/lit/ - Literature

Yeah, those work. "What" is most common. Generally any noise with an interrogative inflection works.

Justified True Belief.

>>3602369

> imo it isn't a tragedy as such
>I'm not saying that your story wouldn't be one

Hurr. Somewhat bad post, but what I mean is that the project itself should be the focus of the emotional investment of the reader, so that its loss is the tragedy, not just the cause of bad shit that the protagonist goes through that we as readers are supposed to feel melancholy over. Plenty of people suffer in mundane ways; that in itself isn't interesting to a reader.

>>3602353

Sad, but imo it isn't a tragedy as such because the central element of the story--the project--becomes ancillary to what he loses, rather than it itself being the loss that the story is focused around. Like look at Romeo and Juliet--their love is the central element of the story, and its loss is what we as readers mourn. Everything else is just window-dressing.

Tragedy is kind of a vague term I know, and I'm not saying that your story wouldn't be one, but *as a story* I think it would work better the other way around because it would be more cohesive and emotive.

Tragedy is best when it involves high stakes. What are the stakes? What does this guy have to lose (his life, obviously, but that's pretty bland...what is the goal that he is trying to achieve?) What else can you throw in to raise the stakes, especially for our emotional investment as readers?

>example

What do you mean? For every line of code, or what? Do whatever you want stylistically as long as it's to the best effect.

>>3602331

Oh. Yeah, that doesn't really make sense except maybe for the whole broad-based education thing.

>>3602286

Art takes place in a cultural context. In fact that's a big part of what makes it really interesting. Also, art gives you a window into the time period that factual information cannot. For example when you read The Great Gatsby you're getting a story about the Roaring 20s told by a guy who was living in the Roaring 20s, showing you what the world was like instead of explaining things from the outside.

>>3602252

Art history is closely intertwined with cultural history.

>>3597981

3deep5me came from the 5ever copypasta and was newer than the other variants I think.

>>3598016

No. almost every meme is forced, although plenty of forced memes do fail.

>>3597377

Fuckin' sociolects, dude. Also the whole image+text thing.

An orthographic method of textual expression which is used in direct quotations, to indicate sardonicism or irony, or as an abbreviated method of telling a story.

>>3595152

-1/10 nigger, didn't even make me reply

>>3595125

I fucking HATE Cormac McCarthy.

AH I AM SO TROLLED

You're probably still at that stage where you Cormac McCarthy's prose is awesome because it's oh-so-serious and heavy. And you probably don't understand why people praise Hemingway's craftsmanship. It's OK, most people go through that stage, but not appreciating the difference and not valuing concision and precision means that you're losing out on a lot of what makes great writing great.

Naked Came the Stranger.

>>3594834

Yeah usually nothing but invective and hyperbole work to counterbalance invective and hyperbole. That, and most people post to get replies, and if you come across as reasonable and correct you never get any.

Personally I wouldn't say Murakami is actively bad, and he's marginally better than most of the standard overhyped /lit/ authors relative to his perceived merit here, but he's not really worth reading closely or seriously.

>drink heavily
>stay up for days drinking prodigious amounts of coffee
>let myself go a little crazy, enough to come up with raw material
>go on adventures
>read 4+ hours/day

I'm off to a damn good start. I'm just too analytical and not emotive enough.

>>3583910

>Go pull a grape from your ear.

Jelly of my cromulence.

Maybe it was an overgeneralization, but many of the infamously difficult works are obfuscatory, yes. Why are you lumping Foucault with Heidegger? Are you claiming that Heidegger, Lacan, Derrida, et. al. *aren't* obfuscatory?

Whitehead's God

>>3583614

Don't treat it like some sort of ladder you have to ascend. A lot of the most difficult writers are that way because they're obfuscatory. That said, topics in contemporary philosophy tend to be pretty difficult to fully "grok" because they depend so heavily on hundreds of years of previous philosophy. If you want just really mind-fuckingly difficult texts to read, Prolegomena to the History of the Concept of Time is pretty rocky, and any post-Lacan/Derrida deconstruction is so full of idiosyncratic jargon that it's basically impossible to understand.

Depends on your background, too--any modal logic is probably going to be p. difficult if you don't have a background in math, for instance.

Short sentences are underrated imo. I have a not-unrelated problem, though; I have a tendency unless I consciously avoid it to make long sentences with lots of dependent clauses which end up sounding monotonous. It's something I can avoid only by staying conscious of it.

I haven't read the book, but it sounds like an uneasy blend of 50s/60s protohippie syncretism with an element of the God-of-the-Gaps "it's good to believe" bullshit that's grown up in response to New Atheism.

>>3582659

Yeah, they're generally regarded as such. By treating a book as too-holy-to-criticize you're just eulogizing something you're too scared to judge on its own merits. Emperor's New Clothes syndrome.

I'm still of the opinion that it's arguably the greatest American novel, but it has its weaknesses.

>>3582591

Reminded me of the "Bitches" picture.