/lit/ - Literature

>>3262018
I kind of want to explain this a bit further. Evil isn't the opposite of G-d; in fact, G-d created evil. Evil and good are tools that He uses just like emotions, physics, time, and basically everything in existence and that is conceivable. For example, let's consider murder. We call things evil because they are a net negative for humanity and more specifically because G-d says these are behaviors that we should stay away from.

>>3262018
Now, does G-d have to use evil inclinations to get us to reach our true fulfillment? Not at all? But in that case, what's the point in the universe? Why not just have us all in an infinite primordial soup of souls that is G-d? Why have physical bodies at all? What's the point in any of this? Those questions I cannot answer. Why we're humans, why the Jews received Torah, and what G-d's plan is, I'm not sure nor do I attempt to figure it out.

You guys act like you just discovered something new, when it's been a question thought about by others for a while.

>>3261964
By criticizing the individual propositions (the second one in particular makes a heavy assumption), it's supposed to crumble the foundation of his argument.

>>3261958
>>3261967
>>3261969
I'm going to just group you three together and answer the question, "If he is benevolent and omnipotent, then why even create bad?" First of all, being all good doesn't mean being good in every single context. Here's a generic analogy, but just deal with it: Pretend you're a parent and your child does something bad like hit another kid, you give him a stern talking and you send him to his room. The parent isn't good to the child every single moment, but is instead tough in certain situations to bring about the good within him. You can be a good parent and sometimes have to be tough in order to create an long-run, well behaved child. Now, while I'm not a mystic, I do kind of like this saying. There are two worlds, the physical world and the spiritual world. Everything that happens in the physical world is reflected in the spiritual world; however, all that is reflected in the spiritual world is good. How can his be you say? Well thank about the flood. The Noah Flood basically killed every living land animal, including all humans that were not inside the boat, right? How can this tragedy be good? Well, think about it. The entire Earth was submerged in water, and thus it was actually being emerged into a mikvah, which is a form of spiritual cleaning and purity.

>1. If a being was omnipotent, than it could make humans' experience of the universe better than it is. (follows from the definition of omnipotence)
That doesn't prove anything. He could do that and He could not. Why do you get to decide what He should do?

>2. If a being was omnibenevolent, than it would make humans' experience as good as a it could. (follows from the definition of omnibenevolence)
He gave us conflicts to resolve, behaviors to resist, and flaws to overcome. He's all that is Good, not us.

Destroyed your argument (which relied on heavy assumptions).

I know a poem similar to the Lord of the Rings, Beowulf. Honestly, just read anything that Tolkien did academic research on and you'll see things similar to, "The Lord of the Rings." Tolkien was a mythological writer and historian.

That is a good point. Why not let the orcs die to the Dragon and potentially weaken it? The movie said that they were "too late." That means that they got there after the Orcs and that means that they could just sit back and relax.

I don't.

When I write, I don't try to write a novel... or anything to be honest. If my story becomes too big to the point where it has to be a novel, so be it. I simply try to tell a story and however long it has to be is what I publish it as.

>>3260608
Actually, it was a bit longer. 2 hours I think? Whoops.

>>3260602
You're right, there was no narrator; but, it is certainly doable. For example, Hugo (a recent movie) tackled a lot of critical questions within just 90 minutes.

>>3260584
You can make paint drying complicated and intricate if you wanted to. The spy aspect just changes the setting a bit, but the characters can still act the same if their job was that of a delivery boy, the president, or a spy. A realistic spy can be very complicated and intricate with very little action focusing on other elements of literature.

>>3260553
That is a pretty good analysis. Maybe it isn't that bad if the books tackle issues like that periodically. However, the movies almost completely remove paragraphs like that.

>>3260521
>>3260529
Sorry, that's literally a bad habit of mine.

>>3260532
So it's over-the-top action? I'm not saying it's bad in that case, but it seems fairly simplistic.

This is how I write:
I think about one main theme I want to explore in my work.
I develop the characters that will experience this theme, and then I write the conflict, setting, plot, and I go all the way down to the point to where all I'm doing is thinking up of symbols. Dialog and actual writing is one of the very last things I do.

>>3260514
It's not a hyperbole unless you mean it to be one. In 99% of the cases, it's just abusing a word. Didn't some comedian talk about how the word "hilarious," has been made into nothing special because people use it so casually?

>>3259921
The Mythos is cool.

>>3260507
Does it have some good themes, some nice conflicts that matter, and such? I'm basically asking if it tells a story and not just ACT SHUN COOL SPY STUFF!

I figuratively die when people use the word "literally," improperly.

>>3260451
>Bond books
Unless the James Bond novels are magically 30x better than the movies, then no. James Bond is just a series of some spy doing cool shit. It doesn't really tell a story.

>>3260499
Who is going to start the recommendation thread on /q/ that will be ignored?

>>3260213
/q/ doesn't take board suggestions unless specifically said so.

>>3260124
/hum/? Sure, that might work!

>>3260099
It'll separate some of the non-fiction from other non-fiction, but you can say the same thing for any board from /po/ to /g/.