/lit/ - Literature

violent movies are enjoyable
violent lit is boring

>>3706072
Has it come to this? Just leave and never come back.

violence is bitchin

>>3706084
peace is bitchin

Someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill 'em right back.

I swear to god, if you ever post on this board ever again I'll kill you and your entire family

Hitler wasn't violent enough

>feelio transviolencia dichotóm

I used to think less of me because of my temptation to insert fistycuffs as a legitimate conflict in my stories. However I rationalized it by saying that those fights crystallize psychological and moral tension, and the result of the actual fight doesnt really matter as the conflict is not going to be resolved by it.

Thanks OP for reigniting my doubts. Fuck you.

Violence is great in literature. It's just not about the action, but the consequences, and suspense. It's a visceral hook to keep a reader interested. You can write some fine prose about a man bleeding to death. In fact, I really wonder why this sort of thing isn't used more often.

>>3706079
violence in /lit/ can be very powerful when executed well
it's just hard to execute well

im strangely aroused by that dude's forehead

>>3708700

Looks like George Costanza with a forehead vagina. What is that from anyway?

>>3708700

that feel

>>3708705

sup goats..or, hospital tiles, or zeta?

there's like,
way too fucking many out there, at this point.

>>3708690
violence has to be weird or in a weird place. it can't just be there.
hard to do

>>3708711
lel i'll try to make clear when it's me who's stanning

>>3706072

Ultima Ratio Regum, bitch.

Last argument method available for everyone, really

>>3708704
Its from star trek voyager. Some cosmo pseduo intellectual dickwad. Actually bears a lot of resemblance to many people on lit, truly. Check out the episode.

>>3708711

hold on, who the fuck is hospital tiles?

>>3708742

reserve stan. put hospital tiles in the email field. wtf right

>>3708744

who's this >>3708726 then? the real sarepta?

le late to the party yet again

stan thread?

>>3708745
>who's this >>3708726 then? the real sarepta?
yes

>>3708745

hrhrhr thats you dude

>>3708747
whats good?

>>3708747
stank thread

you people are odious

>>3708754

prove it

>>3708755

im not sarepta

stain and cohorts ruining yet another great literature thread

>>3708760

>cohorts

its just me babygirl and where's the literature exactly?

>>3708765

it's a thread about violence. presumably they mean that since there is violence in some literature, this is then a literature thread. also i guess random topic threads are made literature threads in virtue of this being a literature board?

>>3708777

thats just fucking stupid, i might as well make a thread about eggs because someone probably ate eggs in some literature book at some point

that janitor is a vagina

>>3708808

agreed

>>3708808
>>3708813

lel, you guys are gonna get b&

>>3708817

you spelled gramophone wrong btw

>>3708836

why are you always on my case stan?

>>3708841

heh i knew it was you.
because you're clearly the retard of the group, hospital tiles

>>3708847

>>3708755
>whats good?
dat upcoming crash after two days of wake to recalibrate loaflife dormetics

goodnight stans

>be 18
>gf falls for an alpha douche, fucks him, lies to me about it for months
>cry for a week
>decide, no, I will become alpha
>join a gym, eat well
>20, strong, toned
>girls all on my dick at parties
>mostly flings that don't mean anything
>want a more lasting relationship
>one qt 3.14 librarian girl in particular
>take her out on a date
>go back to her house and fuck her
>car pulls in driveway
>"Who the fuck is that?"
>"Oh it's my ex-boyfriend"
>"Why is he here?"
>"He must be jealous"
>got outside and see not an angry ex-boyfriend, but a crying CURRENT boyfriend
>he's the image of my 18 yr old self: tall, thin, pale, nerdy, glasses.
>It was HIS house he was letting her live in
>all the memories come flooding back when I was cheated on
>fucking pissed, leave him sobbing and go back inside
>in kitchen, she tries saying shit to me but I just stare at her thinking about breaking her nose
>see scissors on counter, sudden inspiration
>get her to sit down on a chair (this wasn't easy, I had to threaten her and pull on her hair and kick her, but she was petite and easy to drag around)
>cut her hair like pic related, totally fuck it up
>she's crying constantly, when I'm done she just throws herself on the floor and curls up like a fetus weeping
>go back outside, her boyfriend's car has gone
>go home

le alpha

>>3708868
I WANT THE PIC

>>3708874
imagine something like this

>>3708710
yeah
violence can be shocking, but it really depends on where it is and how it's described
I put 'in the miso soup' as the pic related because that has such a great disturbing and extremely violent scene, but it only works because of the tension, build up, atmosphere, contrast, etc. You can't just write 'and then the dude killed the other dude and pulled out his intestines and hanged himself from them', you have to really make the reader feel how fucked-up and shocking that is, and that's hard to pull off.

>>3708868
>>3708877

Trying too hard to be the joker a la the dark knight

>>3708987
Joker is not alpha. He is metabeta in that he transcends the alpha/beta dichotomy through deconstructing parody. He's the diabolical comic, really, in the etymological sense

I've recreationally tortured other humans, been in a lot of fights and also hurt myself on a regular basis.

I'm really not an edgy or angry person, which is why I have to deliberately seek out violent indulgences. People who have no interest in exploring physical extremes and unsafe situations seem like they're full of shit to me. Doesn't everyone want to hurt others and hurt themselves? Some people just have the will to do it and others don't.

>>3709017

maximum edgerdrive

That story I posted earlier didn't happen.
I copypasted the story, edited it a tiny bit, and changed the ending.
The original ending didn't specify the protagonists immediate reaction to finding out that the supposed ex-boyfriend was his lover's current boyfriend; instead, it focused on the longterm effect that the event had on the protagonist's life, describing how after going from being the beta cheated on for an alpha douche, to being an alpha douche that fucks a beta's girlfriend, he became apathetic and lost the motivation that originally spurred him to become "alpha", and now spends his days shitposting on 4chan.

Rather than having an existential ending about the futility of chasing our desires, I wanted an ending with a simple, satisfying resolution, being dissatisfied with the lack of action taken on the part of the protagonist when he finds himself in this apparently absurd situation. I believe my ending could be improved by including a conversation between the protagonist and his lover before he gets his retribution, this would make the protagonist's actions seem less extreme and without sufficient cause. Rather than having the protagonist simply hit the woman, I wanted to give her a more fitting punishment for her crimes. I think that the shaving of the heads of female adulterers is a great way of shaming them socially and inflicting lasting pain on them, which seems to me to be just considering how humiliating and hurtful it is to be cheated on.

>>3709150
Nobody gives a shit, you boring faggot.

>>3709153

>The Iliad
>plebeian

Go to bed.

>>3709017

>Doesn't everyone want to hurt others and hurt themselves?

Nope. You're dysfunctional and possibly sociopathic.

>>3709017
Probably because you're sheltered as fuck. A lot of people already have enough suffering to deal with so they don't go seeking it out like some fight club faggot.

>>3709017
>>3709017
Nope - I don't want to do any of those things.

>not realizing that violence lies at the heart of human civilization

who's the pleb really?

>>3709017
Excellent conclusion you've come to

>"Some people just have the will to do it and others don't."

>others dont think like me
>must be scared

>>3710721
>implying he is pro-civilisation

implications

>>3706072

Stupid taxpayer girl- "My mother said violence never solves anything."

Full citizen and veteran Mr. Dubois – “ I'm sure the city fathers of Carthage would be glad to know that. Anyone who clings to the historically untrue — and thoroughly immoral — doctrine that "violence never solves anything" I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and of the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms."

>>3710741
>Implying lack thereof would not lead to constant violence

Oh my!

>>3710746
>Napoleon
Used violence to commit mass murder.
>Hitler
Did the same, but much worse.
>Extinct birds
Driven extinct by what?

Violence is only ever necessary to deal with ASPD sufferers. In every other situation, there are and were other options.

>>3710746
Your use of dialog is pretty hilarious. Stawmanning the discourse of the opposite side while putting it in the mouth of an unlikeable character while emphasizing on the personal virtues and credibility of the character in charge of defending your thesis-subtle and masterful. You are a well-learned rhetoricist, as I see, you can proudly stand toe-to-toe with Ayn Rand. But let me look a bit at the content of the argument.
>violence never solves anything
Presumably this is the thesis you aim to debunk.
> I'm sure the city fathers of Carthage would be glad to know that.
I don't know what this exaple is supposed to demonstrate, but in the case of Carthage, violence didn't solve much, quite the contrary.
>Anyone who clings to the historically untrue — and thoroughly immoral — doctrine that "violence never solves anything"
Nice stock morality argument. Cheap and devoid of substance, but so easy. Let's see how the "historically untrue" part fares
> conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and of the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it.
Bonaparte's drive for conquest generated a great amount of backlash against France on top of draining the countries' ressources. But, more to the point, more problems were created than solved by the Napoleonian wars.
>the ghost of Hitler
Hitler is an even worse example in that he managed to indirectly (and to some extent even directly) achieved the ruin of his own country. Every problem he solved in the early years of his mandate came back to hit the German hard
>the Dodo
What did violence solve for the Dodo again ?
>Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor
Settled or solved ? This isn't the same thing. And it doesn't account for the issues it has created along the way.
>Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms.
Unwarranted moral prescriptions: the return.

>>3710777
cont'd
You didn't really tackle the problem, you merely invoked arguments of value with little content. I don't even agree with your "stupid taxpayer girl" (what has the "taxpayer" to do with the problem anyway ? you didn't explain that either) but you managed to make her point less stupid by the shallowness of your argumentation.

>>3706072
Violence is necessary to fight violent and oppressive governments. Widespread social disruption, making yourself into an obstacle for others, verbally engaging your opponents, is a form of violence.

Winning a fight should be right up there with sex with a beautiful woman on everybody's 'Essential things to experience before I die' list. It really is a great sense of elation, especially if you have an audience. But do be sure that the guy deserves it, though.

There will always be people willing to commit to violence to achieve their domination, extend their power and enforce their will. It's a fact of life, its biological. War will remain a fact, peace an ideal. And quite honestly, i would rather be the agressor than the victim.

>>3709010
Get a load of this guy

>>3710803
As long as it's a fight and not an assault.

>>3710813
Yeah, of course. I've never started a fight in my life, but I've had a few anyway (not for a while, though---I'm getting too old for that shit). Being confident in your ability to stand your ground against anyone is a really healthy thing and something everyone should strive for. When/if I have kids they're all taking martial arts lessons, even if they're girls.

Only brainwashed plebs detest violence, it has it's well earned place in life, none can deny this.

>>3710819
Yeah, you're definitely over-priortising this. Don't torment your children with your Spartan ideals.

>>3710843
You'll be singing a different tune when my daughter kicks your son's ass.

>>3710849
Before your resentful daughter gives up on her dream to be writer to enter MMA to please daddy.

>>3706072
warfare is the flowering of manhood. Indeed, historically the primary difference between the lower classes and the upper classes is that the upper classes fought - the 'plebs' did not.
I think it may be a testament to how far culture has fallen that now the lower-classes' avoidance of conflict is elevated to the status it has.

>>3710861
i remember the first time i read nietzsche.

>If a person is intelligent, then of course he is either an agnostic or an atheist. Just as he is a physical coward. They are automatic definitions of high intelligence.

>Indeed, historically the primary difference between the lower classes and the upper classes is that the upper classes fought - the 'plebs' did not.
The plebs got conscripted and did the actual fighting, though.The fights were picked by the high class, but it was undeniable the lower classes who suffered the worst.This was a basic fact of warfare from ancient times all the way up until World War Two. It was post-WW2 goals, tactics and technology in warfare that changed the dynamics and made large amounts of active combatants less necessary/viable. America lost almost half a million people in WW2 and were on the winning side; America lost ~58,000 in Vietnam and "lost."
I'm interested in where it is you read this point, and I'd like to see it somehow backed up with a little evidence. I'll agree Western culture has had a distinct warrior class and it was almost always the ruling caste, but it was the Romans who began the tradition of recruiting native tribes ("Do it or we'll fucking kill you, too" in so many words) to fight with them while conscripting/drafting forces from already settled areas. To suggest that it was only rich folks killing each other seems ludicrous from what I know about world history in general.

>>3710894
Not the same guy, but I think here it's irrelevant whether they fought directly or indirectly. The main point is that in any historical moment, people who ruled any given society were people who were willing to risk their and others safety in order to gain power. Lower classes always needed a reason to adopt a hostile attitude towards anyone, along with a guarantee that they were doing "the right thing", this is where propaganda comes from. A ruler does not care about these. He sees a hostile element in his environment and makes a decision to remove it by force, resulting in violence. This is what most people from lower classes never grasped, and this is why they rarely migrate to a higher class.

>>3710777
can you really be that thick?
nice trips
check em

>>3710928
partly because in pre-industrial societies workers were an asset. It's. weirdly enough, mostly in communist and socialist modern societies that they're expendable. (in capitalist societies they make up the bulk of the consumers that drive the economy--communism and socialism see consumption as a drain)

>>3710865
And I remember the first time I read him, too. How is that relevant?

>>3710938
I see your arguing method is still improving. Impressive. Sorry if I'm too overwhelmed by intellectual superiority, but would you please care to reformulate your debunking of my post in a way that will be easier to grasp for thick people like me ?

>>3710894
>The plebs got conscripted and did the actual fighting, though
Your point being what, exactly? That the lower classes did sometimes fight for themselves? And was this conscription universal? (tip - it wasn't).
Further, your analysis of military history is flawed - while modern militaries may seem smaller, that is only in comparison with the vast conscripted armies of the Napoleonic Era - early 20th Century. In, say, the Italian city-states there really were no standing armies, just guards and mercenaries.
Further, the impact on civilians *grew* with the advent of modern bombing and the concept of 'strategic military targeting'. In some earlier eras everything from common sense to the laws of the Church forbade such now-common practices as destroying water supplies to civilians or the specific targeting of non-combatant cities to inflict civilian casualties on purpose.
You also seem to have lost the thread of the discussion. OP is comparing the use of violence with being 'low class'. I am pointing out the fact that you readily admit - violence has historically been the prerogative of the higher classes.
Or, in simpler terms, I wasn't saying that only the wealthy fought, I was pointing out that the combatant class is traditionally upper class, not lower.

>>3710894
This, essentially. Making unsupported vague generalizations to support a lofty ideal of fighting will not really imrove the quality of the debate.

>>3710928
You have a point, but violence is not the only strategy for a ruler. The smartest were the one who could balance violence and diplomacy (think Octavus, the guy could forgive some of the people that tried to murder him so as to make them allies. e ended up creating the Roman Empire).

>>3709010
joker is ubermensch beyond slave/master

>>3710983
>I was pointing out that the combatant class is traditionally upper class, not lower.
Depends what you mean by traditionally. In many instances the combatant class was the middle-class of a tripartite system. The upper-class would be the priest or politicians (who in some case never had to fight for themselves). It's actually a well-documented phenomenon: indo-european tripartition (what you would refer to as "our culture before it fell, I guess"). Look it up.

>>3710986
Joker is not the übermensch of strength, but the outermensch of meaning. He gnaws at the mechanism of value allocation. He's much less Nietzschean thanmephistophelian, actually. If you mean the Dark Knight Joker, that is.

>>3710861
>warfare is the flowering of manhood. Indeed, historically the primary difference between the lower classes and the upper classes is that the upper classes fought - the 'plebs' did not.

i love you

>I think it may be a testament to how far culture has fallen that now the lower-classes' avoidance of conflict is elevated to the status it has.

not quite sure what you're driving at here.

>>3710861
>warfare is the flowering of manhood. Indeed, historically the primary difference between the lower classes and the upper classes is that the upper classes fought - the 'plebs' did not.

>mfw plebs try to disguise their cowardice and aversion to the military as "being too intelligent to be violent"
>mfw plebs think that military men are unintelligent drones just following orders and that the only reason are there is because they couldn't make it in civilian life

this is why I hate plebs

>>3708690
is this good?

>>3711015
So you made a even stupider strawman out of real stupid people you hate so as to hate them even harder. Good for you.

>>3711004
He's more like that asshole jumping over the tightroper, yeah.

>>3710999
you keep admitting that the warrior class was not the lower class again and again as if it obviated my point.

>>3711012
>not quite sure what you're driving at here.
From Feudal Japan to Rome, from Feudal Europe to Asia the values of the warrior classes (courage, honor, duty, etc.) going into decline were often associated with the culture as a whole going into decline. The Western Roman Empire recognized this. From the Caliphate to the various Chinese dynasties, you can see similar patterns.
I am drawing a very light parallel between that and the elevation of non-violence to a moral superiority. Even Ghandi admitted that non-violence is not always the best solution nor the most moral one.

>>3710860
But she wouldn't do that to him if he just copped on and made sure it was only for her own good and that he wasn't pushing her.

>>3710965
the surest method of understanding a post which you don't understand is to view it as an insult.