[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 33 KB, 500x630, CloseUpOfCockroachPhotograph.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2777741 No.2777741[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Hey Roaches,

Instead of talking about books that you haven't read, yet want to read, how about you talk about books that you have read in their entirety and put forward an interesting interpretation/ stimulate intellectual discussion about it?

OH WAIT! You're a stupid roach who doesn't read outside of school curriculum and can't understand a text with sparksnotes!

BWAHAHAHAHAHA

I made myself laugh because I tried to take an inferior life form seriously.

>> No.2777749

"Mod is dead."
-- Neet-She, "the OP Science"

>> No.2777755

I've wanted to do so a few times, but there are few or no other people here who read most of the books I do. So it would just be me talking to myself. And the thread would quickly move on to page 15.

>> No.2777757
File: 73 KB, 500x630, 1341382089703.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2777757

AHAHHAHAHAHAHHA

Feels so good.

>> No.2777768

Good luck. If you try to talk in depth about anything people will just call you a blowhard.

>> No.2777774

M4YB3 YOU COULD TRY ST4RT1NG 4 D1SCUSS1ON 4BOUT 4 SP3C1F1C BOOK 1NST34D OF JUST B31NG 4 J4CK4SS

>> No.2777784

>>2777774
hahahahahaha oh you

with your crazy ideas

>> No.2777787

>>2777768
Or engage in a bullshit argument about semantics and things that aren't relevant or intellectually stimulating, rather just a laborious debate about a topic that would yield no greater insight ever.

I suspect it's initiated by jelous individuals who hold other peoples intellect in contempt, so what they do is try to spin whatever you are talking about, no matter how unrelated it is, into a sphere of knowledge they are familiar with, and then proceed to misapply it to the conversation at hand.

It happens so god-damn much and it's fucken annoying.

For example, talking about the symbols and motifs in The Great Gatsby can quickly turn into a discussion about challenging "academia" approaches to understanding literature, debate about authorial intent, and the "subjective" relevance of taste and "good literature": rather than fucken talking about the book, they turn the discussion into drivel centred around themselves.

For example, I tried to talk about the categorizing literature into it's cause and effects:
-Instruction
-Stimulation

Then some idiot comes along and tries to talk about transcendentalism...bunch of dualist claptrap...

>> No.2777808
File: 1.93 MB, 235x240, m1C1E.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2777808

>>2777787

>> No.2777809
File: 53 KB, 392x500, tldr.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2777809

>>2777787

>> No.2777812

>>2777787
>I tried to talk about the categorizing literature into it's cause and effects

Except that was a retarded attempt. It was not much about people derailing the conversation, more like everyone was making fun of your idea on literature.

Otherwise, I agree with you on your example on Gatsby.

>> No.2777817
File: 16 KB, 232x217, images.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2777817

>>2777812
Who said you can partially agree with me!?!??!

IT'S ALL OR NOTHING!!

>> No.2777840

>tfw op is all talk but can't step up when it comes to actually analyzing jack shit. gets called out on it and tries to edge it off like a fag.

>> No.2777842

Remind me, is Roachfag the guy who literally only understands two techniques (I think they were themes and motifs) and doesn't like anything else being discussed? I know it was one of the crybabies on here.

(and why the fuck would I come to a board to anonymously discuss what I have not read? That's silly)