[ 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: 475 KB, 878x1024, John_Steinbeck_with_Elaine_Scott_1950.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR] No.19202819 [Reply] [Original]

WTF

This is John Steinbeck with his wife in 1950.

Why is he wearing a modern hoodie you could buy at any store right now?

>> No.19202826

>>19202819
What the fuck?

>> No.19202829

daayyum dis nigga got dat drip doe

>> No.19202832

lmao why is his zipper undone?

>> No.19202835

>>19202819
He do be looking fresh tho

>> No.19202842

My man done he be on a fr finna freak on da freak fresh drip tho

>> No.19202852

Dis mf vibe killa fr

>> No.19202858

ayo

>> No.19202861

>>19202819
He looks like a cartoonish devil.

>> No.19202876

>>19202819
Steinbeck drip on point

>> No.19202881

The hooded pullover is a utilitarian garment that originated in the 1930s in the US for workers in cold New York warehouses.[11] The earliest clothing style was first produced by Champion in the 1930s and marketed to laborers working in freezing temperatures in upstate New York.[12] The term hoodie entered popular usage in the 1990s.[1]

>> No.19202906

>>19202842
fr fr

>> No.19202921
File: 56 KB, 512x481, 4B043824-7A61-47E2-AB6A-CCEDFADE06A1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>19202819
>modern hoodie
It’s an old design, duh

>> No.19203002

>>19202906
>>19202876
>>19202852
>>19202842
>>19202835
>>19202829
If you want to talk like a fucking nigger, you should first attend Slip and fall achool

>> No.19203014

>>19203002
Only at Miller Grove...

>> No.19203017

>>19202819
Monster hands and ape face

>> No.19203020

>>19202819

It cannot be that hooded sweatshirts have existed for a long time.

Clearly time travel is the only explanation.

>> No.19203047

WTF MODERN-DAY CLOTHES ARE BANAL PASTICHES OF THE PAST?????

>> No.19203053
File: 27 KB, 149x165, f3b4c44119181b59529465b9ec387b6f.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>19202819
95% sure that's an ipod shuffle how the hell??

>> No.19203061

>>19202921
>« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ »
lol you still post here?
I thought you would have died from brain rot by now.

>> No.19203067

>>19203002
I want you to build Beansie that ramp

>> No.19203075

>>19203053
someone shoop it in, also replace watch with apple watch and cigar with vape pen

>> No.19203088
File: 249 KB, 480x738, AE0F5B2C-AA31-4E3A-BF96-5EF0FD428C82.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>19203061
That would require me to follow all these fools with the same name.

Have you heard of Whose Names Are Unknown?

>> No.19203103

>>19203088
No, I only read non-fiction.

>> No.19203119

>>19203088
stop watching breadtube lmao

>> No.19203122

>>19203103
Which is why you’re in a Steinbeck thread?

>> No.19203137
File: 71 KB, 474x817, 3C66ECEF-07A2-4624-A631-FF66EF9E4CE2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>A legit lost classic surfaces
>Quick. Bury it [makes reference to one of his video channels he watches]

>> No.19203138

>he hasn't unlocked the time travel branch yet
everyone looks for it in the physics-related section and not literal metaphysics one
the idiots, the cretins; their brains should be shot; worth not more than a snot

>> No.19203146

>>19203137
Are classics classics if no one's read them?

>> No.19203262

>>19203146
The quality of writing isn’t from the 21st century

>> No.19203282

>>19203262
But good writing a classic does not make. I'm sure it's an exceptional novel and perhaps better than Steinbeck's but the idea of a classic relates more to its status as an piece of influential writing inscribed in a given tradition. I'm following traditionalist T. S. Elliot here but maybe this is why we should maybe be more sceptical of the word "classic"

>> No.19203310

>>19203282
There’s at least the two sense then.
The sales status you think of and a venerated ye olden time. This board is usually about the latter, and all I meant by the word.
You’re following liberal capitalist categories

>> No.19203338

>>19202842
no cap on god

>> No.19203362

>>19203310
>You’re following liberal capitalist categories
I agree but that's in part because, like most words relating to debates on canonicity, I think those categoties can't be recuperated or appropriated, at least not within """"literate"""" circles sadly.

>> No.19203456

>>19203053
Is that a heart medicine or something?

>> No.19203474

>>19202819
OH SHIT JOHN STEINBECK IS A TIME TRAVELER!

>> No.19203553

>>19203122
So? I saw the thread and found it interesting.