[ 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: 15 KB, 354x241, 1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1838178 No.1838178 [Reply] [Original]

I am raising funds to print my debut novel, "A Burning Youth". The novel is broken into five sections (The Introduction, The Before, The During, The After and The Epilogue).

Here's an excerpt; more accurately, here is the introduction:
http://www.samuelbutcher.net/aby.html

If you're interested in the project, check out my KickStarter page (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1890126167/put-my-novel-a-burning-youth-in-print?ref=live)) to get involved. If not, fair enough.

Critique and comment on the Introduction welcome. Show some teeth, /lit/.

>> No.1838184

Wow, way to push the boat out OP. Unlike most people who post their shitty writing here merely for criticism, you are so certain of its worth that you are asking us to give you money. And not give you money FOR the book. Give you money so you can print it. To do this one would presumably have to feel that there was some public policy reason to promote your writing.

I'm going away now to read it. I'll be back to tear your shit to shreds if this is as bad as I anticipate.

>> No.1838193

Erm, why do you need to print it? Just format it into an ebook and upload it to Amazon and other such sites. If you print it, you're going to have to try and distribute it too. Why bother?

>> No.1838200

>>1838184

By all means, be brutal; as long as you are honest.

And one doesn't have to be certain of quality to ask for support. I'm proud of the novel and the writing, the content and style may appeal to others, and so they may be include to get the book into print (and their contribution does, to clarify, ensure they themselves get a copy of the book).

>> No.1838202

>>1838178


Honestly, dude, you kind of come off as a pretentious, irritating snob. You also seem to have an inflated sense of self-worth and entitlement. It probably makes me sound like some lackey of "the man", but people who try to force their stuff into publication this way usually aren't quite good enough.

Having read a good part of your story preview, it's honestly not bad, but often needlessly verbose. You seem like you're just trying to show how smart you are (or think you are).

Sorry to be a dick. You wanted teeth.

>> No.1838226

I saw your begging video, you seem like an okay guy, even though your jacket is incredibly gay. I also think the premise for your story is really good, unfortunately I don't like your writing. I don't think I could read an entire novel of that.

>> No.1838228

>>1838202

If that's the way you see it, I take no offense, and certainly don't consider it "being a dick". I appreciate the feedback.

As for coming of as pretentious, I think that's part and parcel of communicating online. I am not trying to appear smarter or more informed than I am - these are things I know, ergo what I write. As for irritating, I think if we met in person you'd like me. Again, it's part of the medium: one there's no face behind the words and two I am asking for something. It isn't a balanced encounter.

>> No.1838229

>>1838200

Okay.

To be honest you lost me after about a paragraph or two. Compared to a lot of dross that is posted here, it isn't badly written - I mean, it makes sense. Unfortunately it just bored me. I flicked through the rest - couldn't see anything that pissed me off too much, but the whole noir thing just comes off as contrived and a little dull.

If I wanted to be mean I could go to town on your website though. Your poetry and 'essays' are atrocious. Your demeanor is arrogant. You are one of those unfortunate people who is just intelligent enough to feel intellectual and smug, but not intelligent enough to create anything interesting or perceptive. I would go on, but I'm feeling too despondent right now for my heart to be in it.

>> No.1838232

>>1838226

If it's not your style, no worries. But that jacket rocks! Hand painted - come on...

>> No.1838235

>>1838184

You need to take this fellow with a grain of salt. He is intelligent and has a heart of gold but he is a tough critic.

OP you have made 3-4 of these threads over the last few weeks. I keep telling you that your cost for a first edition is too high. I am glad to see that you have made some sales. I do enjoy your work and I hope you come around more often to write and discuss.

>> No.1838242
File: 31 KB, 496x346, DeepAndEdgyAsFuck.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1838242

>>1838229

I absolutely adored the third person autobiography by the way.

>> No.1838246

>>1838229

If it were a short story, I'd say you do need to capture the reader in a paragraph or two. A novel, though, I think is a different beast: you have a little more space to introduce the story. The start introduces the conceit and the frame, the second part introduces the story.

As for my poetry - take it or leave it. I think some of it good, most of it is decent and some of it is bad. I stand by my essays, though, and if you want to challenge a point feel free.

I would be interested to know why you find my demeanor "arrogant" (only inasmuch as I've found the only difference between "confidence" and "arrogance" is how much you like the person).

>> No.1838247

>>1838235

You are just too nice. What the hell are you doing here?

>> No.1838248
File: 53 KB, 580x435, 1296529344313.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1838248

>>1838235

>heart of gold.

>> No.1838251

You look rich, get your parents to buy it for you.

>> No.1838255

>>1838248
Just as Neil Young wrote.

Seriously though OP, post up some of your work from your blog that you think best. It could help drive sales.

>> No.1838256

sam i'm not so sure those first few sentences are the way to go

>So you want to know about Avery and Sara.

not necessarily -- in the world of your novel, it seems, they're the talk of the town, but this sentence scans like you're taking the reader's interest for granted. i want to know why, in short, i want to know about avery and sara, rather than being told i want to know

>I know some of you out there are little better than a pack of vultures, smelling the rotting meat of a sensational story and here to pick at the corpse, to gorge yourselves on the putrid victual of our collected sorrow.

oof. the third sentence of your novel and you're calling your readers scavengers devouring rotten meat. i know it's addressing an audience in the novel's world, not the actual audience, and i could go all narratology on this bitch and drop some science about implied narratees and what have you, but bottom line is i feel like i'm being harangued and i don't know why

>> No.1838258

>>1838235

No grain of salt needed; tough critics are the best - the rest is just bullshit. Anyone who takes into account an authors "feelings" in a critique is doing a bad job: I'd rather an honest insult than a dishonest compliment.

I've been around the boards the last few weeks (some discussions I've found genuinely interesting, others a tad silly) and I intend to stick around. I'd hope, though, people can relate to having a project they are working on and being willing to try anything to get it done.

I agree the cost is a tad high, but for the run (1000) and the quality I accept it. If I had it to do over again, I might choose a different publisher, but the digital publishers come off to cheap, and the print publisher I have has given me the best rate for the best quality.

>> No.1838266

>>1838251

Both of my parents are in debt up to their eyeballs, and I've never made more than 8k a year in my life.

>>1838256

I start that way because the novel assumes the reader is aware of the story. It's an artificial history (as is mentioned a few sentences on) so, in the reality of the book, that's why the reader has bought the book.

>> No.1838270

>>1838246

>I've found the only difference between "confidence" and "arrogance" is how much you like the person.

I like you slightly more for this. I've always said that the 'arrogance' is just our word for confidence when we want to be pejorative. Although to be fair one would also add that a person is arrogant when they are confident with no reason to be. In your case there is a fairly high dose of the latter, and this is tempered by my general misanthropy.

You might have a bit longer to pull a reader in when it comes to a novel - but that is only in terms of plot. Not style. I would have been willing to read a chapter without knowing what was even going on if it was well written. What I meant before, was after a paragraph of your tone and style, I realized that it was something I had no further interest in.

please refer me to a poem you have written that you consider 'good.'

>> No.1838274

If you want your book in print so bad, why don't you sell it on Amazon and use the money you make (if any) to print it? That way you can put your energy into actually selling your book rather than printing it, and you can see how many people actually want to read it.

>> No.1838280

>>1838270

"Although to be fair one would also add that a person is arrogant when they are confident with no reason to be. In your case there is a fairly high dose of the latter"

Are you referring to my intelligence, or my writing ability?

"after a paragraph of your tone and style, I realized that it was something I had no further interest in. "

Fair enough.

As for poems I'd consider "good":
http://www.samuelbutcher.net/poetry/pds.html
http://www.samuelbutcher.net/poetry/ptcw.html
http://www.samuelbutcher.net/poetry/pwar.html

>> No.1838286

Are you using 'critique' as a verb in your OP? I'm not even going to bother to read your piece if you are.

>> No.1838291

>>1838286

Yes I am. Which verb would you prefer?

>> No.1838298

>>1838246

> I stand by my essays, though

You stand by "A Revolt upon the Revelation of John: A Survival Guide to the End of Days"? A poorly written and humorless attempt at satirizing the Book of Revelation, based on a literal interpretation of it.

You stand by "Fragments of a Manifesto", wherein (as you are fond of putting it) you say absolutely nothing, except for briefly mentioning ethical hedonism, all the while exuding pretentiousness.

The rest were pretty terrible too - you haven't even said anything worth disagreeing with. The fact that your website is littered with 'copyrights' is most amusing. No one would ever consider plagiarizing you.

>> No.1838299

>>1838266

understood, dude, but even with that knowledge it's offputting and makes me less receptive to what jack has to say

>> No.1838301

Are you too pussy for an editor?

>> No.1838303

>>1838280

>Are you referring to my intelligence, or my writing ability?

Both.

>> No.1838312

>>1838291

'Criticise' is the verb; 'critique' ought to be reserved as a noun.

>> No.1838317

>>1838280

These are 'good' in the "wow, great poems Sammy! Would you like to share some of them with the class after morning interval?" sense of the word.

They are not 'good' in the Nobel prize winning, poet laureate, next Bukowski, sense. Nor even the "I would pay someone money for that" sense.

>> No.1838324

>>1838298

"Fragments of a Manifesto" should be taken down - I wrote it eight years ago and it's shit.

"A Revolt" - "based on a literal interpretation of it" is exactly the point, as introduced in the essay itself:

"While Christianity has evolved and reacted to the myriad advances in science and philosophy it has been unable to stymie, and adjusted its dogmatic holdings to reflect a more favorable, realistic notion of the actual state of the earth and the universe, the religion itself holds, at its center and core, the Bible, the word of God, and for all debate of what is meant to be taken metaphorically and what is meant to be taken literally, Revelation falls squarely, inarguably and categorically in the latter category- it is a prophecy of what will happen, not by metaphor, simile or any other literary device; John is afforded the opportunity to actually bear witness to the Apocalypse and reports the results."

Try "The Monogamy Myth" or "Straight". And, frankly, try reading, not skimming.

>> No.1838327

>>1838312

>'Criticise' is the verb; 'critique' ought to be reserved as a noun.

Not OP, but you're wrong. Nothing wrong with it other than the fact that some people think it sounds pretentious. Truth is it's a better word in most cases considering the negative connotations that criticise has accumulated over the years.

>> No.1838329

>>1838303

You have a basis to judge my writing style, but under what auspice are you judging my intelligence (and, as importantly, under what subjective definition)?

As for the poems; no, I won't be a Poet Laureate or the next Bukowski. I don't intend to be. Poetry, for me, is simply writing for pleasure.

>> No.1838331

>>1838317

I lol'd

>> No.1838332

>>1838327

As the OP: cheers, I was just about to say that.

>> No.1838337

The word "myriad" is used once in about 15 of your works... Yes, I counted.

>> No.1838338

I've seen you posting/begging a lot, I only wonder how long before it becomes a copypasta meme.

>> No.1838340

>>1838178

>I can never be sure of anything. My mind, for better or for worse, locks itself in a whirlwind of postmodern argument, assuming the relative as an absolute (the tricky fallacy of language coating my tongue and making the tender flesh heavy and dull)

This reads like you didn't read it yourself. It's a first draft, and not even a good one. Stand by your essays all you want, but get some fucking peer review - these are dreadful in the main.

>> No.1838343

>>1838228
>As for coming of as pretentious, I think that's part and parcel of communicating online. I am not trying to appear smarter or more informed than I am - these are things I know, ergo what I write. As for irritating, I think if we met in person you'd like me. Again, it's part of the medium: one there's no face behind the words and two I am asking for something. It isn't a balanced encounter.

Dude, you can't just drop "ergo" casually in this response and not come off as pretentious. You can't just write a snarky, third-person mini autobiography complete with brooding, artsy portrait shot and not come off as a pretentious.

I'm sure at your core you're an okay person. But you really need to get over yourself a smidge.

>> No.1838351

>>1838332
>>1838327

It has nothing to do with pretentiousness, but with the desire to preserve clarity in language, and I don't think it's necessary to pander to the most ignorant people who don't understand that, for example, art criticism isn't only about saying mean things about people's work.

Some people don't even care about the distinction between being uninterested and distinterested -- scumbags.

>> No.1838353

Part of my comment isn't allowed to be posted apparently, so I'll do this in bits:

>I will stand by my essays
>This essay is shit, I will distance myself from it by noting how long ago I wrote it.

As for your Revelation wank. Believe me buster, I got it. MY point, is that YOUR point is completely stupid and shows you up as a shameless dilettante with no knowledge of the subjects you are commenting on. The Book of Revelation is believed by ALL biblical scholars and theologians to have been written metaphorically - probably to warn the early Christian community about events that were occurring at the time which couldn't be stated plainly. You are absolutely incorrect to claim that Revelation was ever meant to be taken literally. The only other people who make this mistake are ignorant fundamentalists.

>> No.1838358

>>1838353

More generally, if you showed that essay to any sort of academic, they would laugh at it for your simplicity.

>> No.1838359

>>1838343

I lol'd. OP needs to buy a tophat and have his picture taken with some scotch and a cigar.

>> No.1838361

>He smokes cigarettes though his grandfather died of lung cancer. His brand is Pall Mall, as was Raymond Chandler's, Charles Bukowski's, and Kurt Vonnegut's before him. Samuel considers this good company.

Oh it just gets better - Samuel writes about himself in the third person. Anon does not like people who do that. I'm now convinced that OP is trying to get a personal army going on Samuel, who frankly deserves it. Somebody start sending pizzas and funeral cars to

>the city that mickey built

Are there whores in that .jpg? Are they laughing? Why yes, I do believe they are.

>> No.1838362

>>1838358

I might look at one of your other 'Essays', though I can't promise I won't skim - my interest, or any other readers, shouldn't be taken as a given.

>> No.1838363
File: 34 KB, 799x598, 1289972192317.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1838363

>>1838340
Ow
I don't even know why but it just...HURT to read. I had to look away and rub my head and aaagh.
That was painful, like really.
OP please get to the point without talking about dull tongues

>> No.1838365

>>1838353

Agreed. At least 75% of the Bible should be taken as metaphor...

>> No.1838371

>>1838353

Hey, I'm just curious. I'm not the OP or anything and I'm fairly new to /lit/. Who exactly are you? Are you a published writer or something? From what I've gathered you're a presence on this board and have a reputation as a hard-ass when it comes critique and such? Are you just some guy who's also literary schmuck and a wannabe like the rest of us but just happens to be vocal?

I'm not saying the only people who have a right to critique other people's crap are those who are published and stuff. But for all you talk, do you have any links to your own stuff that I could read?

>> No.1838374

>>1838329

I'm judging you intelligence based on your writing style and the fact that none of the ideas you put forth demonstrate any intelligence. There is sufficient evidence on your website for me to deduce that you are slightly down the good end of the bell shaped curve, but any intelligence you do possess is of the generic, non-creative, kind.

>> No.1838376

>>1838178

I find your poetry uninspired, I might even say awfull. Get a muse or stop trying.

Teeth, right here.

>> No.1838383

>>1838361

I end the "About" section with this:

"Samuel has started every paragraph in this section with his own name; a fact that makes him feel rather pompous. I have written all of this. Just as I write this now. Just as I will write in the future, whatever it may bring."

It's meant to be a joke about Acknowledgment sections wherein it's always "the author wishes to thank...". That's the point.

>> No.1838385

Oh god, that Revelation one was so fucking horrible.

>> No.1838390

>>1838383

>'we think this is fucking stupid'
>ughhh...you plebs...it's MEANT to be stupid...that's the POINT.

You've done this twice now.

>> No.1838391

>>1838371

He's an unpublished beggar who has tried on several chans/boards to try to get other people to pay for his novel to be published in a minor capacity, because it won't be published by normal means (Typically an author gets paid for the book he wrote, paying for it to be published is more of an Ego Tax in the sense that the lottery and casinos are a Stupidity Tax)

>> No.1838394

>>1838371

>I'm not saying the only people who have a right to critique other people's crap
>critique

Moron.

>> No.1838395

>>1838343

"Dude, you can't just drop "ergo" casually in this response and not come off as pretentious."

Coming off as pretentious and being pretentious are two different things. I didn't grab a thesaurus and find another word for "therefor"; I was offering post and as such used "ergo".

>> No.1838396

>>1838391

No, lotteries and casinos are taxes on hope, not stupidity.

>> No.1838401

>>1838371

Any reputation I possess (which is far less than you presume) is founded solely on the posts I make. I have never, and nor shall I, posted or linked anything I have written to /lit/.

If you want to know my 'credentials', well I'm a final year law student with a BA in English lit, theology and philosophy, currently doing post-grad philosophy. But I'm not a believer in appeals to one's authority, especially on an anonymous forum. If you're 14 years old or unemployed, I don't give a shit, so long as you make good arguments.

>> No.1838402

>>1838396
>>1838396

Oh god, that puts a cruel and tragic spin on it.

>> No.1838404

>>1838396
Hope and intelligence would lead to savings, and investment. Hope and stupidity lead to gambling. I'd give you 50% of this one, but I'm sticking by the other half.

>> No.1838409

OP's gone pretty silent...

>> No.1838413

>>1838353

Frankly, this betrays your lack of knowledge of the history of Christianity and the Bible. Revelation was, when written, meant to be taken literally (hence the bit about being a prophecy given to John by an Angel) - and when the decision was made to include it at the Council of Nicaea it was still meant to be taken literally. You are confusing John 1 and 2 with Revelation.

And "all" biblical scholars certainly do not agree. Beyond which as a satire is not aimed at scholars, it is aimed at precisely the kind of people you say believe it - those who take the bible as literally true (biblical inerrancy, if you're curious).

If you want to go toe to toe on the history of Christianity, I'm game. I would be surprised if you were better versed than I.

>> No.1838415

>>1838409

Apologies: system restart.

>> No.1838416

>>1838395

"therefor" means "for that" or "for it"; "therefore" means "consequently."

brb OP, grabbing a bag of chips.
okay... please, KEEP POSTING!

>> No.1838426

>>1838413
>Revelation was, when written, meant to be taken literally (hence the bit about being a prophecy given to John by an Angel)
>Angel

>> No.1838427

>>1838416

Goodness, I missed an "e" as I was typing. My argument is invalid. Check post 1838374; there's a typo there to, but ignored but obviously it was a minor mistake.

>> No.1838432

>>1838427
Throw a couple >> before post numbers next time...

there's a typo there too*

>> No.1838435

Is this the Great Gatsby?

>> No.1838437

>>1838426

NRSV, Revelation 1:1 "The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place; he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,"

>> No.1838438

>>1838437

An angel just flew out of my ass as I read this...

>> No.1838443

welp

>> No.1838447

>>1838413

Frankly, you use 'frankly' too much.

First things first. Attacking weak opponents makes you yourself look weak. Anyone who wastes their time on fundamentalists is a moron.

Just because something is a 'prophecy' this doesn't mean it is meant to be taken literally. I'm not disputing that early Christians and scholars believe that the text was prophetic or that it was eschatological.

What I'm pointing out is that all the DETAILS are symbolic and metaphorical. The seven lambs and seven seals and all that yada yada. Early Christians, and scholars throughout history simply did not interpret this literally. When I say 'all' I mean 'the vast majority.' I am certainly not confusing it with John 1 and 2.

>> No.1838448

>>1838401

Your rejection of appeal to authority is wonderful - now just work on the ad hominum and you're good to go.

>> No.1838449

plew

>> No.1838456

>>1838448

I don't use ad hominum. I just insult people. There's a difference.

>> No.1838460

>>1838329
>for my writing pleasure

Then don't expect people to read them.

>> No.1838462

>>1838456
You're an asshole and a moron, so there goes your argument...

>> No.1838468
File: 16 KB, 228x219, images (1).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1838468

>>1838462

Oh you,

>> No.1838470
File: 33 KB, 436x568, 1304556942392.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1838470

>> No.1838471
File: 16 KB, 600x400, 0312-OSING-Trololo_full_600.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1838471

>>1838468

>> No.1838475

>>1838462
>>1838468
>>1838460

Alright now. This has just gotten silly. Why aren't you fellows reading.

Here
http://brainstorm-services.com/wcu-2004/A&P.pdf

>> No.1838476

OP is a mudblood...

>> No.1838479

>>1838475
> In walks these three girls in nothing but bathing suits.

Instaboner...

>> No.1838480

>>1838447

It isn't an attack - it's satire. If you don't find it funny, fine. I'm not attacking; I'm explaining what would actually happen if the events of Revelation as foretold came to pass.

For someone who applauds himself on not using an appeal to authority to validate your points, I wonder why you seek to counter my point first by noting I use "frankly" often. Frankly, that makes you look silly.

Your "prophecy" argument makes no sense in this capacity. Revelation 22:18-20 "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this book; 19if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away that person’s share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. The one who testifies to these things says, ‘Surely I am coming soon.’ Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!".

You are confusing "prophecy" as used in the Old Testament (from the Hebrew "navi") with the New Testament (from the Koine Greek "prophemi", meaning "to foretell").

>> No.1838481

Shit, I thought it was alright, OP.

>> No.1838492

>>1838481

Cheers. Want to pledge a dollar?

I kid, I kid.

>> No.1838510

>>1838480

I didn't tell you that you use 'frankly' too often to 'counter your point.' I just noted it parenthetically for your consideration.

Satire is generally using 'wit' as a weapon. I don't think I was too far wrong to suppose that you intended this to be a form of social criticism, an 'attack' of sorts. On appraisal though, I don't think you can really call it satire, because you aren't displaying any wit.

Nothing makes sense if you choose to get bogged down in semantics and willfully misunderstand something. My argument is simply that while the overarching meaning of the text is to be taken seriously, the text itself is largely symbolic.

The quote you posted is actually self defeating. The literal meaning of the quote is that no one should alter it by adding new writing. The figurative suggestion is that no one should interpret the text beyond the plain meaning. You have a Catch 22 right there. If you are right, and the text is to be interpreted literally, then that quote CANNOT be a warning against interpreting it figuratively, because to do so you would have to read the quote itself as figurative.

The same problem doesn't occur under my analysis. One can read the text as largely figurative, and read that quote as literally prohibiting additions to the text.

>> No.1838540

>>1838510

Your definition of wit (and I am by no means convinced you gave the work anything other than a cursory glance) need not be the same as mine. If you see no wit, fair enough. Wit, however, was the intent - as such the work is satirical. If you do not see it as witty then it is, to you, bad satire, but that's a different story all together.

"I didn't tell you that you use 'frankly' too often to 'counter your point.' I just noted it parenthetically for your consideration."

Usually I would take this on good faith, but considering the derogatory nature of the post it prefaced, I think you are lying. I'll be clear in my own note for your consideration: "I don't use ad hominum. I just insult people. There's a difference." There isn't when your intent in insulting them is to question their intelligence and, by association, the validity of their point. If this is not your intent, fair enough, know as a reader of what you write it is very much so how it comes off.

"My argument is simply that while the overarching meaning of the text is to be taken seriously, the text itself is largely symbolic."

The text is not "largely symbolic". The text, when written, was literal: John of Patmos had a vision from God that showed the future and wrote it down. The fact that scholars, Christians and others now view it "symbolically" (and I would be interested to know what elements you think are viewed "symbolically") does not change the authors intent.

As for an "overarching meaning of the text": what, pray tell, is the overarching meaning of Revelation? I'm sure the Third Council of Carthage would find the information useful.

>> No.1838575

>>1838371

Guy, he's some tripfag from /mu/ - pretty much exactly what it says on the tin. There are no 'presences' here - just people we fucking hate, and he's not one of them. Yet.

>> No.1838587

>>1838395

>I didn't grab a thesaurus and find another word for "therefor"

Didn't grab a dictionary either, did you?

THEREFORE, schmuck.

>> No.1838595

>>1838401

>a final year law student with a BA in English lit, theology and philosophy, currently doing post-grad philosophy

>a final year law student
> currently doing post-grad philosophy

How exactly does that work? How many things can a person study?

>> No.1838603
File: 5 KB, 150x155, applause.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1838603

>>1838427

>Goodness, I missed an "e" as I was typing. My argument is invalid. Check post 1838374; there's a typo there to

>there to

>to

>> No.1838611

>>1838606
>>1838603

For gosh sake. Why are you gentlemen wasting your time thusly?

>> No.1838613

>>1838603

Mercy me; of the thousand odd words I have typed I have missed two vowels. They were typographical errors. If my poor typing is your only retort, I am not particularly concerned.

>> No.1838616

>>1838540

Your attempt to obfuscate the fact that you are floundering here, by claiming I am mistaken about etymology and mentioning various historical councils is pretty transparent bub.

I like how you completely ignored my point about the quote you posted. You were wise to ignore it - because it is a silver bullet for your entire argument, but I'm not letting you get away with that shit.

You must have missed the bit about getting bogged down in semantics also.

There is a difference between ad hominum and what I am doing. If my responses were merely "you're wrong, you are a moron" then sure - but I am providing reasoned arguments. Your own posts call your intelligence into question far more than any of my insults do.

If you really can't see what I am saying, here you go one more time. I will try to be crystal clear for you.

1. The Book of Revelation is an eschatological prophecy. (Before that sends you off the perch again, remember YOU used the word prophecy first.)

2. Early Christians believed that it was (1), i.e. most scholars agree that early Christians thought it was (1).

3. The authorship of the text is highly disputed. Even if we could agree on authorship, we know almost nothing about the historical figure John of Patmos. Any claim about what the author intended the text to mean is highly fallacious under these circumstances.

4. While Scholars accept that the text has been viewed as eschatological prophecy by the Christian tradition since early times (i.e. Christians believed it forecast an actual event - not some ideological one), the language of this text itself has never been interpreted literally.

Let's see you go toe to toe with that.

>> No.1838618
File: 58 KB, 500x687, alison-goldfrapp.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1838618

>>1838540
>>1838456
>>1838448

GAIZ, ISN'T IT LIEK "AD HOMINEM"? LOL

>> No.1838619

>>1838595

At least two different things, it would seem.

>> No.1838649

>>1838619

Don't be obfuscatory - I asked a civil question. How does that work? How can you be a post-grad philosophy student and a final year law student, or whatever?

>> No.1838659

>>1838649

In NZ law is a 4 year undergrad degree, 5 years as a double degree. I did a double degree, llb and BA. I had a triple major: eng lit, phil and theology. Completed that degree, started post-grad, still finishing law.

>> No.1838678

>>1838659

Fair enough. Sounds complicated, but fair enough. Bit driven are we?

>> No.1838687

>>1838678

It's less complicated than it sounds =) Nah I'm not really very driven at all. I'm lazy as hell really. Like most of the board I have literary, among other creative, aspirations. I'm doing the law as a pragmatic backup because the life of a failed artist sounds pretty terrible. The BA is just interest.

>> No.1838716
File: 50 KB, 806x540, SHORTSHORTSHORT.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1838716

Hijacking an active thread just for kicks. Wrote small piece on the bus, more of an exercise than anything else. Enjoy.

>> No.1838720

>>1838616

I intend to obfuscate nothing: you ping-pong from point to point without any sense, or relation: as such it's hard to keep up. Since you want toe to toe, I'll go line by line (without any real regard for my own grammar, as at this point it has all become rather silly):

>>Your attempt to obfuscate the fact that you are floundering here, by claiming I am mistaken about etymology and mentioning various historical councils is pretty transparent bub.

There should be a comma after councils, etymology is crucial when one is speaking of the Bible as it is a translated document, ergo the original text in the original language need be understood contextually and historically to fully understand the meaning, if you don’t see the importance of the Councils of Nicaea and Carthage in the shaping of the perception of Revelation both amongst the early Christians and the scholar you refer to, you clearly do not have a functional understanding of the history of the Bible, and as such I can deduce you are relying instead on flimsy rhetoric.


>>I like how you completely ignored my point about the quote you posted. You were wise to ignore it - because it is a silver bullet for your entire argument, but I'm not letting you get away with that shit.

From the text to which you refer: “My argument is simply that while the overarching meaning of the text is to be taken seriously, the text itself is largely symbolic.”

In my post I asked you for clarification or example and you offered none, because that argument (however simply put) is utterly banal.


>>You must have missed the bit about getting bogged down in semantics also.

I didn’t miss it, I ignored it. I do not think I was “bogged” down in semantics; that said your apparent allergy to even a cursory examination of meaning relative to understanding is evident.

>> No.1838724

>>1838720

>>There is a difference between ad hominum and what I am doing. If my responses were merely "you're wrong, you are a moron" then sure - but I am providing reasoned arguments. Your own posts call your intelligence into question far more than any of my insults do.

If “[my] posts call [my] intelligence into question far more than any of my insults do” then, by extension, your insults do (although with less frequency than my posts) call my intelligence into question, which is an ad hominum attack. Unless you are saying I lack intelligence entirely, you are saying my point is invalid because I am not “smart” enough to make it. If they have a class on logic at your Law School, I’d suggest you enroll.

>>If you really can't see what I am saying, here you go one more time. I will try to be crystal clear for you.

Good

1. The Book of Revelation is an eschatological prophecy. (Before that sends you off the perch again, remember YOU used the word prophecy first.)
-Agreed

2. Early Christians believed that it was (1), i.e. most scholars agree that early Christians thought it was (1).

-Agreed

>> No.1838729

>>1838724
3. The authorship of the text is highly disputed. Even if we could agree on authorship, we know almost nothing about the historical figure John of Patmos. Any claim about what the author intended the text to mean is highly fallacious under these circumstances.

-Agreed to the disputed authorship; however, whoever the author was states plainly “I, John, your brother who share with you in Jesus the persecution and the kingdom and the patient endurance, was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. I was in the spirit on the Lord’s day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet saying, ‘Write in a book what you see and send it to the seven churches, to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamum, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea.’ Then I turned to see…” (NRSV Revelation 1:9-12). Whoever the author was is describing the vision given to him by God about the future.


4. While Scholars accept that the text has been viewed as eschatological prophecy by the Christian tradition since early times (i.e. Christians believed it forecast an actual event - not some ideological one), the language of this text itself has never been interpreted literally.

-Utter nonsense. “The language of this text itself has never been interpreted literally”? I could pull hundreds of examples of it being taken literally. Here’s a small one: Revelation 13:17-18 “so that no one can buy or sell who does not have the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name. This calls for wisdom: let anyone with understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a person. Its number is six hundred and sixty-six.” Are you unaware of the myriad circumstances throughout history concerning this number and “the mark of the beast”. Are you not familiar with the myriad ailments, diseases and cultural emblems that have been called “the mark of the beast”?

>> No.1838739
File: 44 KB, 392x500, 1294537914552.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1838739

This pic has never been more related.
(But I will respond)

>> No.1838741
File: 35 KB, 598x521, curious_cat.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1838741

>>1838687

ITT: Surprisingly interesting theological discussion.

>> No.1838746

>>1838729

Here’s a big one: Revelation 21:1-8 “Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying,
‘See, the home of God is among mortals. He will dwell with them; they will be his peoples, and God himself will be with them; he will wipe every tear from their eyes. Death will be no more;
mourning and crying and pain will be no more, for the first things have passed away.’ And the one who was seated on the throne said, ‘See, I am making all things new.’ Also he said, ‘Write this, for these words are trustworthy and true.’ Then he said to me, ‘It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give water as a gift from the spring of the water of life. Those who conquer will inherit these things, and I will be their God and they will be my children. But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, the murderers, the fornicators, the sorcerers, the idolaters, and all liars, their place will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second death.’”
Are you at all familiar with the Crusades? If not, take a quick look. Fighting over Jerusalem for religious reasons (in Christendom) stems from Revelation, and the believe that, as prophesized in Revelation, the Kingdom of Heaven will only come to earth when the “old” Jerusalem has been made clean.

>>Let's see you go toe to toe with that.

Done. If you stand by that point, you are a buffoon and are in dire need of a study of the Bible, Church History, Western History and how to read.

>> No.1838753

>>1838739

Take your time; I'm off to bed. I'll read it in the morning.

>> No.1838758
File: 5 KB, 200x200, nick-cave.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1838758

>>1838724

While half-heartedly enjoying the debate, it's AD HOMINEM, not HOMINUM. Fucking hell guys, sort it out, eh?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

The fuck?

>> No.1838776

>>1838720
>>1838720
>>1838720
>>1838720
>>1838720
>>1838720
>>1838720
>>1838720

>There should be a comma after councils, etymology is crucial when one is speaking of the Bible as it is a translated document, ergo the original text in the original language need be understood contextually and historically to fully understand the meaning, if you don’t see the importance of the Councils of Nicaea and Carthage in the shaping of the perception of Revelation both amongst the early Christians and the scholar you refer to, you clearly do not have a functional understanding of the history of the Bible, and as such I can deduce you are relying instead on flimsy rhetoric.

>There should be a comma after councils

OP confirmed as troll.

>> No.1838790
File: 20 KB, 233x350, Tooth_fairy_promo_poster[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1838790

OP even if you win your argument, your writing is still trite crap more interested in flaunting your intelligence than it is telling a story.

>> No.1838853

1.

When I accused you of getting bogged down in semantics, that wasn't an invitation to
conduct a close reading of my arguments, line by line, scrutinizing every comma. You should only do so when it is directly relevant to the argument, otherwise it's just distracting. Whether I write 'councils' or 'councils,' is a red herring. The etymology of a word is only relevant to the discussion if I am purporting to use the word in a biblical sense. It is perfectly permissible to use the 'ordinary meaning' of a word in other contexts. If I was arguing that the word 'prophecy' in the context of the text meant X, then etymology is relevant. I wasnt't, I was simply saying that the nature of the text is prophetic in the ordinary sense of the word.

I acknowledge that the councils were important in shaping the perception of Revelation, at least to some extent. What I don't acknowledge is that simply by mentioning that they took place, you contributed anything meaningful to your argument. The Council of Carthage was irrelevant, and what you said of Nicaea wasn't explained with any clarity and I dispute it.

>> No.1838856

>>1838853

2.

The argument I refer to as 'the silver bullet' is this:

>>Revelation 22:18-20 "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this book; 19if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away that person’s share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. The one who testifies to these things says, ‘Surely I am coming soon.’ Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!".

>>The quote you posted is actually self defeating. The literal meaning of the quote is that no one should alter it by adding new writing. The figurative suggestion is that no one should interpret the text beyond the plain meaning. You have a Catch 22 right there. If you are right, and the text is to be interpreted literally, then that quote CANNOT be a warning against interpreting it figuratively, because to do so you would have to read the quote itself as figurative.

The argument rests on internal logic. It requires no clarification or example. If you think it is banal, it is up to you to identify a logical fallacy or a mistaken premise.

>> No.1838858

>>1838856

There really isn't much more I want to say about ad hominem. This is because my intial statement was somewhat flippant, and because you resort to the very same technique anyway.
All I will note is that I am NOT saying your point is invalid because you are not smart enough to make it. I am saying you are not smart, because your points are invalid.

>If “[my] posts call [my] intelligence into question far more than any of my insults do” then, by extension, your insults do (although with less frequency than my posts) call my intelligence into question.

NOPE. Saying that your posts call your intelligence into question more than my insults do does not logically neccessitate that my insults call your intelligence into question. If I said "you are better at reading than I am", this doesn't logically imply that I can read.

You don't do papers in logic at Law School. You do papers on law. I have however, done papers on logic in philosophy. Which is why I can point out above why you are entirely mistaken in calling my logic into question.

If you don't know who the author is, or anything about them, then you don't know whether the narrative voice is being truthful or literal. When poets invoke the muses, you don't seriously think that they were being literal do they? In a religion context it is more likely, but even so:

>>Whoever the author was is describing the vision given to him by God about the future.

>> No.1838860

>>1838858

4.


This is entirely consistent with what I am arguing. I have said throughout that the text describes a vision about the future. My point is that the DESCRIPTION is not literal. I don't know how to make this clearer. If I say "when my law results are released next week, I will die of shame", I am making a statement about the future, but I am not literally suggesting I will die.

4. Ok. I generalised when I said "never." Obviously you can't understand generalisation (assburgers anyone?). Let me clarify. While some people throughout history have interpreted Revelation literally, early Christians and most Scholars have not.

Once again, your argument is self defeating:

>>Are you unaware of the myriad circumstances throughout history concerning this number and “the mark of the beast”. Are you not familiar with the myriad ailments, diseases and cultural emblems that have been called “the mark of the beast”?

Of course I am aware. "The mark of the beast" is entirely figurative language - its dubious whether it even HAS a literal meaning. This has allowed people to interpret 'the mark of the beast' as a SYMBOL referring to "the myriad ailments, diseases, and cultural emblems."

>> No.1838863

>>1838860

5.


Points on your final quote:

1. Fighting over Jerusalem does not stem from Revelation. The Crusades were motivated by far more practical issues - much like most of history's 'religious wars.' As noted above, some people throughout history have interpreted revelation literally - I noted fundamentalists for instance - just not early Christians or Scholars. If Revelation was used as part of a pro-Crusade rhetoric, that proves nothing. Furthermore to see that passage as a reason to fight over Jerusalem one has to impute a certain amount of meaning onto the text anyhow. It doesn't say "And then Lo! God said, the Knights of Europe shall wage war on Jerusalem and bla bla." It is BECAUSE Revelation is vague and symbolic that it even functions as prophecy. It is BECAUSE Revelation is vague and symbolic that it is capable of being interpreted again and again throughout history as referring to some future or current events, when earlier millenial expectations are proved false. There is almost no one who would dispute this.

Well that's me done. I can't believe I have bothered to go to this depth of discussion over an essay that is so devoid of literary merit. Because of your ego, I am sure you will fail to grasp everything I have just said, and hold fast to your precious belief that you are 'the smartest guy in the room.'I look forward to your wordy riposte, replete with accusations of grammatical and etymological error, perjoratives and patronising drivel.

Hopefully others on this board will take a fleeting interest in this nonsence and adjudicate on our behalf.

>> No.1838865

>>1838863

Fin.

>> No.1838886

bump.

I know this board moves with glacial speed, but I would love it if someone has an opinion to express on all this before I have to run off and write essays.

>> No.1838887

Interestingly, or maybe not, many 'early christians' (depends on your definition of early really, but I'm talking 2nd, 3rd century old scholl motherfuckers) didn't accept revelation at all - it was considered heretical cos it was all associated with some sect and that - I forget the name, but clever disputants like you will be able to find it, I'm sure. Truth is that Revelation has had a very sketchy history in Christian theology. It's really the American fundamentalist movement that's taken it to heart as a literal prediction of apocalypse - previous misplaced beliefs in the end of the world tended to be based around other, non-canonical sources like personal revelation, or Bishop Ussher's nonsense.

>> No.1838889

>>1838863

Adjudication: you lost the argument on the historical interpretability of Revelations. Boo hoo.

If it's any consolation, OP's writing is horrible.

>> No.1838915

I bet your essays suck ass.

>> No.1838933
File: 42 KB, 551x445, 1296612012080.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1838933

>>1838889

Two birds with one stone huh? And yes, it is some consolation, however I will wait for consensus to emerge before I decide whether I need consoling.

>>1838915

I'm guessing this is directed at me, seeing OP's are a moot point.

>mfw you're right, but I'll get A's anyway.

>> No.1838958

tl;dr you both lose

>> No.1838975

>>1838887

the Gnostics? revelations obviously isnt literal btw.

>> No.1839194

bump.

>> No.1839247

Is OP gay?

>> No.1839274

>>1839247
He styles up in flowery jackets and takes pictures of himself while he poses like a queer for the camera.

You do the math.

>> No.1839320

Woah, woah, woah. Wait. This idiot has a doctorate in metaphysics?

>> No.1839332

>>1838975

Nah, not gnostics, Menganauts or Mongtards or summink like that - I forget.

>> No.1839341

I would say that Samuel's smug, third-person description of himself suggests a degree of irony which is largely absent from the substance of his work.

If there is a consistently posing, preening, shallow, affected quality to everything you've written and to all of the photos you have of yourself (you own a bookshelf!), it's probably safe to assume that you embody all of those qualities and that you really are as dribbling as passages like this suggest:

>My mind is too infinitely small to comprehend: simply because a question can be posed does not mean it can be answered. Least of all in words.

So, we have the misuse of 'infinitely', where 'infinitesimal' would have been correct; a colon which serves no real purpose in the sentence; and a half-though which collapses into a dim truism upon closer examination. 'What colour is Evil?' Hey! That can't be answered, least of all in words. Got to write this down...

>> No.1839342

so to answer d0rko's question, who do you reckon won that argument? close call but i'd say OP got fucked on the last one unless he as something pretty good up his sleave

>> No.1839344

Goddamn, this is a long thread for what is a senseless piece of writing.

OP, you should try another field.

>> No.1839351

>>1838475
>>1838475

Fuck yeah, this story is the shit!

>> No.1839354

>>1839342

I can't believe how badly OP got pwnt in that religion discussion. It wasn't close at all!

>> No.1839361

Just reading through your other essays now, OP, and they don't seem to be getting any better. Just to give you some example of the tear-inducing awfulness of it all, your best work is the least ambitious one. It's a dreary explication of the budget issue from a man with no grounding in economics -- great!

By the time I reached your essay on monogamy, I didn't really feel like reading it too closely given your previous efforts. I do note that you failed to deal adequately with the historical analysis of monogamy, with nary a mention of the Catholic Church which had a monopoly on the imposition of monogamy for much of the history of Western Europe. The Catholic perspective is betrayed by the etymology of the term itself: mono meaning one and gamos meaning marriage, but this actual meaning is passed over in favour of a much more recent interpretation of 'monogamy' whereby one can have multiple partners over time, as long as one is loyal to a partner within the confines of a given relationship. That is where we are today, but it's not where we've always been.

>We come into this world as a tabula rosa, but the world itself already has an already formed zeitgeist of morality and ethics

I assume you mean a tabula rasa unless I'm missing some amusing Latin pun. 'Sub rosa' does mean 'under the rose' -- a metaphor for secrecy, and this would be well contrasted with 'tabula rasa', suggesting a kind of absolute openness, but I don't think that's where you were going here.

Secondly, that's a very clumsy discussion of morality. Asking the rhetorical question, 'Who chose these morals?' when you've just suggested that morality and ethics are part of a pre-existing zeitgeist does seem to miss the point of a zeitgeist which, by definition, is not 'chosen' by anyone. The question reeks of redundancy.

>> No.1839363

> From a biological perspective, monogamy ... is an absurd concept.

No, it's not an absurd concept and there is quite a compelling evolutionary motive for a male to stay with his pregnant partner in order to protect the offspring from predators. Human children are peculiarly helpless in their infancy. This would also explain the bond that develops between males and their pregnant wives, as well as the fierce loyalty a father has for his child -- these are not social constructs and this evolutionary explanation has been offered as one of the reasons for the existenc of the emotion we call 'love'. Whether you agree with that, it's hardly 'absurd', is it?
>Moving forward through history, past the spread of Christianity across Europe and into the Middle Ages, marriage (which is the basis of the monogamous system) becomes pivotal to serfdom.

There is no reason to say this, and you don't even bother to back up a highly contentious claim about the connection between serfdom and marriage, nor do you offer any evidence for your repeated claims about 'power structures' or why exactly children raised by monogamous parents are less likely to 'rise up' against them. This is all baseless speculation, and the repeated references to 'man in a state of nature' and 'apes' as though you're some Enlightenment philosopher writing an imagined history of humanity is terribly reaching.

>> No.1839367

> The advent of “courtly” love during the Renaissance

Wrong. Courtly love was a pre-Renaissance phenomenon; I don't think anybody really associates it with the Renaissance, do they? The idea of chivalry predates the period you ascribe it to by a couple of centuries. But, hey! Who cares, right? What's a few hundred years between friends?

>Monogamy, then, and the stability it produces within a civilization
>Monogamy, then, is not some new phenomena,

Two paragraphs, separated by only two sentences, which begin in identical ways. Sloppy.

You also seem to misunderstand the shifts in motivations for marriage throughout history, ascribing almost everything to some vague, ill-defined notion of 'power structures' imposing these norms on people, and denying agency to the very people whom you claim to be defending and whose humanity you want to reclaim. A brief and necessarily crude sketch of reasons for marriage would in fact recognise that until the 19th century and the height of the Industrial Revolution -- most saliently, the invention of the 'domestic sphere' -- marriage was undertaken almost exclusively for economic ends. It is no coincidence that the first truly sentimental love novels appear around this time, exemplified by the work of Jane Austen.

I don't want to read any more of your stuff.

>> No.1839373

BUt, hey, we all had a nice chat about it, didn't we? Maybe your opnion will differ from others...

It so fucking won't. OP couldn't write his way out of a sausage roll.

>> No.1839374

>>1839361
>>1839363
>>1839367
Didn't read the OP's shit, but if what you're quoting from him is actually what he's written then I'm cringing pretty hard, especially if he thinks people will pay money for this kind of shit.

I'm considering suing the OP as opposed to donating.

>> No.1839377

How did this shit raise $2,741? Or am I misreading the donation site?

>> No.1839379

>>1839377

I really hope you are misreading. If it did, I'd seriously contemplate ddossing this douchnozzle purely for the sake of justice.

>> No.1839383

>>1839377

The asshole can't write for shit, but he knows how to market himself. Look at the website, look at his description on the donation site. If you were too lazy to bother reading any of his shit you might be fooled.

You missed your calling OP. You should have done marketing - you'd squeeze a buck or two and you'd free the world of the oppressive burden that is your attempt at sincerity.

>> No.1839532

>>1838863

First and foremost, I do owe you an apology. While I stand by my points I, at several points in my reply, attacked your character – for which I apologize. As explanation, not justification, I was trying to respond with dozens of tangential posts of one-lined inanity, but still: you began by critiquing my work (as I asked) and did so honestly and with independent insight. I apologize for making it personal.

To your points:
>>When I accused you of getting bogged down in semantics, that wasn't an invitation to
conduct a close reading of my arguments, line by line, scrutinizing every comma. You should only do so when it is directly relevant to the argument, otherwise it's just distracting.

Agreed – I did so as reference to your initial mentioning of my using “frankly” too much and your subsequent defense of it. That said it was silly and attacking, and I withdraw it.

>>simply by mentioning that they took place, you contributed anything meaningful to your argument

Disagree – Particularly as it relates to this argument, when you began the discussion (in 1838353) with “shows you up as a shameless dilettante with no knowledge of the subjects” and “Revelation is believed by ALL biblical scholars and theologians to have been written metaphorically”, I took the implication that you considered yourself well-versed in Christian history. If that were the case I would not need to explain why the councils I mentioned are crucial to my argument: any more so than if we were talking about American History I wouldn’t have to explain the importance of the Connecticut Compromise.

>> No.1839534

>>1839532

As there appears to be some confusion, I will clarify. The Third Carthage is key because it was the first prominent synod to issue a canon of the Bible that not included Revelation, but did so as the last book of the New Testemant. The Council is also important as it was a direct rebuke of the Donatists; which I mentioned because they were one of the myriad sects of early Christianity – you seem to view the movement as cohesive in some capacity, when in reality it was anything but.


>>The quote you posted is actually self defeating. The literal meaning of the quote is that no one should alter it by adding new writing. The figurative suggestion is that no one should interpret the text beyond the plain meaning. You have a Catch 22 right there. If you are right, and the text is to be interpreted literally, then that quote CANNOT be a warning against interpreting it figuratively, because to do so you would have to read the quote itself as figurative.
>>The argument rests on internal logic. It requires no clarification or example. If you think it is banal, it is up to you to identify a logical fallacy or a mistaken premise.

Genuine apologies for missing your argument, but finding a mistaken premise is simple: the verse, though, does not say one cannot “add new writing”, only that if one does they will be punished as described in the text.

>>The figurative suggestion is that no one should interpret the text beyond the plain meaning.

Disagree – You are resting your point on what you believe the figurative suggestion is. After all of your argument about authorship and not knowing intent, how do you possible levy that you know what the “figurative suggestion” is? You even say in your response “
If you don't know who the author is, or anything about them, then you don't know whether the narrative voice is being truthful or literal”, so how you can make this argument is beyond me.

>> No.1839535

>>1839534

I grant your argument rests on internal logic. So does this: all philosophers are women, Socrates was a philosopher, ergo Socrates was a woman. “Logical” is not a synonym for “correct”; and frankly both of your posits of subjective and without support.

You also seem to be confused with the fact that one can use a metaphor in a prophecy and still have the prophecy be literal. It’s akin to when Jesus says “I am the vine,” he is using a metaphor (he is not actually a vine) but that does not make what he said “metaphorical”. He means it literally – he is using a metaphor to convey meaning. A simpler example: here’s my prophecy “on next Tuesday I will fall down, and it will hurt like a midget kicked me in the balls”. The midget and the balls are not part of the literal prophecy; they describe it. You yourself sort of seem to understand it with “die of shame”, but seem to only apply it when it suites your interests.

>> This is because my intial statement was somewhat flippant, and because you resort to the very same technique anyway.

Tu quoque

>> Saying that your posts call your intelligence into question more than my insults do does not logically neccessitate that my insults call your intelligence into question. If I said "you are better at reading than I am", this doesn't logically imply that I can read.

Not an apt comparison at all. In fact, a completely different sentence structure. The actual version would be “you read much better than I do”. You said “Your own posts call your intelligence into question far more than any of my insults do.”. “Do.” Meaning that your posts “do” call my intelligence into question, though to a lesser extent than my own.

>> No.1839540

>>1839535
>> My point is that the DESCRIPTION is not literal

And my point (which I have offered support for, I have not seen you offer support for your own) is that the description is literal; the book itself says it is literal. If one wishes to interpret it figuratively, that’s one thing. Interpretation and source, though, are different – and the source is literal without question. John is not saying (In Revelation 6:1) “The I saw something whose meaning I will convey by using a lamb as imagery, open a book, by which I mean make known or understood, a book, by which I mean a litany possessed by G-d or possessed solely by him”, he says “Then I saw the Lamb open one of the seven seals”. This was written in the first century. You are bogged down in modernity and the centuries of interpretation of Revelation: the book itself is not a metaphor; it is an account of what will happen. John sees with his own eyes the end of days of writes down exactly what happens (or so the book itself states). If we disagree on that, fine, but I genuinely don’t understand any counter.

>> Ok. I generalised when I said "never." While some people throughout history have interpreted Revelation literally, early Christians and most Scholars have not.

There is, of course, nothing wrong with generalization if it is appropriate: yours are so sweeping that they defeat any understanding of what you are saying. “Early Christians”? Which of the hundreds of sects are you referring to? What centuries? “Scholars”? Contemporary, classical, religious, theological, historical? Give some context or you aren’t saying anything.

>> No.1839544

>>1839540

>> The mark of the beast" is entirely figurative language - its dubious whether it even HAS a literal meaning.

What? No it isn’t. Try reading the source text again: “Revelation 13:17-18 “so that no one can buy or sell who does not have the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name. This calls for wisdom: let anyone with understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a person. Its number is six hundred and sixty-six.”. The LITERAL meaning is that the mark of the beast is the number 666. If you see no historical (or for that matter contemporary) examples of 666 being seen literally as the mark of the beast you are either being willfully ignorant or are woefully uninformed. A quick example: the government of the United States does not issue Social Security cards containting the number “666”. Why? People who were issued the number suing to have it changed. If you need more just google “666” and see what happens.

>> The Crusades were motivated by far more practical issues - much like most of history's 'religious wars.'

For those in charge, yes and of course; history is a matter of a struggle either for or to maintain power. For those who did the fighting (the uninformed), no. I don’t want to delve into the entire history of the Crusades (that would take months) but a person with even a passing knowledge of the 11th-14th centuries knows the period was marked by a series of peaks in Christian piety and public interest in religious affairs; evinced often in a desire to reclaim Jerusalem and Antioch. Have a wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

Ultimately, I think we simply see it differently. I think you made some cogent points and some not so cogent – I do though respect and appreciate your taking the time to make them.

>> No.1839550

You
>are under the influence of Salinger
>and one of those modern writers like Palahniuk
>are possibly still in high school, but it could be college
>irritate my jimmies

>> No.1840188

fuck this kid is annoying.

>> No.1840246

Fucking hell OP, if you put as much effort into ACTUALLY WRITING (and editing) your work, as you put into marketing it and defending it, you *might* actually write something that borders on being interesting.

Unfortunately, reading your latest reply was pretty much just a fun game of "spot the misinterpretation!" and "spot the logical fallacy!" They were coming thick and fast OP, I barely escaped from your net of sophistry without my butt being angered.

Now that I'm out, I have no intention of wading back in. Fuck that. I'm working so that I DON'T have to get a job explaining things to little kids.

But what have we learnt? What insight can we gain from this discussion? Here's a list:

A. Your book sucks.
B. You can't write.
C. You are a homosex with assburgers.
D. You look like a gnome; or a small, hirsute, Albanian child.

>> No.1840248
File: 85 KB, 580x580, 1296727081311.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1840248

>>1840246

E. Everybody finds you repugnant.
F. Your ego makes it impossible for you to learn or improve - you think the correct response to overwhelming negative criticism is try and defend your position.
G. You are a sophist.
H. You are not a holistic, creative thinker, you are a fact checker.
I. Either you are horrendously lazy or you are horrendously stupid. Consider - you've gone to all the effort required to have a person forum for your *art* [snigger] and yet you have no quality control on what you display there. Either half the shit was written in minutes and then never looked at again, or it is the result of hard work and editing. Former - lazy, latter -stupid.
J. You have a smug sense of entitlement - you think you deserve something for this lazy crap you shit.
K. You think that looking brooding, having an ashtray overflowing with cigarettes, and pouring over heavily edited manuscripts makes you a writer. It doesn't. It makes you a shithead.
L. You are too old for this shit.
M. "Samuel has never apologized for anything he has written, and he never will." LOL

>First and foremost, I do owe you an apology.

What was that then, fagballs?

I have nothing more to say to you, you repulse me and deserve to be ridiculed rather than seen as an opponent. Feel free to leave this board and never return, and you know, the same thing goes for the planet.

>> No.1840273

>>1840246
>>1840248
God

DAMN
Please mod (lol) lock this thread because that's about as final a conclusion as we're going to get.

>> No.1840279

>Every Kickstarter project must be fully funded before its time expires or no money changes hands.

I'm bookmarking your Kickstarter page so I can watch it fail. 5 days, $800 to go!

>> No.1840328

>CTRL-F self-conscious
>0 hits

I wrote like this when I was a teenager, and I'm betting that most of us did. But, somewhere along the black, chthonian past way of my as-yet unarticulated youth I suffered an apocalypse onto myself wilfully, that heretofore I might rather give voice to words like glistering enshrapnelled diadems and needless of palliative accompaniments.

>> No.1840376

>>1840328

I can't speak for your writing, but it is amusing to note that OP is 26. How the fuck do you get that old without learning at some point??

>> No.1840385

>>1840328

You are a fucking genius.

>> No.1840447

>that heretofore I might rather give voice to words like glistering enshrapnelled diadems and needless of palliative accompaniments.

Is this written in jest? Perhaps you think this mellifluous but it seems overwrought with palliative accompaniments to me.
Also, 'glistering' is a gruesome word compared to 'glistening'.

>> No.1840456

>>1840447

Oh my.

>> No.1840585

>>1840248

A. You haven't read it, but contempt prior to investigation is your choice to make.

B. Perhaps not well, in your opinion, but I can write. As in that previous sentence.

C. Fine. I'm neither, but you're call.

D. That made me laugh. Good use of "hirsute", and for some reason throwing in "Albanian" clinches it.

E. On the board, maybe, but I think there may be two or three people who think what I have said isn't complete bollocks.

F. What is the correct response to overwhelming negative criticism from anonymous individuals who seem more interested (other than a select few) in grabbing bits of my work they disapprove of and then mocking it? Capitulation? If someone offered some genuine feedback (even if negative) I would certainly consider it: my experience in this post has been people prefer to be glib.

G. You make mention of my "logical fallacies" but note none. Show them to me; if nothing else I can lear from them.

>> No.1840600

>>1840248

H. I disagree, but that's fine.

I. I do agree a great deal of the material needs editing. I have been wrapped up in fundraising for my novel, but having looked at my older material I do need to go back and red-ink a great deal of it. If you'd like, I'll post when I have done so.

J. I don't see how asking can be construed as entitled - that, to me, would be demanding. If you don't like my work, fine. Don't contribute. I hold no umbrage.

K. I don't; that was a portrait taken by a friend. I think writing (prose, poetry, essays) makes one a writer.

L. Not to correct you, but an earlier post, I am 25, not 26. And I'm not sure what "shit" you refer to.

M. You caught me.

You seem more interesting in ridicule then discussion anyway. Be well, hope you are reading something you are enjoying.

>> No.1840634

>>1840585
>but you're call.

>> No.1841031

im not sure if i approve

>> No.1841799

>F. What is the correct response to overwhelming negative criticism from anonymous individuals who seem more interested (other than a select few) in grabbing bits of my work they disapprove of and then mocking it? Capitulation? If someone offered some genuine feedback (even if negative) I would certainly consider it: my experience in this post has been people prefer to be glib.

>overwhelming negative criticism

>criticism

That's what you asked for, you douche. Criticism is negative feedback. The reason you're not getting constructive feedback - you did, but you ignored it, so for the sake of argument let's say you didn't - is because nobody thinks you deserve it.

Did you actually expect /lit/ would praise you? Dude, this board lives to insult amateur writers.

>> No.1841819

You know, the longer we keep this going, and maintain this fucktard's attention, the longer we save the world from having to suffer any more of his hideous writing. Although I wouldn't put it past him to cuntpaste the whole thread into word, change the font to verdana on his macbook and then post it to the website as his latest piece of experimental fiction.

>> No.1841839

I liked this

>> No.1841843

i haven't actually read what samuel butcher here has posted, but he's right - none of you are backing the factual nitpickings that are being made and a lot of the arguments presented against him are just hateful, degenerate ad hominems. no constructive criticism is being made, and i find it pathetic that there is so much hate for a writer trying to make something of himself. you just jelly, neckbeards.

>> No.1841844

>>1841843

and i'll add that i read one thing from his blog: "For What It’s Worth – The Federal Budget" and i really liked it.

>> No.1841861

>>1841843
>>1841844

Oh hi Samuel.

>> No.1841862

>>1841843


Hi, Sam.

>> No.1841863

>>1841861

fuck me, should have seen that coming before i posted. oh well, sorry sam

>> No.1841865

>>1841863

Poor love - the whole experience has unhinged him. He's talking to himself now.

>> No.1841866

>In 1993 Carter was in the Sudan, in the middle of mass starvation and death, so many unburied bodies littering the ground the place must have looked like hell itself. He walked from camp to camp: the mournful eyes, the weakened spirits, the distended bellies on babies. He came across a small girl. No one knows how old she was; she’d probably never had a real meal in her life, so she could have been nine, she could have been three. She was squatting in a field, her stomach bubbling out viscously, doubled over on her haunches. Behind her a vulture waited, patient as death itself, the scent of the Reaper in the air bringing the bird to the girl. The vulture watched. Carter watched.

>Carter took a picture: the girl, the barren land, the vulture. The girl died. The vulture ate the corpse.


Wow, OP is full of shit

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,981431,00.html

>The picture immediately became an icon of Africa's anguish. Hundreds of people wrote and called the Times asking what had happened to the child (the paper reported that it was not known whether she reached the feeding center); and papers around the world reproduced the photo

Also

>so many unburied bodies littering the ground the place must have looked like hell itself
>hell itself

You are a boring person, and your "vocabulary" is adequate at best.

>> No.1841869

>>1841866

didn't the photographer kill himself because he didn't try and help her?

>> No.1841872

>>1841869

>didn't the photographer kill himself because he didn't try and help her?

He was more worried about the lack of monies and a failing relationship, but I assume that photo added to the misery.

>> No.1841887

they're making a movie that's like this novel. Hey OP, are they related?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bang-Bang_Club
i'm sure the movie won't be as sophisticated as the book though, but it should be enjoyable

>> No.1842004

>In 1993 Carter was in the Sudan, in the middle of mass starvation and death, so many unburied bodies littering the ground the place must have looked like hell itself. He walked from camp to camp: the mournful eyes, the weakened spirits, the distended bellies on babies. He came across a small girl. No one knows how old she was; she’d probably never had a real meal in her life, so she could have been nine, she could have been three. She was squatting in a field, her stomach bubbling out viscously, doubled over on her haunches. Behind her a vulture waited, patient as death itself, the scent of the Reaper in the air bringing the bird to the girl. The vulture watched. Carter watched.

That wasn't that bad, actually. Disregarding whether it's true or not, it's fairly interesting. Your attempt at being raw and edgy is laudable, but falls kind of flat in the last lines. The Reaper thing and "death itself" is superfluous. You're trying to emphasize the horror of it by using these images, instead of letting the situation speak for itself. By shifting the focus to the Reaper image you're weakening the impact of the dying girl.

The vulture is already enough of a symbol and it had the advantage of being a tangible part of the scene. If you want a symbol of death, you have one. Adding the Reaper is too much.

I'd advise against putting a vulture there in the first place even. You know a good way to symbolize the horror of death by famine? It's a girl dying of famine. There. No need for anything else.

For maximum emotional impact, that passage needs to pure and uncomplicated. Right now, there's four elements: Carter, the dying girl, the vulture and the Death symbols. Two of those are redundant.

See, constructive criticism.