/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.2591511]

>48fps

[Anonymous No.2591526]

<--- /v/

[Anonymous No.2591532]

>>2591526

I think you mean

<--- /tv/

[Anonymous No.2591537]

>>2591532
/tv/ is that way --->

[Anonymous No.2591541]

>>2591532
/tv/ is that way ---> though

[Anonymous No.2591552]

↙☝⇓⇪/tv/⬅⤷⥤↴➴

[Anonymous No.2591558]

>>2591541
>>2591537

Well, isn't my face red!

/tv/ --->

[Anonymous No.2591569]

>>2591532
>>2591537
>>2591541

TV doesn't broadcast at 48fps.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-definition_television#Standard_frame_or_field_rates

As I said.
<-- /v/

[Anonymous No.2591576]

>>2591569
/tv/ is for movies too.

OP made this thread because The Hobbit is being filmed in 48fps and people are bitching about it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-17836380

[Anonymous No.2591577]

>>2591569
http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/122/1223523p1.html

>Yes, this is shocking, but I was actually let down by the Hobbit footage, as were a number of the other journalists that I spoke with afterward.
>It looked like an old Doctor Who episode, or a videotaped BBC TV production.

[Anonymous No.2591595]

>>2591576
48fps is about 16fps of waste.

Maybe a video camera will like it, but its useless otherwise... we can't tell the difference between 30 and 32 frames.

[sate !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 No.2591600]

>>2591558

u blushin at da computa nigga u retaded

[Anonymous No.2591602]

>>2591595
Well people are pissed about it either way.

Really though my biggest concern with The Hobbit isn't going to be the frames per second but how Jackson is including the Dol Guldur stuff which Tolkien never really told us anything about.

It gets much more screen time for Sir Ian McKellen, which is awesome, but I just don't know if it's going to work.

[Anonymous No.2591673]

>>2591602
So... opinions on this matter, anyone?

[Anonymous No.2591682]

>>2591673

I hope it sucks, because adults shouldn't read or watch genre shit. I hope it looks like a telerecording of an old Honeymooners episode, and gives you all migraines. Then maybe you'll get some fucking discipline in your lives.

[Anonymous No.2591685]

>>2591682
People shouldn't like things that belong to specific genres now?

[sage No.2591690]

>>2591685
And I'm like that's sooo post-modern ^^ XD

[Anonymous No.2591693]

>>2591685

What do you mean, now? It's always been the case, it's just that the media has spent most of your life trying to convince you otherwise because an undiscriminating and babyish populace pays them better than a discriminating adult one. You shouldn't be reading or watching that shit, and if you're going to, I hope they make it as difficult as possible. I hope the film stops midway for an intermission video of Peter Jackson raping a Maori kid in 3D. Because you deserve to know terror when you demean yourself by acting without moral seriousness.

[Anonymous No.2591706]

>>2591693
So I have a moral obligation not to read or watch any book or movie with a specific setting, because otherwise I'm being manipulated somehow.

Who is it that is manipulating people into liking set genres now? The Jews? Illuminati lizard men? Bigfoot?

[Anonymous No.2591716]

>>2591693
>You shouldn't be reading or watching that shit

Well I'm glad there's somebody out there who can tell me what I should and shouldn't be reading

[Anonymous No.2591728]

>>2591706

It's not the setting and you know it, you fucking junkie. You're being manipulated by the entertainment industry. Take a LOOK at yourself. Do you really want to spend the rest of your life reading promotional stories about multiplex movies and trying to have conversations about them with other malodorous virgins?


>>2591716

Someone has to, your parents clearly never gave fuck one.

[Anonymous No.2591734]

>>2591728
I'm not following.

Are you saying that the entertainment industry is manipulating people into liking bad books and movies?

As opposed to just giving them what they want? Which is bad books and movies.

In your opinion, what good books and movies are there?

[Anonymous No.2591752]

>>2591734

They want those things because the taste has been developed for them. It begins when parents leave TV to raise their kid. When they buy shit for their kid in preference to having a conversation.

Good books - literature, serious literature. Everyone pretends it's up for debate because they're lazy, but everyone knows what it is. You know how to find these things.

Good films - harder to find out about because of the nature of the industry. Here's a list to get started with:

http://www.alsolikelife.com/FilmDiary/rosenbaum.html

[Anonymous No.2591773]

>>2591752
Hmmmm a lot of those are somewhat obscure.

And I see that Stanely Kubrik, Wes Anderson, Akira Kurosawa, and Woody Allen show up several times in the more recent recommendations.

Let me ask you this anon, do you think that there are any good "mainstream" movies?

And don't you like The Hobbit, or is Tolkien a terrible author also?

[Anonymous No.2591796]

>>2591752
Good films are not hard to find at all. Movies like The Godfather, Chinatown, and Raging Bull are certainly easy to find. and they're "mainstream".

[Anonymous No.2591798]

>>2591773

Unfortunately I know that Woody Allen and Wes Anderson don't show up remotely often in that list. "Obscure" is a meaningless term, you just mean you haven't been sold them before.

What's mainstream to you is the stuff you already know from having been sold it since you were a kid. Of that stuff, there is stuff worth seeing, I'm sure - and there are plenty of mainstream choices on that list. But if you make it the border of your interest, if you look for ways to dismiss people who talk to you about the vast universe of films outside those limits - as you're trying to dismiss me now - then you make yourself livestock to be bought and sold by the entertainment industry.

Tolkien is a children's writer. You already know what I think of adults reading him.

[Anonymous No.2591816]

>>2591798
>as you're trying to dismiss me now

No I'm not.

My tastes are not at all dissimilar from yours, you just seem pretty gung ho about it and I'm curious as to why.

>Tolkien is a children's writer.

The Hobbit was a children's book. The rest of his stuff isn't.

[Anonymous No.2591819]

>>2591798

Honestly, dude, you sound like a total asshole. You're talking about films and works of art being sold to us by the mainstream, but pointing to other films as somehow exempt from the same industrial model that structures all cultural commodity production? You say we're being manipulated by the entertainment industry? Of course we are. That's the mechanics of the late capitalist system: the constant enjoinder to enjoy ourselves through consumption of commodities, including "art". There is no art outside of capitalism anymore. The sooner you realize that "mainstream" and "obscure" are not qualitative terms, the sooner you can appreciate that as Raymond Williams say, all culture is ordinary.

[Anonymous No.2591839]

>>2591816

Bullshit, and no, I'm just honest. You consume shit. Stop doing it. You owe yourself better.


>>2591819

Raymond Williams was a lying coward. Any version of Marxism that plays into the hands of the entertainment industry is no radicalism, but reactionary and craven. The first sentence of your little rant there is the real you; the rest is your alibi.

[Anonymous No.2591851]

>>2591839
>Bullshit, and no, I'm just honest. You consume shit. Stop doing it. You owe yourself better.

And how would you know that? I haven't said what movies and books I like do I?

You're awfully judgmental.

See, it's your aggressiveness about this matter that interests me. There are more worthwhile things to get upset about then what movies people watch.

[Anonymous No.2591858]

>>2591839
>you're all sheeple

[Anonymous No.2591864]

>>2591858
I'm getting a vibe of pretentiousness here too.

[Anonymous No.2591914]

>>2591798
>Unfortunately I know that Woody Allen and Wes Anderson don't show up remotely often in that list.

Their stuff is shown on HBO. That's pretty "mainstream" isn't it? So it can't be good anymore.

[Anonymous No.2591924]

>>2591851

You see, you're beginning by trying to cast aspersions on my motives, because it's easier than reading. Of course I know what your taste is, it includes the upcoming Hobbit movie.

'Judgmental' is a dog-whistle word that the entertainment industry has given to those it would enslave. It's like 'elitist' - the way they're used, these words mean nothing.

I'm not being aggressive, but truthful. You're trying to lie to yourself about me because you're so lazy that it would kill you to think of tracking down some experiences you haven't had. Why are you so aggressive in the pursuit of a deprived life?

There is nothing more important than art, because art-making is the centre - from there we can go anywhere.

> There are more worthwhile things to get upset about then what movies people watch.

The reason you're wrong about this is the same reason you put 'then' instead of 'than'.

[Anonymous No.2591925]

>>2591914

Stop lying about me.

[Anonymous No.2591933]

>>2591924
>Of course I know what your taste is, it includes the upcoming Hobbit movie.

Uh, no. You're jumping to conclusions.

I'm not actually excited about seeing it. I didn't care for the LotR movies too much.

I'm worried that Jackson will be taking even more liberties with The Hobbit than he did with LotR. Which I wouldn't like because I'm a fan of Tolkien.

[Anonymous No.2591935]

>>2591933

Yes, so confirmed for shit-eater. Get adult, I adjure you. You're already late.

[Anonymous No.2591940]

>>2591924
>You're trying to lie to yourself about me because you're so lazy that it would kill you to think of tracking down some experiences you haven't had.

Stop that. You don't know what movies I've watched.

>The reason you're wrong about this is the same reason you put 'then' instead of 'than'.

So I'm a full on plebeian because I don't proof read my 4chan posts. I'm so sorry.

Anyway, care to tell me why I'm wrong? I know that it's for the same reason I make typos, something you are certainly incapable of. But that doesn't tell me much.

[Anonymous No.2591943]

>>2591935
What's wrong with Tolkien now?

[Anonymous No.2591960]

>I'm not being aggressive, but truthful.

Calling other people "shit eaters" because of their supposed taste in movies is pretty aggressive.

You're really riled up about this whole matter, aren't you anon? Be honest with yourself.

[Anonymous No.2591968]

A wild angry kid appears
Angry kids uses "moral seriousness" and Marxist rhetoric
It's super ineffective!

[Anonymous No.2591970]

>>2591940

Because taste is the window of a society's soul. Dictatorial regimes invariably endorse kitsch, because it's all they can afford to allow their subjects to understand. Check out the 'art' of Stalinist Russia, North Korea or any such regime.

The same is true of individuals. Mediocre ideas of beauty make you mediocre. If you let even a small amount of Tolkien's kitsch in, you cannot understand anything of quality. If you let a small amount of his values in, you cannot form any opinion of cogency. Part of you is always making excuses for an addiction. It's like how useless any attempt to create a loving environment for children becomes if there's even a occasional witnessing of domestic violence. The whole thing is soured. There is no partially abundant famine - it's all famine. There is no partially consensual rape - it's all rape. There is no partially literate genre reader - it's all dross.

[Anonymous No.2591978]

>>2591960

Surely you've learned from your beloved Tolkien how goodness smarts when you're laced with evil?

[Anonymous No.2591982]

>>2591968

If it makes scum like you have to imagine a victory where none exists - in your craven hatred of anything of quality - then I'd say my time here, which you're lying about, has been rather effective.

[Anonymous No.2591989]

>>2591970
I once saw a mediocre painting.

Now I can't see in color. :(

[Anonymous No.2591992]

WH Auden liked Tolkien, therefore my opinions are validated.

[Anonymous No.2591997]

>>2591989

You see, you have to resort to derision when faced with the truth.

[Anonymous No.2591998]

>>2591970 Dictatorial regimes invariably endorse kitsch, because it's all they can afford to allow their subjects to understand.

And here the wheels completely fall off the wagon.

[Anonymous No.2592002]

>>2591970
>If you let even a small amount of Tolkien's kitsch in, you cannot understand anything of quality. If you let a small amount of his values in, you cannot form any opinion of cogency.

It's too bad that I wasn't smart enough to hate his writing then. I'm forever tainted.

You know, I know a guy with his doctorate in classics and a master's in history from the UCLA. He's fluent in seven languages. And he loves Tolkien. He also loves Star Wars, Star Trek, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

He's certainly intelligent. And given his credentials he's also a master in world literature. But according to you, isn't he a complete and utter moron?

See, that's the problem with your whole outlook here. To me you just seem like a very bitter pedant.

[Anonymous No.2592004]

>>2591982
It's a moral imperative to seek out things of quality, you say? But who is the arbiter of quality? It's not common opinion, because as you say they are manipulated by the entertainment industry. And it's not the entertainment industry because they are capitalist scum. So who then judges quality? Who can actually assert that they aren't being manipulated by the capitalist system that controls their opinion? This is a serious question, angry anon.

[Anonymous No.2592009]

>>2591992

Not at all, for two reasons. 1: The Tolkien he read can never be read again now the books have become the foundation of an industry of shit. 2: When you've written as much and as well as he had written up until his encounter with Tolkien's bilge, yes - until then, no. 3. Even great writers have their blind spots. Tolkien's work gave him nostalgia for his own childhood fantasy landscapes.

[Anonymous No.2592016]

>>2592004
Anon himself judges quality. Because he's smarter than everyone else. And if everyone else would just accept that fact the world would be a much happier place.

[Anonymous No.2592025]

>>2592009
>Tolkien's contribution to fantasy invalidated because of film industry's adaptation

u wot m8?

[Anonymous No.2592036]

>>2592002

Of course he is. Classics is a hermetically-sealed subject; languages are a facility all their own. A lot of brilliant mathematicians could probably give similar testimonies about their viewing and reading habits. They're still wallowing in shit.


>>2592004

The serious critic, if you can find them. Among living readers, I tend to hopscotch between bloggers, in all honesty.

If there's anger in my tone - and there isn't really, but you don't know me and you're used to having your lazinesses and losses of interest pampered - it may be because this is /lit/ and it isn't for how many frames there are in the new franchise movie.

[Anonymous No.2592037]

>The reason you're wrong about this is the same reason you put 'then' instead of 'than'.

See, this is the very definition of pedantry right here. Picking out typos like that and insinuating that they weren't even made accidentally.

You seem to be taking this pretty seriously, angry anon. How about you stop your nit picking and name calling then? Engage us on a more mature level here.

[Anonymous No.2592042]

>>2592036
>The serious critic, if you can find them.

What make a critic serious? Is it the movies he tends to review or is it the way he reviews them? Can a serious critic be said to be serious if he reviews something mainstream in an objective way?

>Among living readers, I tend to hopscotch between bloggers, in all honesty.

Bloggers? What makes one blogger a better authority than another?

[Anonymous No.2592049]

>>2592036
>If there's anger in my tone - and there isn't really, but you don't know me and you're used to having your lazinesses and losses of interest pampered

Oh come on.

You're calling other people ITT "shit eaters." You've used the word "shit" eight times ITT. I counted.

[Anonymous No.2592052]

>>2592025

Read more carefully. When Auden read Fellowship, there was no fantasy genre as we now understand it. Sure, there was George MacDonald at one end of the spectrum and whatever the hack who wrote Conan the Barbarian's name was at the other, but what its fans call 'high fantasy' did not exist. In that context, Tolkien was a demented one-off. It is impossible in 2012 to read the book Auden read.

[Anonymous No.2592069]

>>2592052

You're obviously right, we read the book in a somewhat different way now, but I don't think that necessarily makes the book a bad one. You have your work cut out for you if that's the basis of your criticism.

[Anonymous No.2592073]

>>2592069
Well this guy seems to think that LotR was irredeemably bad to being with so however worse it's gotten doesn't really matter.

[Anonymous No.2592085]

>>2592037

I made no such insinuation. The reason it matters is its capacity to make you dumb and lazy. As exemplified by the error.


>>2592042

Both. You're beginning from the assumption that mainstream = good and there must be something questionable about anyone who doesn't automatically give multiplex movies his devotion.

What makes one blogger a better critic than another is the same as what makes one critic better than another. As Richard Roud put it, a critic describes surfaces. There's a hundred and one aspects to it, and I'm not here to justify them to you, because I know I'm not the first person to introduce you to the concept of their existence.


>>2592049

Accurately. Again, a dictatorship can give you a whole list of euphemisms for murder. An honest person calls it one name: murder. Shit is shit, no matter how good the buyer feels.

[Anonymous No.2592093]

>>2592069

Haven't you read this thread? Once again, the laziness that's endemic, the laziness that's inevitable when you live on shit.

[Anonymous No.2592098]

>>2592085
>As exemplified by the error.

And what you make typos, what does that exemplify?

[Anonymous No.2592097]

>>2592069

My sole reason for mentioning this was to explain the context of Auden's praise.

[Anonymous No.2592109]

>>2592098

I'll tell you when I make one.

[Anonymous No.2592117]

> it may be because this is /lit/ and it isn't for how many frames there are in the new franchise movie.

This point has gone unanswered, of course. This was a /tv/ thread, and should have been deleted quickly.

[Anonymous No.2592123]

>>2591595

^ This was the last on-topic post and it was still off-topic for /lit/.

[Anonymous No.2592130]

>>2592085
>You're beginning from the assumption that mainstream = good

I certainly don't think that.

But it seems to me that you follow the opposite line of thinking. That if it's not mainstream, it's good.

And earlier ITT when I mentioned that I've watched and enjoyed many of the movies you linked to, you said that I was lying. Why is that? You can't actually claim to know which movies I've seen.

[Anonymous No.2592142]

>>2592109
>I'll tell you when I make one.

Let's look to the past for a minute. Have you ever made a typo?

If so, what did your typo exemplify?

[Anonymous No.2592146]

>>2592130

No it doesn't.

No, you're lying now. You never said you had "watched and enjoyed many of the movies [I] linked to". You said we had similar tastes. At present we don't, and I've already explained why. See >>2591970

[Anonymous No.2592156]

>>2592142

There's no credit to be reaped from misspelling a four-letter word. Stop digging.

[Anonymous No.2592161]

>>2592146
Well, that's what I'd meant when I said we had similar tastes. That I liked many of the movies you liked.

I guess I don't like them for the right reasons though? And that's why we can't have similar tastes. Or something.

[Anonymous No.2592173]

>>2592156
>There's no credit to be reaped from misspelling a four-letter word.

I didn't misspell a four letter word. I spelled "then" correctly, did I not?

What I want to know is if you can even admit to making minor grammatical errors.

[Anonymous No.2592177]

>>2592173
>What I want to know is if you can even admit to making minor grammatical errors.

See, because what I'm getting from you here is that my minor typos mean that I'm a complete and utter idiot. Whereas your minor typos would mean something else for some reason.

[Anonymous No.2592178]

>>2592161

I'm being perfectly clear. If you heard that a crack addict's children were taken from her, you'd think it was sad but understandable, wouldn't you? So why are you pretending to have difficulty with what I've told you? Read that post again if you're unsure - you cannot put the good stuff on the same spectrum as shit, shit will skew everything.

[Anonymous No.2592198]

>>2592177

I have already addressed all of this.

[Anonymous No.2592217]

>>2592178
Alright, so my love of Tolkien has tainted every good thing that I enjoy, so it can no longer be good. I'm the dirty crack addict and those movies are my pure, unsoiled children, who can only be truly loved in the care of someone such as yourself.

[Anonymous No.2592218]

We still haven't got to the root of the issue here. Angry anon says that the arbiter of taste is a serious critic or a blogger. It sounds totally arbitrary and I want to know more.

Anon, post some examples of serious critics.

[Anonymous No.2592227]

>>2592198
Not really.

And look, just tell me that you make typos too sometimes. That's all I want.

Simply type "I am not a perfect human being" and post that ITT, please. Because I'm starting to think that you can't.

[Anonymous No.2592238]

>>2592217

Rather than trying to be flip, will you please think about this for a second? Think about context. Think about sensibility. What I'm saying is not beyond your capacity to comprehend.


>>2592218

The problem is, you think it's my place to offer you bloggers for your approval. It's not. You have many literary lists and film lists to get started with. When you have a backbone, we can talk.

[Anonymous No.2592242]

>>2592218
He's not angry he's honest!

Honestly though if he's this fired up about what movie and books people read for pleasure, I'd like to know what he thinks about matters of religion and politics.

[Anonymous No.2592243]

>>2592227

Of course I'm not perfect, but what does my saying that get you?

[Anonymous No.2592251]

>>2592238
>You have many literary lists and film lists to get started with

What makes one list superior to the next? You see, anon, we're going to run into this issue over and over. You know nothing of our tastes, though you make sweeping generalizations regarding them. What I would like to know is who your authority is and why I should listen to them?

[Anonymous No.2592253]

>>2592242

It's all on one continuum. I wouldn't have a discussion about religion or politics with anyone who wasn't serious about culture - what would be the point?

[Anonymous No.2592261]

>>2592243
>but what does my saying that get you?

Well, now I get to ask you this.

Why are my typos indicative of some kind of ignorance or mental defect when yours are just harmless mistakes?

That's the question I made back here see >>2592142

You didn't answer my question, you mocked me for misspelling a four letter word, which of course I hadn't done.

[Anonymous No.2592269]

>>2592251

You run into that issue because you're accustomed to indentured slavery to the entertainment issue. There is no mystery about the authority of sensibility. There is no mystery about the duty you are failing to do.

[Anonymous No.2592272]

>>2592261

If it wasn't you, fuck off. If it was you, stop lying.

[Anonymous No.2592275]

>>2592269
Another dodge dip duck dive and dodge.

[Anonymous No.2592282]

>>2592272
>stop lying

What the hell am I lying about?

And anyways, why don't you just tell me why my typos have some kind of greater significance and yours don't?

[Anonymous No.2592288]

Simmer down guys. You're all being rather preposterous.

[Anonymous No.2592290]

>>2592275

Why are you addicted to lying? I'm not dodging anything.

[Anonymous No.2592295]

>>2592290
That's like the 5th time you've called someone a liar. That and "shit" seem to be your go to buzzwords for dismissing another person when you're not sure how else to do so.

[Anonymous No.2592296]

>>2592282

So you admit it was you who put 'then' for 'than'? In that case, stop saying it wasn't a typo. It was, whether you accidentally landed on a real word or not.

[Anonymous No.2592300]

>>2592295

When someone lies, I say they've lied. When someone consumes shit, I tell them they consume shit. This is a thread about the Hobbit movie, so of course those words come up frequently.

[Anonymous No.2592302]

>>2592296
>In that case, stop saying it wasn't a typo.

I never said it wasn't a typo, I said that it was a typo.

[Anonymous No.2592304]

>>2592302

See >>2592261

Stop lying.

[Anonymous No.2592310]

Could someone explain what the fuck is going on in here?

[Anonymous No.2592312]

>>2592310

I told a shit-eater to stop reading kids' books and he got sore.

[Anonymous No.2592318]

>>2592304
At no point in that post did I say that I hadn't made a typo.

Are you referring to this bit?

>You didn't answer my question, you mocked me for misspelling a four letter word, which of course I hadn't done.

I hadn't misspelled a four letter word. I made a typo. A minor grammatical mix up between "then" and "than." Something that I would have noticed if I cared enough about my posts to analyze them for minute mistakes.

We seem to be misunderstanding each other here, but you believe that I am intentionally being dishonest with you. Why is that?

[Anonymous No.2592321]

>>2592312
>implying kids books have no value or merit

[Anonymous No.2592326]

>>2592312
No one's sore here but you. And at what point were we discussing kid's books? We're talking mostly about movies.

The Hobbit is a children's book. No one is disagreeing with that.

However, I don't agree with the idea that just because a book is intended for a young audience means that it's some kind of intellectual poison. I like to reread The Hobbit for nostalgia purposes.

[Anonymous No.2592333]

>>2592312
Ok, than carry on.

[Anonymous No.2592339]

>>2592333
he's lying

[Anonymous No.2592345]

>>2591693

While this guy is something of an asshole, he's also correct. This kind of babyish genre drivel has made the cinema impossible to enjoy for the last ten years at least. I hpoe the three-d movies give everyone brain cancer and James Cameron gets sued into bankruptcy and then gang-fucked in prison every night for a decade.

Any adult who reads/watches The Hobbit without an accompanying child should be thouroughly ashamed of themselves.

[Anonymous No.2592347]

>>2592318

Because you're being dishonest with yourself.


>>2592326

Books have been part of the exchange from the beginning. I wasn't talking specifically about The Hobbit. If you were a serious reader than it wouldn't matter, but if your definition of adult reading is still so juvenile, I'd say rereading for nostalgia is a bad idea. You aren't far away enough yet, it's more like an AA member going on a bender than an adult looking back on something outgrown.

[Anonymous No.2592353]

>>2592345

THANK YOU! At last another adult.

[Anonymous No.2592355]

>>2592345
>Any adult who reads/watches The Hobbit without an accompanying child should be thouroughly ashamed of themselves.

You should be ashamed of yourself for thinking children's literature is entirely without merit.

[Anonymous No.2592356]

>>2592321

They do, to kids. You dick.

[Anonymous No.2592364]

>>2592355

see

>>2592356

The world is riddled with fucking manbabies who willingly infantilise themselves in the name of consumption.

This generation needs drafting.

[Anonymous No.2592370]

>>2592364
Engaging with a text beyond its surface is a worthy pursuit, regardless of the intended audience for that text. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

[Anonymous No.2592374]

>>2592347
>it's more like an AA member going on a bender than an adult looking back on something outgrown

You're pretty serious with your analogies here. Famine, rape, crack addicts, alcoholics... what else?

I never knew that bad books were so terrible. They might as well spread disease.

That or you're blowing things out of proportion here.

The idea that having the "wrong" taste in fiction makes someone much less of a person is a terrible thought, I think.

Sure I roll my eyes when I think about how the only books my youngest brother has ever read are the Halo novelizations but I don't allow myself to feel superior to him for it.

[Anonymous No.2592375]

>>2592355

Children's literature should be regarded as a literature. Children's films, part of cinema. Sure. Grown men going to see children's films without accompanying children should be regarded by the theater management the way they would have been in the "golden era" of Disney - as chickenhawks. They wouldn't need two warnings to get adult if that happened.

[Anonymous No.2592384]

>>2592353
He also called you an asshole. Maybe you wouldn't have been so poorly received in this thread if you weren't acting like such an asshole.

Why don't you try that next time? Acting less pretentious I mean.

And don't call other people "shit eaters," name calling has no place in a proper discussion and you know that.

[Anonymous No.2592408]

>>2592374

It's a terrible thing. I'm not blowing things out of proportion. This stuff is as pernicious as opiates were during the Great Binge.

Nor should you feel superior to him, because at the moment you're on the same level.

[Anonymous No.2592419]

>>2592384

I have at no point been pretentious. Read some real books, watch some real films.

I'll call people what they are. You consent to genuine insult when you buy a ticket for a franchise movie. My term is simple accuracy. This exchange has seen constant attempts on your part to avoid "proper discussion".

[Anonymous No.2592421]

>>2592408
>Nor should you feel superior to him, because at the moment you're on the same level.

And why do you think that? What exactly are you basing that judgement off of? You can't claim to know who I am. You don't even know if I've posted in this thread already.

Are you just automatically assuming that everyone is beneath you?

[Anonymous No.2592422]

>>2592384

Also - "poorly received"? What? I don't care if you're annoyed, because I haven't been babied by multiplex culture. I'm telling you the truth. How you take it is up to you.

[Anonymous No.2592429]

>>2592419
>You consent to genuine insult when you buy a ticket for a franchise movie.

I've never paid to go to the cinema in my life anon.

>Read some real books, watch some real films.

See, this is you being pretentious. You don't know what books I've read or what films I've watched but you automatically assume that they're terrible because there's no way that I could be as smart as you, could I?

[Anonymous No.2592433]

>>2592421

Oh, are you thinking of using anonymity as a way to louse up the discussion? That's a pity, if so.

I'm basing it on what you're defending. Have you ever heard a non-addict or former addict talk about how heroin should be treated like a food group. No, me neither, because there's no such animal as the unpoisoned defender of poison. So it is in this case. What you defend identifies your sensibility.

[Anonymous No.2592435]

>>2592422
Yes, poorly received.

You seem bothered by the negativity you've faced ITT. Hence the all caps "THANK YOU" to someone who agreed with you, but also thinks that you're an asshole.

[Anonymous No.2592438]

>>2592429

No, it's because of what you defend. See >>2592433

[Anonymous No.2592440]

>>2592433
>Oh, are you thinking of using anonymity as a way to louse up the discussion? That's a pity, if so.

Fine, pick out my posts then. I'll tell you if you're right.

[Anonymous No.2592452]

>>2592438
I'm not defending bad books and movies here.

My whole stake in this discussion has come from the futile attempt to show you that it's wrong to look down on people because they like bad movies or books.

I am genuinely bothered by your attitude anon. The way you talk, people who like Michale Bay movies should not even be regarded as human.

[Anonymous No.2592460]

>>2592435

You see how comprehensively you've degraded your own intelligence? My 'THANK YOU' was relieved, after dealing with dozens of excuse-making posts from addicts. I don't give his 'asshole' the same weight as yours, and neither will stop me from telling the truth.

[Anonymous No.2592465]

Angry anon, respond to this please
>>2592370

It's not conducive to discussion if you ignore posts that you don't want to argue with.

[Anonymous No.2592470]

>>2592452

If I looked down on you I'd be happy for you to be excluded. I don't, I want you to share in the rich history of culture which is the birthright of us all. But democracy does not mean "the customer is always right", and a lifetime of abuse will leave its mark on the addict.

[Anonymous No.2592471]

>>2592452

>The way you talk, people who like Michale Bay movies should not even be regarded as human.

That's not far from the truth - if you enjoy this kind of drivel, you're missing something vital in the human spirit, and you're prepared to sit in the dark, shovelling salty snacks into your mouth and polluting your brain with consumerist garbage.

>>2592435

I only said he was something of an asshole. Frankly, everyone on 4chan is an asshole to a greater or lesser extent. I'm a complete cunt, pesonally, but the people defending Peter Jackson movies are the true fuckheads here.

[Anonymous No.2592473]

>>2592460
>You see how comprehensively you've degraded your own intelligence?

Oh yes. I'm sure that the mere fact that I disagree with your opinions has caused my intelligence quotient to drop 40 or more points.

Really though, take a look at this thread. Look how impassioned you are about your opinions on books and movies. Isn't it ridiculous?

No, I suppose that it isn't. And if only I were a fraction as smart as you are I would see that, probably.

[Anonymous No.2592482]

>>2592465

It's a total non sequitur, and probably a (failed) attempt to change the subject.

[Anonymous No.2592486]

>>2592473

No, it's just that I've seen the real thing. It's not hard to be passionate when there's so much at stake.

[Anonymous No.2592491]

>>2592471

Again, thank you.

> That's not far from the truth - if you enjoy this kind of drivel, you're missing something vital in the human spirit,

Beautifully put.

[Anonymous No.2592500]

>>2592482
No it's not a non sequitur. Your issue with children's lit seems to be that it's for children. The critic's engagement with the text is separate from the intended audience. What I am trying to point out is that something of value can be extracted from the text if the critic is armed with enough critical tools. Say for example, if somebody used All That Heaven Allows (a melodrama) to discuss gender performativity as formulated by Judith Butler. Any cultural object can be found to have value if the critic can articulate it. The Hobbit, ostensibly a fairy tale for children, can have value for other things. What things? I don't know I haven't seen the film yet.

[Anonymous No.2592497]

>>2592471
>That's not far from the truth - if you enjoy this kind of drivel, you're missing something vital in the human spirit, and you're prepared to sit in the dark, shovelling salty snacks into your mouth and polluting your brain with consumerist garbage.

How awful. To dehumanize people because of their preference for low brow entertainment.

That really is a horrible sentiment.

[Anonymous No.2592509]

>>2592497
I mean, really? The idea that people who enjoy crappy movies should not be regarded as human is "not far from the truth?"

[Anonymous No.2592513]

>>2592497

No, you are dehumanizing them. They don't "prefer" that stuff and you know it, they've never known anything else. It's like telling an animal rights activist that they're being snobbish about these chickens who prefer to live in the dark in a hutch on one leg. Preference doesn't enter into it.

[Anonymous No.2592515]

>>2592500

And you're the kind of person who signs up for courses on "Metanarratology in The Simpsons" and pretends that it's "exactly the same as studying Shakespeare, dude".

PROTIP: It's not the same, it's just easier, and the universities are full to the brim with half-smart 'postmodernists' looking for an easy degree and the chance to watch cartoons for three years.

[Anonymous No.2592517]

>>2592500

No, I have no issue with children's literature. You aren't analyzing the shit you shovel down, you're consuming it. End this pointless mendacity.

[Anonymous No.2592522]

>>2592517
So you're not going to engage with my argument at all? You're just going to dismiss it?

[Anonymous No.2592527]

>>2592509

I didn't say they weren't human, I said they were dehumanised. The industry you're so avid to defend actually controls the process - the people in the cinema aren't people to these directors - they're units, focus groups, an audience, and people like Bay and Jackson use every trick in the book to separate them from their cash, filling the cultural arena with shit and denying people access to actual art that may enrich their lives in a manner more meaningful than super-sized cola cup with a transformer on the side.

[Anonymous No.2592530]

>anno domini MMXII
>still using the "sheeple" argument to justify taste

[Anonymous No.2592535]

>>2592522

1. I have no problem with children's literature. 2. You don't have an argument, you're just observing that anyone can analyze anything. Yes, but you don't. 3. This thread has, for most of its length, been about reading as a reader, not as a critic, analyst or any other thing. Only now have you wiki'd enough to come at me with this garbage, aimed at something I never said. 4. You aren't Judith Butler.

[Anonymous No.2592548]

>>2592535
>Yes, but you don't.

You have no proof of this and neither do I have proof that you do.

>This thread has, for most of its length, been about reading as a reader, not as a critic, analyst or any other thing.

For some, there is no difference between being a critic and a reader.

>You aren't Judith Butler.

No, my prose isn't dense enough.

The sum total of your argument is that people don't know that they are being fed shit, that they eat shit happily, but you cannot point to anything that isn't shit. If everything is shit, then we're all eating shit. If everything is shit then nothing is shit.

[Anonymous No.2592552]

>>2592530

No, nobody's done that. You can see that.

[Anonymous No.2592554]

>>2592527
>The industry you're so avid to defend actually controls the process

I am not defending the entertainment industry. At no point ITT have I defended it.

I hate what Hollywood has become. There's so much money involved that only low brow action films with "guaranteed returns" get greenlit, everything else is pushed aside. I understand that.

For the most part I agree with what you're saying here. My problem is your attitude. You seem to feel quite a bit superior to people who like Michael Bay's movies.

[Anonymous No.2592562]

>>2592515
>implying the simpsons isn't the shakespeare of our time

[Anonymous No.2592567]

>>2592562
go away

[Anonymous No.2592570]

>>2592548

Yeah, but you don't. Because nobody who did would do what you're doing.

No, for any serious reader there's a difference.

No, it's because you're a shit-eater.

No, once again, you're lying. You know as well as I do the atittude you took to the one list I linked - you lied about it, then ignored it. You'd probably do the same with a literary list, so why bother? You know what you're avoiding as well as I do.

[Anonymous No.2592574]

>>2592554

No, your problem is you're lazy.

[Anonymous No.2592578]

>>2592574
Uh, okay.

But I still have a problem with your attitude.

It's not right to look down on others the way you do.

[Anonymous No.2592580]

For anyone thinking of pulling the 'you don't know me' shit: the proof is in the sensibility. Always. If you make sixty posts defining your position in relief with the pains you won't take and the distinctions you can't or won't perceive, we get to know you pretty well by post 61.

[Anonymous No.2592581]

>>2592570
Well I'm not the guy that took issue with the list. So there's that.

[Anonymous No.2592588]

>>2592570
>No, for any serious reader there's a difference

That's not true and you know it. A serious reader is one who engages with the text and analyzes it, appraises it, works with it. So don't dismiss an argument because you don't engage with a text.

[Anonymous No.2592589]

>>2592580
Both angry anon and the anons arguing against him have pulled that shit.

And again, I challenge you to pick out my posts if you are so capable.

[Anonymous No.2592593]

>>2592578

You're not even trying now, you lazy fucking troll. I don't look down on others, as has already been established. Trying to play for time until we start auto-sinking and you can unleash the obscenities?
>>2592581

Cool, enjoy and use it then. Good luck!

[Anonymous No.2592600]

>>2592588

I do engage with a text. Critical analysis has never been the subject of this thread, nor will it become the subject. You are vermin, defending yourself against something I never said.

[Anonymous No.2592602]

>>2592589

Stop lying, I never stop telling the truth in return.

[Anonymous No.2592605]

>>2592593
>I don't look down on others

Well that's the impression I'm getting, despite what's been "established."

And there's no reason to dismiss me as a troll, is there?

[Anonymous No.2592612]

>>2592605

No it's not the impression you're getting, you're just lazy. Of course you're becoming troll-like - the sheer idleness of your last post made the dishonesty behind your pose of offense plain.

[Anonymous No.2592615]

>>2592600
One of your favourite words to throw around seems to be "lazy". What I am trying to do is pin down some of your terms here. Serious reading? What does that mean? Serious film? What does that mean? To me, a reader is lazy only when they refuse to engage in critical analysis. If the serious reader is defined by their lack of laziness, then to me, that would imply critical analysis. I fail to see why this can't be a fruitful avenue of discussion. If you are going to be so vitriolic and aggressive, then you should at least pay us the compliment of articulating the terms you're using.

[Anonymous No.2592616]

Seems like those knuckle dragging subspecies we call genre fans got their asses tapped in this thread. Also, Prometheus will be shit.

>mfw

[Anonymous No.2592622]

>>2592612
>you're just lazy

Could you possibly just disagree with me without saying that there's something wrong with me?

And if I didn't put any effort into my last post that's because I really don't see the point anymore.

You think that this matter is much more important than it really is, as I've said.

But you've said that "you've seen what's at stake." Would you mind telling me what that is?

Is civilization itself going to end because people pay to see Michael Bay movies?

[Anonymous No.2592618]

>>2592615

I don't pay compliments, I accord respect when it's earned.

[Anonymous No.2592619]

>>2592616
five star post, anon

[Anonymous No.2592623]

>>2592616

Nicely done.

[Anonymous No.2592626]

>>2592618
This is exactly what I am talking about. Yet another dodge.

Please define a serious reader.

[Anonymous No.2592640]

>>2592626
>Please define a serious reader.

Someone who reads what he reads and likes what he likes, I think.

[Anonymous No.2592642]

>>2592622

No, you think it's less important than it really is, because it's easier for you to just stew in the same juice as you ever did than to change your life. Google 'great books'. Find a list. Pick a few. Read them. Do the same with that film list. Do it until the backed-up sewage stink is out of your nostrils. It's incredibly easy.

No, nothing's going to end, just change. If you need to be compelled by some apocalyptic notion, I can't in all honesty offer it to you. It wouldn't matter to a pragmatist what you do. I, on the other hand, care.

[Anonymous No.2592650]

>>2592626

It's not a dodge. A serious reader is someone who reads serious literature, habitually and for pleasure. You know what serious literature is.

[Anonymous No.2592652]

>>2592642
I'm the same anon who's seen a good deal of the films in your great film list. I'll bet you that I've read a good deal of the books in any great book list.

I still don't think that this issue of people enjoying crappy books and movies is of any importance, and not because I don't know what good books or movies are.

I just think that people have problems in their lives greater than what they read or watch for entertainment in their leisure time.

I suppose that there's something wrong with me for thinking that.

[Anonymous No.2592655]

>>2592650
>You know what serious literature is.

Please define it for us anyway.

[Anonymous No.2592660]

>>2592650
Okay then. Let's take this one step further. If the serious reader habitually reads serious literature, and we've defined serious literature by saying "you know what it is" and then arbiters of taste are serious critics, then we've come to a nice circular loop. A serious reader is defined by the serious literature they read. The serious literature is deemed serious by serious readers.

[Anonymous No.2592661]

>>2592652
And with this I'm out.

Time to go to the grocery store.

[Anonymous No.2592662]

>>2592652

"I've read all the great books evah and I still think Tolkien is tops."

Yeah, sure.


>>2592655

Why do you want my definition?

[Anonymous No.2592666]

>>2592660

The problem is, you DO know what it is. Stop lying to yourself. You're either a slave or something worse than a slave - the kind of Pontius Pilate who profits personally from kids confusing shit for clay.

[Anonymous No.2592668]

>>2592661

Enjoy your consumption.

[Anonymous No.2592669]

>>2592662
If only for the intricacy of the world he created, yes.

[Anonymous No.2592670]

>>2592655
My God, man, It's as if you've never read any literature.

[Anonymous No.2592673]

>>2592666
Okay, let's keep going. You assert that I know what serious literature is, but you've also asserted that I'm a mindless drone being manipulated by the entertainment industry. So I can define serious literature by being a serious reader, even though I'm a slave to the entertainment industry?

[Anonymous No.2592676]

>>2592670
Anyone could call Shakespeare serious literature. What I want to know is why. Why do you think that?

Don't evade the question with supposed ad hominem. Give us your definition.

[Anonymous No.2592682]

>>2592669

In other words, by the criteria you preserve just for him, he's the best. I'm sure he is.

[Anonymous No.2592683]

>>2592669
I mean, let's look at the number of languages Tolkien created for his fantasy world.

From Wikipeida:

The Elvish language family is a group of languages related by descent from a common ancestor, called the proto-language. The family was constructed from c. 1910. Tolkien worked on it up to his death in 1973. He constructed the grammar and vocabulary of at least fifteen Elvish languages and dialects: Primitive Quendian the proto-language, Common Eldarin, Quenya, Goldogrin, Telerin, Sindarin, Ilkorin, Nandorin, Avarin.
The languages of Men of Middle-earth were many, but most were only alluded to by Tolkien. He developed at least three with a grammar and a vocabulary: Taliska, Adûnaic, and the Soval Pharë ('Common Speech'), called Westron in English, spoken by Hobbits and Men in the Third Age. Other Mannish languages which were less developed included: Dalish, Rohirric (represented by Anglo-Saxon), Rhovanion (represented by Gothic), Haladin, Dunlendish, Drûg, Haradrim, and Easterling.
The secret language of the Dwarves: Khuzdul. They also used a sign language called Iglishmêk.
The language of the Ents: Entish.
The language of the "Powers" or Valar: Valarin.
The language of the Orcs of the First Age created for them by Morgoth.
The Black Speech, created by Sauron for his "empire".
The many languages of the Orcs of the Third Age, often incorporating debased forms of words from the Black Speech and other languages.

What other fictional world can even compare to the scope of Tolkien's Middle-earth?

[Anonymous No.2592685]

>>2592682
I never said that he was the best. I never even said that he was tops, did I? Don't put words in my mouth like that.

[Anonymous No.2592688]

Grow the fuck up. Both of you.
>Stop liking what I don't like
>Stop disliking what I like
That is retarded, you dipshits aren't going to save the world by making someone enjoy or not a children's book, nor make his taste any better.

[Anonymous No.2592690]

>>2592673

No, I've never called you a mindless drone, and the entire weight of everything I've posted has been to assert that you can break out of that slavery to the entertainment industry. No, you don't define what serious literature is, any more than you define what a stop light is. You KNOW what it is. Stop trying to look for ways out to guzzle more shit.


>>2592676

That wasn't me.

[yRаn !mHBuhWvEhs No.2592691]

Cool /lit/ thread, guys.

[Anonymous No.2592692]

>>2592690
But how do I know if I'm a slave and have always been one?

[Anonymous No.2592693]

>>2592683

Confirmed for a liar. If you think that babble is any kind of standard for serious literature, you haven't read any.


>>2592685

Wow, you sound so alone. Why not read a fucking book, man?

[Anonymous No.2592696]

>>2592692

You haven't always been one. They don't get us from birth yet. What do you want me to say so you can post your pre-written dismissal?

[Anonymous No.2592702]

>>2592693
>If you think that babble is any kind of standard for serious literature, you haven't read any.

But the fact remains that I have, however much you like to deny it.

And please, direct me to the post where I or anyone else ITT has said that The Lord of the Rings is among the greatest literature ever written.

[Anonymous No.2592704]

Christ, the pretension in this thread is unbearable. So some people like childish stories like Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit, so the fuck what? Liking a work of fiction is not a badge of honor, it's shit people do for fun. Some people like genre films, some people like art house films, and some people like non-narrative "avant garde" films, and there's nothing noble or ignoble in liking or not liking any of those things. If anything, the childish snark in this thread on the part of some anons is evidence itself that liking less commercial art does not make you a better human being.

Grow up.

[Anonymous No.2592711]

For anyone masochistic enough to have read this entire thing: the reason the serious literature guy isn't giving any specific names or titles is because when he has in the past, the other poster has responded with 'read it, not as good', 'that's just ur opinion' or 'OK BUT I'LL STILL LIKE MY THING THOUGH LRN 2 RELATIVSM CVNEJVNO3JBVNEV'. I don't like the spectacle of people smearing shit on the wall, so I'm not providing that trigger here. We now resume your regularly scheduled thread.

[Anonymous No.2592713]

>>2592704
BUT THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH IT

BECAUSE IF YOU LIKE IT YOU'RE A SHEEPLE SLAVE TO THE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY!!!!1111

[Anonymous No.2592714]

>>2592704

No, liar.

[Anonymous No.2592720]

>>2592704
>>2592713

Desperate, unhappy, you finally resort to full trolling.

[Anonymous No.2592724]

>>2592704
Ya didn't read the whole thread there Bob.

[Anonymous No.2592725]

>>2592704
The angry anon, as we've dubbed him, argues that there is a moral imperative to liking serious art. Some disagree and some take issue with his tone. The meat of the discussion isn't "taste" but the morality of taste.

[Anonymous No.2592730]

>>2592702

Why, then, are you still addicted to shit?

[Anonymous No.2592732]

>>2592720
Those are two separate posts made by two separate posters.

I know that you've claimed twice ITT that you can tell one anon apart from another, but really, you can't.

[Anonymous No.2592738]

>>2592725

No, you've called me 'the angry anon'. Nobody else has. You have taken issue with the idea of not being a shit-eater.

[Anonymous No.2592739]

>>2592730
I don't know. I suppose that there's something fundamentally wrong with me for still enjoying Tolkien. Maybe a personality disorder?

[Anonymous No.2592744]

I still don't understand what's wrong with Tolkien? Why angry anon dislikes him so much?

[Anonymous No.2592745]

>>2592738
I refereed to you as angry anon once too.

[Anonymous No.2592753]

>>2592738
see
>>2592732

[Anonymous No.2592748]

>>2592732

Why would two people want to act the moron in this thread so close together? Wouldn't most people have the common sense to stay the fuck clear?


>>2592739

Maybe, but these can be overcome. Grow up, and stop sulking.

[Anonymous No.2592755]

>>2592744

I don't dislike him. I dislike adults wallowing when it's time to get discipline.


>>2592745

Oh really? I didn't notice.

[Anonymous No.2592758]

>>2592748
>Maybe, but these can be overcome.

There is no treatment for personality disorders. Lrn2basic psychiatry.

And I posted >>2592713

Yes that was trolling.

I did not post >>2592704

[Anonymous No.2592759]

>>2592755
>I dislike adults wallowing
>Hangs out on 4chan

[Anonymous No.2592760]

This has been very productive, I think.

[Anonymous No.2592766]

>>2592758

Good for you for admitting it.

I didn't say treated did I? I said 'overcome'. I myself have extreme anger problems, but nobody would ever guess it.

Yes, that was a joke.

[Anonymous No.2592774]

>>2592759
This.

Isn't this place a bit too low brow for one as enlightened as you, angry anon?

This place is full of people who like Tolkien. There are even people on /tv/ who think that Wes Anderson and Woody Allen are bad directors!

[Anonymous No.2592775]

OK, when does this thing start autosaging? I thought it was 200, but if I'm mistaken we may have to break out the pasta because this is now on the cusp of being tedious.

[Anonymous No.2592780]

>>2592766
How does one overcome an ailment without treating it, exactly?

[Anonymous No.2592783]

>>2592775
Depends on the board, If you take the copypasta out I'll give you a hand.

[Anonymous No.2592790]

>>2592774

No, I won't leave, son. It's called /lit/, so it's legitimate to discuss literature here.

The list you're talking about has one (1) Allen film and one (1) W. Anderson film on it. Out of one thousand (1000) titles. The critic is basically antipathetic to both of them. But you looked for familiar names, found them and closed the tab, because you're a lazy motherfucker.

[sage No.2592792]

sage

....and reported

[Anonymous No.2592796]

>>2592780

By pitting your intellection and will against it.
>>2592783

Cool.

[Anonymous No.2592797]

>>2592792

What FOR?!

[Anonymous No.2592799]

neither saged nor reported

hey everyone, I'm new to this thread. can you tell me what's up here?

[Anonymous No.2592800]

>>2592790
I'm not referring to the list. You complained earlier about there not being enough Woody Allen and Wes Anderson, didn't you?

See here, >>2591798

So you like them, don't you? And it would be a problem if other people didn't?

>But you looked for familiar names, found them and closed the tab, because you're a lazy motherfucker.

I don't know the names of many directors. I recognized the titles of the movies, not the directors.

[Anonymous No.2592802]

>>2592796
>By pitting your intellection and will against it.

Uh huh.

You don't actually think that an individual's intellect and willpower can completely overcome disease, do you?

If you ever get cancer, will you heal yourself with your intellect and willpower?

[Anonymous No.2592806]

>>2592800

No, I didn't. I have never expressed any opinion on either of them. You evidentially stopped paying attention early on.

[Anonymous No.2592809]

>>2592802

Of course not. Personality disorders are not diseases. They're tendencies, and you can manage them if you know what to look for in your own behavior.

[Anonymous No.2592807]

>>2592799

>>2592725
sums it up pretty well I think

[Anonymous No.2592811]

>>2592806
>Unfortunately I know that Woody Allen and Wes Anderson don't show up remotely often in that list.

You said it's unfortunate that their movies don't show up more on that list. Meaning you want for more of their movies to be on the list. Meaning that you like their movies.

[Anonymous No.2592816]

>>2592807

No it doesn't.

New reader, you can only understand this by reading it. My summary would be, it's me grinding a shit-eater down to a recognition of his own mendacity by any rhetorical means neccesary. I hope you find it entertaining.

[Anonymous No.2592818]

>>2592811

No, that's not what that means. I meant: unfortunately for you, I know you're lying. If your comprehension is that poor, that may explain why you still eat shit even after reading real books.

[Anonymous No.2592819]

>>2592809
>Personality disorders are not diseases.

I know that. I said "ailment" which could mean disorder or actual physical disease.

Whatever.

[Anonymous No.2592820]

>>2592819

> You don't actually think that an individual's intellect and willpower can completely overcome disease, do you?

from >>2592802

learn to fucking remember.

[Anonymous No.2592821]

>>2592818
Why can't there be more Woody Allen on the list?

[Anonymous No.2592822]

So yeah, don't put /tv/ threads on /lit/.

[Anonymous No.2592827]

>>2592821

I already told you. See >>2592790, fourth sentence.

[Anonymous No.2592828]

>>2592816
>it's me grinding a shit-eater down to a recognition of his own mendacity

you're arguing with more than one person here

>>2592818
Hey man don't blame it on my reading comprehension.

Your meaning would have been a lot fucking clearer if you had said "Unfortunately for you I know that Wes Anderson ect." instead of "Unfortunately I know that Wes Anderson ect."

People are going to misunderstand you if you're not clear like that.

[Anonymous No.2592829]

>>2592827
>Out of one thousand (1000) titles.

?

[Anonymous No.2592830]

>>2592827
That poster is not me anon.

He's someone completely different.

Contrary to what you might think, there can be more than two people on this board at a time.

[Anonymous No.2592831]

Jesus, why won't this thread die.

[Anonymous No.2592832]

I wonder how many posts we can get.

[Anonymous No.2592833]

>>2592828

Yeah, but the other guy can eat shit, he's just an irritant.

[Anonymous No.2592835]

>>2592820
>learn to fucking remember

No see, you're confused here.

I asked how one overcomes an AILMENT without treating it. Then you said "through intellect and willpower."

Then I said "You don't think that you can overcome disease through intellect and willpower do you?"

You need to "learn to fucking remember" here anon.

[Anonymous No.2592836]

>>2592828

OK, I'll remember that for next time I'm using that sort of construction.

[Anonymous No.2592838]

>>2592835

HAHAHA, you're like an old woman! OK, I jumped to the fact you were talking about not 'an ailment' in general, but personality disorders.

[Anonymous No.2592842]

>>2592838
That's okay, I accept your apology.

[Anonymous No.2592845]

>>2592842

I didn't apologize, you wretch.

[Anonymous No.2592846]

imagine a convo between D&E and moot. it would be enlightening

two heros of 4chan finally head to head

someone should set this up

[Anonymous No.2592852]

>>2591685

Yes.

[Anonymous No.2592869]

As a long time Jets fan i see one player who we need badly. I saw every game he played in college. He played for my favorite college football team. His name is: Michael Floyd. I will be beyond myself in happiness if the Jets in their ultimate wisdom select him with the 16th overall pick. I'll be OK with the Jets trading up to get him. We can always get a LB and DE in the later rounds. With Holmes and Floyd Sanchez will have 2 stud WR's

[Anonymous No.2592871]

It's pasta time.

[Anonymous No.2592873]

>>2592851
>moot
>not a try hard idiot

[Anonymous No.2592874]

storm in screaming " Who put my underwear in the fucking dryer!!!"

"You" did she tries to reply.

"Why cant mother fuckers leave my shit alone " I yell through the house " I hate when people wash my fucking Clothes".

" Are you trying to fight?" she asked

"NO i am not trying to fight with you."

"So why are you yelling at me?" She asks of me

"I am mad" I say.

[Anonymous No.2592881]

>>2592874
Don't write.

[Anonymous No.2592883]

But on the other side of the devil's love, I stand in an almost invisible place - one hard to describe as it is one hard to even grasp for myself. This dance, this evolving relationship with rope is one impossible to put to word.

Because it isn't there. Not the rope. I recognize that it exists - I see the results of it being against me, around me, near me.. but I don't feel the rope. "The Rope" sounds like this huge concept, like a universe, or infinity. What I feel, when kneeling for a scene, are a million separate sensations, not one focused on being tied, or being lifted.... all are, instead, millisecond flashes of experiences, thoughts, feelings, impulses.

[Anonymous No.2592887]

horse horse horse horse

[Anonymous No.2592891]

Kate wandered over to the strawberry patch, her basket
almost laden now with vegetables, the good things she
grew every summer in this unpromising earth. If the
foreman hadn't been so new she could have gone with
Cole. She still didn't quite understand what was that
special about a Limousin bull but Cole studied every
night after dinner, the breeds, the blood lines, the
beef per pound, the proportions of bone and gristle and
fat. A Limousin bull was finally what he had to have...
and so he'd gone.

There were times when she almost hated the pedigrees and
charts of the cattle that Cole studied. He kept
meticulous records and knew every calf and the day it
was born and who its great great grandparents were. For
this was the excuse he used every time she mentioned
adopting a child. "Hell no! I know too much about
genetics. Adopting a kid from one of those agencies
would be like buying a bull or a heifer without knowing
the pedigree. You're liable to get stuck with anything!
A runt or worse!"

[Anonymous No.2592896]

>>2592891

As he strode the few steps across the carpet, his great
huge rod bounced like a thick tree trunk out from his
lean, hairy loins. Kate's eyes widened as he came toward
her, his brow dark as a black sky before a tornado. He
was angry again. It was the music. Angel outside playing
the guitar. Oh God! Cole looked angry enough to hit her.
Instinctively her hands clutched the robe closed around
her.

"That goddamned kid's got my guitar... and I'll bet he's
fucked you too!"

The yellow silk screamed in his hands as he viciously
ripped it from her in tatters and threw the remains on
the floor. Kate stood naked and cowering, trembling at
what he would do next.

"Oh no... No, Cole... No... you must believe me... I
just wanted..."

[Anonymous No.2592899]

He shook her by the hair then, the dreadful frustration
and anger rising in him like a terrible tide that
threatened to choke him. Her mouth was open and the
tears were streaming down her beautiful face and that
moist red "O" of her mouth made a haven he had to have.

"You just goddamn well let me run the ranch! I don't
need your help! I've done all right so far! And we don't
need anybody else's snotty nosed kids! That's final!"

The bones seemed to melt in Kate's legs and she sank,
sobbing helplessly to the floor, Cole's hands still in
her damp hair. A moan stripped from her throat as she
felt him jerk his hands, painfully pulling her head up
to him by the hair.

"And there's something else that's going to be my way,
too. "You're goddamn well going to be a real wife...
Open your mouth, bitch! Open your hot-shit little mouth
and suck my cock!"

[Anonymous No.2592902]

Kate's eyes opened to great blue saucers. Cole's crude
words seemed insane with his enormous vein fretted penis
jutting out and pulsating obscenely in front of her
face, the purpling head oozing a droplet of seminal
fluid... a one eyed monster drooling hungrily at her!
She could see it twitch and jerk as though controlled by
some inner strings... the great, thick length of it
looked as though it was full of wires and cords. The
head of it bulged, blunting the end of his menacing
weapon. She couldn't remember ever seeing it so close
and she wondered dimly how she'd ever contained it's
awesome length so far up inside her stomach. She
shuddered involuntarily. Her hair jerked painfully
again.

"This time you're going to, bitch... I've waited too
long! Open your mouth before I ram it down your bossy
throat... I'm going to fill your belly with my cum until
you choke... choke on your own joy... you snooty,
prudish bitch...!"

"Ohhh, Cole... darling... Please... please don't..." she
sobbed, the pain from her hair roots paling to
insignificance beside the pain from deep in her breast.
She was right... something had happened to him in
Paris... something terrible...!

"Take it... open your mouth and suck my cock... or I
swear I'll ram it straight out the back of your head!"

[Anonymous No.2592904]

"I'm soo bored." She stares out the window for hours. Gazing longingly and intensely at the great mountain by our home. I know she blames me. For the carwash; the incident at the carwash. And for the dog. "He should NOT enter the fashion show," she would start, "he is a beautiful dog but he doesn't need other to have to tell him that." The way she looked out that window started to bother me. "Ilene," I called to her, "it's been 4 hours. Go do your homework."

[Anonymous No.2592905]

Cole spread his legs and crouched slightly, leading with
his hips and touching the sensitive head of his prick
right against her tightly closed, freshly painted lips.

Kate almost gagged. She could feel the sticky liquid and
feel its slipperiness against her mouth and a pulse beat
in the huge rod like an extra heart beat. Cole's hands
tightened in her hair until she was almost screaming
with the pain. Sobbing helplessly, she opened her mouth
obediently and felt him shove the lurid head of his
penis between her teeth. The hot male odor of his male
secretions hit her nostrils, a pungent, musky smell.

Outside the window she could hear the abandoned music
Angel's hands drew from the guitar, and she wished she
had never brought the boys here... had never
interfered... had never taken things into her own hands.
She knew dimly that Cole's anger had been welling up
though for a long time... that she had provoked it by
nagging about a baby... and now she was reaping the crop
of her terrible discontent.

[Anonymous No.2592909]

>>2592904

Sage too, man.

[Anonymous No.2592915]

>>2592909

soory it's my first day trolling /lit lol

[Anonymous No.2592919]

A deep groan of appreciation ripped out Cole's mouth as
he saw his wife's full red lips open and slip warmly
over the head of his aching cock. Her lips closed over
it softly and he felt the sensual stab of ecstasy shoot
up his cockhead to his loins and his balls twinged. Oh
goddamn!

[Anonymous No.2592920]

has the sage limit been reached yet?

[Anonymous No.2592922]

>>2592915

no probs

[Anonymous No.2592925]

>>2592920

Not sure. I don't think so.

[Anonymous No.2592930]

At least we're off the first page now.

Cole rocked on his feet, nuzzling his now more intensely
sucking wife's reddened nipples with his knees and
fucking the full length of his throbbing pole, that was
pulsing wildly now, deep into the warm, saliva-filled
wonder of her mouth! His hands reached out to cradle her
beautiful face, the skin of Kate's throat and cheeks and
jaws like silk, the waving chestnut hair soft as satin.
He guided her face and mouth even deeper over his lewdly
throbbing hardness and his hips did an abandoned pelvic
gyration of fuck-in, fuck-out, fuck-in, fuck-out.

[Anonymous No.2593033]

[Anonymous No.2593046]

>>2593033

Why do you do this?!