/lit/ - Literature

[Sam's mom No.3111478]

Has /lit/ ever considered that fiction might be a load of shit?
It seems like philosophy and scientific theses are a lot more valuable and could potentially be just as entertaining, since they relate at an end to the things in our life.
I mean, I still read fiction all the time.

[Anonymous No.3111492]

It doesn't even make sense to discuss this.

Valuable? Heh. Fucked up functionalism at its peak. As if we should read "for something", even fiction is put in terms of "I read to be entertained". Damn, you guys are fucked up.

[Sam's mom No.3111494]

Did I phrase myself wrong, I wonder.

[Anonymous No.3111496]

Fiction is just bastardised poetry.

[Anonymous No.3111498]

Fiction is already a load of shit, Sam's mom. It's part of the whole construction.

It's a load of shit that's presented in an entertaining way.

[Anonymous No.3111503]

>The term Ivory Tower originates in the Biblical Song of Solomon (7,4), and was later used as an epithet for Mary.
From the 19th century it has been used to designate a world or atmosphere where intellectuals engage in pursuits that are disconnected from the practical concerns of everyday life. As such, it usually carries pejorative connotations of a wilful disconnect from the everyday world; esoteric, over-specialized, or even useless research; and academic elitism, if not outright condescension.

[Sam's mom No.3111506]

>>3111496
True.
A novel is a really long poem which will undoubtedly lose it's rhythm, right?
Someone would have to be able to memorize a whole book if they wanted to be able to write it like a poem, right?

[Anonymous No.3111508]

I read whatever the fuck I want.

[Sam's mom No.3111514]

>>3111503
And why did you give me this data?

[Sam's mom No.3111517]

>>3111508
That's nice.

[Sam's mom No.3111522]

Ah, the pseudo intellectuals of /lit/ once again teach me nothing.
I better go make sandwiches for Sammy.

[Anonymous No.3111528]

>>3111522
You always find what you're looking for, Sam's mom.

How fat is your son? Why are you feeding him "sandwiches" instead of "a" sandwich?

[Anonymous No.3111535]

Schoppy is the only one I need.

[Sam's mom No.3111532]

>>3111528
Not as fat as you, son.

[Anonymous No.3111539]

>>3111532
5'10'' and 175 lbs, baby.

You single?

[Sam's dad No.3111546]

>>3111539
...

[Anonymous No.3111547]

>>3111478
Yeah, but they are not art.
Literature is not about entertainment or teaching you stuff. Literature is about aesthetics, and you had a terrible education for not knowing that.

[Anonymous No.3111551]

>>3111546
I can take you and your anti-fiction bride.

[Sam's mom No.3111557]

>>3111551
I am n't anti-fiction.
I still read it, but dream of a future where we don't have to play pretend.

[Sam's mom No.3111558]

>>3111547
Let's not get in to how terrible or not my education is. That's exactly why I started a discussion, to learn these things.

[Anonymous No.3111562]

>>3111557
What do you mean play pretend?

[Anonymous No.3111565]

>>3111557
So you're not anti-fiction, you're just against coming up with "pretend" premises and talking about them.

Do tell.

[Sam's mom No.3111566]

>>3111547
Also, I'm pretty sure referring to "fiction" as "they" is grammatically incorrect.

[Anonymous No.3111571]

>>3111558
Well it's kinda frustrating, sorry about that.

But those arguments come from a categorical mistake.

Literature can be informative and entertaining, but it's not its function.
In the same way that math can be entertaining but it's not its function.

It's a categorical mistake.

You would not say "videogames are more entertaining then math, so we don't need math".

In the same way there are things that are more entertaining and informative than literature, but they miss the essence of literature.

And the essence of literature is to produce aesthetic works.

[Anonymous No.3111575]

>>3111566
The they refers to philosophy and scientific theses

[Anonymous No.3111576]

>>3111566
I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt here and say he was referring to your remark about "scientific theses" and "philosophy."

Just a thought.

[Sam's mom No.3111579]

>>3111562
>>3111565
Are you people just going to poke holes in my sentences or could you possibly provide some kind of input aside of intellectual masturbation?

[Anonymous No.3111589]

>>3111579
Well now you're ignoring your own statement.

You said you don't want to play pretend. Those two anons asked you to explain what you meant by "play pretend."

Don't be silly, especially since you tried to poke holes in another anon's sentence (which was completely correct, grammatically).

[Sam's mom No.3111587]

>>3111575
>>3111576
Oh, right.
Sorry.

[Anonymous No.3111591]

>>3111478

Philosophy is more worthless than fiction. Cause fiction authors admits to it all being their imagination. Philosophers think they hold some highest form of truth.

Scientific books has nothing to do with this.

[Anonymous No.3111592]

>>3111579
Well we are trying to understand what you mean.

Because for example you have this idea that science and philosophy is about truth while literature is about fiction, as in false.

But that's not the case, milan kundera for example says that literature, specifically in the form of the novel, is the art of possibilities.

So the opposition is not really clear and not that solid.

[Sam's mom No.3111595]

>>3111589
By "play pretend" I meant an exploration of something in a meaningless way.
But I said that on a whim,
I don't actually think so anymore after,
yes, 5 minutes.

[Sam's mom No.3111600]

>>3111591
I think you might be wrong.

[Anonymous No.3111612]

>>3111579
>poke holes in my sentences

No one is poking holes, you just don't know what the words you use means, you don't know their context and you don't think before you write. No one has to say anything on this horrible thread for you to learn something, because it's only a matter of you to stop to listen to yourself and the way you take certain things for granted. In fact, you wouldn't learn if someone said anything, because just by reading you, we can tell you're not willing to listen. Let me rephrase that: maybe you are willing, but you wouldn't listen anyway. So your goal with the thread is not full of holes, for it doesn't have any basis for us to poke holes. It's empty. Just as much as your ideas on fiction, philosophy or science.

[Anonymous No.3111611]

>>3111595
And again you're speaking in vague terms.

Exploring a fictional thesis is not meaningless from a logical standpoint; the first kind of scientific exploration of anything was the Socratic seminar, which begins with "Suppose that..." and continues from there.

I know you're not intending these statements to come across this way, but it really seems like you're anti-fiction, anti-logic, anti-fun, and generally unintelligent.

[Anonymous No.3111617]

>>3111595
I find that a lot of readers today have a great deal of difficulty reading.
They read novels in the way they would read a newspapre, expecting information or to get a story out of it.

But that's not how you have to read literature. One of the objectives of literature is not to explore and tell you information about something. But to teach you how to speak and write and generally express yourself.

A lot of literature has a lot of excellent sentences that you can learn and use and will help you make sense of your own experiences and thoughts.

[Sam's mom No.3111716]

>>3111611
Yeah, I am n't really the brightest.

[Sam's mom No.3111721]

>>3111612
Okay.