/lit/ - Literature

It took out the wall as a defense.

Made the Ottoman empire happen.

It accidentally castles

>>5063929
But I like walls

>>5063901
you can only live so long, and there are too many books, you might as well read good ones

>>5063975
but why are they good you dong?

>>5064146

Various reasons. If you meant to ask why are they considered good, it's based on a mix of decades/centuries of cultural relevance and the views of scholars.

>>5064183
but good doesn't mean important.

>>5064188
Good doesn't have a set meaning. Language is fluid. You need water to live. You can also be killed by water. Is water good?

>>5064209
>you might as well read good ones
so those could be any books then? and this response was meaningless? and didn't answer the opie's question?

>>5064224
of course you could be a special snowflake and prefer the scribbles of a toddler, but, in a long line of literary geniuses there has appeared a fairly strong consensus of the best works humanity has created and saved up to now. I thought this was obvious but I have been too optimistic it seems.

>>5064273
but why was there this consensus? you still cannot say why they are good/important. you have accepted the idea so deeply yet you cannot even articulate why.

>>5064282
my ability to articulate has nothing to do with the truth of the matter

the better question is, what proof do you have that it is wrong or ineffective?

art is the domain of intuition, listen to a symphony and then feel the struggle of putting it into words

explain why this painting is great

>>5064302
so it is completely based on individual intuition? there is no framework in which we can comment on something other than our gut feeling?

i'm just trying to socratic method up in here to figure stuff out.

>>5064302
>the better question is, what proof do you have that it is wrong or ineffective?
this is a copout

>>5064282

There is no "consensus." The canon changes with the times. Can you even read a Wikipedia page? Evidently not.

>The process of listmaking—defining the boundaries of the canon—is endless. The philosopher John Searle has said: "In my experience there never was, in fact, a fixed 'canon'; there was rather a certain set of tentative judgments about what had importance and quality. Such judgments are always subject to revision, and in fact they were constantly being revised."[2]

>>5064315
the other anon claimed there was a consensus. i was inviting him to look deeper into what he actually knows and beliefs.

>>5064308
well, if you could sum up a novel totally into a (short) comment then why would you write the novel? This applies to a symphony, painting etc. You can comment on sections of it which is what, I think, criticism/analysis ends up being. Any comment on the whole would be lacking or at least different(translations).

It just so happens my individual intuition lines up with a few geniuses from whiles ago.

Whether or not they are geniuses, I guess, depends on how empathetic you are.

Then again, I may be wrong.

>>5064314
it isn't

that isn't all I wrote anyway

>>5064321
>>5064315
i said fairly strong consensus, i never said it wasn't changing slowly

>>5064335
but you wrote it anyway. this is important.
>>5064329
this was a good post. good points and you avoided being pretentious. i love it. you have convinced me. actually not so much convinced as satisfied. i feel good about what came up.

>>5064341
also i'm drunk. i like to ask a lot of questions when i'm drunk.

>>5064347
Why is that?

A minute of your attention anons, to share with you the canon story of the internet

Masterchan is coming back in just a few hours, and will LITERALLY change how the internet works.

Help spread this image if you are an old masterchanfag, or just willing to see a shitstorm happen. RIP 4chan

Fun is coming to the internet once more

>>5064349
you are pretty cheeky. nice try.