/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.2635496]

I honestly can't remember anyone on 4chan /lit/ ever discussing a books themes, disseminating the multiple meanings of a passage, or talking about a book other than whether or not they "like it" or "don't like it".

Often times, you guys perceive questions of discussion as a homework thread.

You all are the biggest bunch of dumb roach posers that ever scuttled. I doubt any of you actually read. I bet most of you just gloss over the written words trying to generally understand, while being distracted by your A.D.D.

I'm probably going to stop coming here, which will be detrimental to you guys, considering that I'm one of the best posters here. I'm not going to carry the weight by myself.

Quality post, or I'm gone.

[Anonymous No.2635499]

[Anonymous No.2635504]

You are absolutely correct OP.

[Anonymous No.2635507]

i'm sorry, please daddy don't hit me again

[Anonymous No.2635513]

>>2635496
>anyone on 4chan /lit/ ever discussing a books themes, disseminating the multiple meanings of a passage
Even thouse of us who have an education are not brainwashed enough to buy into that. Thankfully. "Themes", meanwhile, are a fake concept. They do not warrant discussion, and only poor authors write towards a theme in any case - good ones are telling a story instead.

Communication means a lot in terms of recommendation, though. It is important to know the general opinions of others to pick better books. Nobody could read everything that was ever written to find out what's best. Without talking to people and seeing what they enjoyed the most, you will forever drown in really bad literature.

[Anonymous No.2635512]

Yep, you got it, OP. This place really is fucking terrible. I try to only post in the good threads, ignore the obvious trolls, not flame people in discussions because I disagree, but it's worthless because no one follows suit. You should leave. I've almost completely left now. I pop in from time to time to see what's happening. I'm thankful to this place for introducing me to a few new authors, but other than that it's a complete waste of time.

[Anonymous No.2635514]

>>2635496

[Anonymous No.2635518]

>I honestly can't remember anyone on 4chan /lit/ ever discussing a books themes, disseminating the multiple meanings of a passage

This has happened plenty of times with the more popular novels like IJ, Ulysses, Gravity's Rainbow, Blood Meridian, etc.

Also, there are plenty of long threads discussing philosophy/interpreting various philosophical texts.

If you want to discuss a passage and its meaning, make a thread for it.

[Anonymous No.2635519]

>>2635513

[Anonymous No.2635522]

why don't you whiny motherfuckers just leave? Why do you have to make an attention-whore thread about it? Don't let the door hit ya where the Good Lord split ya.

[Anonymous No.2635523]

>>2635512
This post makes me feel worse about /lit/ than OP's.

:(

[Anonymous No.2635524]

>>2635519
A reaction image. How erudite.

[Anonymous No.2635525]

>>2635518
>IJ, Ulysses, Gravity's Rainbow, Blood Meridian,
>Roach Tier lit discussions

Get on my level.

[Anonymous No.2635528]

>>2635524

what website do you think you're on?

[Anonymous No.2635530]

It's 4chan, dipshit. Nobody should be using /lit/ to substitute actual IRL literature discussion. This is just a place to shoot the shit and call authors faggots while casually discussing/recommending lit/philosophy.

[Anonymous No.2635531]

>>2635496
If you're the faggot that keeps posting the roach shit I'll be glad to see the back of you.

[Anonymous No.2635538]

>>2635496

>why u no discuss themes


because no one actually cares about literary critique, humans read for fun

the humanities departments envy science so they came up with a bunch of bullshit theories and criteria in order to make courses and steal student's money

in reality, all their work is irrelevant and NO ONE READS IT not even their peers...they have no peer reviewed work

So to answer your question, why doesn't anyone here talk about Themes or "dissect multiple meanings" because none of those things have any objective truth value, its all just subjective drivel, you might as well ask "which book do you like more" because its all a matter of preference in the end

[Anonymous No.2635534]

>>2635528
/lit/ isn't all made of children like OP. There are people who can talk about books without resorting to mindless, formulaic discussions on here (and resorting to reaction images when something goes wrong), too.

[Anonymous No.2635540]

>>2635534

if people stop resorting to using reaction images when "things go wrong," then even I'll leave 4chan. Until then, you're a faggot.

[Anonymous No.2635541]

>>2635538
This.

[Anonymous No.2635542]

>>2635538
See /lit/, these are the roach posters I'm talking about.

[Anonymous No.2635545]

>>2635542
Okay, I agree with you there. There's always going to be a certain amount of anti-intellectualism on 4chan though.

[Anonymous No.2635546]

>>2635542
Age just so everyone sees your stupidity.

[Anonymous No.2635547]

>>2635545
It's actually the intellectuals who argue with literary criticism. The ones endorsing it are the educated plebs.

[Anonymous No.2635549]

>>2635528
Yeah, but even in war, there are still rules. The rules help to structure the chaos, so armies maintain the semblance of a respectable institution and don't degrade into lawless bands of marauders.

Similarly, 4chan might be anarchy, but on /lit/, we still have tacit rules, such as don't be fucking lazy and disrespectful by responding with a picture of a roach instead of a verbal rejoinder. This breaks my heart writing this too because /lit/, in general, doesn't take itself too seriously, but socializing the barbarians takes priority over our footloose spirit in this case.

And don't respond by posting a roach, you predictable turd.

[Anonymous No.2635550]

>>2635522

Who gives a fuck about another off-topic thread?

Nobody.

I'd have thought you were all fucking used to it by now with the amount of shit you pump into this board. Even /tv/ is more on topic than /lit/.

[Anonymous No.2635551]

>Quality post, or I'm gone.

We're waiting, OP.

Actually no we're not. You're not going anywhere, you just wanted to start a thread to validate the time you're wasting here. Do you fell better?

[Anonymous No.2635553]

>>2635547
Did you just imply that there is a spectrum with intellectual and pleb somewhere on it?

[Anonymous No.2635555]

>>2635549

>but on /lit/, we still have tacit rules

[Anonymous No.2635556]

>>2635551
I think he's feeling worse now.

[Anonymous No.2635558]

>>2635553
You imply, I state.

[Anonymous No.2635560]

There aren't enough girls, there are too many white power cuckolds, and there is an excess of sub-literate high schoolers.

[Anonymous No.2635563]

>>2635558
And you've decided this spectrum just so happens to align perfectly with your thoughts on literary theory, so that the people you agree with are better than those who don't agree with you? Why not just come up with a list of rules for what it means to be a "true fan" of literature?

[Anonymous No.2635567]

>>2635563
You use too many words. I have faith in my opinion, yes.

So, for fuck's sake? Your point?

[Anonymous No.2635571]

>>2635567
I don't have one, I was just curious.

[Anonymous No.2635573]

>>2635563
You see, this is why I don't bother with the roaches.

They use logical fallacies, and argue for sake of argument instead of trying to find a solution or exchanging actual knowledge of something.

That's why I post a roach, when dealing with roachs.

Less taxing on me, and makes them less relevant (just like IRL).

[Anonymous No.2635578]

>>2635573

stop trying to force your faggy roach meme

[Anonymous No.2635592]

>>2635573
>I'm a unique little snowflake
>I eschew stringent refutation because no matter what valid arguments others may make against me, they all melt in the glow of my inherent superiority.

LOL, there is nothing more obnoxious than a sophomore Nietzschean.

[Anonymous No.2635595]

>>2635571
>preposterious! you should feel stupid for being so sure, I'm absolutely sure of it
is what you're saying. Marvel at the hypocrisy.

[Anonymous No.2635598]

>>2635573
>That's why I post a roach, when dealing with roachs.
This makes no sense. It's like biting yourself when you get hit on the head.

[Anonymous No.2635604]

>>2635595
Where are you getting that from? I was genuinely curious about your standpoint, and in the second from last post I pushed it just a little with an argument that was frankly silly, and you gave a little more info. I can't really find out much else about what you think on /lit/, can I?

[Anonymous No.2635607]

>>2635604
In other words, you were just wasting my time? Is that what you're saying now?

[Anonymous No.2635610]

>>2635607
You're on /lit/ my friend, I wouldn't be too worried about that.

[Anonymous No.2635613]

>this thread

[Anonymous No.2635620]

>>2635560
Add in that there is also an excess of smug college pseudo-intellectuals and you have summed up all that is wrong with /lit/ in a nutshell.

Also to add my two cents to the literary criticism argument: there is value in literary criticism, it's just that modern lit crit has interbred with other fields and mutated into something unrecognizable and awful.