/lit/ - Literature

Ooh!

"The sky above the port was the color of..."

>>2699794

YOU MOTHERFUCKER

>>2675720

Layne Staley was sometimes a good lyracist. Sometimes. Some of their better songs were written by Jerry Cantrell, though.

>>2675520

Fixed that for you.

Eh, we already had this thread. Don't tire it out.

>>2667345

Hahahaha yes, yes I am.

>>2667322

My father is French-Canadian. "Au contraire" is an expression he used a number of times around the house when I was growing up. It wasn't meant to be some show of conceit.

>>2667290

Au contraire, the problem is mostly that nobody is as well read as they should be, given the arguments they're involved in or the sweeping judgment of books they're passing, so having some level of accountability is useful.

Really, the problem probably has a lot to do with how old the posters here are, and we can't really regulate that, but it's not really trips. Hell, that roach guy isn't a trip, and he's fucking irritating.

/lit/ is in dire need of some sort of rigid social contract to limit the amount of bullshit that goes on here. I don't suppose Moot imagined so when he created /lit/, but it's increasingly obvious.

All the pictures in this series.

>>2662572

Well, if that's the case, at least he was hipster before it was really cool, given the fact his career has spanned four decades and "hipsterism" as we know it has been popular for about five years.

>>2662441

You're clearly being an ass-head, sir.

Sunhawk, I am completely unable to address the actual topic of this thread because I have an insatiable urge to find whoever it is that drew the picture you posted and punch him repeatedly in the dick. Seriously.

Finnegan's Wake isn't the sort of book you want to tackle unless you: have a near complete mastery of the English language and all of its peripheral languages and dialects; have a high level of command of wordplay; are able to interpret experimental text; understand European history, British history, Irish history, the culture and social landscape of Dublin, the history of the Church, and every other subject that James Joyce farted around; and are willing to not just read it but to spend a considerable amount of time actually studying it.

If you don't do this, it's like reading a book in a language you hardly understand. There's no point in doing it. None at all.

>>2649441

Yeah, that was a rather offensive and provacative comment on my part. My being a tripfag perhaps has everything to do with it.

>>2649407

I don't think it's a wise thing to do, or really even possible, to separate a writer and all his/her eccentricities from his/her work.

Read Diary. Awful. Damned was a huge let-down given the premise. But Rant was fucking awesome. Just a bizarre, crazy, colorful trip. Here, he wasn't so concerned about being edgy or being today's voice. He just delivered a genuinely creative and fun story.

Some of the people here aren't teenagers.

>>2647435

But DFW hanged himself in 2008, didn't he? When did /lit/ launch?

Either way,
>Most of /lit/ are more comparable to the bandwagon jumpers they make fun of than they realize.
I'm sure for the portion of this board that doesn't need to make impressions and doesn't feel obliged to prove things to eachother, this is thankfully untrue, but for the rest of /lit/, yeah. Worse yet, /lit/ constantly engages the sort of self-appraisal that we're doing right now, and it's probably just honest frustration right now, but god forbid that become fashionable, too: hating /lit/ with the same myopia that allows us to hate Vonnegut and the like, the same way every 4chan user despises 4chan and other 4channers and everything 4chan stands for. That only further confounds things.

>>2647364

See, no. As soon as those things become widely accepted as the norm, as required reading and as "good", we'll just as soon turn on them and dismiss them as utter drivel for this that or the other reason but really just because a lot of people enjoy, in this scenario, Vonnegut and McCarthy, and if a lot of people enjoy Vonnegut and McCarthy, it means all of the idiots (which we contend are most people) enjoy Vonnegut and McCarthy, and if something is accessible to stupid, ordinary people, it must mean that thing is bereft of literary or any other sort of artistic merit. Thus we reject it. And, in fact, Vonnegut, Nietzsche, and McCarthy are already shat upon regularly here as bush league material.

You are correct, though; /lit/ isn't really about qualified assessment, it's about fashion.

>>2643543

This is one of the most profoundly funny things I've heard in some time. Touche.

Some of the Jonny Truant exerpts can have a sort of Palahniukian excess to them (Yes, we know, you have lots of sex, yes, it's graphic...) and that's basically all I disliked about the book, but the main complaint everyone seems to have about it is that it's babby's first postmodern metanovel work, as though these qualities make for a bad book or story, which of course they don't.

It's a great book, it just has a bit more of a 'tude than what really appeals to adults. I have a feeling if Danielewski had made it a bit more boring, more formal, and more calculated, then it'd be embraced more by adults and shunned more by teenagers, but either way it's insanely creative and a lot of fun.

>>2643453

Well, shit. She could be reading The Hunger Games like everyone else. At least be happy she's reading something that's posturing as proper literature.

>>2643401

Oh stop. Most of OP's complaints are valid, even if he's overreacting.

My main beef with people and the way they act about books are most of the things that /lit/ does, though.

>>2643360

>and it'll probably get better in college.

In my experience yes, as long as you make friends.