[ 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: 22 KB, 545x223, ph.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3454426 No.3454426 [Reply] [Original]

Weren't we going to change to /hum/? Did moot ever say anything?

>> No.3454429

Nope.

This is still strictly a literature board.

>> No.3454433
File: 59 KB, 281x346, 1293795326360.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3454433

>>3454429
Welcome to /lit/

>> No.3454463

Religion and history ought to remain /pol/'s domain. This saddens me, as an amateur historian, but I find that the board's quality benefits in both the short and long term from a lack of overtly hyperconservative posters who just yell "jooooos" at anything they don't like.
Music certainly doesn't belong here, as that's a wide enough realm to require at least one board.
We've pretty much got literature and philosophy, which leaves only art, which, in my experience, is also open to discussion on /lit/.

>> No.3454470

>>3454463
aren't historians just a bunch of pretentious wankers regurgitating and copy-pasting facts from history books?

>> No.3454474

>>3454470
How's high school?

>> No.3454477

>>3454463
Religion and history isn't /pol/'s domain at all. That's like saying science is /g/'s domain.

>> No.3454479

>>3454470
Please get off the board or at least grow up and lurk before posting.

>> No.3454485

>>3454477
What I mean by that is that /pol/ is where those subjects are brought up and argues over more often than on other boards, specifically /lit/. History threads never last long on /lit/, unless they lament the loss of the Alexandrian library.

>> No.3454490

>>3454474
>>3454479
but it's pretty accurate. it is nothing but facts extrapolated from books. sheer speculation.

historians are truly wankers. i cannot help but laugh at those ridiculous faggots trying to come off as big shots spouting a bunch of trivial facts out of their vaginas. internet 'amateur' historians are probably the worst.

>> No.3454491

>>3454485
Political history is naturally brought up when discussing politics, but /lit/ is still the best board to discuss history per se.

>> No.3454493

As an artfag, it's difficult to find art threads. Hell, even art threads are sometimes deleted on /lit/. I can understand, since it's not always directly related to literature but then again I'm quite disappointed because 4chan is an imageboard and most of art is visual.
I think one general art thread should be tolerated on this board, since literature is the closest to art.

>> No.3454504
File: 64 KB, 500x631, backinthedays.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3454504

>>3454490

>> No.3454513

This board is about books, period. "Literature" merely means something written; it's descriptive, not judgemental.

I see no reason to restrict the topics of /lit/ because some try-hard small-cocked idiots feel edgy.

I suggest we make a new board called /pynchonwallace/ and have all the edgy teenagers chat there.

>> No.3454515

>>3454513
But Pynchon and Wallace wrote books, so shouldn't they be allowed on our board about written things too?

>> No.3454534

>>3454515
>so shouldn't they be allowed on our board about written things too?

Sir, 80% of this board consists of Pynchon or Wallace at any given time. You will seldom spend an hour here without encountering either and their host of fanboys, hence my suggestion of deporting them to Madagascar or some summer camps in Poland.

>> No.3454547

>>3454513
>This board is about books, period. "Literature" merely means something written; it's descriptive, not judgemental.
Yes...
>I see no reason to restrict the topics of /lit/ because some try-hard small-cocked idiots feel edgy.
...I agree...
>I suggest we make a new board called /pynchonwallace/ and have all the edgy teenagers chat there.
...5/10, mild rustling developing.

In seriousness, yes talk about anything, but like everywhere else respect board culture. Don't think that talking about Halo novels (or similar) on /lit/ is any more acceptable than discussing the Halo soundtrack on /mu/, or the Halo short films on /tv/.

>> No.3454551

music and religious studies? Fuck right off.

>> No.3454555

>>3454547
>In seriousness, yes talk about anything, but like everywhere else respect board culture. Don't think that talking about Halo novels (or similar) on /lit/ is any more acceptable than discussing the Halo soundtrack on /mu/, or the Halo short films on /tv/.

Respect board culture? How's that? There are rules to respect and that's enough. If someone wants to discuss the Doom novels on /lit/, I see no reason to oppose that, considering I can just as well ignore that thread and move on. Don't tel me you feel a compulsory need to actually check the thread, read all its comments, and participate? Does the thread force you to purchase the infamous Halo novel?

If you like to study literature, even shit can be interesting. I'm definitely certain a lot of people are very curious as to what the Doom novels actually contain, etc.

Like I said, if you don't like it, you don't have to read it, and that takes all of 1 second to skip, so I don't see the source of the butthurt in this case.

>> No.3454558
File: 36 KB, 180x200, 1303390739139.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3454558

>>3454551

>humanities should not include music and religions because I don't like them!

>> No.3454559

>>3454555
>Respect board culture? How's that? There are rules to respect and that's enough.
>he doesn't know about explicit and implicit rules
They cover that shit in high school, so I'm guessing underage b&.

>> No.3454562

>>3454555
No, we have a right to voice our concerns regarding the shitposts on the board. Individual Game of Thrones, Harry Potter ( I don't know anything about doom) threads do not affect the quality of the board however, they must be saged vehemently to avoid a further drop in integrity.

>> No.3454563

>>3454559

There are no implicit rules except the ones you like. I do not give two fucks about your implicit rules; what are you going to do about it?

Nothing.

Talking of High School, we're not in it anymore, so grow the fuck up, sonny.

>> No.3454564

>>3454562

>implying a Harry Potter thread can be in any worse than your cancerous posting made of whining and tears and butthurt

>> No.3454576

>>3454563
>There are no implicit rules except the ones you like.
Wow, no clue whatsoever. Rules are rules, implicit or explicit.
>Talking of High School, we're not in it anymore
With that attitude, I guess you'll remain ignorant forever, while trying to wave around your imaginary intellect-cum-e-dong on internet image boards. You should probably get a trip.

>> No.3454575

>>3454564
>lrn2grammer

>> No.3454580

>>3454563
lol you must be new here.

>> No.3454582

>>3454576

Are you suggesting that if /lit/ was made of 90% Harry Potter readers, you'd actually care about the implicit rule that discussing Potter novels is OK?

We both know you wouldn't, so cut out the crap.

>> No.3454584

>>3454426
literature is specific
humanities is broad, and many people don't know the meaning

>> No.3454585
File: 18 KB, 304x500, Mass_Effect_cover.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3454585

This thread is now about the Mass Effect novels and other novelisations.
---------------------------------------
In the novel's coverage by the video game press, it was described as appealing primarily to fans of the game series. Ars Technica's reviewer wrote that it did an admirable job of laying out the fictional universe, and recommended it to those with an interest in the game. Thunderbolt Games characterized it as "formulaic in just the right ways, as it seamlessly transitions the best aspects of Mass Effect’s interactive fiction into an easily digested, compulsive read for fans of the universe." The reviewer noted that the novel's clean and efficient prose suited the directness of the story and avoided needless infodumps, but "also restrain the book from truly elevating itself to great science-fiction." SF Signal's review of the "decent, if not spectacular, novel" characterized the writing as "workmanlike" and the characters as undeveloped, and criticized the novel's infodumps as well as the omniscient narrator's use of exclamation marks.

>> No.3454586

>>3454584

By "literature", it was only meant "books". There is literature in all of these fields.

>> No.3454589

>>3454582
>We both know you wouldn't, so cut out the crap.
If that were an implicit rule, I wouldn't be here. It isn't, I like the board culture and its rules, and so I here I am.

>> No.3454590
File: 13 KB, 259x194, humanities.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3454590

>>3454426
How about /sta/

Probably has all the bases covered.

>> No.3454594

>>3454590
oh you, always have to rub it in!

>> No.3454595

>>3454589

>I hater Harry Potter so I'm superior
>I judge Harry Potter, which I've never read, so I make very little sense

It's all fine by me, sir, but seriously, judging things you have never read doesn't bode well for your critical abilities, which would be welcome on this board.

Someone offered me the first novel in the series, so I felt obligated to read it, somewhat relectuntly, but didn't think it was horrendous or anything; in fact, I was content that children all over the world read this en masse. It's light years better than a Transformer movie, if you want my honest opinion.

I think very little of the predictable hate for anything popular.

>Britney Spears sings badly (because she's famous)
>your cousin, who doesn't sing as well as Britney, is a fantastic singer (because she's not famous)

I merely demand a little more rigor in your judgement.

>> No.3454683

>>3454586
/lit/ was supposed to be about "books", but it's obviously more than that. Particularly philosophy.

>> No.3454703

>>3454595
That reply makes no sense.

>> No.3454716

>>3454703

...to you.

>> No.3455071
File: 25 KB, 331x273, 1335082566580.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3455071

>>3454429
>This is still strictly a literature board.

>> No.3455646

>>3454555
there is a doom novel? lol

>> No.3455655

>>3454586
By literature it was meant Literature.

>> No.3455672

>>3455655
No actually he is right

>> No.3455699
File: 328 KB, 575x882, page01.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3455699

>>3455646
http://www.doomworld.com/10years/dmcomic/comic.php

>someone mentions Doom

>> No.3455708

>>3454586
No, book is for books
>>>/book/

>> No.3455715

>>3455699
I like Doom, but Doom 3 is better

>> No.3455740

>>3455708
I find >>>/book/ difficult. I want >>>/book/ to be more like /lit/ in posting

>> No.3455743

>>3455715
MF DOOM is even better!

>> No.3455745

>>3455743
No.

>> No.3456812

>>3454463

You can always go to 7chan's /his/tory board.

>> No.3456829

Philosophy is part of /lit/
History can go both ways, but probably more often should be on /pol/
And religion should stay on /sci/ because fuck /sci/

>> No.3456841

>>3456829
Top post in /sci/:
ok scifags critical thinking time

you have a boat in a lake and in the boat is an anchor (the anchor, being a good anchor, has a density larger than that of water) and you throw the anchor overboard.

does the water level of the lake rise fall or stay the same when you throw it in the water

(I know it would be an undetectable change but which would it be)

>> No.3456843

>>3456841
>read that thread
>every conceivable answer is posted once, sometimes twice

I guess this is how science is done.

>> No.3456855

>>3456843
The thing is, I can remember this sort of thing being covered in Beakman's world, which was a program aimed at kids. So presumably it's a question many 10 year olds can work it out.

>> No.3456859

>>3454558
>religion
>>>/b/
and every other board when some retard posts an "atheists vs christians" troll thread.
>music
>>>/mu/

>> No.3456871

>>3456841
I haven't seen the thread, but Fall.

The weight of the anchor would be pushing the boat down into the water. Throwing the anchor in the water would see the boat lift enough to over-compensate for any rise in water level by the anchor being there.

It's a question of the surface area of the boat relative to the weight of an anchor. The anchor is very dense, so it's mass is having a greater effect when pushing down the presumably wooden hull of the boat. When in water it's a small object with a high mass, not displacing much liquid.

>> No.3456978

>>3454490
Yeah! When are we ever gonna use that shit in the REAL WORLD? Fucking nerds. It's like, someone needs to get laid, am I right? Shit, what are we even doing on this dusty-ass book forum? Let's go cruise the strip for some bitches, bro.

>> No.3457002

>>3456829
/sci/'s alright. Was when I used to go there more often, at least.
I'm reluctant to say that anything which can attract actual discussion should be on /pol/ though, since the population of that board seems to consist almost entirely of rabid hard-hard-hard-ultra-far-hard-right people, and Christ would I hate to discuss history with them.

>> No.3457015

>>3456871
>It's a question of the surface area of the boat relative to the weight of an anchor.
No, it's Archimedes principal. A buoyant object displaces it's own weight in water, a non buoyant object displaces its volume. Because the anchor is denser than water (it sinks) its volume is less than the volume of water of the same weight, thus it displaces less water when thrown overboard. You were nearly there, but you're missing an important step in the reasoning. Still, your conclusion was correct.

>> No.3457039

>>3454491
You only say this because it is what you want.
Of course you would.

>> No.3457088

>>3454551
the reason music and religion are relevant to humanities isn't because of justin beiber and GOT IS GREAT but because they shape human cultures from the time cultures have existed.

Keep in mind that the "relevant" 3 aren't the only demonstrations of belief and that music is just the purest expression of feeling we have.

>> No.3457091

>>3457088
GOD*