/lit/ - Literature

>hysterical realism
t. I read wikipedia

Anonymous writes about the banality of mentioning eye colours in fiction. Wtf. Why would anyone write something so trivial of 4chan? Why would you care about someone mentioning damn eye colour?
>>le I use le greentext to show how clever I am xD
Remind me why I post on /lit/

>>9568994
it's a meme and "we" don't like it anymore, get with the times

>>9568994
DFW wanted to achieve maximum informational density if by some chance fictional characters would start becoming real. Why do you think parts of the books are so enyclopedic?

>>9569060
>enyclopedic
Stupid buzz word.

>>9568994
Eye colour is interesting.
Did you know that around the time the odyssey was written, blue eye colour wasn't a thing. The allele for blue eyes existed but the colour itself didn't exist, rather it was grey/white and even dark red.

I notice this a lot on 4chan lately: people asking the most inept questions about great books, as if there were some deeper meaning in parts that were supposed to be funny, interesting, emotionally resonant, etc.

Do you want some allegorical essay brilliantly pinpointing how each of these eye colors is related to DFW's relationship with post-industrial society and with postmodern literature? and with post-structuralism and Pynchon?

Will that make the book any more enjoyable to you? If I rationally over dissect and analyze it, if that's the only way you can care about it, what every part of it means, then hasn't the book already failed for you?

It's this trite attitude on /lit/ that the only purpose of a book is to make trite high-school tier essays about it talking about the political significance, the psychological significance, the philosophical significance, etc., of what certain parts "mean", why did the author write this part, that betrays the complete ineptitude of people on /lit/.

What was the significance of the fucking book, if you want to ask why the description of eye colors? Do you think this is an equation, with a reasonable part for everything? What if you took out the detailed descriptions and everything weird in the book, every subtle detail he adds to make the book more and more realistic and affecting to the reader through an accretion of details? Then you wouldn't have a book.

Were you amused or interested or at least drawn into the world of the book while reading about these? If not, then who cares? No explanation could satisfy you, the book has already failed. It's as if us two were standing next to each other as friends and I were telling you a joke or a story and were trying to recreate the scenery of the place with a few details, and you wondered why I mentioned those details. They're as much part of the story as anything else, you fucking idiot. Why should a writer ever describe what a room or person looks like, or the scenery, according to you?

No, rather every sentence should be as short and simple as possible; there should be no interesting details. The characters shouldn't even have names, they should just be labelled by numbers, and the whole story should have as little extraneous detail as possible, and just be about how these numbers progress in an interesting, movie-like plot. Then it ends. Roll credits.

fucking idiot. It's idiots like you who are fucking ruining this board. Do you even understand what reading a fucking book is, you dense motherfucker?

>>9569402
Thanks for the new pasta! P.S. I'm your biggest fan.

>>9569104
lmao it's just accurate. It has lots of information dense entries on a broad variety of topics, sort of like, oh man what's it called, oh yeah a fucking encyclopedia