. It's about readers being able to remember and relate with them, not about faux–atmosphere. (And if you want to do the latter with ponderous names, I have another genre for you: Supernatural horror.)

>>2135466

>no elves
>Children of the Forest

>>2135469

They aren't, really. We don't even know their motives yet.

>>2135467

>Unless you are going to base it in a real language, or do the work to really make your own, keep it simple on the names.

Why? That's just a completely arbitrary rule you pulled out of your ass.

>It's about readers being able to remember and relate with them

But you just said it's not hard to remember or to pronounce (and it's true, it isn't).

>>2135469

They aren't faggots though. At least, not yet.

>>2135462
>>2135462
>>2135462
So you like fantasy in literature except when don't.

>>2135467
The Prince of Nothing Trilogy actually has a fair amount of supernatural horror in it.

Who's that guy on the cover? It can't be Achamian, Kelhaus or Cnaiur.

So, having read a lot of fantasy myself, what do you guys see in this that's so good?

Only finished the first book and a bit of the second so far, but it's pretty average as far as I can see, nothing complex.

Someone just downloaded the whole set on #ebooks an hour ago. Was it one of you guys?

>>2135462
>garbage like GRR Martin

have you even read a single thing this guy wrote, or are you automatically a hipster because of his recent success?

Spoilers: He's good, he's better than good, he writes good characters, has good world building and that's just talking about his sci-fi books.

ASOIAF is good, no matter how much you hate it's success.And it's not my favorite fantasy series by far, but calling it badly written just makes yourself look ridiculous.

Inb4 you spam the "hodor" said hodor bullshit that you use on this board to discredit this awesome writer.

Read Dying of the Light if your HDD prevents you from enjoying ASOIAF series, it's one stand-alone book, sci-fi.

>>2135547
It's not my favorite series either but what are you talking about that's not too complex, the world, the story?

The number of characters, factions and plotting makes it very complex, and it's very very good for a story that focuses on struggle for power.

>>2135577
>he writes good characters
What do you mean when you say that he writes good characters? You don't just mean that you like the characters, do you?

>has good world building
What's world building supposed to mean?

>The number of characters, factions and plotting makes it very complex
A novel with a million characters, factions or plots in it would not necessarily be complex. That's not a mark of complexity

>>2135586
a story -
>notices trip
hidden

>>2135586

"cor! sorry lads, put me chips in the warmer, got to go argue with some bloke on the internet about fantasy novels"

>>2135590
your loss dude

>>2135586

I seriously hope you aren't going to start debating the quality of the characters without having read the series. I mean I understand some real information can be gathered from your sources but there is no way you can talk about the quality of the characters in this series without reading it.

>>2135577
8/10
good passion but you blew credibility here -
>calling it badly written just makes yourself look ridiculous.
extra points for getting derp&ego to respond and forcing me to agree with him.

>>2135595
>I seriously hope you aren't going to start debating the quality of the characters without having read the series
Of course not, because that wouldn't be a literary matter. What would be appropriate however, would be an analysis of the character functions in the text and the manner in which they are elaborated by the author

>>2135599

>What would be appropriate however, would be an analysis of the character functions in the text and the manner in which they are elaborated by the author

Yeah, that, I was saying you can't possibly hope to do such an analysis without reading the text.

>>2135602
But I'm asking someone else to provide one

>>2135605
also, if it doesn't look mostly like pic related, don't even fucking bother thanks

>>2135605
Do your own homework, kid.

>>2135609
But this has nothing to do with homework, this is just asking someone, quite reasonably, to back up their assertions.

>>2135608
Oh god, fuck you.

>>2135608

Oh certainly not, if I ever found myself writing something like that I'd probably hang myself.

>>2135610
we read the books

we aren't experts on text analysis, but we read the books and that's how we feel about it

you don't have to like this series
but it's well-written, it grows on you as you read it, what more do you want

characters are good and you can understand motivation of any of them that gets a POV, as well as many of the ones that do not

what more do you want

oh wait you're a tripfag, why do I even respond...

>>2135608

i seriously seriously fucking hate that you managed to write something so drab and joyless about such a good short story

like i'm inured to the stormfront shit, i'm inured to the men's rights shit, but you post that screencap and i just grit my fucking teeth

>>2135625
>we aren't experts on text analysis
>but it's well-written
This coming from someone that's admittedly less knowledgeable than an expert on the subject. You'll have to excuse me if your opinion is thus worthless for someone of my level, sorry. Maybe someone who thinks that "I'm not an expert, but this book is well-written" is a convincing argument will be more sympathetic.

>>2135608
Or you could just say: The characters in the story narrate the story, in real time

Fuck this, why do you always have to waste words?

>>2135629
>drab and joyless
>mechanics of the text
>drab and joyless
I'm sorry you that you think what makes literature so great is drab and joyless bro

>>2135632
It doesn't mean anything about whether it's good or bad or shit.

>>2135625

Please don't respond to D&E with bullshit like that, it makes all of us look bad (I know we all look bad already, this is just making it worse).

>>2135632
>Or you could just say: The characters in the story narrate the story, in real time
I suppose I could if I wanted to say something entirely incorrect about the story. This is all besides the point that even if it was correct, precise and unambigious terminology would be preferable regardless.

>>2135634

it's not what you're describing it's how it's written. where the jouissance at man

>>2135639
>where the jouissance at man
Where the mechanics and their ingenious placement are, in the text, ready for analysis. There is nothing joyless about this if you actually know anything about how to critically evaluate literature, which is not the same thing as going to Raymond Carver's house and asking him how he wrote it (not that that wouldn't be informative in influencing one's practical knowledge or capacity to write good stories).

i mean this is as retarded a question as asking a film appreciator where's the "JOUYSISNNSANCE" in the fucking crane shot in Citizen Kane for fucks sake, clueless idiot

>>2135649
Jesus Christ, you just write. It's the critic who constantly needs to justify his own existence by trying to pick apart these little things, the artist doesn't need theory. "Aesthetics is for the artist as ornithology is for the birds."

>>2135651

come onnnnnn dude i'm saying the student of film could write something captivating about that frame placement, and you could talk carver's mechanics with a lil more pizzazz

>>2135654
>Jesus Christ, you just write
No, you don't "just write", you draw on a perplexingly vast map of conventions.

>It's the critic who constantly needs to justify his own existence by trying to pick apart these little things, the artist doesn't need theory
This has almost nothing to do with theory. This is a simple matter of critical appreciation, no different from the critical appreciation of film, music, carpentry, video-games, or food. None of this is particularly theoretical if you know what's appropriate to appreciate in the complex activity that you are evaluating.

>>2135655
>you could talk carver's mechanics with a lil more pizzazz
No, I could not, because if you were capable of critically appreciating what I was analysing you would come to the same conclusion regardless. It is simply the fault of your own uneducated, lackadaisical ignorance if you can't appreciate the language being used any more than someone with no knowledge of sentential logic can't appreciate the elegance of a particular proof.

>>2135658
Yes we do, but it's unconscious. One doesn't calculate differential functions when we catch a ball, but we don't have to, because it's done for us.

>>2135579

Goddamit, now it's a D&E thread. Teach me to take my girlfirend to the train station.

Anyway, I found the initial politics fairly simplistic and easy to grasp, then negated by a simple plot device (make the barbarian the general) I mean really, that's not complex at all. The rest of the book is just Kellhus being a bastard manipulator, the whore woman being a whore and Achamian being a drunk.

I'll keep reading, but at this point I wouldn't actually buy the books (which is what I do after reading them as ebooks if I have the money)

>>2135661
>Yes we do, but it's unconscious
I never said it wasn't, but that doesn't mean it's any less open to critical evaluation, putting aside that most great innovations of art come from conscious effort (although I do not dispute that these are the culminations of much more toil on the part of the unconsciouss). Start coming up with some real responses here bud.

>>2135660

yeah i'm mad lackadaisical, point taken

>>2135667
When you look at Leger, Rowe always talks about Phenomenal Transparency, but it was there in the works before the phrase phenomenal transparency was coined, it was just the artist fucking around with things they liked from influences they enjoyed.

>>2135666

I don't know what that other guy is talking about the story really isn't about complex politics or anything like that (ASoIaF is more complex on that front).

It's about Kellhus and the way he interacts with people and what those interactions tell us about those people. The power of faith, regardless of whether that faith is warranted or not, is a very present theme in the books too.

I'd really have to re-read to discuss this any further, that is all that really comes to my mind when I think about the series.

>>2135682
>I'd really have to re-read to discuss this any further
that or read up on several theories of literature and read some of the best works of prose ever written to develop an appreciation, but hey, take the easy way out

>>2135685

But dear D&E, that gentleman wasn't asking for our critical evaluation of the book using literary theories, he asked what did we enjoy about the book.

>>2135691
my mistake then

>>2135682

That is a better answer, but the fact is that most of the comments I've seen over the past months in these threads and general fantasy recommendation threads trumpets Bakker as a brilliant read with complex politics and interactions along those lines.

Kellhus isn't a good character in and of himself, but you're right in saying that the interactions with other characters show us something new each time.

The rest of it... It's average, and seems to count on drawing attention to the different races of people a lot of the time to make it seem as though there are so many different peoples involved, as if that by itself makes it complex.

I'll withold judgement until I've finished the initial trilogy, but its sad to say that the initial book didn't grab me. Then again, Erikson did much the same with Gardens of the Moon, and it turned out pretty well.

>>2135685
Is every person a potential genius or master appreciator? I'm not sure why you thinks the easy route is bad. It's humble.

Deep&Edgy, have you actually read The Darkness That Comes Before or any of the other Prince of Nothing novels?

>>2135716

I can answer that: No. He doesn't waste his time with garbage when he could be reading time-tested classics or critically lauded books.

>>2135716

If you look closely, he hasn't actually said anything regarding the PoN series. He has only talked about GRRM and ASoIaF.

Deep&Edgy, have you ever actually been to japan?

Deep&Edgy, have you ever actually circumnavigated the world?

Deep&Edgy, have you ever been deluded enough not to consider evidence in the form of educated critical opinion to be sufficient in order to make a critical judgment which is not based on something as superfluous and flighty as "knowledge" but on something concrete like "certainty relative to a particular end"?

Hey D&E, when reading a book, why should one care about what literary scholars consider good writing if one is enjoying the book and doesn't see what the literary scholars see as a fault?

>>2135732
>why should
I'm sorry, I don't prescribe to making ethical prescriptive statements.

If one wishes to cultivate the highest, most valuable form of appreciation of texts, then a necessary and sufficient condition is that one develop one's capacity for critical evaluation

>>2135728

Deep&Edgy, why does an obvious intellectual Übermensch like yourself feels the need to spend your entire day arguing with teenagers on an anonymous imageboard?

>>2135736

>Made-up stuff about made-up people is very serious business.

>>2135736

>most valuable form of appreciation of texts

Valuable to what end?

>>2135737
The majority of my day has already passed, actually, and right now the only reason I'm posting is because of breaks between sets of a workout.

>>2135741
Valuable to the relative end of maximal flourishing, either on the individual level or the human level

>>2135742

See, I might actually buy that if I didn't spend about as much time here as you do.

I suppose a subhuman like me cannot comprehend the intricate reasons that drive the actions of Übermenschen.

>>2135745

What do you mean by "flourishing" ?

Assuming the standard definition of the word, what if I flourish better on an individual level by reading texts without heeding literary theory? Then my own form of appreciation would be more valuable towards my maximal flourishing.

>>2135745

>the relative end of maximal flourishing, either on the individual level or the human level

You actually believe that, don't you?

That's just so adorably *precious*, I think I could just hug you and muss up your hair right now.

>>2135754
>What do you mean by "flourishing" ?
In this context I mean something like attaining the best quality of life.

>Assuming the standard definition of the word,
No, let's not do that, let's work with what I've given you
so, as to your question:
>what if I attain the best quality of life better on an individual level by reading texts without heeding literary theory?
This points out that the quality of the lives of some people are not on the level of the quality of the lives of other people, similar to the manner in which the quality of the life of a badly crippled runner who loves running is simply not on the level of the quality of the life of a physically perfect runner who loves running, all things being equal. This is probably healthy on a species-wide level, and is probably the precondition for maximal flourishing (which is misleading because flourishing is never actually maximal, which would lead to stasis and thus catastrophe within the system, I use it to demonstrate a point i.e. "really great" flourishing). And this is clear in everyday life; we need streetsweepers, burger king clerks, arts majors and other degenerates just as much as we need astronauts and athletes to contribute and make possible flourishing through difference and opposition.

>>2135766
>we need streetsweepers, burger king clerks, arts majors and other degenerates just as much as we need astronauts and athletes
this is not to say that we can't, say, ever have a society where no-one needs to serve fast food (which I would hope would eventually be a thing of the past in a better state of flourishing), it just means that the idea of utopia remains just that, an idea, and that the system does not maximise itself (i.e. cause itself suicide)

>>2135742
I see you're still posting here while I just got back from the gym..

>>2135775
Cool dude, I'm still in the middle of my workout

>>2135766

>This points out that the quality of the lives of some people are not on the level of the quality of the lives of other people

What determines this "quality of life" ?

>similar to the manner in which the quality of the life of a badly crippled runner who loves running is simply not on the level of the quality of the life of a physically perfect runner who loves running, all things being equal.

I don't see how that's similar to what I was talking about at all.

I guess what I'm trying to ask is, what is inherent in literary theory that makes people who employ it while reading a book have a higher quality of life than people who read a book and consciously ignoring literary theory?

>>2135781

>while consciously ignoring literary theory?*

>maximal flourishing (which is misleading because flourishing is never actually maximal, which would lead to stasis and thus catastrophe within the system, I use it to demonstrate a point i.e. "really great" flourishing).
>that the system does not maximise itself (i.e. cause itself suicide)
Eh what?

How do people who use pretentious language not understand how ridiculous they come across? You don't always need to avoid simple words ignorant peons use. Language should be as concise and as appropriate as possible. That doesn't mean boring or dull; evocative language or a scientific document needs big beautiful words, since it's appropriate. Using the word "flourish" to describe ones ability to enjoy reading a good book is unnecessary word reaching.

So stop using so many inappropriate and redundant adjectives and verbs.

>>2135781
>what determines this "quality of life" ?
Empirical observation based on a family resemblance of relative conventions

>I don't see how that's similar to what I was talking about at all.
It's similar in the sense that you're an intellectual, which is just another way of saying 'physical', cripple whose fulfillment is bodily capped at an inferior level where a person capable of critical appreciation is not.

>what is inherent in literary theory that makes people who employ it while reading a book have a higher quality of life than people who read a book and consciously ignoring literary theory?
Nothing's inherent in literary theory. 'Inherence' has absolutely nothing to do with the way literary theory, or critical appreciation, or appreciation, or enjoyment, or anything else while we're at it, functions. There's nothing 'inherent' that makes the fucking cripple runner inferior to the perfect runner, 'inherence' has nothing to do with the manner in which that distinction arises. That's quite the platonist sleight hand you've tried to pull on me though.

>>2135794
>Using the word "flourish" to describe ones ability to enjoy reading a good book is unnecessary word reaching.
That's not the way 'flourish' was used in this thread because enjoying reading a good book is not what's represented here by the use of 'flourish', that would be too general and broad HENCE WHY I USED FLOURISH AND NOT "ENJOYING READING A GOOD BOOK"

>>2135795

>Empirical observation based on a family resemblance of relative conventions

Empirical observations regarding what exactly?

>cripple whose fulfillment is bodily capped at an inferior level where a person capable of critical appreciation is not.

What do you mean by fulfillment?

>Nothing's inherent in literary theory. 'Inherence' has absolutely nothing to do with the way literary theory, or critical appreciation, or appreciation, or enjoyment, or anything else while we're at it, functions. There's nothing 'inherent' that makes the fucking cripple runner inferior to the perfect runner, 'inherence' has nothing to do with the manner in which that distinction arises. That's quite the platonist sleight hand you've tried to pull on me though.

Yeah yeah, I knew I was going to get shit on the second I typed out that word. It's was not needed for the question I was trying to present. Let me try it again: What is it about literary theory that makes people who employ it while reading a book have a higher quality of life than people who read a book and consciously ignoring literary theory?

D&E: What happens when you give an autistic pedant training in philosophy.

>>2135795
My penis is hard

>>2135812

>It's was not

Fuck I type like a retard.

>>2135799
Hey D&E, I have two or three questions for you, now that I think about it.
Ok, so first of all, why do you bother? Can you explain why you (apparently) get agitated over internet arguments with people of "inferior" understanding? How does it fulfill you?

>capped at an inferior level
Can you explain this properly? You just said
>There's nothing 'inherent' that makes the fucking cripple runner inferior to the perfect runner
If that is the case, then in what way is one person's "maximum enjoyment" different from another's? How can they be compared, if inherence is not applicable? How about this, for a question:
Are the effects of Ecstasy more, less, equally, or incomparably enjoyable compared to critically and intellectually evaluating and understanding a book?

I hate to drudge up schoolyard psilosophy, but can you explain 1) how you are aware of what other people experience as happiness/fulfillment, and 2) how you can resolve a conception of experience that is neither relative nor inherent? What is the alternative? If experience is relative, then how is "raising the bar" of fulfillment a worthwhile pursuit? (Is it? If not, why do you do it yourself?)

>>2135799
Right, I forgot, you wrote a goddamn essay exposing why you used that word. You know people usually don't have to do that to back up a choice of words, unless it was interpreted as offensive.

>>2135812
>Empirical observations regarding what exactly?
ways of living

>What do you mean by fulfillment?
Being at the apex of one's possible physical condition (you'll have to forgive me for thinking that 'being smart' is just as much a physical condition as 'being ripped'). As a composition of drives, being in the optimal state of those drives. Being a gentleman. Becoming what one is. Being one with the dao. I could go on and on.

>What is it about literary theory that makes people who employ it while reading a book have a higher quality of life than people who read a book and consciously ignoring literary theory?
Let's get one thing straight, we're not talking about "people" here in any universalisable way, we're talking about a set of individuals, which may be as large as "people", but never people in a universal sense. Literary theory is essentially a more developed, complex way of life, and I should think the confucian sense of li (i think it's 'li') or ritual applies here, that leads through behaviour conducive to greater health (remember the earlier bit about no distinction between mind and body), no different to the development of medicine (a behaviour conducive to greater health). Now, all things being equal, there is more value in the world because of and for people who practice critical appreciation (i.e. a behaviour that is conducive to greater health) than there is for people who don't (remember, all things being equal), which is just a more generalised form of the crippled runner/perfect runner example. Note: value isn't abstract, it's instantiated in behaviour.

>>2135831
>inb4 D&E bitches and moans about use of the word "relative"

>>2135844
But the very premise of "all things being equal" is a farce when applied in reality. All things have opportunity costs; building a base of knowledge to critically appreciate literature must take time/experience away from participating in other activities that may also contribute to your definition of "flourishing". That being so, how can you justify looking down on those who choose not to build their knowledge of literary theory?

>>2135831
>There's nothing 'inherent' that makes the fucking cripple runner inferior to the perfect runner
>If that is the case, then in what way is one person's "maximum enjoyment" different from another's? How can they be compared, if inherence is not applicable?
You should know that obviously, because I reject inherence, it becomes a matter of relativity. The crippled runner and his enjoyment is inferior relative to the perfect runner and his enjoyment, and remember, value is not abstract here either.

>Are the effects of Ecstasy more, less, equally, or incomparably enjoyable compared to critically and intellectually evaluating and understanding a book?
That would depend on the type of person you are, wouldn't it? If you can be under the effects of ecstacy for the same amount of time that someone who truly loves critical appreciation of literature continues loving said activity, then we'd surely say that being under ecstacy for that same amount of time would be, better all things being equal. Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately (remember what I said abount maximization leading to catastrophe) we don't live in that sort of world, there's a lot of disadvantages to taking ecstacy for 12 hours a day every day, which is roughly the amount of time a passionate appreciator of literature spends passionately appreciating literature, of which the disadvantages are markedly less.

1/2

>>2135844

>ways of living

But how does one determine which way of living is of higher quality?

>Being at the apex of one's possible physical condition (you'll have to forgive me for thinking that 'being smart' is just as much a physical condition as 'being ripped'). As a composition of drives, being in the optimal state of those drives. Being a gentleman. Becoming what one is. Being one with the dao. I could go on and on.

So going back to my example of 2 individuals, one employing literary theory while reading a book and one not employing literary theory while reading a book, you mean to say the individual's "fulfillment" towards being at the apex of his physical condition (in this case smartness, I assume) is capped at an inferior level by the fact that he is not employing literary theory while reading a book. Well, first of all I don't see how employing literary theory while reading a book makes one smarter than not employing it. Second, let's say that IF his smartness would improve by employing literary theory while reading a book, what about his enjoyment? What if he doesn't enjoy employing literary theory while reading? Is decreasing enjoyment not detrimental to one's physical condition?

>>2135871
>how you are aware of what other people experience as happiness/fulfillment
Observation of behaviour and clarification through arbitrary, revisable criteria (you'll note that I never said errors can't occur in evaluation)

>how you can resolve a conception of experience that is neither relative nor inherent?
You're free to give me one to resolve, to begin with. Good luck though.

>If experience is relative, then how is "raising the bar" of fulfillment a worthwhile pursuit?
You're posing me a relative question and asking me to contradict myself by demanding a universal answer, bad form. Relative to who?

>>2135858
>That being so, how can you justify looking down on those who choose not to build their knowledge of literary theory?
I never said I looked down on everyone who doesn't critically appreciate literature. I look down on the people who pose their inadequate, general, uneducated opinions, that aren't formulated and refined through a critically rich and passionate discourse like critical appreciation, as equal to the developed, educated opinions of people who have. If someone tells me they like what they read because it's got cows in it, that's fine. If they tell me that what's great about literature in any critical sense is to have cows in it, then they can go fuck themselves.

>>2135874
>But how does one determine which way of living is of higher quality?
Empirical observation based on a family resemblance of relative conventions, didn't you hear me the first time?

>first of all I don't see how employing literary theory while reading a book makes one smarter than not employing it.
This has nothing to do with making one smarter. And let's get this out of the way, what I'm talking about is only peripherally related to literary theory, it's more adequately called 'critical appreciation'. All this has to do with is loving a thing more and more, and that's what real critical appreciation is. I don't want to get any further into this until you drop notions like 'smartness', they're not going to help here.

>>2135880
But if you so dislike people spouting their uninformed opinions, why do you choose to either mock them or sidestep the actual remedy to the issue: education? You can call people idiots and retards and whatever else all day, but your tone will never lead to anyone's "flourishing", not even your own. You can claim that it's not your job to be an educator, but if you refuse to act against stupidity then why complain?

>>2135890
Moreover, why even participate in the discussion?

Yes, I'm telling D&E to get the fuck out

>>2135890
>if you so dislike people spouting their uninformed opinions
I never said I dislike people mouthing off stupid shit, if I did after all, I wouldn't even be here. No, most of the time I love it when people do that, because it gives me ample opportunity to laugh heartily and vocally at them, which is what I do.

>why do you choose to either mock them or sidestep the actual remedy to the issue: education?
Whose issue? It's certainly not my issue because I am educated. And it's almost as if you think that what I do here isn't a form of education for those who aren't stuck too far up their own asses to realise it. There's plenty of people here who do learn from what I have to say.

>You can call people idiots and retards and whatever else all day, but your tone will never lead to anyone's "flourishing", not even your own
Who are you to say that? Most of the time I'm here, I'll find that people agree with me on a number of different things, begrudgingly or not, and that's fine.

>if you refuse to act against stupidity then why complain?
I'm not complaining, I'm laughing, and for those capable of laughing with me, it's productive and informative.

>>2135887

>Empirical observation based on a family resemblance of relative conventions, didn't you hear me the first time?

Yes, and using your earlier answer more specifically

>Empirical observation regarding way of living based on a family resemblance of relative conventions

I still don't see the actual data that we're observing here, I mean what factors of "ways of living" are we observing here? Physical health? Level of happiness? What?

>All this has to do with is loving a thing more and more, and that's what real critical appreciation is.

I've had this discussion with you before and back then you agreed that one doesn't necessarily need critical appreciation to love a thing on a maximal level (or on a level reaching maximal), and that a person who cares nothing for critical appreciation of literature could conceivably enjoy and love a book even more than someone who enjoys and loves it through critical appreciation.

>>2135880
>>2135871
Ah, unfortunately we are talking about two different senses of the idea of "relative experience," I think. As I understand it, you are supporting an interpersonal relativity, as in
>You should know that obviously, because I reject inherence, it becomes a matter of relativity. The crippled runner and his enjoyment is inferior relative to the perfect runner and his enjoyment, and remember, value is not abstract here either.
You're saying that we can compare the enjoyment of one runner to another. What I'm asking about is how the crippled runner knows that his enjoyment is inferior. The cripple can certainly compare his own enjoyment of activities to each other, but how can he compare them to the "perfect" person's? Intellectually, in this sense, perhaps. I can say "I accept that D&E enjoys reading more than I do," but, for the sake of argument, what if reading is my favorite activity? If I enjoy nothing more, how does my perception of the activity change when I increase the degree to which I enjoy it? It's still my favorite activity, now I just feel like I enjoy everything else even less.

If I have never experienced the level of fulfillment you experience, but I still feel better than I ever have in my life, while you feel "average" compared to the rest of your days, which one of us is happier? Although I'm not a sociologist, I believe that in practice, the person that feels better in comparison to the rest of his life is the happier person. If that's so, then either your concrete-value experiences are non-existent, or that value is so far removed from our actual perceptions of our experiences that it is meaningless to compare the concrete value of an experience between two individuals. (Consequentially, the comparison of an experience between two individuals would be based on how those individuals compare the experience to the rest of their lives.)

>There's plenty of people here who do learn from what I have to say.

I can vouch for this.

Only people who get butthurt by D&E's mean words towards them are the ones who aren't getting educated, the rest can learn things just fine.

>>2135903
>I still don't see the actual data that we're observing here, I mean what factors of "ways of living" are we observing here? Physical health? Level of happiness? What?
Physical health, which of course is equal to level of happiness, there's not a distinction.

>I've had this discussion with you before and back then you agreed that one doesn't necessarily need critical appreciation to love a thing on a maximal level (or on a level reaching maximal)
I don't believe I said that, what you come up with next is more along the lines of what I said
>a person who cares nothing for critical appreciation of literature could conceivably enjoy and love a book even more than someone who enjoys and loves it through critical appreciation
Which is still not what I said. What I said was that there would be more value in the world if you had someone who knew nothing about a book (e.g. ulysses) and loved it than if you had someone who was the world expert on critical appreciation but didn't give two shits about a book, was depressed or suicidal, was physically ill in other words. And that's true. There is less value in the world if there is less valuing, and in this case the illiterature retard values more than the world expert, so in that case he is superior to the expert, precisely because he is more healthy ultimately, which means precisely that the world expert was never that healthy to begin with (remember how I said that error is a possibility?). That's what I said. Which is not at all what you think I said.

>>2135919
Not the guy you're addressing, but could you accept the possibility that at some point in time (even now) all of the world experts on literature could be collectively unhealthy?

>>2135910
>the rest

all of /lit/'s 30 unique posters per hour. It's like I'm really sitting in on a philosophy course!

Have you ever heard about a guy called Alex Kierkegaard, D&E?

You two sound like you might hit it off beautifully (unless, of course, you're too busy dispensing your übermensch wisdom through the channel of internet imageboards).

>>2135919

>Physical health, which of course is equal to level of happiness, there's not a distinction.

I would think level of happiness would be just one factor of physical health, not the same thing.

>Which is still not what I said. What I said was that there would be more value in the world if you had someone who knew nothing about a book (e.g. ulysses) and loved it than if you had someone who was the world expert on critical appreciation but didn't give two shits about a book, was depressed or suicidal, was physically ill in other words. And that's true. There is less value in the world if there is less valuing, and in this case the illiterature retard values more than the world expert, so in that case he is superior to the expert, precisely because he is more healthy ultimately, which means precisely that the world expert was never that healthy to begin with (remember how I said that error is a possibility?).

Alright, so is the point of saying

>All this has to do with is loving a thing more and more, and that's what real critical appreciation is.

to imply that a world expert of critical appreciation has the potential to value Ulysses more than the illiterate retard? If not, what is this "loving a thing more and more" about then?

>>2135909
>You're saying that we can compare the enjoyment of one runner to another
Sure, but we can't do that in a detached manner, the comparison we form will always be determined by the person we are. It will be relative.

>What I'm asking about is how the crippled runner knows that his enjoyment is inferior. The cripple can certainly compare his own enjoyment of activities to each other, but how can he compare them to the "perfect" person's?
Ultimately, he can't, a weak person can't live and see life as a strong person person precisely for the fact that how the strong person lives and loves will be displeasurable to him, in perhaps the same way that a fat slob who loves kfc will be disgusted at the thought of eating salad. Sometimes these motherfuckers are even so perverse as to make eating kfc a virtue, but that's a different issue. The comparison comes in the way life and value thrives in either; in one the level of health is shit, in the other it is vigorous. That's how the comparison works. If you prefer the shit life, good for you, that's your prerogative.

>>2135931

>Sometimes these motherfuckers are even so perverse as to make eating kfc a virtue

Would that be akin to making, oh I don't know, say, not having a job and living off people a virtue, perchance?

>>2135929
>I would think level of happiness would be just one factor of physical health, not the same thing.
You're free to give me counter-examples, I'll try and elaborate the truth of it as far as I see it through them.

>a world expert of critical appreciation has the potential to value Ulysses more than the illiterate retard?
See, there's no such thing as "potential to value". There is either valuing or not valuing. Anyone can say, "well gee, I had the potential to value literature if only I wasn't a dumb asshole fixated on unicorns and robots".

>what is this "loving a thing more and more" about then?
Loving all that it's about, which involves learning and loving everything about it, wanting to be challenged by it, overcoming those challenges, etc. That's where most people seem to fail when it comes to literary appreciation; it's not just reading the thing that's important, any more than playing a game constitutes loving that game. It's knowing how it was put together, learning the style that constitutes it, the mechanics, what influenced it, what it influenced, etc etc. All of these things reflect a true love and appreciation of an object in the critical fashion.

>>2135938
faggot!!

>>2135937
Sure, predatory behaviour and not willing to spend any moment of one's life in work is a virtue.

>>2135941

>>2135938

>You're free to give me counter-examples, I'll try and elaborate the truth of it as far as I see it through them.

Hmm, well, things that in addition to level of happiness that influence "physical health" would be having all four limbs, having 20/20 vision, having a working heart, having a brain that functions in an optimal manner in regards to accessing memory, etc. etc.

>See, there's no such thing as "potential to value". There is either valuing or not valuing. Anyone can say, "well gee, I had the potential to value literature if only I wasn't a dumb asshole fixated on unicorns and robots".

I suppose what I tried to ask with that question was: Is it possible that the illiterate retard could appreciate a book as much as the world expert does, assuming the world expert was not depressed or suicidal and did value literature and was at the top of his game.

>All of these things reflect a true love and appreciation of an object in the critical fashion.

And I guess my point is that the "critical fashion" is just an arbitrary way to love and appreciate, and that other arbitrary ways to love and appreciate are not inferior to the critical fashion.

>>2135945

>>2135957
>having all four limbs, having 20/20 vision, having a working heart, having a brain that functions in an optimal manner in regards to accessing memory, etc. etc.
And all of this would be happiness. If you want to cite some distinction i.e. shitty body, great happiness, I can say that it's a limited pleasure of the relative crippled runner kind, or I can say it's a form of delusion, etc. You're inevitably going to bring up a bodily state which I can simply demonstrate to be bad health.

>Is it possible that the illiterate retard could appreciate a book as much as the world expert does, assuming the world expert was not depressed or suicidal and did value literature and was at the top of his game.
What exactly are you asking is possible? Is it possible for an illiterate retard to drag himself out of his stupidity and develop an appreciation on the level of the critic? Depends on his physical composition, some people are forever denied this possibility, that's a fact of life. such a possibility excluded and all things being relatively equal, the illiterate retard could not. And that's fine, there's nothing wrong or ethical about that any more than there is about the critic's case. You'll note the earlier resistance to ethical prescriptive statements.

>the "critical fashion" is just an arbitrary way to love and appreciate
Of course it's an arbitrary way to love and appreciate something (nothing's ultimately arbitrary i.e. everything is necessary, what I suppose us to mean by arbitrary here I is maybe that other methods could "do" as well). That all things are arbitrary does not mean one arbitrary way of doing things can't be better or worse than another way of doing things relative to some end, and on the microcosm in this case the end of loving a thing (literature), on the macrocosm the end of human flourishing (or even individual)

I hope HBO will buy the rights for the series, so that even more people will come in contact with some of the best literature ever made.

Also English majors who bitch about this series should just make other 99% signs because they will not amount to anything anyway.

>>2136003
>I hope HBO will buy the rights for the series, so that even more people will come in contact with some of the best literature ever made.

Case study right here, this fucking degenerate is never going to drag himself out the cesspit of his utter subhuman ignorance. But that's okay, because the rest of us don't give a shit about movies and keep loving great literature.

>>2136010
Too bad I also read what you qualify as great literature.

You remind me of this trenchcoat loser:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFVR9Nv43J4&feature=channel_video_title

>>2135999

>What exactly are you asking is possible? Is it possible for an illiterate retard to drag himself out of his stupidity and develop an appreciation on the level of the critic?

Not exactly. I'm asking if it's possible for the illiterate retard to keep on the road he's going, appreciating books without employing literary theory, but still manage to reach the same "level" of appreciation as the healthy critic, using his own values which to appreciate.

>That all things are arbitrary does not mean one arbitrary way of doing things can't be better or worse than another way of doing things relative to some end, and on the microcosm in this case the end of loving a thing (literature)

But are you saying that employing literature theory is the best way of reaching this end (of loving literature)? If so, what is that based on when the number of arbitrary systems which can be used for that end are practically infinite. What makes this way the best?

>>2136018
>Too bad I also read what you qualify as great literature.
I never said that even great appreciators weren't capable of error, and thus that they weren't really great appreciators. I never said either that reading great literature was all that was involved in critical appreciation.

>>2136023
>I'm asking if it's possible for the illiterate retard to keep on the road he's going, appreciating books without employing literary theory, but still manage to reach the same "level" of appreciation as the healthy critic, using his own values which to appreciate.
No more than it is possible for a crippled runner to reach the same level of athletic fitness as the physically perfect runner no matter how much he heads out onto the track. AND FOR THE LAST TIME, STOP USING THE PHRASE "EMPLOYING LITERARY THEORY", that's not what I'm focusing on. I'm talking foremost about critical appreciation, which isn't "employed", because love isn't "employed".

You'll have to forgive me but I'm changing your quotes insofar as they say "employing literature theory" to "critical appreciation" because I can no longer bear this fixation
>But are you saying that [critical appreciation] is the best way of reaching this end (of loving literature)?
Which is tautological in this case because critical appreciation IS the best way of loving literature, for the reasons I've already said.

>what is that based on when the number of arbitrary systems which can be used for that end are practically infinite
Of course, but only some are relevant and good or bad in relation.

>What makes this way the best?
It's relative contribution to maximal or individual human flourishing.

>>2136052

>It's relative contribution to maximal or individual human flourishing.

So in other words... jack shit.

Glad you two could sort this out.

>>2136070
fuck off, imbecile

>>2136072
Wouldn't you say that you've wasted a lot of time responding to, in your perspective, literary proles? You won't make them change their perspective if you write with such vitriol about them.

Especially now that you've recognised that the literary value is all in the eye of the beholder.

>>2136052

So your reason why critical appreciation is the best (can I use the word "objectively" here? I guess I won't because that seems to be a definite no-no with you, even though to my mind it sounds perfectly fitting) way of loving literature is

>It's relative contribution to maximal or individual human flourishing.

But now we're starting to go in circles. My point is that if an individual can derive a better quality of life, better level of happiness (physical health), in other words flourish more, from loving literature in his own arbitrary way than he can from the way of critical appreciation, then critical appreciation is not the best way for him.

>No more than it is possible for a crippled runner to reach the same level of athletic fitness as the physically perfect runner no matter how much he heads out onto the track.

But I thought we were talking about the loving of things, not expertise or skill regarding things. The crippled runner could still love running as much as the physically perfect runner.

>>2136080

>You won't make them change their perspective if you write with such vitriol about them.

Speak for yourself, faggot.

Whether D&E calls me a fucking retard or not is irrelevant to my evaluation of what he is saying. I am not a baby like yourself, you see.

>>2136091

Of course; you're evidently very much more mature to listen to a jobless near 30-year old who spends hours at an end arguing with teenagers on the internet.

>>2136080
fuck off, imbecile

>>2136083
>But now we're starting to go in circles
No shit, I've explained to you why, you're failing to get it or you're trying to come up with botched reasons why it's misguided, those fail, you ask me again, I give you the same answer, rinse and repeat.

>My point is that if an individual can derive a better quality of life, better level of happiness (physical health), in other words flourish more, from loving literature in his own arbitrary way than he can from the way of critical appreciation, then critical appreciation is not the best way for him.
And maybe it isn't, I never said that critical appreciation was the best way of living for everyone on the face of the earth, only for the best and healthiest. As I've already said, this would be anathema to the sick and degenerate in the same way that salad would be to a kfc-loving fatass, assuming he could never get over his kfc-addiction.

>I thought we were talking about the loving of things, not expertise or skill regarding things.
But expertise and skill regarding the relevant object of critical appreciation IS love, in the same way that there IS either valuing or no valuing, not some abstract value. Love or passion doesn't float around behind these things or become instantiated in them, it's nothing less than actually them, it's immanent. So with this in mind it's patently absurd to think
>The crippled runner could still love running as much as the physically perfect runner.
Because the crippled runner can't even achieve the same things in running that the perfect runner can, he can't love it as much. Do you understand what I'm saying? Saying you love something means fuck all, I can say I love salad, I can even believe I love salad, and still spend the entire day shoveling buckets of fried chicken down my throat. Showing that you do is where importance lies.

You need psychiatric help with that inferiority complex, D&E.

Seriously.

>>2136103

>Because the crippled runner can't even achieve the same things in running that the perfect runner can, he can't love it as much. Do you understand what I'm saying? Saying you love something means fuck all, I can say I love salad, I can even believe I love salad, and still spend the entire day shoveling buckets of fried chicken down my throat. Showing that you do is where importance lies.

I do understand what you're saying and it is interesting. I'll have to digest this for a time to form my opinion on it.

I chose not to respond to the rest because my mind is literally stuck on loops and any further discussion would just be treading the same ground and not fruitful.

>>2136120

>literally stuck on loops

Okay that was an incredibly stupid use of "literally". I need some sleep.

Fair enough. There's one possible issue I'd like to respond to before I leave. Wouldn't it be possible that because love is immanent through skill and expertise, that we have a situation where someone is inwardly depressed yet expressing love, or simply going through the motions, or acting? Then we'd have a situation where "outwardly" there would be more value for the expert yet if we knew how he was "inwardly" we would think that the world had more value for the clueless book-chucking ape.
Okay, firstly I'd say again that I never said these sorts of observations weren't capable of error. Secondly, we have to think about these so-called states. If an expert actually was miserable on the inside, then wouldn't we really expect to see an effect on his work from this? That's after all, why we call people miserable, or depressed or whatever. They show symptoms. It makes no sense if we look at someone with an entirely happy life and then think "but he's actually miserable inside". We observe and infer. Think about how you yourself work; if everything's good in your life, how can you think you're miserable? If you did, that would surely mean that everything wasn't actually good, and then it would either manifest itself in anything from a change in routine to a breakdown. And after all, a bit of uncomfortableness is healthy, it means you're still pushing yourself, still challenging yourself, you're not static. I expect this is the problem of a lot of academics, they're somewhat miserable in their work which they are supposed to love, so this misery prevents them from continuing to challenge and challenge and overcome themselves (hence how you might think we haven't seen any huge progressions in thought) and thus their lack of love is immanent through that incapacity to overcome or meet challenge.

1/2

A similar case holds for someone "acting". How do we know someone's acting? Either because they were found out or because we knew that it was an act from the start. If someone lives a healthy vigorous life, and turns around and tells us "Aha! but I was only acting", what the fuck does it mean? It doesn't change anything, the guy still lived in this way, still met all the requirements for loving something so that when he says he was only acting it is a superfluous remark that merely goes against the entirety of the experience of him. So in both cases of mental degeneration or deceit, the simple declaration of it means nothing, but rather the effects and what is shown are important.

Think of it this way; say you have the most amazing relationship, and after 60 years of it the person turns around and says they were only pretending. In spite of this they continue to love you and the relationship goes on completely unchanged. How do you react? I don't know about anyone else, but the declaration doesn't strike me as particularly important insofar as we both continue to show each other that we love each other. In fact, to be outraged at this is to me to betray a profound greediness and irrationality because what more can you demand from someone in a relationship than that they continue to show you that they love you. "I love you" "but do you REALLY love me?", I mean, how is the person honestly supposed to reassure you in any other way? Do they cross their fingers or something? No, it's bullshit. You're demanding something from that person they can never give to you, nothing less than a metaphysical justification or something. It's a profound insecurity on your part if you want this from another person.

2/2

>>2136147
>>2136151
Oh so much time you spend doing this.

why does this thread have so many hidden posts?

when will you people learn, just filter the cancer and keep on discussing

bump

>>2137089
you could also just grow a pair

>>2137343
It's not a matter of growing a pair. People don't want to engage with you because every conversation with you ends up the same. It's boring. You're a boring person.

>>2137349

they did engage with him though?

>>2137343

Fuck yourself. You don't like fantasy, but the plebeians who do wanted to talk about it. And they were having a grand old time until you spewed shit and vitriol all over the thread due to a completely unwarranted sense of self-importance.

How's that inferiority complex working out for you, you shit-eating faggot.

>>2137353
>And they were having a grand old time until you spewed shit and vitriol all over the thread due to a completely unwarranted sense of self-importance.
Everyone's having a grand old time here except yourself, squirt

>>2137357

How about next time you shit up a thread, think to yourself "Hmm, have I read this book? Do the rest of the people in this thread want me to start spouting off about theories of literature without any knowledge of the book?"

If the answer is no... Go back to your workout, do something completely different, start a thread yourself and see who comes in to argue with you.. Because I can only assume the breaks you take of several hours are to allow your asshole to revert to it's normal size after the amount of intensive stretching you put it through.

>>2137367
>Do the rest of the people in this thread want me to start spouting off about theories of literature without any knowledge of the book?"
I didn't do that in this thread though. I asked someone discussing the book to qualify their opinion.

>>2137369

See this shit -> >>2135608 ?

No one cares enough to do that. And you know that. You know nothing of the book, and any defense of it would mean nothing to you without that level of analysis.. No one wanted to go that in depth, because no one cares enough on lit to do so. Most especially because they know you're a troll. You don't give a shit about fantasy, you just want to kill the thread when you're bored. Everyone knows it.

No one but you can shit up a thread with legitimate sounding questions to quite such a degree.

I hope you're proud of yourself. Because I can't see many other people being proud of you.

>>2137379
Haha you are seriously mad.

>>2137379
>No one wanted to go that in depth
That was an analysis an eng lit freshman could write up in maybe 10 minutes. Speak for yourself squirt.

>>2137369
hey bro

>>2137390

Oh yeah, I am so mad I keep replying.

>>2137391

(I'd like to think) most people on /lit/ are out of school and haven't had to do any English lit type work for several years now. But they still read books for enjoyment, not to identify all the themes and theories at play. Especially fantasy.

Try again.

>>2137401

>(I'd like to think) most people on /lit/ are out of school and haven't had to do any English lit type work for several years now.

So you just believe whatever you'd like to believe, hm? Fact is, you lazy fantasy guys are a loud minority on /lit/. Most of us are college kids genuinely interested in studying philosophy and literature.

>But they still read books for enjoyment, not to identify all the themes and theories at play.

Because it has to be one or the other, right? This sort of statement really shows how intellectually lazy you are.

>>2137401
>(I'd like to think) most people on /lit/ are out of school

i lol'd hard. welcome to /lit/ because you must be new here. this is where children play.

on the other hand, as someone who wants to improve their own writing, the analytical process never stops. always more to learn.

>>2137405

/lit/ is for the discussion of books. Discussion of fantasy books was happening. D&E sidetracks it in a way the discussion was never meant to go because people don't care about those things (on the whole)

As for loud minority

>Finnegan's Wake, Joyce, Catch 22, Slaughterhouse 5, A confederacy of Dunces, Ayn Rand (until recently), post your bookcase, general philosophy threads, kindle or somesuch device, Count of Monte Cristo, poetry, TAR, recommendation threads, Murakami, tao lin, degree choices, personal projects, [insert author here] love/hate thread, stephen king

And many others.

Sure is loud majority of fantasy readers. We got GRRM and Paolini spaz threads mostly.

>>2137406

read the above. His questions are fine for some threads, but they're not going the way this thread was. It's a purposeful derailment - no fun allowed. I misspoke before in a sense. I enjoy the themes and devices as much as the next person, but am not in a hurry to defend it on the internet. Much less to D&E, because
1. He doesn't give a shit and is trolling
2. I don't care to look back over 6 years to the last English lit related thing I did.

>>2137416

>*loud minority

I love comedy, and my friend is a comedian and he tells really funny jokes, you could say be both love to laugh. that guy over there though, he says he likes to pick each joke apart and fit it into a theoretical framework, obviously he's the most fun-loving guy of them all

>>2137393
hey ty

>>2137422
>he says he likes to pick each joke apart and fit it into a theoretical framework
If he laughed at jokes just as much as you then he'd obviously be the most fun loving, yeah. and again, this has not very much to do with theoretical frameworks, as I keep repeating in this thread.

:]

>>2137430
Ok. What makes you think you really understand the correct way to design a theoretical framework?

>>2137436
>What makes you think you really understand the correct way to design a theoretical framework?
I've already told you and everyone else in this thread, theoretical frameworks are only peripherally related to what I'm saying. Now, what does any of this have to do with what I've been saying?

>>2137440
It has. Because if you don't the validity of your statements is questionable.

>>2137442
>It has
That's not an explanation. I've already told you and everyone else in this thread, theoretical frameworks are only peripherally related to what I'm saying. Now, what does any of this have to do with what I've been saying?

>>2137444
Very much. Why should your explanation be of any value of you are unable to justify it? Are you able D&E? If so, give me justification.

>>2137449
>Very much
That's not an explanation. I've already told you and everyone else in this thread, theoretical frameworks are only peripherally related to what I'm saying. Now, how and what does any of this have to do with what I've been saying?

>>2137450
See D&E. You have apparently arbitrary definitions of 'good', 'healthy' or objective. I am not saying that your explanations are disagreeable. What I refuse to believe is that they are credible. Can you actually prove any of them within a framework to be objective? Even if you can what would be the basis of credibility of that framework? You keep of spouting 'empirically'. I sincerely doubt you have any empirical knowledge. Its just a word with meaning to you. You can't do it really. That's what I am saying. You can't produce a credible framework.

>>2137454
>Can you actually prove any of them within a framework to be objective?
What do you by 'framework' and 'objective'? And nothing I've said is objective, nor does it need to be, because it's relative. This has nothing to do with objectivity.

>I sincerely doubt you have any empirical knowledge. Its just a word with meaning to you.
No, I take the word empirical as it taken by empiricists.

>You can't do it really. That's what I am saying. You can't produce a credible framework.
You haven't even told me what you consider to be a framework.

>>2137459
Right. So basically YOU don't know what a framework is and now want me to tell you so then you can pretend to know. Nice move D&E.

>>2137462
>So basically YOU don't know what a framework is
That's not what I said. What I said is that I don't understand what you mean when you use the word 'framework'. What do you mean when you use the word 'framework'.

>Nice move D&E.
Yeah no shit, asking people to clarify their terms is a pretty slick move. You learn it in the first fucking day of phil 101.

You first.

how about you go fuck yourself first

>>2137477
:D Boy. Somebody has panties in a twist!

>>2137430

I don't know dude. I've seen you post here many times but never anything insightful/inspiring on an actual piece of literature. you can post that robert pattinson picture if you feel like it but it only makes you look like an autist incapable of understanding what the rest of the world values in literature. you're not inspiring great literature or groundbreaking thoughts in the field of literature. possibly some dusty old literary theorist will be happy to see you chugging along but it's small stuff in the bigger scheme of things. nothing wrong with being small stuff though, it's just that the hubris doesn't sit well

I'm not going to bother reading this whole conversation, but what 'edgy generally tries to do shift the burden of arguing for him to his opponent when his logic tends to contradict itself.

In other words, troll troll troll etc. I don't think I've ever heard anything interesting come out of a d/e discussion.

>>2137481
>'ve seen you post here many times but never anything insightful/inspiring on an actual piece of literature
I generally don't write to inspire or provide insight to blockheads on this site, it would be a waste of my time, sorry dude.

>>2137488
What is a framework?

>>2137488

come, we're all lads here, fish and chips ey? shower us with the golden nuggets I know you have

>>2137491
You wanna play Call of booty: black cocks with him?

>>2137488

>I generally don't write to inspire or provide insight to blockheads on this site, it would be a waste of my time, sorry dude.

Why DO you write for?

>>2137499
Trips only exist to draw attention to themselves on /lit/. The motivation is personal vanity

>>2137508
pro tips on how to be less vain? its been bothering me lately.

>>2137511
show us your 19 year old tits

>>2137523
Its a tranny?

ima boy...

>>2137493

heavens no, that's the gaming equivalence of a king novel. I only play the most xtreme flight simulators in my room which I've rebuilt to look like a cockpit, everything else is child's play

>>2137499

he often says he likes to laugh at us. I assume he's propagating for a generation of writers motivated by nothing but the lust for lulz, the true übermenschen

Wow.

I didn't realize hipster nazis exist.

Learn something new erry day.

Claiming to be laughing at your enemies is the last resort of the extremely buttmad.

>>2137598