/lit/ - Literature

I'm perfectly fine with reading about people doing things. All of my favorite books are basically plotless - style and character are much more important in my enjoyment than plot is.

Jonathan Franzens 10 rules of writing:

1) The reader is a friend, not an adversary, not a spectator.
2) Fiction that isn't an author's personal adventure into the frightening or the unknown isn't worth writing for anything but money.
3) Never use the word "then" as a conjunction – we have "and" for this purpose. Substituting "then" is the lazy or tone-deaf writer's non-solution to the problem of too many "ands" on the page.
4) Write in the third person unless a really distinctive first-person voice offers itself irresistibly.
5) When information becomes free and universally accessible, voluminous research for a novel is devalued along with it.
6) The most purely autobiographical fiction requires pure invention. Nobody ever wrote a more autobiographical story than "The Metamorphosis".
7) You see more sitting still than chasing after.
8) It's doubtful that anyone with an internet connection at his workplace is writing good fiction [the TIME magazine cover story detailed how Franzen physically disables the Net portal on his writing laptop].
9) Interesting verbs are seldom very interesting.
10) You have to love before you can be relentless.[45]

>>2991199

>In those cases, the writing is just... people doing things. That's not worth reading about.

Maybe if you're a pleb and also smelly.

As far as I'm concerned you could do away with the whole "story" part.

>>2991205
Apparently, you're not alone. Plotless garbage is currently selling like hotcakes. The only theory that explains it is that the people who actually enjoy it have led lives in which nothing much has happened, nor meaningful relationships ever made. It's as if reading about normal people doing normal things is equivalent in their minds to the way normal people feel reading about astronauts or heroes or fabulous lovers.

Perhaps this is the largest demographic that is still buying and reading books?

>>2991212
/v/ here, it's happening in Vidya too, especially with the onset of modern shooters horrible gameplay. It could be a trend with just a much younger audience having access to the big bucks though, so things really don't need much of a plot to sell.

>>2991212
Just because people are doing things and it doesn't have a plot doesn't necessarily mean they are normal people doing normal things. I'm never going to be trapped on a boat with a crazed husband building mechanical trees with no hope of touching land again. I'll never be the grandmother on a remote Finish island appreciating nature in all its temperaments with my granddaughter. I'll never be the eccentric alter ego/childhood friend of an author, traveling on trains and having discussions with people in languages I don't even know.

Plotless doesn't have to equal boring!

>2) Give the reader at least one character they can root for.

Kurt Vonnegut confirmed for retard pandering to the lowest common denominator.

>>2991223
Stoooopid.

>>2991223
Wow, so it turns out having a character your audience can feel sympathy for is a bad thing. I guess ever author who ever had a character people actually want to succeed is now confirmed for retard too.

>>2991221
LOL!
You're right. "Normal people" was a bad word choice. I should have said "laser space ninjas doing laser space ninja things" so you could understand the point a little more clearly.

>>2991236
I think you misinterpreted which "normal people" I was talking about.

>It's as if reading about normal people doing normal things

I was saying that even though a book is plotless, it doesn't have to be about "normal people doing normal things." I wasn't talking about the normal people who read about "astronauts or heroes or fabulous lovers."

>plotless garbage

Television was here. Mad Men says hi.

>>2991234

Can you read, you thick little mongrel?

It isn't a problem if there's a character or characters people sympathize with, it IS a problem to have a RULE that states there SHOULD ALWAYS be a character who the reader can sympathize with.

>>2991240
You're still confused. I VERY CLEARLY got your point. Now see if you can go back and get mine.

I'm starting to see why plotless books are so fascinating to you, lol.

>>2991199
What's an example of a plotless book you've read, OP?

>>2991249
I don't read plotless books. Ask some of the plotless book readers in this thread for examples.

>>2991254

I just came ITT to say one thing: you seem like a big cunt.

Have a nice day.

>>2991199
>>2991206

2 terrible writers giving worthless advice. What a surprise.

>>2991243
Huh, well I can read. But I can also misread too.
I agree that declaring that you MUST have a sympathetic character isn't always necessary (I'm looking at you George R. Martin), I thought you were declaring that having a sympathetic character was a bad idea for some reason.

Sorry dude.

>>2991261

no

>>2991206
> Nobody ever wrote a more autobiographical story than "The Metamorphosis".
Citation fucking needed. And I don't mean on a "hurr durr Kafka didn't turn into a beetle" level -- I get what he's trying to say, but if you know anything about Kafka you'll know that he and Gregor are completely different people with completely different problems.

>>2991205
Examples?

>>2991288
>Citation fucking needed. And I don't mean on a "hurr durr Kafka didn't turn into a beetle" level -- I get what he's trying to say, but if you know anything about Kafka you'll know that he and Gregor are completely different people with completely different problems.

Thinking The Metamorphosis was autobiographical. Lol'd.
When Kafkas friend read the first draft of the Trial he just laughed out loud, because it was like a funny satirical joke.

Most of his books are comedies.

>>2991264
There are sympathetic characters in game of thrones though? I've only read the first 1 and a half because they aren't worth the time, but I could name a load of sympathetic characters off the top of my head.

>>2991261
2edgy4me

George Orwell's 6 rules of writing:

1) Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
2) Never use a long word where a short one will do.
3) If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
4) Never use the passive where you can use the active.
5) Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
6) Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

>>2991199
It's worth noting that these were his rules of writing for short stories, not writing in general.

Also:
>o my mind, in a lot of modern literature WAY too much emphasis is put on character development, in some cases to the complete exclusion of actually telling a story
But how the characters change is the fucking 'story' you pleb.

>>2991295
>Most of his books are comedies
Well shit, really? Thank you learned Anon for seeing fit to impart on us such forbidden and hitherto unknown secrets. Any more gems you'd like to share with us? How about the fact that Asimov largely wrote sci-fit, or maybe the knowledge that Chuck Palahniuk is a hack? Please, I am anxious to learn!

>>2991306
Stop being a dick. I'm not that guy but a lot of people (especially, but not limited to, those who haven't read any of it) try to see Kafka's stuff as being gravely serious, when it's really not. They just don't get the jokes.

>>2991311
But it's satire. Grim, gut-wrenching, deadpan satire. I thought that was obvious?

>>2991322
Me too, but it's not uncommon for people not to get it.

rules are for plebs, no author started with rules prior to writing

>>2991292
Sure. The ones I mentioned in >>2991221 are Log of the S.S. The Mrs Unguentine by Stanley Crawford, The Summer Book by Tove Jansson and Kornel Esti by Dezso Kosztolanyi.

>>2991327
You have to remember that a lot of people reading Kafka are Americlaps.

>>2991331
That explanation makes a lot of sense.

>>2991303
>But how the characters change is the fucking 'story' you pleb.
Everyone's character changes all the time. It doesn't mean it's worth reading about-- unless your own life is so devoid of content that you find that kind of thing positively scintillating.

Good stories need... well... STORY. Character cannot be developed or revealed in any interesting way without it. I mean, this is just common sense shit people. How can you claim to be knowledgeable about literature and not know this?

>>2991331
I've never met one intelligent person who doesn't understand Kafka is satire.

>>2991296
yeah there are sympathetic characters, but they die horribly quite often and sometimes the various viewpoints, Cersei's in particular later on, are a gigantic cluster bomb of scheming, lying, petty douchebags. And it can be great fun but also a bit of a slog when you really find yourself hating every single person.

>>2991372
most of the really sympathetic characters don't die, and if you find most of the viewpoint characters hateful, you're probably doing it wrong. yes, cersei is a terrible human being, but she's closer to the exception than to the rule.

i wouldn't describe kafka as "satire"

i mean, i get where you're coming from, i just don't think "satire" is precisely the right word

>>2991389
I couldn't think of a more appropriate word.

>>2991221

is the last example a reference to a particular novel? If so I'm interested.

>>2991360
>good stories need story
Luckily a novel isn't explicitly a story then, huh, mr. tautological tripfag.

>>2991372
>sometimes
Key word. He never said that every character had to be sympathetic, just that ONE should be. Also characters can be scheming, lying and petty and still be sympathetic if it's done well. Example: Richard III from Richard III.

>>2991464
>Luckily a novel isn't explicitly a story then, huh, mr. tautological tripfag.
Cite one novel of any noted artistic merit that does not have a plot.

>>2991547
Ulysses

>>2991547
"Crash" by J G Ballard

They just bugger each other, drive around and do acid the whole time

>>2991560
>Thinks Ulysses doesn't have a plot.
Hoo boy. This gon' be a long thread.

>>2991571
>Crash
>noted artistic merit
Try again.

>>2991547

Molloy - Samuel Beckett
The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman - Lawrence Stern
The Naked Lunch - William Burroughs.
Almost everything Georges Perec ever wrote.

I can't be bothered to name more.

>>2991598
>Molloy - Samuel Beckett
I think Malone Dies has even less of a plot

>>2991454
Yeah, the last one is Kornel Esti by Dezso Kosztolanyi.

>>2991598
I thought this would happen. Look, you (et. al.) are naming lists of books that either have plots (albeit ones that you are apparently unable to discern) or books that are of no noted artistic merit.

Keep trying though!

>>2991547
I'm curious as to what you define as a plot. Would a book involving simply a character going to the grocery store and buying groceries be considered to have a plot?

Or a man wandering around town looking at people be a plot?

Or do they have to go places, do things, and actively change the world around them for it to be a plot.

>>2991547
The Book of Disquiet by Fernando Pessoa. Or do you not believe that has artistic merit either?

>>2991595
>booker prize
>no noted artistic merit

wow you're silly

>>2991620
Clearly, your idea of "noted artistic merit" and mine differ wildly.

>>2991640
well what IS your idea? name a work of literature, regardless of plot, that you'd deem of noted artistic merit

>>2991640
State your definitions of lot and artistic merit then.

>>2991655
*plot

>>2991640
We have a cunty tripfag, ladies and gentlemen. Abort all attempts to reason with him.

>>2991636
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_winners_and_shortlisted_authors_of_the_Booker_Prize_for_Fic
tion

Show me Crash on that list.

>>2991648
>>2991655
Nice try, but I'm not going to do your work for you.

If you disagree with my postulation, then the onus is on YOU to disprove it, not me. Therefore, YOU must name the novel, and YOU must show that it has artistic merit. Anything less is tantamount to confession that I'm right and you're wrong. If you can't handle that, perhaps this isn't the thread for you

>>2991678
Stop posting

>>2991678
>then the onus is on YOU to disprove it, not me

It seems that the only way they can disprove it is if they know what they're trying to disprove. Since you are defining what they should be disproving, it is on you to let them know what a) noted artistic merit and b) plot are to you so they can then find a book that has a but does not have b.

You're either very dumb or just an asshole.

Drop your trip.

>>2991678
but you see, I need to know YOUR concept of artistic merit; otherwise I would just keep posting the same things as before. I can't just go blindly spurting out names until I find the point were our definitions overlap

>>2991678
The faggotry oozing from this message is coating everything. Contain it.

>>2991661
Wait, so would a Booker Prize or other major literature award then prove the "artistic merit" of a work for you?

What I'm seeing here is a bunch of Anons becoming very, very frustrated when it becomes apparent that I'm just utterly right, as I said I was, and there's nothing they can do about it but become angry, hurl insults, and try transparent sematic ploys to gain some imaginary advantage.

It's a good day to be anonymous, Anonymous.

>>2991769
You've rustled many jimmies, my good arrogant tripfag. You get the highest regards I can give to a troll or asshole.

>>2991769
it's a good day to not make any argument at all, too, apparently

this means I was right then

>>2991747
It would help, some. The fact that "The Life of Pi" and "The sense of an Ending" also won a Booker prize, doesn't.

Why don't you just tell us what you think you found, and we'll take it from there, hmm?

>>2991782
Score:

Anon-1
Zed cuntburger- 0

>>2991776
>>2991782
Empty, vapid ejaculations will do nothing to forward this discussion. Please stop shitposting, it's really the cancer killing /lit/.

>>2991794
Oh good god.

>>2991786
But the life of pi was good and was deemed to be so by a panel of writers, critics, and academics whose opinions are undoubtedly worth more than yours.

>>2991789
And to think I've already used my favorite facepalm image in this thread.

>>2991789
you also should know Zed is a /fa/ tripfag so don't expect any actual insight on literature from him

>>2991794

>>2991802
>I'm going to leave!
>no really, I'm going to leave!
>Okay now I"m leaving!
....
>Yeah I'm going to leave just give me a sec
>hold on man I just wanna stay
>don't make me go I'm just gonna leave later!
>leaving soon.......

>>2991769
well, at least you're using a tripcode so I can remember next time I see you that you're an arrogant prick with nothing to say

>>2991799
> a panel of writers, critics, and academics whose opinions are undoubtedly worth more than yours.
No question.

There's also no question that 2002 was a slow year. Point being, someone MUST win every year, and just because you pick the least-stinking of all the stinking pieces of garbage, doesn't mean you've picked a rose.

>>2991803
>arrogant pretentious douchebag
>/fa/
suddenly it all makes sense

>>2991817
3.5/10

>>2991803
No, Zed WAS an /fa/ tripfag. He changed his name at my request, keeping his old tripcode, which, to anyone capable of paying the slightest bit of attention to anything at all, is very different from mine.

Keep trying, failanon.

End the thread. Now. All we are doing is feeding him.

>>2991837
You know, I could easily be thwarted if someone were to post a plotless novel along with citations of its notable artistic merit. That would really shut me down!

One hour and counting for that though, LOL.

>>2991848
Tell us what constitutes plotlessness and what constitutes literary merit in your eyes and we'll be happy to do that sir.

>>2991855
see:
>>2991678
You'll have to do your own work, sorry.

>>2991861
Okay. If that's how you want to do this, you win, we are all wrong, and we are all dumber than you. Go celebrate your victory.

>>2991861
White Noise. Now you can delete this thread.

>>2991874
Thanks!
But I don't celebrate things that I already knew, or things are mundane (in a similar way to how plotless novels are not celebrated lol)

>>2991861

>The king answered and said to the Chaldeans, “My decision is firm: if you do not make known the dream to me, and its interpretation, you shall be cut in pieces, and your houses shall be made an ash heap. However, if you tell the dream and its interpretation, you shall receive from me gifts, rewards, and great honor. Therefore tell me the dream and its interpretation.”

>They answered again and said, “Let the king tell his servants the dream, and we will give its interpretation.

>The king answered and said, “I know for certain that you would gain time, because you see that my decision is firm: if you do not make known the dream to me, there is only one decree for you! For you have agreed to speak lying and corrupt words before me till the time has changed. Therefore tell me the dream, and I shall know that you can give me its interpretation.

>The Chaldeans answered the king, and said, “There is not a man on earth who can tell the king’s matter; therefore no king, lord, or ruler has ever asked such things of any magician, astrologer, or Chaldean. It is a difficult thing that the king requests, and there is no other who can tell it to the king except the gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh.”

>For this reason the king was angry and very furious.

Vonnegut is too poppy for me. It's like pomo lit but watered down for people who are too impatient to read 700 pages of random tangents which are my favorite part.

>>2991879
Is this a troll thread? What is your obsession with some shitty "story". Character development in and of itself is a fucking narrative. And to use the word therefore after a statement with no actual reasoning is embarrassing.

>>2991888
Nice trips!
Your assessment of Vonnegut is basically every critique of him ever written. It's like you've read the Cliff's Notes on the Wikipedia article for him, and your 9th grade teacher told you to "put it into your own words", and you did.

But no, if "700 pages of random tangents" is your 'thing', then Vonnegut is not for you.

>>2991916
Yeah I've read Cat's Cradle and Slaughterhouse-Five and I wasn't into them for those reasons. Also Pynchon is my favorite author so that might be part of why I feel that way.

>>2991829
>anyone capable of paying the slightest bit of attention to anything at all

Wait, just one second. Do these cunts actually think we know their tripcodes? The level of self-absorption just went off the fucking meter.

haha get a load of this faggot

literature is judged primarily according to the linguistic criteria relevant to the language it's written in (quality of prose); plot is a secondary consideration at best,

vonnegut is just a passing fad for cynical teenagers, palahniuk transgarbage garbage, you're embarrasing yourself, get the fuck out, etc.

>1) Use the time of a total stranger in such a way that they will not feel the time was wasted.
He must not have had that one in mind when he wrote Galapagos.

>>2992117
HA!

>>2992106
Oh? Then I'm sure you'll have no trouble where the rest of /lit/ failed, to wit: Name one novel of noted artistic merit that does not have a plot.

I'm sure this will be no trouble. Ahem. Shoot!

>>2992309

You've already had Tristram Shandy mentioned you utter wankstain. How are you going to brush that off as lacking artistic merit?

>>2992106

Oh, man. Yeah, you and your academic friends can keep ignoring story. See if anyone but try-hards want to read you.

Newsflash: In the real world, nobody actually cares about Gravity's Rainbow or Ulysses.

>>2992317
It's 9 volumes. There's not just one plot, there's many. If you're trying to describe it as "plotless", perhaps you'd better read it again.

hi zed
how're the kids
I disagree with 2, 4, 5, and kind of 8
2 - There's absolutely no justification for that - that's just wanting to relate to characters
4 - As you said
5 - Sometimes it is the irrelevant introduction material that is most important
8 - Oh come on now

captcha: TobsAre circling

>>2992323

Pathetic obvious samefag

>>2992340

>doesn't understand the word plot

Keep it up, trippo - I'm sure I'm not the only one amused by your idiocy.

Not saging because you're pricelessly funny.

>>2992342

oh marvellous. now this cunt. just what we needed.

>>2992344

Wrong. Your tears are delicious, though.

No problems with those, except my problem with asking writers about "rules of writing".

Seriously, ask any 10 writers, and you'll get 10 completely different lists. I don't know why anyone even bothers.

>>2992340

Are you just upset because everyone's telling you that your poetry is shit in that other thread?

You're really revealing yourself as the mega-breakfast platter of stupid today.

You go girlfriend.

>>2992309
>>2992309

The unnameable

santa: 1
faggot:0

>>2992342
rangaha! Good to see you! The wife and kid are beautiful, kind and talented as always. I have no idea why either of them continue to put up with me. How have you been?

I agree with you on all points:
#2 is so arbitrary! If you can write for sour apples, you'll have a character the reader can "root for". If you write nothing but characters that everyone hates, you should take up knitting or chiropractic or something else besides writing. #5 is true in a general sense, but it's really just a donkey-bridge for reminding people to be concise and tight. #8 is for people who SUCK at writing suspense. Vonnegut himself admitted he was terrible at suspense-- maybe he threw that one in there to excuse himself. But to be fair, MOST writers are horrible at suspense-- they're better off not trying.

>>2992376
You're terrible at detecting samefags. But do share that thread-- I love making fun of people's garbage poetry.

>>2992381
>The Unnameable
>noted artistic merit
You apparently believe that the combination of "French" and "old" equates to "noted artistic merit". How sad for you!

>>2992393

ITT: People name books and some tripfag says they have no artistic merit because it gives him some kind of hard-on.

You seem to have been doing this for hours now - maybe it's time for a break.

Either way, I'm not that interested. Sage for shitposting.

>>2992393

AAAAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHA

>>2992393
>poster names book
>Zed denies the book has merit
>Zed offers no definition of merit
>This continues until the thread dies, a book fitting criteria is randomly guessed, or all literature is deemed merit-less so Zed can continue to gloat superiority or victory in what should be a discussion and not a guessing contest
>Zed responds to this post with arrogant snark or something contrary to trump prediction

>>2992393

>beckett
>french
>no merit

Pls leave.

>>2992399
You're only right on one point-- people are naming books.

However, their inability to demonstrate that any of them have notable artistic merit absolutely does not give me a hard-on (it's difficult to obtain an erection while laughing), I haven't been doing this for hours (have gone for a jog, went to the store, and cooked dinner in between various posts... check the times), and you're clearly interested, otherwise you wouldn't have posted anything. So, looks like you need to either deal with it or go be mad somewhere else.

>your post thrown on the growing pile of failposts and shitposts in this thread.

>>2992399
>>2992409
>>2992410
>>2992412
I can sweep all these fails up with the same brush: Inability to demonstrate "noted artistic merit" of the plotless novels they are white-knighting.

You guys are too easy!

>>2992412

It was written in French. And the OPtrip already dismissed Molloy as "lacking artistic merit" or something. So it's clear that he does't understand art, literature or the concept of "artistic merit".

There's literally no point in continuing with this nonsense.

>>2991223
Vonnegut never said it had to be the protagonist. If your book doesn't have such a broad spectrum of characters that it isn't possible to identify with at least one of them, then you're doing something wrong.
inb4plebe
For example in Slaughterhouse 5, you have everyone to sympathize with from the nazis to billy to the guy that enjoyed torturing dogs to the aliens. There was such diversity of world views and motives that you'd have to have aspergers to not identify with at least one of them, and even if you had aspergers you probably identified with the trafalmadorians.

>>2992423

Samuel Beckett:


Croix de guerre (France)
Médaille de la Résistance (France)
1959 honorary doctorate from Trinity College, Dublin
1961 International Publishers' Formentor Prize (shared with Jorge Luis Borges).
1968 Foreign Honorary Member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences
1969 Nobel Prize for Literature.


No artistic merit? I spit on your opinion.

>>2992438
Please! Do tell me all about the noted artistic merits! I'm sure you've read all about it, so it should be no trouble for you.

Surely, you aren't just saying you believe something to be true and are unable to back it up! That would just be... Stupid. Obtuse. Oblivious. Etc.

>>2992448
You never define it yourself. Give your definition if you are so sure, tripfag.

(in coming "I'm not doing your work for you")

>>2992443
Oh dear. You are aware those awards are not associated with a specific novel, yes? I mean, you know that writers write several novels, and that things like the Nobel Prize are awarded for the overall impact of that writer's body of contribution to literature... and not, as you are apparently trying to insinuate, because of one (apparently plotless) novel they wrote?

Surely you're aware of that. If not.. dear. How embarrassing for you.

>>2992454
So what you're telling me is that you're uncertain of the definition of 'notable artistic merit', and yet are steadfastly declaring that certain plotless novels have it?

Yes, you called it. I'm not going to do your work for you. Considering the difficulty I've had so far with making people like you understand even the simplest things, I'm confident that the task would simply be more effort than I'm willing to put up with just for your sake.

>>2992479

I literally do not understand how someone can continue trolling in the same way for so long. It's almost pathological.

Nor why other people in this thread continue to feed them. Is this everyone's first day on 4chan? Go do something else for fuck's sake.

I'm starting to think that zed=d&e. The style of repetitive autism is very similar

>>2992468

youre the biggest fucking tool ive seen. ALL of his works are devoid of plot and conventional structure. fucking die in a fire you stubborn cunt/

>>2992479
>So what you're telling me is that you're uncertain of the definition of 'notable artistic merit', and yet are steadfastly declaring that certain plotless novels have it?

No. I'm saying I want your definition of literary merit. I've have neither defended any plotless novels nor have I declared that any plotless novels have merit of any kind; I've only gawked at your rudeness and arrogance. I just wanted you to own up to your claim of the knowledge of the definition of 'notable artistic merit' and you didn't. So that's that.

>>2992492
>ALL of his works are devoid of plot and conventional structure.

Maybe not Mercier and Camier - there's a kind of plot in that.

This tripfag is, however, stubborn and a cunt.

>>2992489
He is fed because he is entertaining.

>>2992489
So, you're basically saying that you feel that anyone with an opinion other than yours is a troll, and that you can't understand why people respond to this thread... in a post where you are responding to this thread?

If it's true that what we say about others is really what we're saying about ourselves, then if you're looking for pathology and autism, you should really have a look in the mirror.

>>2992492
>ALL of his works are devoid of plot

>>2991302
>>2991302
>4) Never use the passive where you can use the active.

this is the biggest load of bullshit ever concieved by a bunch of hacks that wrote a book about something they know nothing about

>>2992497
Ah. So you're saying that you had nothing to add to the conversation, and just came in to shitpost and rage at a tripfag. Yes, that is that. Goodbye.

>>2991302
To be fair, the first two-thirds of 1984 and all of animal house read like teen literature.

>>2992517
Dude, are you Cannabis-Loving Tripfag?

>>2992519
>Animal House

>>2992517
I love you too Zed. I love you too. Tell the wife I said "shmegmah."

>>2992511

name one that is otherwise

>>2992519

>animal house

>>2992531
>>2992559
Don't judge me monkey. *cough*
Somone pass the Bugles.

>>2992539
Murphy.

>walk into thread
>see anon using trips again
>anon posting wiki links to reinforce argument (lol)
>anon gotta take it easy

>mfw I get home and this thread is still alive.