/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.7266263]

>1700s
>get arrested for writing BDSM
>2011
>nobody gives a shit about 50 shades of Grey

Is there anything that could actually shock American audiences in the 21st century?

[Anonymous No.7266273]

I think Americans could be shocked, could be shocked if somebody showed them what was buried deep inside us stupid motherfuckers.

[Anonymous No.7266275]

120 Days of Sodom is significantly worse than 50 Shades.

Also as an aside I have that translation and it is so bad it's funny.

[Anonymous No.7266278]

>he thinks 120 days of sodom and 50 shades of grey are in any way similar

[Anonymous No.7266285]

good art can be shocking, but art born out of the desire to shock is excrement.

[Anonymous No.7266287]

he was a prisoner in the bastille but he got kicked out for shouting pro revolutionary/sexually charged slogans at the people who passed below his window.

[Anonymous No.7266292]

>>7266263

[Anonymous No.7266295]

>>7266263
The Room and most everything else by Selby are tailor-made to trigger Americans. Corregidora, by Gayle Jones will do it too.

[Anonymous No.7266359]

>>7266263
>slavery/bonded labor played straight, rather than historical or "ohhh look how terrible white people were"
>depictions of severe child abuse/ sexual abuse
>anything depicting breaking someones will or agency
your average manga or the bible basically

[Anonymous No.7266388]

>>7266278
De sade was just an edgy hipster faggot and retards like you only take his books seriously because they've been plastered with the "classic" label due to their age.

[Anonymous No.7266391]

Yes. Traditionalism

[Anonymous No.7266407]

>>7266391
Literally just Hesiod's 5 ages of man.

[Anonymous No.7266411]

>>7266388
this - it's actually true. in your lifetime you will see shit you wouldn't believe being given the classic treatment simply because of its age. e.g., i predict fight club will be an example of this.

[Anonymous No.7266415]

>>7266391

Get that stupid crusader out of the way I want to read the rest

[Anonymous No.7266420]

>>7266359


>depictions of severe child abuse/ sexual abuse

americans are sick fucks who actually enjoy this shit in fact there is a whole cottage industry centered around dubious child abuse memoirs

[Anonymous No.7266429]

>>7266411
No, if you actually read anything that wasn't a "classic," you'd realize that for example most every novel people obssesed over and declared to be "the end all be all of novels" in the 18th century is virtually unknown today

>>7266388
De Sade's life and work are absurdly influential in modern French philosophy and sociology, but hey, I won't keep you from holding onto your edgy contrarian opinions

[Anonymous No.7266430]

>>7266420
simply dont play it as inspirational
make it cynical
instant outrage

[Anonymous No.7266434]

>>7266429
You know who else is influential? Tao Lin.

[Anonymous No.7266439]

>>7266263
>Is there anything that could actually shock American audiences in the 21st century?

Self responsibility
Criminals getting shot while committing crimes

[Anonymous No.7266441]

>>7266263

50 shades of grey is barely even BDSM.

A better comparison would be the la Histoire d'O.

Its hilarious because they're basically the exact same book with the exact same setting and themes that received the exact same criticisms. The big difference being that Histoire d'O was actually sexy.

[Anonymous No.7266444]

>>7266434
;^*

[Anonymous No.7266451]

>>7266430

That's because what you suggest is indeed outrageous - outrageously stupid and juvenile. The same goes, actually, for this sort of sensationalized, exploitve idiocy in general. You cannot criticize someone for being outraged at the outrageous.

[Anonymous No.7266465]

the word nigger

[Anonymous No.7266493]

>>7266420
Bored evangelical Christian women always need something to feel like they're l saving. Probably the lowest form of American.

[Anonymous No.7266499]

>>7266451
>implying any critique was going on
you're easy to troll

[Anonymous No.7266537]

There's more to that book than shock. Pure shock value is such a fucking yawn.

[Anonymous No.7266547]

>>7266537
I think you proved the op's point that shock isn't shocking anymore

[Anonymous No.7266552]

>>7266263
Salo is shocking for American audiences in the 21st century.

[Anonymous No.7266555]

>>7266429
i dont know what you mean. people in the 18th century loved tom jones, clarissa, robinson crusoe, etc. they were hits.

also, i dont think im wrong about fight club. i dont mean that people will read it 200 years from now, but i think publishers will give it the classic treatment 50 years from now. look at a terrible novel like aldous huxley's island... harper wraps it up in its 'harper perennial modern classics' template just because the guy wrote brave new world (another mediocre novel). i think picador publishes fight club here in america. in 40 years, no doubt, picador will have Classic somewhere on the fight club cover, and it'll be put on lists of Classic Books You Should Read Over the Summer and stuff. in the long run, maybe it'll drift into oblivion, but in the shorter run it's publishers and like Time magazine who determine what most people think of as classic. For example, lots of people think to kill a mockingbird is a classic. HP lovecraft, jack kerouac, and philip k dick have with age become more and more likely to be put in the 'classic' mindspace. I think you'll be incredibly surprised by how people 40 years from now will regard some of the books we sneer at.

[Anonymous No.7266561]

What translation is the best for Sade?
I want to read most of his works.

[Anonymous No.7266572]

>>7266547
pure shock is shocking, but that's where it stops, is what he was saying i'm guessing.

[Anonymous No.7266580]

>>7266415
http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2014/092814_files/TheFateofEmpiresbySirJohnGlubb.pdf

[Anonymous No.7266614]

>>7266555
i want to add to this that publishers are really eager to push as classic anything in their arsenal that they can get away with. they dont wait for academics to approve. any literary fiction that sells a lot they want to continue to sell and when it's suitably old labeling it a 'classic' is a good way to ensure it does. or if it's not suitably old - 'modern classic.' this year - picador is putting out a series of books called 'picador modern classics' with stuff like eugenides's the virgin suicides and jonathan franzen's first novel. are these the modern classics? well, no, but they're pretty well-regarded literary novels that the publisher owns and they came out a long enough time ago.

[Anonymous No.7266617]

>>7266547
Which is great.

[Anonymous No.7266627]

How come empowered women today like a novel where a capitalist slaps their ass?

[Anonymous No.7266630]

>>7266627
become feminism is bourgeois as fuck

>identity politics over class-based analysis

And they call feminism 'leftist' leleelee

[Anonymous No.7266644]

>>7266263

This book would shock today. They fuck kids and kill them at the end.


If you wrote a modern version of this book it would shock.

[Anonymous No.7266676]

120DoS makes 50SoG look like something that would air on a kid's channel, and not even a vaguely sexual Dan Schneider series either.
120DoS would shock the majority of Americans. Even the most typical bit of modernist music would shock them.

[Anonymous No.7266681]

>>7266627

BECAUSE SEXUAL KINKS SAY NOTHING ABOUT ME PERSONALLY YOU SHITLORD

[Anonymous No.7266690]

>>7266681
trying too hard

[Anonymous No.7266697]

>>7266681

Why do feminists call an anti-feminist a "shitlord"?

[Anonymous No.7266708]

>>7266697
The guy you responded to is an anti-feminist. He's parodying one.

[Anonymous No.7266715]

>>7266708

I know, but still, feminists call people "shitlord". Seen it many times.

[Anonymous No.7266720]

>>7266715
You're probably just noticing the MRA impersonation crowd

[Anonymous No.7266721]

>>7266263
I dunno, but if there is I wanna write it. At the very least I want to piss people/systems off through satire of their institutions

[Anonymous No.7266725]

>>7266720

>MRA

Hahaha, right, and they have cheetos dust on their sweatpants too hu?? XD

[Anonymous No.7266729]

>>7266721
>I want to piss people/systems off through satire of their institutions
...so Parody?

[Anonymous No.7266730]

>>7266285
Delta of Venus falls into this category, and I thought it was top notch

[Anonymous No.7266736]

>>7266295
Only serious answer itt getting ignored. Good job, retards.

[Anonymous No.7266741]

>>7266725
what?

Did I touch a nerve or something?

[Anonymous No.7266752]

>>7266627
there are literally thousands of blogs and essays in big publications from women who are stronk feminist womyn that have a fleeting doubt about their feminism when they realize they like to be choked and dominated during sex and their essay serves to somehow valorise that they are still a feminist even though their urges to be sexually dominated are as primal as men's to dominate.

#proud
#strong
#feminist

[Anonymous No.7266770]

>>7266752

Gee, I wonder if that thing might be called 'biology'?
But that can't be the case, can it? No, there must be some sort of social event or factor which has determined my liking for alpha males pounding me into submission.

[Anonymous No.7266793]

>>7266627
as opposed to a commie dictator? I wonder how

[Anonymous No.7266812]

>>7266770
if its an epigenetic cause, socio-economic or political reasons and environmental factors can totally factor in to why you're such a good whore who loves the cock

[Anonymous No.7266817]

>>7266770
i know this semen demon!

[Anonymous No.7266822]

>>7266817

Personally? Or from the internet?

[Anonymous No.7266828]

>>7266770
Your choice to satiate biological affinities isn't reducible to a biological affinity itself. i.e your choice to play into your non-chosen attraction to chad is explainable through nurture

[Anonymous No.7266830]

>>7266715
It came from ShitRedditSays, who I believe borrowed it from their original home at Something Awful.

Basically, you're looking at the output of a leftist SJW contempt-powered shitposting vortex, one equal in power and cancerousness to our own right-wing edgelord contempt-powered shitposting vortex.

[Anonymous No.7266834]

>>7266828
so is the choice not to

[Anonymous No.7266836]

>>7266830
Whoa dude, it's nice to see another /b/ro who is above it all :)

[Anonymous No.7266840]

>>7266828

Your theory suggests women would get horny at the thought of a doormat with no muscle structure of any kind if institutions raised them to do so.

[Anonymous No.7266843]

>>7266834
Explanation of moral incentive through nurture inherently relies on assumptions of psychological egoism, so no

[Anonymous No.7266848]

>>7266840
No it doesn't.

[Anonymous No.7266853]

>>7266843
>acting against own desires
>is moral incentive through nurture

[Anonymous No.7266861]

>>7266848

Than nurture is nothing more than the current discourse that exists about naturally induced inclinations.

[Anonymous No.7266862]

>>7266853
Are you implying I implied that or are you just reddit-esque appropriating green text to state your own opinion? either way, I don't agree.

[Anonymous No.7266872]

>>7266861
naturally through the effect of environment
>>7266862
>implying all choices are made through moral incentive
>starts complaining about "appropiating" things
>calls me a redditor
youre straight up fucking retarded

[Anonymous No.7266878]

>>7266263
Easy. Write a book where Arabic freedom fighters are portrayed positively. Extra points if 9/11 is involved and not presented as the most horrible thing ever.

[Anonymous No.7266879]

>>7266861
Sort of. Acting moral can be explained through nurture, and moral incentive can be provoked by nurture, but the choice is unbound.

[Anonymous No.7266881]

>>7266878

That wouldn't shock American audiences, but would be welcomes by at least half of them, you fucking redditor.
You probably believe Faux News installs presidents.

[Anonymous No.7266884]

>>7266263
A nipple

[Anonymous No.7266891]

>>7266872
Meme arrows are traditionally used to state the implications of the post you're replying to, it seemed you were using them to instead state your opinion. That would be reddit-esque appropriation. I think you're a little upset lad.

None of the above imply all choices are made "through" moral incentive. That doesn't really mean anything even. I was more so saying >>7266879

[Anonymous No.7266892]

>>7266881
And we have the first volunteer for the book burning. Thanks for proving my point, mate.

[Anonymous No.7266893]

>>7266884
>this
a nipple.... while children are present, in full view of it

[Anonymous No.7266900]

>>7266891
being a slut isnt related to morality

[Anonymous No.7266905]

>Is there anything that could actually shock American audiences in the 21st century?
I'd say modern American society would be much easier to shock than it was in the 80s.

[Anonymous No.7266908]

>>7266900
>he hasn't unpeeled all the layers to revisionary hedonism yet

[Anonymous No.7266924]

>>7266908
it isnt
even if its against your "morals" to suck cock, if you were raised in a stressful environment that lowered your serotonin and dopamine levels that it shrinks your amygdala during development to the point you dont have the physical cognitive ability to act on moral decisions over acute impulsive reactions

[Anonymous No.7266929]

>>7266924
>dont have the physical cognitive ability to act on moral decisions over acute impulsive reactions
I would like to agree to disagree at this point and simply state that I don't believe this has ever been the case.

[Anonymous No.7266945]

>>7266929
physically have less brain matter in the decision part of the brain
>doesnt believe this effects the function and ability to make decisions
You really are retarded

[Anonymous No.7266967]

>>7266263
Pic related will make 50 shades look as safe as Barney the Dinosaur as well as question you about Christian Grey and about human nature.

>>7266770
It's not biology. It's pathology. It means something's wrong with the organism. The same about the urge to dominate. Sadism and masochism are illnesses, because no sane person would ever get pleasure from abusing others or getting abused.

[Anonymous No.7266985]

>>7266945
I think it is you, anon, who is retarded. As previously stated, I do not deny this. I simply assert there is always a choice by virtue of living. If you've derived anything more from what I've said you're just looking for someone to make up to ejaculate your power levels onto

One most also necessarily adopt a moral position in contextualizing social behavior, which is why the contention something isn't related to morality is nonsensical.

[Anonymous No.7266999]

>>7266967
Terrible film tbh fam.

[Anonymous No.7267007]

>>7266945
>effects

[Anonymous No.7267015]

>>7266967
>no sane person would ever get pleasure from abusing others or getting abused.
Spooks: the post.

[Anonymous No.7267022]

>>7267015
this anon b like welcome to the real world where we gritty fam

[Anonymous No.7267024]

>>7266967
>illnesses
It's just a kink bro, chill out

[Anonymous No.7267032]

>>7266967

Care to define insanity? Seems like a useless notion of the idea.

Also,

>It means something's wrong with the organism. The same about the urge to dominate.

Have all of my wats.

[Anonymous No.7267036]

Americans circa 2015AD are too experienced to be shocked by anything they can understand. It requires a great amount of psychological momentum and independence to conceive of the next vista of horror.

Simply stacking things like pedophilia or murder creates a prosaic mudpuddle - it's not shocking to see what we judge to be abuse, it's either frustrating or numbing.

If you try to express something that would shock them, they first have to understand what you're saying. Saying things to them like 'your reality is constructed by the synaptic structure within your nervous system; this synaptic structure is recorded in neuron DNA; learned responses to stimuli can be inherited - you inherit the synaptic structure of your ancestors,' results in accusations of stupidity, boredom or laughter.

Mind control is old hat, and results in frustration or no feeling at all from the audience. Instead, what would godlike self-control induce? That is - what about people who can control their own thoughts and emotions?

PKD hit upon all this in 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,' and none of it turned up in 'Blade Runner.' Most people who read the novel probably never, truly tried to imagine what it would be like to control your own mind.

A facet of DNI thought control that few have ever considered is how the hypothetical totalitarian use of it renders totalitarianism redundant. If you've ever noticed, people will search for what enrages you - the stimulus that induces the dominance response is that of defiance. Without defiance, it feels like sex without the orgasm.

Think of how normal human drives create horror today, and imagine how those drives will be expressed via technology. '1984' predicted soviet-style cultural retardation. 'Brave New World' predicted public sex. Instead, we get a massive global porn industry that services people in the privacy of their homes, to the point of supposedly endangering reproduction in some countries.

Imagine a world that went the opposite way of '1984.' Instead of people forcing each other into a single power structure, everyone slowly stops interacting. Stanislaw Lem expresses a version of this idea in his 'Cyberiad.'

In ancient times, the Celts lived in fortified cities - the suffix 'burg' means 'fort.' This was enabled by iron working, which allowed them to exist outside of the bronze trade routes. Imagine, via 3D printing, that every man became a berg. Imagine if via bioprinting, every strange fantasy came alive in someone's basement.

HP Lovecraft's 'The Rats in the Walls' suggests what might exist in that basement. He mentions that evolution occurs in the pit described in the story, and different human subtypes coexisted in a miniature world beneath the soil.

But fantasy and sci-fi are supposedly for plebs. Maybe your angst is caused by boredom, due to a lack of intellectual challenges?

[Anonymous No.7267037]

>>7267032