[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 678 KB, 857x879, Self-vs-Orwell.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15509320 No.15509320 [Reply] [Original]

Is he right about Orwell?

>> No.15509335 [DELETED] 

No, and he's exactly the sort of slimy subversive kike Orwell warns about in his writing

>> No.15509338

>>15509320
He's being a member of a tribe, some people in the UK have a very particular view of Orwell the man.

He talks about it a bit in the Brave New World Vs 1984 debate he was in

>> No.15509347

Likely not. Self is the most mundane of carnies for trying to get an audience like this.

>> No.15509359

Has Will Self ever written anything of value? In the Zizek debate he came off as a total pompous mong so I never read him.

>> No.15509364

>>15509359
no, his books are pretentious tryhard nihilism

>> No.15509365

Will who?

>> No.15509366

>>15509320
Will Self is the supreme mediocrity.

>> No.15509374

He is right about Orwell's two most well known books, yes. Otherwise his political analysis was pretty good at times.

>> No.15509383

>>15509359
Umbrella was good.

>> No.15509394

>>15509320
more like kill self lmao

>> No.15509397

>>15509383
Post excerpts.

>> No.15509433

>>15509359
umbrella. Fantastic example of high modernism. He could have made an easy living churning out mediocre ballard-lite novels....but no. he said "fuck it" and wrote a stream of conscious trilogy.

Book of dave was really good. a bit derivative of Riddley Walker.

Self makes a living from being an antagonistic arsehole. You don't make a living from writing novels these days. He quite openly admits to making more income from writing articles for newspapers, tv show appearances and ublic speaking appearances where he benefits from being controversial and edgy.

Many of his books are very good. some are brave and excellent

>> No.15509445

>>15509397
lrn2google you fuckng villager
do you need help tying your own shoelaces?

>> No.15509447

Orwell is the supreme mediocrity for the simple reason that every midwit retard who took a HS literature class knows about him and think that reading a shortened version of 1984 makes them have a phd in political science.

>> No.15509461

>>15509447
How is that Orwell's fault.

>> No.15509465

>>15509445
If you’ve read it and think it’s good then you presumably know which parts are good. I haven’t so I don’t.

>> No.15509467

>>15509320
Will Self is peak pseud.

>> No.15509478

>>15509335
>slimy subversive kike
And a democratic socialist like Orwell isn't this?

>> No.15509516

>>15509320
So bold challenging a dead author. Orwell's writing style is simple. He took after Maugham in this way. None the less he deals with bold themes, and in the end creates a compelling story.

>> No.15509527

>>15509478
No.
Why are you afraid of freedom?

>> No.15509531

>>15509465
I read it a while ago, I'm not a savant and can't quote things like that. Easier for you to look it up or even read it.

I enjoyed the scarification bits.

>> No.15509536

>>15509527
Democratic socialism is only freedom for the dull masses, no one else.

>> No.15509545

>>15509320
1984 is babys first dystopia but Homage to Catalonia is certainly not mediocre

>> No.15509551
File: 50 KB, 637x439, 09C1B322-89AC-45AA-8BC8-1B515353D761.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15509551

>>15509536
>Freedom for everyone, but no one else

>> No.15509553

>>15509320
will who?

>> No.15509554

>>15509551
>everyone is a moronic bottom-feeder like me

>> No.15509573

>>15509366
This. He's the Aaron Sorkin of print media.

>> No.15509574

>>15509554
While I dont agree with the substance of your argument, we can certainly agree that butterfly is a bottom feeder sir.

>> No.15509591

>>15509536
>>15509554
You can't seriously be claiming not to be one of the dull masses.

>> No.15509596

>>15509447
>shortened version of 1984
Does that exist? I have never heard of such a thing and the actual book isn't very long at all or difficult. I didn't even read it in school I read it independently.

>> No.15509609

>>15509461
And?
I didn't say he wanted to be the supreme champion of mediocrity.

>> No.15509611

>>15509320
If this isn’t projection, I don’t know what is.

>> No.15509613

>>15509574
If you disagree, then you're just not following yet.

Socialism is fundamentally shit. Central banking is socialism for the wealthy 1%, and you can see what issues that causes for the other 99% over time, which in turn causes issues for that 1%. Democratic socialism is the same flawed favoritism but for the 99%, and the 1% would then suffer the same as the 99% does today while central banking exists. Except that 1% also includes the most intelligent and creative individuals in society today, so democratic socialism would go one of two ways: it would either dissolve civilization for good, and force humanity's extinction early, or it would eventually just change back to what we have now, because the most intelligent and creative individuals would rise out of the 99% as they already have before, since they're superior in nature.

>> No.15509628
File: 22 KB, 500x607, 2k48t0.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15509628

>>15509320
he's just not esoteric/pretentious enough for pseuds to get dopamine hits from name-dropping. this is how they classify mediocrity.
>no dopamine hit after a name drop = author bad!
>dopamine hit after name drop = author good!
simple as.

>> No.15509643

>>15509554
You are a bottom. That’s so you can lick those boots. So I guess I can’t expect you to understand what it is I’m driving at.
When I say “everyone” I really mean it. In a realized socialist world there aren’t “bottom-feeders”.
I know. You can’t imagine that. Race realism bla bla bla, go fuck yourself

>> No.15509655

>>15509554
>he thinks hed be a card carrying party member

youd be in the gulags with the rest of us retard

>> No.15509674

>>15509643
>So I guess I can’t expect you to understand what it is I’m driving at.
I know what you're driving at. It's Marxist bullshit. "Late Capitalism" is a Marxian term and doesn't actually exist. The issues we're seeing stem from the central banking system, which is a fundamentally anti-capitalist structure, and the deep-rooted Marxist subversion of society that gave birth to it. None of you actually have any idea what capitalism is and have no idea how the propaganda programming worked on you.

>> No.15509694

>>15509674
>the central banking system, which is a fundamentally anti-capitalist structure

>> No.15509700

>>15509694
Correct. Read Adam Smith.

>> No.15509703

>>15509694
It is, Marx unironically supported it. Jewish trickery is what it is

>> No.15509737

>>15509674
>"Late Capitalism" is a Marxian term and doesn't actually exist.
It does by its usage. It’s also called neoliberalism and corporatism. You’re soaking in it right now. The fact that we can’t just go back to gold standard “free markets” just goes to prove that it’s a stage of capitalism.
As for central banks, the capitalists wanted them and they get what they want. They’re privately held banks, and I doubt Marx advocated that, so I’m calling bullshit

>> No.15509747

>>15509335
fpbp

>> No.15509759

>>15509737
it's right there in the Communist Manifesto (demand 5)
>https://mises.org/wire/why-marx-loved-central-banks

>> No.15509783

>>15509320
it made sense for Nabokov to have this sort of take, and for Orwell to reciprocate it
but who is Will Self? he's both an inferior writer and thinker to Orwell, which makes his critique seem more like simple resentment - or is it the anxiety of influence?

>> No.15509788

>>15509737
>It does by its usage. It’s also called neoliberalism and corporatism. You’re soaking in it right now.
Corporations are beneficial when they and the societies they operate in are run by capitalists. Calling "corporatism" a problem is only valid when: A) the corporations aren't actually capitalist and are lobbying their way to success, or B) you're a Marxist.

>The fact that we can’t just go back to gold standard “free markets” just goes to prove that it’s a stage of capitalism.
We "can't go back" because the Marxist programming is very deep now. The subversion of a system is not a stage of that system and it wasn't even responsible for the subversion, democracy was.

>As for central banks, the capitalists wanted them and they get what they want.
No, it's not capitalists who wanted them. It was Marxists in capitalist skins, people who didn't share the values of capitalists at all yet still accumulated wealth inside capitalist societies through thievery, deception, and propaganda. And by the way, capitalists don't "get what they want" that way because that's not what they believe in at all.

>> No.15509827

>>15509759
It’s right there in my post.

>>15509788
A) happens. That’s capitalism for ya. Oh I know, you prefer when capitalists play by the rules you like so everything will be perfect.
Guess what? They never do what you want them to do.
>Anti-capitalists are responsible for capitalist greed.
And here we live in a world where China is ascending.

> No, it's not capitalists who wanted them. It was Marxists in capitalist skins
>Bankers and billionaires are notoriously Marxist! Look at Buffet and Gates!
Pathetic.

>> No.15509845

>>15509320
Nobody is right about Orwell.

>> No.15509900

>>15509827
>That’s capitalism for ya
No, that's Marxist-hijacked capitalism for all of us. Marx poisoned the well with his intense ressentiment towards more productive individuals.

>Guess what? They never do what you want them to do.
The ones that aren't Marxist scum do, I personally know many. You know what they do? They invest, they actually research markets, and they work fucking HARD. Those are the real capitalists, and they are the only ones responsible for any of the good in our societies today.

>Anti-capitalists are responsible for capitalist greed.
It's not capitalist greed. Again, you don't know anything about what capitalists really believe. Adam Smith believed that it was of chief importance to a capitalist society to maintain as smooth a circulation of money throughout society as possible; corporations must value the health and freedom of the consumer if they are to thrive. That's the capitalist philosophy. The health and freedom of the consumer is undermined by Marxist propagandists who eventually lie and cheat their way into corporations, and you can figure out what happens next. Protip: it's not capitalism.

>> No.15509927

>>15509320
this guy was such a baby in the zizek debate. When he realised that he was outsmarted he just resorted to "NO you!" for 40 minutes straight. I never wanted to punch through a screen this much before. The inflection in his voice is infuriating as well. Good thing zizek had no mercy in this debate. He even straoght up made fun of him which rarely happens with zizek

>> No.15509935

>>15509900
>My super speshul kind of capitalism has never been tried yet

Capitalism is not a Platonic form. (nothing is) it changes, constantly. It's a process and it has run through this way. Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the rest is indeed ruining the US.
So here we have state centralized capitalism running alright in China, surely Marxist capitalism, and it seems to be delivering a higher standard of life.

>> No.15509947

>>15509935
>has never been tried yet
Stop putting words into my mouth.

>So here we have state centralized capitalism running alright in China, surely Marxist capitalism, and it seems to be delivering a higher standard of life.
Compared to what?

>> No.15509948

>>15509935
>it seems to be delivering a higher standard of life.
lol what? Do you know anything about China

>> No.15509964

>>15509900
dude seriously, you are embarrassing yourself. Everybody can tell that you have no idea who marx is. You just heard rightist talking heads spout nonesense and bought it. There is no model further from marxism than american neoliberalism. You are just yelling buzzwords at this point. Your marx is nothing more than a fetish to impose your hatred for modern leftism to. It has nothing to do with reality

>> No.15509976

He's right on that take being bad, but for long-face-shit-writer-man to call anyone else a mediocrity is hilarious.

Discussed the plain language/anglo-norman question in one of my legal rhetoric classes before lockdown, I decided to just listen and to be honest, even the people making good points in favour of Orwell were using complex and flashy language.

It's a bit like the legal latin debate; it's conceding to the lowest common denominator despite those people never read legal documents.

>>15509536

We aint dull, we voted leave

>> No.15509982

>>15509964
Why are you denying that Marx supported central banking?

>> No.15509989

Will Self Was born too late to be part of the New Wave of SF and takes it out on the public with a string of tedious “Swiftian” pastiches.

He tries to be William Burroughs and fails (Cock and Bull & Great Apes and even has a half-baked Doc Benway figure in lots of his novels),

tries to be Brett Eason Ellis and fails (My Idea Of Fun),

tries to be Neil Gaiman Or Michael Moorcock and fails (Book of Dave & How The Dead Live),

tries to be James Joyce and fails (Umbrella and the other two books that followed it),

and sprinkles it all over with trying to be JG Ballard and failing.

I should care about his opinion of Orwell why?

>> No.15509994

>>15509964
Embarrassment doesn't exist on an anonymous forum. Do you have something of substance to add to this or are you just going to start employing these deceptive petty tricks to try to get the upper hand?

By the way, I'm not talking about neoliberalism when I say Marxist-hijacked capitalism. Never was.

>> No.15510121

>>15509994
You make no substantial argument. You say "marxist capitalism" but dont give a single example of how that even makes sense. Marx is a statist and wants a centralised, government controlled economy (I simplified it for you). Todays capitalism is liberal as hell. Governments have barely any power over corporations. In the US this is the most extreme, in europe it is less so. Where is marx in this, tell me? The world is literally going more and more contra-marx globally.

You tell me to make a substantial comment but all you do is "fear marx for he is marx". You dont elaborate at all. It is like saying todays capitalism is influenced by "thing i dont like" and then not explaining at all what you mean by it. You are like a child who was told to hate something because your mom told you to.

>> No.15510219

>>15510121
>Where is marx in this, tell me?
Central banking and wealthy Marxists using their capital to reverse the capitalist structure over time rather than perpetuate its continuation.

>> No.15510223

>>15509759
>mises.org
>why-marx-loved-central-banks
>This is a rather perspicacious postulation
Come on Anon.

>> No.15510233

>>15509759
Oh, also
>Communist Manifesto

>> No.15510242

>>15510233
So Marx lied in the manifesto or what? He said he supported central banking but he didnt?

>> No.15510252

>>15510242
Read the introduction, it'll take you a minute. Spoonfeeding doesn't do anyone any good and it's a straightforward text.

>> No.15510258

>>15510252
>>15510242
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm

>> No.15510271

>>15510252
Does he or does he not support central banking, why is this so hard for you guys

>> No.15510302

>>15510271
Rather than spoonfeeding... this is like saying to the Conservative party in the UK today "do you not support war with Germany? You said you did in the late 1930's". Read the damn introduction to the manifesto and stop being a unread oaf your whole life.

>> No.15510306

>>15510302
You really don't want to admit that he did I see

>> No.15510317

>>15510306
You really don't want to read 100 words and talk about it. >>>/trash/ with you, this is a literature board.

>> No.15510320

>>15510219
How do they do that? Who are "they"? Why do they do it? How are they marxist? Do you really believe capitalism is in any way controlled by ideologues? If so how and why?

You are still only using buzzwords. State your thesis or stop using the word marxist. You need to present some logical argument. All you do is attacking a strawman. I am not even a marxist but this is just annoying. I am done here

>> No.15510328

>>15510317
If it were 100 words you'd summarize it yourself, the fact is that there is no real way to weasel out of what he said, so you're just trying to avoid it.

>> No.15510333

>>15510320
>How do they do that? Who are "they"? Why do they do it? How are they marxist? Do you really believe capitalism is in any way controlled by ideologues? If so how and why?
Calm it down m80.

>> No.15510339

>>15509947
Compared to the US now and China thirty and forty years ago

>>15509948
Poverty is way way down. They’re repressive, but they’re taking care of their people with the money they’re making.
See the John Pilger doc, The Coming War with China. Watch some Eric X. Li

>> No.15510342

>>15510328
A spectre is haunting Europe — the spectre of communism. All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Pope and Tsar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police-spies.

Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as communistic by its opponents in power? Where is the opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of communism, against the more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its reactionary adversaries?

Two things result from this fact:

I. Communism is already acknowledged by all European powers to be itself a power.

II. It is high time that Communists should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the Spectre of Communism with a manifesto of the party itself.

To this end, Communists of various nationalities have assembled in London and sketched the following manifesto, to be published in the English, French, German, Italian, Flemish and Danish languages.

>> No.15510353

>>15510342
> Centralization of money and credit in the hands of the state through a national
bank with state capital, and the suppression of all private banks and bankers.
Have fun explaining this doesn't mean he wanted central banks

>> No.15510395

>>15510353
So to start the spoonfeeding:
>>15510342
>To this end, Communists of various nationalities have assembled in London and sketched the following manifesto, to be published in the English, French, German, Italian, Flemish and Danish languages.

>> No.15510404

>>15510302
>>15510342
If it was in there, you'd quote it. Nothing there suggests Marx was not for a centralized (read: socialized) banking system.

>>15510320
They do that by lying and pretending to share the values of the capitalist system, which eventually nets them enough capital gain to be able to start messing with things even further: buying out media outlets and politicians, hoarding wealth rather than investing it in other businesses, crippling competitive businesses through financial lobbying and deception, dodging taxes and forcing the government's hand, forcing narratives in the media and in our entertainment, etc.

Did you know that Adam Smith conceived of capitalism as a system that worked only when there was healthy competition between businesses that was created by healthy and free consumers? What do you think happens when the folks who have most of society's wealth don't actually care about the system at all and start to use that money in ways that subvert and corrupt the system? And before you say, "but it's the system that brought those people all the wealth," no — it's democracy that did, first by relaxing society's gatekeepers (the first mistake, independent of capitalism and instead dependent on the basic psychology of those who are happy and feeling generous), then by providing the subverts an opportunity to lie and cheat their way to the top.

>Compared to the US now and China thirty and forty years ago
So compared to socialist-driven capitalism and a society that wasn't capitalist even remotely. I guess modern China would look pretty good then, yeah (although it doesn't really look good even compared with the socialist-driven capitalism the US currently possesses).

>> No.15510413

>>15510395
I see he just put his name onto a manifesto whose points he disagreed with

>> No.15510432

>>15510404
Last part was for >>15510339

>> No.15510436
File: 3 KB, 125x125, 1552102707938s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15510436

>>15509320
>literally who doesn't agree with the political views of a meme-author

>> No.15510446

>>15510413
It's a political manifesto made by committee. Marx and Engels also wanted a level of legitimation within this movement, one which they'd been theorizing about coming together for a while. You've done the same idiotic move as most, which is to read only the Communist Manifesto because it's short and easy, but to not read the intro because you're a dimwit.

>> No.15510460

>>15510446
Can you find Marx saying he didn't support central banking, because otherwise this is all we have to go on for his opinion on the matter.

>> No.15510477

>>15510460
>Can you find Marx saying he didn't support central banking
Fuck are you desperate man. He's not Jesus, you're not doing an exegesis on the Bible, stop acting like you are.

>> No.15510491

>>15510477
So the only relevant statement we can attach to Marx about central banking is in favor of it?

>> No.15510503

>>15510491
Friend, you can attach any statement you want to him. Go write a fanfic if you want to do that. It has to be supported by good evidence if you want it to be a strong interpretation, this falls short.

>> No.15510513

>>15510503
Glad we agree that Marx and many other socialists of the time explicitly endorsed central banking.

>> No.15511556

>>15509613
>expending 200 words to announce yourself as a social Darwinist
Anon, you can't even properly articulate your own positions. The "bottom-feeder" is you, and that's okay. The sooner you realize that neither you nor anyone else deserves to be a "bottom-feeder," as you so quaintly put it, and actually read some political theory, the better it will be for all of us. In the mean time, you should stop pretending to know what you're talking about. I don't say this to be mean and I'm sorry I'm so condescending; it's okay to be wrong. Just do better, y'know?

>> No.15511690

>>15509320
more like Will's Elf, haha rite guise

>> No.15511701

>>15509573
Aaron Sorkin writes kino, though.

>> No.15511740

>>15509737
Truth.

>>15509759
This is complete bullshit.

>>15509788
You are clinically insane.

>> No.15511745

>>15509320
What kind of name is Will Self lmao.

>> No.15511750

>>15510460
You're a fucking idiot.

>> No.15511754

>>15511701
So did Will Self... in the 90s.

>> No.15511756

>15509527
the very fact that you tripfag on 4chan is objective proof that too many human beings are retarded children and need to be pushed in the right direction for the well being of everyone

>> No.15511777

>>15511750
It's based that we can agree that Marx and other socialists endorsed central banking and you can't find any indication to the contrary.

>> No.15511785

>>15511756
>>15509527
Sorry, thought I was on reddit for a second.

>> No.15511800

>>15509609
So if an idiot person reads your posts on 4chan, that makes you an idiot, anon. Gotcha

>> No.15511813

>>15511777
You have no idea what banking even is.

>> No.15511820

>>15511785
lol nice try, though it honestly almost does seem like reddit in here with all the le quirky reddit usernamed leftists

>> No.15511829

>>15511820
sorry again, meant for >>15511800
still getting used to being a 4channeler guys!

>> No.15511831

>>15511813
>Centralization of money and credit in the hands of the state through a national bank with state capital, and the suppression of all private banks and bankers.

>> No.15511836

>>15511829
Gotcha! https://www.reddit.com/user/Anonymous/

>> No.15511840

>>15511831
>banking is... the suppression of all private banks and bankers
Lol.

>> No.15511859

>>15511840
>national bank
that's what they said they wanted. Perhaps they were lying.

>> No.15511866

>>15511836
how did you backtrace my username hacker known as anonymous????

>> No.15511881

>>15511859
You seriously need to read Marx.

>> No.15511884

>>15511881
>tfw the Communist Manifesto is parody

>> No.15511887

>>15511859
And also something on the history of the banking system.

>> No.15511904

>>15509359
He destroyed Zizek.

''total pompous mong'' is precisely how redditors tend to describe people who refute the views of their idols.

I don't even like Will Self. Haven't read him. Don't particularly care for him.

But I watched that debate and he massacred Zizek, exposing the fact that the sniffman has coherent plan for a revolution, no coherent idea of it.

>> No.15511908

>>15511884
Pro-tip: learn what banking actually is.

>> No.15511909

>>15511904
>He destroyed Zizek.
Did he? I know exactly the debate, how do you think he destroyed Zizek?

>> No.15511910

>>15511904
>no coherent plan

Fixed.

>> No.15511918

>>15511908
tfw they endorsed central banking because they didnt want it

>> No.15511919

>>15511556
>>15511740
>no arguments
Nice.

>> No.15511922
File: 25 KB, 302x475, SelfApes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15511922

>>15511904
>I don't even like Will Self. Haven't read him. Don't particularly care for him.
Admit it: you're only defending him because he wrote a novel about your kind.

>> No.15511925

>>15511909
By asking questions that Zizek refused to answer.
Rewatch it. I am not going to get the video from YouTube and point to the precise moments of it, sorry, I have better things to do.

>> No.15511930

>>15511918
>>15511919
So let me get this straight. You support the existence of banking... just not 'central' banking?

>> No.15511935

>>15511930
You obviously don't know what socialized banking entails.

>> No.15511936

>>15511930
I support the use of coconuts as legal tender

>> No.15511942

>>15511925
Zizek is a notorious charlatan. Only mentally-handicapped brainlets like Peterson have trouble 'debating' him.

>> No.15511944

>>15511935
Let's rewind. You do support banking in general, right? Explain what you think that is.

>> No.15511949

>>15511925
>By asking questions that Zizek refused to answer.
Such as?
>>15511925
>Rewatch it. I am not going to get the video from YouTube and point to the precise moments of it, sorry, I have better things to do.
Self kept questioning if Lacan was relevant, and eventually slipped up by saying he'd go private in response to the NHS being funded by Saudi gun money. It was interesting enough but too mush jumping around by Self whenever it started to go anywhere interesting.
>sorry, I have better things to do.
As you shitpost on /lit/ ;^)

>> No.15511954

>>15511936
I prefer the original: monetaria moneta shells. Still used in parts of India and Africa.

>> No.15511972

>>15511944
banking is complex form of Jews stealing things

>> No.15511984

>>15511944
Your question betrays the fact that you don't care to get to the bottom of the truth, only to win some internet argument. If you don't know what central banking means and how it opposes capitalism then go read about it. The Federal Reserve already tampers with the economy far more than it's supposed to.

>> No.15512024

>>15511972
Basically.

>>15511984
Say what?

>> No.15512291

>>15511904
Self came off as somebody that's never read a book of philosophy in his life. Zizek wasted his time. Zizek isn't Lenin he just asks questions, which is what philosophers do.

>> No.15512367

>>15511942
JP actually did better than he had any right to. Zizek never fares well in these things because he is a predictable Hegelian- he starts working toward a synthesis before adequately interrogating the other guy's assertion, so a grifter like Peterson can drag him into the mud effortlessly by arguing from a position of bad faith.

>> No.15512410
File: 10 KB, 225x225, download.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15512410

>>15512367
>JP actually did better than he had any right to.
Sure dude.

>> No.15513807

>>15509320
bump

>> No.15513826

>>15509320
He doesn't declare anything of the sort.

>> No.15513839
File: 65 KB, 620x414, zeus-and-achilles-0b775ee.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15513839

>>15509320
What's wrong with didacticism? Orwell predicted modern UK to a T.

>> No.15513842

Pretty funny how regardless of what the thread is about, people on /lit/ will always get baited by headlines.
Literally no one here even botbers to check the actual article the thread is talking about, be it some fucking race bait or a contemporary litfic writer

>> No.15513960 [DELETED] 

>>15509320
>plain wrong
Look at anything written by an academic in the last 30 years and say that with a straight face. Public discourse is literally reference/name dropping and repeating preset memes robotically. That all comes from academia and the way English is used.

>> No.15513987

>>15509320
it's funny because as we all know Will Self is the epitome of overeducated mediocrity

the type of midwit who, without being handed a stellar private education, would have ended up as an estate agent, or possibly the manager of a restaurant.