Welp, three day ban's over again...

[Anonymous No.23264546]

However, I am taking an indefinite sabbatical from holding janny feet over the fire as well as abstaining from scourging the more unsavory /lit/cels. I've spent the day reading, and that has made me more charitable.

How often, /Lit/, do you read material and decide that /Lit/ [or people in general] cannot handle it? That it might be disastrous to share? I read some fascinating and intelligent poetic criticism today, but upon researching the woman who was the author found that her primary work is perhaps an early stage of a movement which could be disastrous for many, so despite considering her, in some ways, a brilliant mind, I will do nothing to alleviate her obscurity at present. I am grieved and pleased with myself, but I would be more pleased had I solutions, rather than inaction as solution. Regardless, I find this sort of thing—happening upon information which I consider worth reading, yet consider inappropriate to the majority of readers—an increasingly common phenomena as the years roll on.

How heavy is the crown upon thy brow, /lit/cel? Are you silenced by the specter of possibility? Without spilling any beans, from whence come thy agonies?

[Anonymous No.23264562]

>>23264546
Is this some kind of reverse-psychology promotion thread? Just tell us about her!

[Anonymous No.23264608]

>>23264562
I shan't. I will uphold you where I can. Should you come across her or the hers of society (and, of the latter, you have and shall) on your own, would that you'll be sufficiently prepared to preserve yourself.

[Anonymous No.23265640]

bump

[Anonymous No.23265646]

Slap a permo on this oaf.

[Anonymous No.23266574]

>>23265646
I'll take that to mean you've never had such an occurrence, and you should take that to mean you need to read a lot more.

[Anonymous No.23266863]

Vanitas, vanitas!
To profess your restraint
for all to hear
my it's like
it was never there!
To brag in audacious syllables of others glories, tell, at what height does your head float,
how many stories?
For if you are the judge of movements vast,
the spier of a naissance of new and bold artforms,
then surely your mind must be able to terraform, what omniscient genius you must be
to see
the multiplicity
of budding sprouts that just must be invisible
to the rest of the
plebis

[Anonymous No.23266990]

>>23266863
Missing the point, as usual. This is exactly why I'm certain you guys can't handle it. And to chide me in such a pretentious format—hypocritical, obviously.

[Anonymous No.23267006]

>>23266990
Grumpy grumps, the world on his shoulders,
if he lets go of his responsibility,
'twould rain boulders!
Banned and rejected,
to see chiding in mere pantomiming,
to interpret reality through a lens of negativity,
nay not lens,
must be a mirror!
And the object of my suffering,
the weight I bore,
all these sores,
what for!
Now I see
it was me
the mirror
the energy
the world merely returned to me

[Anonymous No.23267011]

>>23267006
You know, one of the marks of a midwit is to be concerned with how intelligent people see themselves. What is it to you if I have an altogether narcissistic and outsized view of myself? Will your life alter if I think myself more eloquent than Swinburne and more intelligent than Einstein? No it won't. Engage the ideas, or don't engage at all. You reveal your own inferiority complex by focusing on me, and worse, trying to immortalize your own criticism as poetry. Pathetic. Truly.

[Anonymous No.23267019]

>>23267011
Stubborn steve,
stubborn steve.
you play, i play,
you dont play, no more play?
stubborn steve.

[Anonymous No.23267036]

>>23267019
>stubborn
>triples down on his silly poems
That which reveals itself.

[Anonymous No.23267048]

>>23267011
The ideas can not be engaged in any meaningful way with what you provided, another mark of the midwit.

[Anonymous No.23267054]

>>23267036
I am you,
you are me,
the negative tint,
you ascribe to be,
originating externally,
is bound to be eventually
realised as originating from within thee.

[Anonymous No.23267084]

I recognize that /lit/ is mostly unread and superficial to the point that only the top 100 chart gets any response outside of maybe sff works and whatever lolcows are being forced by other lolcows. There's no point in posting something that will get one replier and no engagement on the topic. Not to mention few can engage on even an undergrad level at this point so posting fringe shit is out of the question. I was surprised an anon knew about Being and Non-Being, but that's a rare occurrence considering the size of the print run and yet not unexpected for reasons that seem to defy statistics.

I think there's a trend to want to share what you find that diminishes when you come to understand the dangers of misunderstanding it. Most here aren't going to know what that means from experience at this point and will deride the whole premise.

[Anonymous No.23267146]

>>23267048
If you believe that, you don't even know what ideas I'm talking about, lol.

>>23267084
There is a point. That point is being fulfilled whether or not the whiners wish it. You are fulfilling it right now, in fact. Why should I cater my posts to the level of the herd? I'll post what I wish, and whether the cows come a-mooing in droves, or a gentleman walks across the lawn, I'll see something and draw my conclusions from it.

[Anonymous No.23267174]

>>23267146
>just trust me bro, I am a genius on the cutting edge and I could make or break her career
Without knowing who she is and the work you are talking about your statements are meaningless.

[Anonymous No.23267176]

>>23267048
The ideas which I will not share are not the ideas with which I expect you to engage.

>>23267084
My desire to share hasn't diminished. In fact, it never does. I wish to share all the things which I do not. I simply hold back indefinitely when, as you say, I "understand the dangers of misunderstanding it." I don't expect most to understand, but I am curious to see how many might.

Actually, I expected, but was not particularly interested, to see that the /pol/-spillover crowd would be most likely to comprehend, but I should have taken in to account their need of proselytizing.

[Anonymous No.23267186]

>>23267174
I expected you to misunderstand. That's why I altered the reply here >>23267176. To clarify, her ideas are not the ideas to which I am referring. Obviously. Those are the very ideas with which I do not wish you to engage for you own sake.

[Anonymous No.23267243]

>>23267186
Yes, but the ideas you want us to engage in could very well be unfounded or schizo (/lit/ so likely). Your question is ultimately "assume I am as smart as I think I am and humor me" but we are not your mom and that is not our job and you are no my mom so stop protecting me. You play these games because it is safe for you, not society, you can't be wrong with how you set things up because you did not give enough information, you took no risk. Ultimately this thread is not about literature, it is about you and your desire to feel important so take it to /adv/.

You already admitted to being a midwit, why are you fighting it now? Rhetorical, we know why.

[Anonymous No.23267246]

>>23267243
You literally don't know what I'm talking about. Why are you vying for superiority? Just move on. I'm not interested in your opinions of me. There's nothing you can do about that.

[Anonymous No.23267268]

>>23267246
>You literally don't know what I'm talking about.
I know what you are talking about, I just would rather talk about literature instead of around literature. Talking around literature instead of about it is another sign of the midwit.

[Anonymous No.23267282]

>>23267268
You don't. You really, really don't. Your only purpose in this thread is apparently to try and affect some change upon my person. What a silly notion. Who are you to me? Just some buffoon filling up the thread with pseudo-psychological babble without purpose. My only emotion towards you is irritation at your presence here. The only purpose I have in this thread is my explicit one. So far, one person has given a solid response. You, on the other hand, waste both our time in being here. I'll say it one final time: there's nothing you can do to make me care about a single word you type. You've already lost all possibility of that. Just move on.

[Anonymous No.23267295]

>>23267282
Go ahead and post who she is and the work you mentioned and I will prove you wrong. I think my earlier recommendation of taking this to /adv/ was wrong, this is literature as affect so /fa/ would be the proper board.

[Anonymous No.23267306]

>>23267295
As I said, I will not. That you think making demands would change anything is a bit funny.

[Anonymous No.23267357]

>>23267306
I never thought you would, just acknowledging the ridiculousness of your claim that I don't want to talk about literature and my purpose here. The irony is that not giving her name and the work and explaining the issues with it you just increase the chances of what you fear happening; she could go viral in a few days because of someone misunderstanding and spread that misunderstanding to millions in a day. Gatekeeping does not work unless you actually control the gates, you don't.

[Anonymous No.23267385]

>>23267357
Blah, blah, blah, blah—don't you have anything worthwhile to do with yourself?

[Anonymous No.23267485]

>>23267385
Yes, I do, hard to imagine a life with nothing more important in it than 4chan. But I would like /lit/ to improve and actually talk about literature so I put some effort into that when ever I am here, we need to cull the larpers (You).

[Anonymous No.23267976]

>>23267485
I don't imagine anything at all, you idiot. I'm suggesting you leave. You literally haven't a clue about anything, haha. You stay in this thread for one reason only: I've exposed you for the fool you are (rather you've exposed yourself) and your fragile pride is wounded. That's it. You have nothing to say, you never did.

[Anonymous No.23268333]

>>23264546
Have you considered becoming a tripfriend?

[Anonymous No.23268360]

>>23268333
I don't want that. I write in a way which is often identifiable anyway. More importantly, have you had this experience or not? What is with you girls focusing on me rather than what I'm asking? Are you gay?

[Anonymous No.23268422]

>>23268360
I'm not gay but women often tell me that they thought I was gay, before sleeping with me

[Anonymous No.23268438]

>>23268422
If a woman knows you like intellectual things, they'll often wonder if you're gay. The gays have long portrayed themselves as having a monopoly on such things. I once had a woman insinuate she wanted me to impregnate her, ask if I was gay, and then ask if I wanted to read her a book in the park. When I write it out that way, it sounds kind of nice, but it wasn't.

[Anonymous No.23268454]

>>23267084
>I recognize that /lit/ is mostly unread and superficial to the point that only the top 100 chart gets any response outside of maybe sff works and whatever lolcows are being forced by other lolcows. There's no point in posting something that will get one replier and no engagement on the topic. Not to mention few can engage on even an undergrad level at this point so posting fringe shit is out of the question

This. It snowballs in a demoralizing way as threads die quickly with no action or aren’t taken seriously. I pretty much only go to general type threads like what are you reading (I’d hope anons wouldn’t lie in them, they don’t get many replies anyway, a sign of the times perhaps), stack and shelf threads (if an anon has a book he’s either read it or wants to read it; that’s something right there; if an anon has so many books he isn’t wasting his money to not read them), favorite book threads (once again, I’d hope anons wouldn’t lie, and I’ve gotten some decent recommendations from them), and the odd thread where I feel like taking the time to post. Things aren’t going to get better, come here when sitting on the shitter only, or once every week or two

[Anonymous No.23268458]

>>23267011
You know one of the marks of a pseud is to be concerned with how intelligent you see yourself.

[Anonymous No.23268484]

>>23268458
That doesn't even make sense. Seriously though, can you trannies stop obsessing over me? I'm only interested in anons who have had a similar experience and wish to share or discuss it.

[Anonymous No.23268517]

>>23268454
Yes, but in this case, and others, I'm not only talking about /lit/ or about information which with non-readers are unfamiliar. I'm also talking about information which, if shared, would find great reception, but would lead to destructive points of view, or information which if shared too soon might prevent comprehension and interest, but given at the right time would probably find an appropriate place in that persons mind. It's a bit difficult to describe without sharing concrete examples perhaps, but what I find interesting, and which perhaps should have been expected (yet I most certainly did not expect it), is the apparently increasing frequency in which this occurs for me. As I said, it happened yesterday, it also happened a couple of weeks ago, and a little before that, and a few months ago I tried to share information with someone I consider intelligent, but was surprised to find that, lacking the proper foundation, they were wholly unable to even engage with the ideas—not for any reason of inaccessibility, but because they were emotionally prevented from even reaching the conceptual plane in order to formulate an opinion in the first place. In that particular circumstance, ideas which were wholly abstract and critical—related to the analysis of a work of art as separate from personal taste or feeling, for that person took on a politicized nature and prevented comprehension. As for yesterday's instance, it has more to do with what would be the long term effects of any ideology or artistic movement born out of the author's scholastics, than anything directly political. It is, of course, intrinsically social, thus political, but only to the degree that any movement has a political dimension.

[Anonymous No.23268524]

>>23264546
>had I solutions
Perhaps (you) know instinctively that having a genuinely enlightening take on some timely topic, something exciting, even new, would almost surely be suppressed immediately, or ignored. Can one get around this? I think so. (You) shouldn't advocate for that lazy part of you unwilling to make an effort.

[Anonymous No.23268534]

>>23268517
No offense but you seem like you’re going through a manic episode. Or better yet just spit out what you really want to say. If it doesn’t find an audience and is ridiculed….who cares? Plenty of slop posted here daily. Plenty of retards as well. In 2024 on /lit/ you are basically hoping to find an anon or two that makes your time worth it. That doesn’t happen often either

[Anonymous No.23268541]

>>23268524
It's the opposite, really. I don't think it would be suppressed. I think it would be accepted. It's in the acceptance of her ideas where the danger lies. As for laziness—not an issue. I enjoy the discussion of complex ideas. The problem I encounter is that people would rather talk about what's going on in their daily lives than ideas, but that isn't what this thread is about. Also, I'm not saying that people don't reject or suppress new ideas, at times; I am just saying that's not my concern here.

[Anonymous No.23268546]

>>23268534
>seems like you're...
That's a (You) problem. I've said exactly what I

[Anonymous No.23268553]

>>23268534
>>seems like you're...
>That's a (You) problem. I've said exactly what I want to say. I generally do. The conversation I want to have is the conversation I am having. Whether the anons I wish to speak with exist or not, will show up or not, those are the unknowns. And they never are, are they? So all I can do is post what I want to post and respond as the circumstances call for.

[Anonymous No.23268557]

>>23268541
If she's already in print, then her ideas are already 'out there'. Are (you) sure that it isn't rather your own interpretations of her ideas that you fear (?) may prove 'toxic'?

[Anonymous No.23268569]

>>23268557
Sure, it's in print. As I said, despite finding her brilliant I won't do anything to alleviate her obscurity. In other words, people (aside from people like me) have no idea she exists and aren't likely to. I'm simply interested in discussing this phenomena, anon. I'm not concerned with the particulars of this individual woman. I merely shared the anecdote to give the question context and because I thought that would make the conversation more interesting and invite other anons to share their own relevant experiences.

[Anonymous No.23268573]

>>23268557
Oh, and as for my own interpretation, of course I'm sure. A man like me doesn't make a thread if he isn't.

[Anonymous No.23268609]

>>23264546
Is that even real? No way such a small plant made that apple
OP is gay and sucks cocks in hell as always

[Anonymous No.23268615]

Well, time to put your money where your mouth is, bub

[Anonymous No.23268617]

>>23268569
Ok. Then in my case I sometimes feel what I'll describe as the pull or the 'gravity' of not only traditional takes of certain authors (that I'd write about) but also the current, socio-literary 'climate'-- neither of which is favorable with respect to the perspectives I generally adopt. I don't fear acceptance so much as failure, then.
The phenomenon (you) describe is if not literary envy then something I'm not at all aware of. What's strange about the OP is that it combines two entirely different offices-- that of producer, and that of censor. The problem as presented is literally that of the serpent eating its tail, and not in a good way

[Anonymous No.23268633]

>>23268615
It isn't sanitary to put money there, anon.

>>23268617
Then something you're not aware of it is. Envy wouldn't even start to describe it, anon. I am far closer to admiration of this woman than envy—and for the prior instance in which this occurred, I am decidedly an admirer of the work. Actually, thinking on it, I recall another instance in which it recently happened, and the author is someone whose ability I consider almost insurmountable, but I also would absolutely not share his work with 99.999% of people. I simply consider that certain people are capable of engaging with her or her ideas without being harmed by them, and some are not. And that goes for many other works or bits of information. You're just misunderstanding. Every reader has the power of advocate or censor the moment they are privy to the information. There's nothing special about that.

[Anonymous No.23268637]

Oh cool, a schizo thread!!

[Anonymous No.23268639]

>>23268609
I'm straight and there's no sex in Heaven (or on earth, right now).

[Anonymous No.23268649]

>>23268639
Answer me about the apple, I don't care if you suck cocks(metaphorical or otherwise)!

[Anonymous No.23268652]

>>23268649
bonsai tree

[Anonymous No.23268660]

>>23268649
I don't know. It's not my tree. Do some research or something.

[Anonymous No.23268666]

>>23268649
Actually, >>23268660 isn't true. Although it's not my tree, I do know. That's a real apple on a real bonsai, anon. Just think about it. The physics at play are no different than the physics of an apple on a branch. It's just that, in this case, the branch is the entire trunk of the tree.

[Anonymous No.23268678]

>>23264546
>That it might be disastrous to share?
no. after over 15 years of observation, every idea put forth on 4chan becomes obfuscated within a week, 2 at most. partially because there is now major pushback and manipulation from outside forces.

[Anonymous No.23268681]

>>23268678
>major pushback and manipulation from outside forces
What makes you certain?

[Anonymous No.23268684]

>>23268633
If you're going to read seriously then you're going to be buffeted around by innumerable ideas, some of which are at first blush distasteful but become palatable over time, others loved vehemently at first until shading off into one's own literary character as the years pass until.. becoming almost unrecognizable in terms of what they once initially 'meant' --etc.
Her 'insurmountability' (you) judge with respect to your own lights-- if she really does have insurmountable abilities, then you consider yourself are an insurmountable judge (99.999% of people), anon. This is called hubris.
Cute idea, though.

[Anonymous No.23268685]

>>23268652
>>23268666
Ok, though it still seems pretty weird. Thanks for the explanation, maybe I'll try growing a small apricot bonsai

[Anonymous No.23268689]

>>23268685
I guess it's difficult to keep them alive

[sage No.23268701]

>>23264546
>from whence
Kill thyself

[Anonymous No.23268703]

Dangerous how? Like a suicide cult that sounds appealing? Some esoteric meditation practices? Some /pol/ government drivel?

[Anonymous No.23268706]

>>23268684
She's not the insurmountable one. And of course I judge it. That's why I said "I consider him to be insurmountable." You've made the same foolish mistep as the first anon, anon. You've gotten hung up on your opinion of me and are now trying to force your passive aggressive critique of me as though its an objective and level-headed point of view. Disappointing. I ignored the snark at first, hoping you'd move on, but you're stuck just like the first guy. A disappointing lack of intelligence, anon. Hubris has nothing to do with it. Every person who views an art has a responsibility to formulate some conception of not only the work itself, but of the effects of the work on the world. Those who don't are normies. Simple as. Intellectuals do this without having to be told or even having to think about the fact that they are doing it. As a result, it is perfectly natural to likewise consider what is the effect of art on an individual person, or any number of persons. This is nothing new (though apparently it is new to you). Plato, despite loving poetics, decided it was too dangerous to allow in the ideal nation-state. Nations ban books. Considering whether people are ready for information is a natural state for those who possess large amounts of information, and when you spend entire days reading, as I often do, you amass large amounts of information over the years. Goodbye, anon. It turns out you're not the conversant I was seeking.

[Anonymous No.23268711]

>>23268701
You're a dainty one, aren't you?

>>23268703
Those aren't poor examples, really. Just dangerous in the sense they would be bad for most people, I suppose on a psycho-spiritual level or something similar.

[Anonymous No.23268719]

>>23268706
Kek. A little too much effort there, chef. Didn't mean to hurt your feelings. Ciao.

[Anonymous No.23268727]

>>23268703
>>23268711
I should add, that although these things (movements) begin on an individual and psycho-spiritual level, they inevitably take on political force, in the event they find ground in enough psyches.

[Anonymous No.23268731]

>>23268719
Lol, what effort? I wrote that in one minute without even review. Pseuds...

[Anonymous No.23268747]

>>23268727
/lit/ doesn’t even read. Just tell us who she is or this whole thread is just a carrot on a stick tease. Is this a mystic like Hildegard, Kempe, Norwich? Someone in the field of philosophy/psychology?

[Anonymous No.23268754]

>>23264546
Cool thread idea. Have you tried taking ito other boards as well? A recipe too dangerous for anons in /ck/ for example or an album that would melt /mu/ ears and so on and so forth. A true keeper of hidden and dangerous knowledge, a god among us

[Anonymous No.23268759]

>>23268747
No. This thread was to see how common this phenomenon is for people here on /lit/, and to see how they experience it and what they do about it. I won't be revealing her name or any of the others, nor even what field she's in.

[Anonymous No.23268762]

>>23268754
Make of me a god if you wish, but as you should have been able to surmise from the original post, I actually expected to find that most of you who read have had this experience. You're all actually surprising me by admitting you haven't.

[Anonymous No.23268767]

>>23268762
I really don't think about what /lit/ards would or wouldn't handle

[Anonymous No.23268769]

>>23268762
No because no idea is dangerous

[Anonymous No.23268789]

>>23268769
Now that's just obviously retarded. You're goading me, aren't you? There's no way you actually believe that...

[Anonymous No.23268820]

>>23268789
Name one

[Anonymous No.23268825]

>>23268820
Antinatalism

[Anonymous No.23268828]

>>23268825
Troll posts multiple threads a week and it hasn’t had any ill effect but clogging the board

[Anonymous No.23268839]

>>23268828
It's dangerous if someone believes in it
Also Hegesias of Cyrene for example

[Anonymous No.23268844]

>>23268820
There are so many, what's the point? If you don't know, you're probably not even capable of understanding, or you're just trolling me.

[Anonymous No.23268852]

>>23268839
More likely that a depressed person searches out. Depressed people often kill themselves often without reading antinatalism. Pretty simple.

Anyway, it’s obvious that this is a man-off-his-meds thread or psychward-to-streets anon and I shan’t be posting in it anymore

[Anonymous No.23268863]

>>23268852
>It's obvious that [insert incorrect belief]
Why do you pseuds always delude yourselves into thinking you know something about the people you're talking to? You couldn't be more wrong. And your scoffing will keep you as retarded as you are.

[Anonymous No.23269627]

>>23268731
Kek. (You) set yourself up as a judge of 'unsurpassable quality,' then pretend as if the post isn't exclusively about yourself, but about some 'problem' (you) cannot even articulate adequately.
>Pseuds...
Kek

[Anonymous No.23269695]

>>23268852
>Anyway, it’s obvious that this is a man-off-his-meds thread or psychward-to-streets anon and I shan’t be posting in it anymore
It seems more like a pseud extraordinaire thread