/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15473493]

how do you feel about the ongoing phenomenon of off-topic threads on this board?

my opinion is that there's no problem with the discussion of philosophy on various topics, even if a specific book is not cited, as long as its done in an intellectual or 'literary' way

[Anonymous No.15473500]

>>15473493
I'm surprised there are not many discussions on the current state of publishing. I came across a couple in the past. The current state of publishing is absolutely atrocious and a very big problem.

[Anonymous No.15473504]

I like off topic threads, I come here to hang out not to talk about lame ass hobbies

[Anonymous No.15473523]

>>15473500
i think i agree with this, but what aspect of the publishing industry are you referring to as a problem?

[Anonymous No.15473576]

>>15473493
As long as the mods and jannies continue to not give a shit, there's no point in coming up with any new rules for what is and isn't allowed. It would be nice if /lit/ users could be as autistic about self-enforcing "board culture" as /a/ used to be, but that's also never going to happen.
The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of people on this site don't read that much, and most of the people on this board only come here to leech information out of a smaller group of well-read posters. Hence all the threads that are essentially "explain X book to me," or "what non-literature activities are "/lit/" (I want to seem well-read without actually doing any reading.)"

[Anonymous No.15473649]

>>15473493
reporded for off topic thread

[Anonymous No.15473663]

>>15473649
counter-reported for making my peepee get bigger

[Anonymous No.15473666]

>>15473493
Where did you get that pic?

[Anonymous No.15473673]

>>15473666
googled 'off topic' like i usually do when i create a thread

also hi satan

[Anonymous No.15473790]

>>15473576
>self-enforcing "board culture" as /a/ used to be, but that's also never going to happen
This was the case a long time ago. Cancer like >>15473504 would be bullied in ways it could not even understand as you needed a strong literary/philosophical backing to work out the insult and respond in kind. It was a bit like Sei Shonagon and the pigs.
>leech information out of a smaller group of well-read posters.
This group has become smaller to the point nobody even rec trains an off topic thread with apt suggestions. In part it's given rise to >>15473493
>discussion of philosophy on various topics, even if a specific book is not cited, as long as its done in an intellectual or 'literary' way
which is often code for
>I think I'm smart because I learnt shit from the internet that validated my need for group approval
And of course that just leads to idiots who never read battling it out with other idiots who never read but opted for a different internet group to validate them.
Ultimately, the answer to the cancer is the same as it always was on /lit/: reading the sticky and the books in the sticky will make you well read enough to never really need this place. You can easily escape facile discussion and make yourself better.

[Anonymous No.15474416]

I enjoy how that John F Wilkie guy creates threads to shill his schizo books (someting about Hollywood and angels) and everybody just ignores him. These threads always get 0 replies. I hope he will take a hint and fuck off.

[Anonymous No.15474436]

>>15473493
I contribute to them because I have no self-control, they obviously shouldn't exist. Some of the philosophy/religion ones are OK imo because they are tied into literature. But the twitter caps about politics or women or whatever are clearly not.

[Anonymous No.15474480]

This is an off topic board you blithering retard