/lit/ - Literature

>>2638914
If it does well, submit it to a print publisher so the "purists" can read it too.

>>2638900
I think you'd be able to get it published.
I'd buy it.
>>2638902
I like to read people's work and provide any help I can. Thank you for allowing me that pleasure.

>>2638894
It was directed at you.
I noticed it got better the further down the page I got.
Keep working on it and you'll get it right.

>>2638889
The dialogue is very real, and the premise is brilliant.

>>2638889
The dialogue is base, the descriptions are more tasteful.
I read it before you deleted the link, and my impression was that the prose was a bit much in places.

>>2638868
I can see the Douglas Adams comparison.
>>2638870
In some places, I feel like you are going a bit far with the prose, nearing purple territory, otherwise it's good. The dialogue is real, the idea is quite brilliant.

>>2638832
Are you going for making it very tasteful linguistically or are you going for using base language to achieve a more real and human feel?

>>2638813
With this set of short stories, are they linked like Dubliners or are they following one character?

>>2638813
Good job. I find that getting an idea fully conceptualized is quite difficult at times.


To answer the tread's opening question again, I am always working on my poetry. I think someday I'd like to get an anthology of my poetry published someday.

>>2638787
As a psychologist, I find the premise of this quite interesting. Would you care to share just a little bit?

I'm currently working on a novel with elements influenced by westerns as well as low fantasy.
I normally write about things in the real world, but in the near future (no futuristic technology) and assuming a somewhat different sociopolitical climate.

Writing is something I quite enjoy. I've not published because I am never satisfied enough with my final product to submit it for publication.

>>2610869
I own that edition.
It's lovely.
Best twenty dollars I've spent on literature.

Would the novel Papillon count as literature? I mean, people here are very elitist about what constitutes literature, so I'm just wondering.

My favorite is Papillon.

I mostly write freehand, but when I do use my computer, I use notepad.

>>2520018
The entire Legacy of Kain series. Especially Blood Omen.

>>2515284
I loved Animal Farm.

I have several books all tied for my favorite.
A Clockwork Orange
Papillon
Ulysses

>>2511809
>I think in that paragraph you are confusing what I think of as ''pragmatic'' for what I mean when I say rational..when i say rational I mean it was the product of your rational faculties..your brain acknowledges what it is doing, as opposed to say primitive biological drives.
Yeah, I misunderstood it. I was being rational in the sense you are describing here.

> So if you can break from them, are they truly your principles, or are these morals just tenuous? What determines when a moral decision is suitable and when it is suitable to act immorally?
Morality is generally broken when your drives get the best of you. When you haven't had sex in years, and someone offers you sex, you'll generally take it. A starving man will break his morals to feed himself. I only break my morals when these drives overcome me. It doesn't happen often, but it does from time to time.
>i think the basis for doubt in morality is that morality only functions when a person can act rationally, if they are taken over by irrational drives they can no longer uphold their morals. since the irrational drives are always working in some way, influencing the rational faculties i would say constantly, then i wonder are they not more influential on a decision than the so-called principles? principles can be taken up or left behind at will, but the irrational aspects of your mind cannot.
Yeah, that. But, you cannot really deny that humans are completely devoid of morals and principals.

>>2511809
>That sounds accurate, but what of the other 15% is that something that you simply can't know or is it something that you, personally, feel you have failed to grasp? Am I mistaken in thinking that the other 15% is the decisive space; that ultimately it is this irrational dimension that is really at work in deciding, and the rational dimension is more or less a tool for appraisal and justification?
It's more that I can't grasp that fifteen percent of my motives. Those are the strange motives that defy logic and morality.

>>2511771
>You may have morals but you do not always act as an agent of those morals. I am positive that not all of your actions even conform to your morals.
That's right. No one always acts as an agent of their morals. I generally do, but occasionally I'll break from them.
>So, if the case is that you are not always acting morally, what determines exactly when you are acting morally and when you aren't?
Whether I am adhering to the principals I normally adhere to or not. If I am adhering to these principals, I am being moral. It's hard to explain, sir.

We are getting really close to the issue at hand, yeah.
You're really making me think, yet it's just making me more confident in my beliefs.

>>2511747

>This is really getting to the bottom of things, now. You have some knowledge of psychology and I do not, so my question would be how does one have certainty about the relationship between their reasoning and the decision they have actually made?'
How? One just has to have an understanding of their thought process.
It depends on how good of an introspective one has of himself. I am quite aware of what's going on in my head, I know my reasoning process and all that. Most people are pretty good at it, unless they are very impulsive. I'd say I'm eighty-five percent certain in my understanding of my reasoning.
> Especially in the moment of choosing. It seems like you assume that your decision was completely rational. Or that all decisions are completely rational,even
I assume my decision was completely irrational. Morality is rarely rational, and acting as an agent of your own morality is often irrational. It's like how it's rational for me to pick-pocket people when I'm low on cash, it's easy money that I'd be able to get without much fear of repercussions, as I'm quite good at misdirection, I even do magic at parties sometimes, yet my moral belief that stealing is wrong doesn't allow me to.

>>2511595
>Actually they could be ascribed to quite a few schools of thought and you were just using objectivist in its standard (for /lit/) pejorative sense
I was using it not in a pejorative sense, but rather because it was the school of thought that came to my mind when I was reading your post. What you've been saying could be ascribed to any philosophy that disregards morality, throws it aside claiming it's a bunch of lies.
>Implying that principles preceded the decision and aren't ascribed in its aftermath
The principals did precede the decision. I was there.
>Does not sound much different from any other sort of morality.
The difference is that consequences are irrelevant.
>And isn't it convenient?
Good policy was based on good morals, believe it or not.
>This is what you *claim* it is certainly not a very deep insight, and it comes off as more of an assertion, in support of your arguments. Tell me how did you determine what was the primary reason? Are you determining it now or in the moment of choosing. Be honest.
It isn't deep, I'll admit it. I have rather simple motives.
I honestly determined morality as the primary reason in the moment of choosing. There is no way to verify this, I'm sorry.
>Many people claim to have morals, but are quick to bury whatever may contradict these claims.
And I do have morals and there isn't anything to contradict those claims. Sorry.
>I'm 25
Your posts have all sounded childish, so I went with it.
Furthermore, I still have twelve years on you, in terms of age.

Regardless, I'm enjoying this discussion, I hope you are as well.

>>2511491
That makes perfect sense. Thank you, sir. I will commit that into memory, in case I ever am writing a paper, which rarely happens, and for some reason I need to cite a comic, which would probably ruin my reputation. No patients would want to see the psychologist who cited Sin City in a paper.