/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20160241]

What is the literary equivalent of pic related?

[Anonymous No.20160261]

Samuel Beckett

[Anonymous No.20160322]

The Wasteland and/or Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock
Symbolist poetry
Anything by Kafka
Many stories by Joyce Carol Oates and Flannery O'Connor
Turn of the Screw

[Anonymous No.20160327]

>>20160241
>trashy lesbian thriller
>somehow considered one of the best films of all time now
I don't get it

[Anonymous No.20160345]

>>20160327
Lesbian sex is the most cinematic kind of sex

[Anonymous No.20160470]

The Interpretation of Dreams

[Anonymous No.20160480]

>>20160345
For me, it's Black Swan

[Anonymous No.20160485]

>>20160327
>>trashy lesbian thriller
Did you even watch the movie?

[Anonymous No.20160489]

>>20160485
>Took the bait

[Anonymous No.20160492]

>>20160345
Just watch porn, you faggot!

[Anonymous No.20160505]

probably something by Joan Didion or early Bret Easton Ellis

[Anonymous No.20160512]

>>20160492
I am a literal faggot, I have no interest in watching lesbian porn. But there’s something cinematic and beautiful about two beautiful naked women with big naturals having sex.

[Anonymous No.20160520]

>>20160512
Well, there may be hope for you yet!

[Anonymous No.20160548]

>>20160512
Yeah it's just something everyone can appreciate aesthetically. Like how every straight man can appreciate the perfect male body, like the ancient Greeks did.

[Anonymous No.20160576]

>>20160241

[Anonymous No.20160854]

>>20160241
This

[Anonymous No.20160863]

>edginess
>faux profundity
>facile formal trickery
House of Leaves

[Anonymous No.20160913]

It's funny that a significant portion of 4chan users have turned into little old church ladies who clutch their pearls at two women making out because /pol/ has convinced them it's based and redpilled.

[Anonymous No.20160940]

>>20160913
I like lesbian porn sometimes but the thought of it in reality is disgusting.

[Anonymous No.20160944]

>>20160940
It's a movie, it's even less real than porn because they're not actually having sex

[Anonymous No.20160954]

>>20160944
Women can't have sex anyway

[Anonymous No.20160962]

>>20160954
Do you not classify oral sex as sex?

[Anonymous No.20160975]

>>20160962
It is in a sense but it's not coitus. Like if you got a blowjob you didn't lose your virginity.

[Anonymous No.20161023]

>>20160913

[Anonymous No.20161039]

I like Blue Velvet more

[Anonymous No.20161063]

>>20160975
Virginity is unironically a "social construct." If someone felt that getting a blowjob was the height of sexual experience and genuinely did not want vaginal sex, it would be stupid to call that person a virgin because he already attained the peak of his own sexual pleasure. Why compare his pleasure to your own? Because he didn't go far enough? What about all the people having mindblowing bdsm sex? Vaginal probably looks like a handy to them, anyone doing it vanilla is only experiencing a shadow of real sex. Now imagine that guy's getting blowjobs every day, it would be downright retarded to say he's still a virgin. Vaginal = real sex is based in nothing but feeling, you can't even make the argument about procreation because procreation isn't a factor in the vast majority of vaginal sex.

[Anonymous No.20161086]

>>20161063
Vaginal sex is the natural means of procreation, however. That's what sex ultimately is. Anything else is just imitating it in some way. Like oral sex is just providing a stimulus to provoke your reproductive response.

[Anonymous No.20161093]

>>20161086
Except the vast majority of vaginal sex is still a pale imitation of procreation because people use birth control and condoms.

[Anonymous No.20161098]

>>20160327
You have not seen this film

[Anonymous No.20161102]

>>20161093
That doesn't change anything. You're taking the same action but hindering its fulfillment.

[Anonymous No.20161140]

>>20161102
That changes your post to shit. You’re saying recreational sex isn’t sex enough to be categorized as such. What the fuck every.

[Anonymous No.20161153]

>>20161140
No, it is. If you carry out the same action then it's the same thing. Oral sex isn't the same action.

[Anonymous No.20161157]

>>20161153
Sure sure. Naked foreplay isn’t sex. Got it. Sounds kinky.

[Anonymous No.20161161]

>>20161063
>>20161093
>>20161140
kys faggot

>>20160975
>>20161086
>>20161102
based rhetorician

[Anonymous No.20161175]

>>20161157
>I touched boobies so I had sex
Fuck off retard

[Anonymous No.20161188]

>>20161175
We’re talking about genitalia stimulation that doesn’t end up with impregnation, actual-retard

[Anonymous No.20161192]

>>20161188
Then humping a pillow is sex

[Anonymous No.20161195]

I can't believe what you niggers have done to my thread

[Anonymous No.20161196]

>>20161102
It changes literally everything lol, it's the very definition of hollow stimulus provoking a response. It accomplishes nothing but making you feel good.

[Anonymous No.20161200]

>>20161196
It's irrelevant because the action is the same. Sex is an action not an outcome of an action.

[Anonymous No.20161216]

>>20161200
Saying sex is validated only by procreation while also at the same time claiming that no procreation has to occur, is, frankly, fucking stupid and transparently an attempt to form an argument backwards from a starting conclusion

[Anonymous No.20161224]

>>20161216
It is not. Sex is the act of procreation, but if the act fails in its end, the act still occurred.

[Anonymous No.20161234]

>>20161224
Is it 'failure' if it was undertaken with every measure in place to make sure that procreation would not occur? Failure implies that there was at some point intent for it to not fail. Again, working backwards from a conclusion.

[Anonymous No.20161235]

>>20161192
Masturbation is solo sexual gratification, yes.

[Anonymous No.20161245]

>>20161195
kek

[Anonymous No.20161248]

>>20161063
> social construct
Stopped reading there.
Every concept ever devised by man is a social construct. It's the most useless redundant designation I've ever heard, and the biggest red flag for being a complete nonce.

[Anonymous No.20161249]

>>20161235
Sexual gratification per se is not coitus. Sex is coitus.
>>20161234
Intention is not relevant. A person who was raped did not intent anything but they still had sex. The action is the same.

[Anonymous No.20161265]

>>20161235
> masturbation = sex
See ya later, virgins

[Anonymous No.20161267]

>>20161249
Saying sex is validated only by a thing that is objectively not happening in almost all cases of "sex" is patently ridiculous, bud
>>20161248
>Stopped reading there.
Don't worry, I returned the favor

[Anonymous No.20161279]

>>20161267
>Saying sex is validated only by a thing that is objectively not happening in almost all cases of "sex" is patently ridiculous, bud
I've never said that the outcome validates it, but that it is validated by being the action which can produce that outcome. You just can't accept the distinction that I'm making because you're a dumb zoomzoom who thinks reality is molded by your thoughts and cutting your dick off makes you a woman.

[Anonymous No.20161289]

>>20161267
Explain to me why your definition of sex being constructed around an imagined thing that is not happening (a baby being made) is valid but the imaginary immaterial thing I offered (intent) is not.

[Anonymous No.20161294]

>>20161267
Procreation is sex. Nothing else in principal can result in offspring. It deserves a separate category. In the old days, non reproductive sex was called sodomy.

[Anonymous No.20161296]

>>20161289
Oopsies, responded to myself heehee
>>20161279
Also
>tranny boogeyman
Throwing out all the stops, aren't you?

[Anonymous No.20161302]

>>20161249
Coitus is coitus. This is why I used specified language. “Solo sexual gratification”
Most people are not this confused on the issue, anon.

[Anonymous No.20161303]

>>20161294
>Procreation is sex
Perfectly acceptable as long as you admit that almost all "sex" is then definitionally not actually sex.

[Anonymous No.20161310]

>>20161303
I admit that fully. I consider it sodomy (I'm not Christian btw)

[Anonymous No.20161313]

>>20161296
It's the conclusion of your argument. If you believe a woman performing oral sex on another woman is the same thing as the act of coitus between a man and a woman, then you've rejected any biological distinction between man and woman and relegated their roles and sex to mental propositions.

[Anonymous No.20161408]

>>20161310
>sodomy isn’t sex!
It’s literally called anal sex.

[Anonymous No.20161409]

David Lynch is stylish trash.

[Anonymous No.20161422]

>>20161408
Words don't determine what things are, dirty nominalist tranny.

[Anonymous No.20161439]

answers so far are bad. i don't have a better answer though. that DFW story about the guy who goes to the sleep clinic with his wife is the closest thing I can think of.

[Anonymous No.20161450]

>>20161422
You are actually opening up a floodgate of terminology that okays pedophilia, tard.

[Anonymous No.20161483]

>>20161235
>solo sex
>solo foreplay
>solo hugging and kissing

[Anonymous No.20161484]

>>20161063
I've always defined sexual contact which removes the attribute of "virginity" to be: purposeful contact with the primary and secondary sexual organs of another person for the express purpose of resolving the libido of either participant through climax.

In other words, a virgin is a person who hasn't directly contacted the erogenous zones of another person for the explicit person of bringing them to orgasm, regardless of whether or not orgasm is achieved. This is an important distinction, because it involves the self-aware procession of certain actions in relation to a body separate from one's own. Given this criteria, we can map out a fairly high-resolution set of behaviors which align on the "sexual contact, no longer virgin" and "sexual contact, still a virgin" spectrum. Accidently touching another person's genitals, for example, doesn't negate the "virginity" status. Having anal or oral sex with someone, however, does negate it.

In other words, virginity is a condition which pertains to the set of experiences a person has had in relation to another person. Virgins haven't had direct, purposeful and objective-oriented (for purposes of relieving sexual tension) sexual contact with other human beings. This experience is outside of the purview of their list of experiences. In other words, it's less a "social construct" and more of a phenomenological qualifier.

[Anonymous No.20161503]

>>20160913
Homosexuality is a sin. Cope.

[Anonymous No.20161545]

I was so disappointed by mulholland drive. I had heard what a genius lynch was, so I downloaded and watched it. The first half of the movie was awesome, compelling, interesting, and novel. I really wanted to know the answers to the mysteries lynch one by one marched before me. Then, halfway through, the movie just shits the bed. No conclusion, no answers to the plot line, just random meaningless junk under the pretense of high art. Mullholand Drive is half a movie, and David Lynch is the laziest director in Hollywood.

[Anonymous No.20161560]

High Life by Stokoe, maybe.

[Anonymous No.20161567]

>>20161545
The plot is basically that Naomi Watts's character hired someone to kill another actress who was her rival for an important role. The movie is intentionally hard to follow because it's supposed to convey her mental state as she downward spirals as a result of the guilt and desolation of her life following the crime.

[Anonymous No.20161569]

>>20161503
“Sin” is a cult’s law. We don’t subscribe to your cult. You cope.

[Anonymous No.20161575]

>>20161567
The plot you described is the first half of the movie, which was awesome. There is no plot in the second half of the movie. Inland Empire was the same way. Lynch has a pattern of getting bored and giving up halfway through his movies

[Anonymous No.20161576]

>>20161545
The first half is Diane's dream, the second half is her reality. She's a failed actress who's lover has left her for a famous director and she dreams that she's Betty, a talented young actress who her lover is entirely dependent on. When she wakes up from her dream, she hires a hitman to kill her ex and commits suicide in the end when she can't cope with the guilt.

[Anonymous No.20161599]

>>20160327
based

>>20160322
>coherent symbolistic writing with discernable meanings
yeah, i'm thinking that's a lot like lynch

[Anonymous No.20161615]

>>20161575
Yeah, you're not wrong, it's her imagination n shit. I should rewatch Inland empire, it's been long long enough.

[Anonymous No.20161640]

>>20161569
Everyone subscribes to a cult, but the most insightful are at the very least aware of the rational or spiritual processes which led them to that particular form of cult worship. What you describe as "cult" can be generalized as a set of behaviors and beliefs which are socially affirmed for the purposes of social integration and stability. For example, if you believe in the existence or affect of anything that can't be materially and empirically confirmed as self-evidently true, I would make the argument that you have a cult-like devotion to a fictitious concept which you have reified in your delusions. A short list of these things would include: identity, nationality, race, gender -- if any of these words mean something to you other than "socially convenient fictions", then you're in a cult.

Bright people are aware of this, and examine their own motivations and experiences in order to determine which leaps of faith are necessary to act in accordance with what values they consider inherent to their character; values which they will adhere to independent of their personal faculties of reasoning. Once these inherent factors are determined, they then chose a "cult" or a system of non-rational personal delusions in accordance to their principles. The luckiest among us have the fortune of something akin to epiphany or theophany, in which case their fundamental personal moral convictions are either corrected, refuted or introduced through contact with something outside of the material. Most people, however, are perfectly content simply falling into a cult, things like the cult of secular humanism, the cult of viviocentricism, the cult of atheism, the cult of LGBT. You get the point.

My cult is Christianity, and given the historical eminence of Christianity, responsible and dispassionate thinkers would concede that it is a very profound cult. In the cult of Christianity, homosexuality (and more fundamentally, promiscuity) is sin. You might not subscribe to my cult, but that's probably because you're so severely entrenched in a cult already that you've never really questioned the relevancy or consistency or beneficence of your own cult. I suspect that's because you're an unreflective idiot, but perhaps it's because you're just immature or contrarian. Who knows? In any case, cope.

[Anonymous No.20161664]

>>20161640
christcucks truly are the new fedoratippers

[Anonymous No.20161681]

>>20161615
Lynch jump scares are too powerful. He's a master at building tension. The parking lot creature in Mulholland Drive scared the shit out of me, and a few scenes in Inland Empire I actually had to look away from the screen.

[Anonymous No.20161701]

>>20161569
Cults are not long established, but religions are. That a religion survives hundreds of years adds merit to its way of life.

[Anonymous No.20161708]

>>20161681
>The parking lot creature in Mulholland Drive scared the shit out of me
Same. I never get spooked by jump scares because I’ve gotten used to them and the majority are poorly done, but I jumped out of my chair and almost shit myself when the bum came out from behind the diner.

[Anonymous No.20161710]

>>20161664
Why, because they actually know how to create and assert an argument? Or is it just because they're smarter than you?

People who engaged in proselytization, apologetics or polemics for abstract positions tend to be smart. Atheists became prominent in intellectual arenas decades ago because they were asserting their ideas which they believed to be true, and in accordance with that truth, better for society. They forwarded their best representatives. Nowadays, Christianity is dwindling in popularity throughout Anglophonic countries and has been entirely extricated from the political arena. Christians have been socially disenfranchised, and so those people who believe it's tenets to be both true and beneficial to society are going to forward their most prominent members to assert their position. It's a predictable inversion of the same phenomenon that catapulted atheism to the frontlines of social discourse decades ago.

[Anonymous No.20161713]

>>20161640
You aren’t coping very well

[Anonymous No.20161716]

>>20161681
im 1h30m into inland empire, when do the jumpscares start

[Anonymous No.20161717]

>>20161701
It’s dead now

[Anonymous No.20161718]

>>20161713
I want to _____ that woman's _____.

[Anonymous No.20161724]

>>20161717
And I think we're worse off for it. I doubt anyone would claim the western world is on incline.

[Anonymous No.20161729]

>>20161716
There is just one, I think when she's starting at the red lamp and all of a sudden these white lines go across the screen with a loud static-y sound, then suddenly she's surrounded by people

[Anonymous No.20161743]

>>20161716
Close to the very end, like the last 15 minutes

[Anonymous No.20161767]

>>20161724
We’re in troubles no cult could have fixed.

[Anonymous No.20161793]

>>20161599
>>coherent symbolistic writing with discernable meanings
Most of the symbolism used in Mulholland Dr. is coherent and *discernible in meaning. People think it is random surrealism because they don't understand the movie's plot.

[Anonymous No.20162039]

>>20161716
stop going on this board and watch the film goddammit

[Anonymous No.20162069]

>>20161716

[Anonymous No.20162304]

>>20161575
>plotfag
your opinion is invalid

[Anonymous No.20162306]

>>20161716
What a fucking zoomer you are fr fr

[Anonymous No.20162368]

Anyone else don't feel like trying to unlock every meaning in his films but appreciate Lynch solely for the atmosphere, particular scenes, etc.? I felt this way with Mulholland Drive and Blue Velvet (even though the latter is straightforward). I intend to rewatch Eraserhead soon, I think this one is one of his films you need to grasp the symbolism behind in order to appreciate better, differently from the other two cited.

[Anonymous No.20162385]

>>20160241
Antkind

[Anonymous No.20162485]

>>20162368
>>20162368
>but appreciate Lynch solely for the atmosphere
I am pretty sure this is the only thing that Lynch truly cares about.

[Anonymous No.20162499]

>>20160241

"Second Skin" by John Hawkes probably

[Anonymous No.20162509]

>>20160241
My unpublished novel

[Anonymous No.20162515]

>>20160241
>Dougie Jones vibes
Robert Walser. Lynch says Kafka in interviews repeatedly, and is a Kubrick stan (so Schnitzler's Dream Novel source material for Eyes Wide Shut wouldn't be a stretch).

>>20161195
there's no board safe from shills and glowies and their bots derailing, often for no reason at all but to degrade cohesion. that entire offending string looks like a bot's been set off. then again, never can tell with NPCs

[Anonymous No.20162802]

>>20160241
That movie is so retarded.
The movie really tries to put itself in the boundary between facts and fantasy, meaning and meaninglessness. But it's so primitive that I'd rather say the game LSD and Yume nikki did a better job on that one.

[Anonymous No.20163108]

>>20160327
But epic jumpscare and dream logic.

[Anonymous No.20163126]

>>20160863
Lynch has no interest in profundity. It's about being "cool".

[Anonymous No.20163142]

>>20161063
>Virginity is unironically a "social construct."
No hymen no ring.

[Anonymous No.20163179]

>>20163142
You don’t understand the hymen

[Anonymous No.20163238]

>>20163179
>You don’t understand the hymen