[ 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: 29 KB, 334x284, reac.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6737628 No.6737628 [Reply] [Original]

Why is /lit/ under 'Other' on the main page? Is it not an interest? Is it not creative?

>> No.6737643

>>6737628
The pretentiousness of its browsers have caused the board to transcend other labels other than 'other'.

idk lol

>> No.6737660
File: 111 KB, 553x517, 1383243589017.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6737660

>>6737643
>idk lol

>> No.6737825
File: 16 KB, 350x167, billevanstrio.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6737825

>idklol

>> No.6737843

>>6737628
Who even visits the front page?

>> No.6738164

Because of its origins. It's basically moot's answer to the rampant "book board" petition.

So you could say it's just like /mlp/: a place to keep annoying fags out of the other boards.

>> No.6738167
File: 257 KB, 500x374, 1362861135281.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6738167

>>6738164
Aren't all the boards places to keep annoying fags out of all the other boards?

Thank God /lit/ exists, we sure wouldn't want them shitting up /v/ or /a/!

>> No.6738185
File: 1.66 MB, 756x9800, I'm not even mad. I'm just so disappointed.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6738185

>>6738167
>>6737628
Because you are just as bad as everyone else

>> No.6738192

>>6738185
No shit. That's pretty much exactly what I said.

Just go back to you cartoons, man, words are too much for you.

>> No.6738199

/lit/ is on par intellectually with /tv/ and /r9k/

>> No.6738205
File: 72 KB, 450x654, 86z3g.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6738205

>>6738199
But Anion, teevee likes Tarantinolan, literally the GOAT Windows Movie Maker. And r9k wears a lot of fedoras so they must be pretty smart. /lit/ is clearly the /fa/ of literature.

>> No.6738208

>>6738192
No.

>> No.6738216

>>6738205
I would agree that /lit/ is almost as pathetic as /fa/ but the influx of plebs has also rendered the shit taste as bad as /tv/

>> No.6738220

>>6738216
May you tell me what you consider to be good taste? I am genuinely curious. Not being sarcastic.

>> No.6738247

>>6738220
I would say my taste is pretty good. Harold Bloom's taste is alright.

>> No.6738285

>>6738247
Alright, thank you. I didn't know him but I researched from Wikipedia and this made good sense: "a feminist or Marxist reading of Hamlet would tell us something about feminism and Marxism, he says, but probably nothing about Hamlet itself".

What do you think about the meme authors here? Pynchon, DFW, Wolfe..?

>> No.6738303

It might fit under interests better, but it's definitely not creative. There's literally one thread about writing, and it's incredibly slow. Every time someone tries to start a new one, they're told to take it to the critique general. /toy/ talks about customs and designing their own toys more than /lit/ talks about writing.

I think it's under other because it discusses more philosophy and religion and history than actually discussing books. Books are discussed here based on their literary and cultural merit as opposed to something like /tv/ where shows are discussed in an 'is it good? Did you like it?' sense.

>> No.6738312

>>6738285
>What do you think about the meme authors here?
Pynchon, Joyce, and Wallace really are some of the most advanced and technically proficient writers in the english language. This doesn't mean they're the best or most enjoyable.

I think newfags often just mindlessly regurgitate the "meme" without understanding why they became popular on /lit/ in the first place. I've never read gene wolfe but he seems alright.

>> No.6738316

>>6738303
>Books are discussed here based on their literary and cultural merit as opposed to something like /tv/ where shows are discussed in an 'is it good? Did you like it?' sense

Evidence that literature is dead.

>> No.6738319

>>6738312
OK. Thank you for your view and explanation.

>> No.6739925

>>6738303
>i have never been on /tv/