/lit/ - Literature

>>21430218
*hangs stocking*

>>21430218
I chuckled.
>>21430234
Forced and lame.

>>21430234
WA,WA,WA
I lost my jiz rag
I need my jiz rag on my forehead...WA,WA,WA

Rudolph be cry

>>21430218
>10 page scene about stoner's anxiety attack because santa is coming

>>21430675
>not the literal christmas scene of little Brucey Green killing his mom with his gift to her and then smelling his finger

>>21430675
You do not have 42 pictures of DFW

>>21430930

>>21430930
You are right. I have 50.

>>21430937
>dfw 278.jpg

>>21430976
pls post the diaphoretic uns

>>21430992

>>21431020
*sighs*
dfw14 and dfw8 please

>>21431024
I just... uhh... y'know... those words... they... uh... well... it's complicated... with the.... y'know. I hope I was somewhat lucid.

>>21431024
It's just he looks sweaty in all of them and I didn't know that meant hand on forehead.

>>21431033
>>21431030
you're right, i'm sorry, thank you!

>>21430930
you fool

What the hell is going on with this thread?

>>21431678
dfw culture. /lit/ culture. you'll never understand.

>>21430976
I remember when you were collecting these, good times.
>>21431683
In his defense that culture is largely dead and only practiced by some old fags and a few autists who read IJ for reasons other then checking it off on their goodreads accounts, there is no reason for him to understand.

>>21430976
post Mario pls

>>21431721
Just do a search for Infinite Jest characters, google will bring that one up along with fan art for other characters.

>>21431715
meanwhile, pretty much everyone that was here then are here now. it's just that our influence has been diluted by an encroaching zoomie brainlet soup. these unruly youths must be instructed, not shunned (though some MUST be shunned) so you're right to defend and give some frame of explanation. I'll be more patient in the future. It's all we have. If we of all people can't share the passion of literature with them, who the hell can? the damn robots? i won't have it!

>>21431734
Oldfags need to step aside and let the new generation find their own way instead of crying about their lost youth. We had our turn to play with culture and discover we could affect the world in ridiculous ways, now it is their turn and they can not do that with a bunch of boomers telling them they did it wrong. It is their culture now and oldfags are terrible judges of what is new, previous generations would have thought our DFW memes completely inane and a demonstration that we missed the point. Face it, the bulk of the time we were not talking about literature, we were making memes because they were new and fun, time to let the kids enjoy what is new and fun.

>>21431749
eh, i'd agree if it weren't for the fact that none of these kids know how to read, since their idiot parents never took the time to teach them, and what limited attention they have is spent on tiktok and mindlessness. the few youth that *do* show up here are in desperate need of some guidance, and suggesting they need none is just as harmful as obliquely gatekeeping with a grudge. if you think the new generation is capable of literary innovation, i'd like to understand your perspective, as it seems to me they're so lacking in simple comprehension that things like subtext are entirely lost on them. the mere idea that there is meaning *behind* the words, lurking below the surface, appears to be completely lost on them, and often entire threads are devoted to this or that zoomer being utterly incapable of thought deeper than the reflection in a street puddle, and tossing it all up in exchange for quick, meaningless entertainment and what is overall cheap, tawdry genre fiction. this is not a good sign for the hope of literature, and i'll be surprised if in their maturity there is a lengthy period of mindless book burnings, or some other ludicrous act of similar destruction.

*i'll not be surprised, sorry for the repetition of "lost on them", i kept getting dragged away by festivities.

>>21430930
how new are you?

>>21431962
Anon, you need some perspective.
>First year sales of IJ, 44k
>US population in 96`, 275 million
0.016% of the population bought copies. Lets look at the NYT best sellers of that year,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times_Fiction_Best_Sellers_of_1996
Not exactly a year filled great literary best sellers and all of those books probably sold more copies in their first month if not week than IJ sold in its first year and they probably have first year sales greater than IJ entire sales. The vast majority never read anything but light reading for entertainment value and a single generation is not going to kill literature.

>>21432214
>using IJ as the touchstone for determining the literary tastes of a generation
what?
IJ isn't literature.
there are probably a maximum of 500 users of lit at any given time (an extremely generous figure, i often feel as though there are probably 50 or so during a month's cycle at *best*)
this is a tiny group, and those with talent are even more select. literature and those who appreciate it are an incredibly small group, or are so when they're sought online (given that they're typically too busy actually reading to waste time here) and this rather minuscule window is what i describe as the current literary generation, and in a cheeky manner at that. no, if we're being realistic, there are perhaps 1 million folks on earth carrying the torch of true literary promise, whether as observers or creators, and that skews heavily towards observers, probably 10000 to 1. which is appropriate for an age, since true literary genius is so scant a talent, let alone those that end up being remotely visible.
now. of this incredibly small group, how many of those observers might come here, to park themselves? a few hundred, surely, over the course of the year. these few are showing themselves to be such dunces that they may very well destroy literature without guidance, for even the observers must be able to stoke the poor flame of the absurdly tiny few who will act as their voices. this is not a mindless practice, devotion to teaching hungry minds, and further still, to pretend that literature is not fragile, i can't help but wonder where the hell you're finding this hope. i sense it's more your naivete than anything else.

>>21432289
>my idol does not like IJ that means it is not literature
ok. I thought you were being ironic with the Bloom pic, why did you come into a DFW thread? More importantly, using /lit/ as a metric for readers is ridiculous, 99% of people who read and want to discuss literature will come here once, look at the catalog and never return.
>i can't help but wonder where the hell you're finding this hope.
Listening to people complain about this same thing for the previous two generations and nothing coming of it.

Last night I fell asleep to a video of a guy complaining about the tv adaption of the foundation series and the fundamental flaw is that Hollywood doesn’t know how to tell stories of systemic issues. When I thought about it, the only thing I could think of was the Wire. Then I thought about all the DFW characters and the depth that the written word provides. The screen keeps us so limited and in control. Thinking about anything people call good suddenly makes me want to punch a wall. Fuck television feels like nails against the chalk board, but I know I’m just addicted to the modern equivalent of TV. The false sincerity of it all just to extract value.

>>21432315
bloom was a dragon to kill with an inky lance, not an idol to worship. i take on the mantle of criticism, for some reason he chose me, so i must live with this fiery breath.
>nothing coming of it
i see you like to ignore things, namely the steady decline in literature, and the crumbling stature of what was once a booming nation of letters. i wouldn't want to dispel your illusions, lest you shatter and your slivers guilt my feet, so i'll leave you on your blithe shelf.

>>21432377
>literature must reflect my values and meet my standards or its not literature!
Sure thing.

>>21432410
values? no. standards? absolutely. i doubt you'll do it, but try to accept that some people have expectations of literature that are not met by every tom dick and harry that steps to the plate. i don't mind if you like to wallow in the muckpuddle of your sty. come to think of it, why in the world would you fling your filth at me? is it because you can't escape? perhaps having a useful bar of standards would help lever you out.
good day, merry christmas, goodbye.

>>21432434
>my arrogance proves I have exemplary taste
Nah, just means you are arrogant and probably are a moron who hides behind their arrogance.

Has anyone read IJ in a translation (german specifically)? I'm learning german and I'm at the point where I should start reading on my own. Debating whether I should read some original german lit or a translation of some work I already read in english.

>>21432681
Original German bruh. Isn’t the goal to read books in their original language. DFW even mentions in the interview (because it was for a German audience) that he tried to read the one translation he could and hated how much meaning was lost and refused to listen to anyone about the translations and let the publisher do their thing.

>>21432681
Reading a book which you have already read will teach you more, generally people pick a book that they read a translation of already and can now read in its original language but there is no reason you can not go the other way. Doing this gives you a basis for comparison, you can gauge how well you understand, most important thing is to pick a book which you have a firm grasp of the subtext.