/lit/ - Literature

>>3162746

> what do you think is ruining this board and turning it into a 'shithole?

People who don't lurk and realize WE JUST HAD THIS THREAD

/lit/ is the best board on 4chan

I think this is one of the best boards really - so what about moot's opinion?

I'd rather neither were discussed without specifically relevant text because

>Not believing in objective/subjective/nihilism/god
>2012 ISHYGDDT

Type threads are fucking cancerous

>>3162746
>Does that mean we can discuss history here as well as philosophy?
We already do.
>Also, what do you think is ruining this board and turning it into a 'shithole?'
General dislike of Snowcrash, that one book moot has read. If there is a problem with /lit/, it's that it's always had a culture of being naive to everything else on 4chan, and this tends to leave it unable to defend itself against "epic raids" and what have you. Also, small population and lack of lurking has meant the board culture has been heavily diluted over a relatively short time.

there are like 50 people here, if that

it's the same 50 people recommending the same 15 books to one another over and over again

>discussing history
yeah, good luck with all of the stormtrolls around
your best bet is going some place where you have to have an account

this board is shit because it's literally the same threads everyday

I agree the only problem with this board is that it is too small and slow.

But you can't exactly force people from other boards to read.

Moot thinks /lit/ is a shithole? ;_;

No, he's right. No one here ever corresponds about literature. He should really just close this board down.

>>3162746
This board is shit because so many people are fucking pretentious assholes. And this is moots opinion as well.

this board is not about the love for reading
it's about the hate on those who love reading anything else and the "commonly accepted" board literature.

Face it, we are turning into /mu/

I've been here since /lit/s inception and there have been a lot of nice and good threads, interesting people, unusual recommendations and insightful comments on a variety of topics. If you've never bothered to look past the typical Gatsy, Rand threads then you're an idiot and you don't know shit, just like moot. I doubt he looks even past the first page when he visits /lit/ once a month. And to all the shitposters and negative nancies who think they are so intellectual, get the fuck out or lurk more. This is one of the few boards in this shithole that are worth perusing.

>>3162757
>your best bet is going some place where you have to have an account

420chan have a great history board (pic related is 4 threads from the first page) unfortunately It is painfully slow.

He just hates us because we don't like his weeaboo fantasy shit.

/lit/ is a shithole because he hasn't split it
It's full of genre-fiction, homework requests, and shitty thinly-veiled Tolkien/GRRM fanfiction.

The solution is to have a separate fantasy/sci-fi board, let the history and philosophy stay, and make the lazy ass janitors do their fucking jobs.

>>3162777
and have approximately 1 active thread per week

He probably thinks /b/ is the source of quality content in 4chan.

>>3162766
You're wrong. I've seen plenty of quality threads; in fact, I have a whole list of books recommended in /lit/ that aren't typical reading. Maybe browse past the first page, instead of making stupid generalizations.

>>3162777
>The solution is to have a separate fantasy/sci-fi board, let the history and philosophy stay

No, we need to keep this as a literature board(inc genre fiction), and the history and philosophags can go to a new board.

If we had a history board it would become stupid like /int/ is half the time (Balkan rivalries and Nordic wankfests). It wouldn't be /vg/ compared to /v/.

And, as I said in the other thread, people who think /lit/ is bad need to spend more time on other boards.

>>3162778
do you even browse?
There's about 6 threads now on the first two pages that would be gone, 5 of them about generic fantasy and 1 /sci/ shitpost

>>3162770
420chan has a shit layout
anyone who uses it deserves scorn

/lit/ is the best board, memes and inane comments are kept to the minimum and people actually know what they're talking about. Of course I'm comparing this board with the likes of /v/, /sp/, /mu/ and /fit/, but still I doubt a better board exists on 4chan.

>>3162785
I think the biggest problem would be /pol/ invading with holocaust denial and anti-semitic threads.

>>3162770
>talking about Scottish ethnic ancestral make-up
>as if the Picts had never existed/are synonymous with the gaels
Also, thoug unseen here:
>implying Ainu were the original inhabitants of Japan

>>3162788
Is that supposed to be a joke? 420chan has the same layout as 4chan.

>>3162782
And have the real literature threads drown in the "hai guise, I have this idea for an epic fantasy" and "which AOIAF charcter is the sexiest?", and "which ASOIAF charcter is the most badass?", and "What's your favourite ASOIAF fight-scene?" threads?

I stopped coming here because nobody ever discusses books. I'm visiting now in the vein hope that anything has changed. A quick perusal of the pages has revealed this not to be the case.

Nobody actually talks about literature. It's just book recommendation threads and shitty philosophy threads. And if there is a thread focused on one book, no one ever actually discusses the book.

/lit/ IS a shithole.

>>3162793
I think they mean real lit can stay too, just the genre fiction subculture thing can have its own space.

>>3162791
Did you just go there and post this?

>>3162796
No, I have a severe aversion to enforced namefagging.

>>3162746

>Shithole.

I disagree with Moot. He probably never visits /lit/ and is basing his opinion on what others have told him. /lit/ has held some quality threads recently, most notable the penpal thread we had going for a few days.

>>3162796
Yes, but that's not my name ...?

>>3162793
>which AOIAF charcter is the sexiest?
Sansa. inb4 hurrr Arya

>which ASOIAF charcter is the most badass?
Probably the hound.

>What's your favourite ASOIAF fight-scene?
That one-handed scene between Jaime Lannister and Brienne

>>3162794
vain*
fuck

Dear moot,

do you even read

Signed,
/lit/

>>3162758
That's every board dude.

>>3162799
>implying the fountain pen thread wasn't a far better thread

>>3162766
No we're not, the attitude you describe is only the result of a mildly vocal minority. The only things turning us into /mu/ is people posting what you just did, giving the impression that it's becoming accepted t have that attitude now!

Also, the pleb patrician bullshit needs to end. Fuck off /mu/.

>>3162805

Which one? I see several fountain pen threads daily.

>>3162794
wrong, I've participated in great discussions here about Kafka, Camus, Hesse, Joyce, and Marquez (actually, that thread was specifically about One Hundred Years of Solitude, but it was pretty damn good).

I think you must just come on at shitty times, or you don't look beyond the first page for actually good discussions to bump.

>>3162800
Yes, but that's not my name ...?
They give you a Random name. If you don't want a name just press space in the name field. The names they give you are usually funny names related to the board, and are just supposed to be a funny alternative to a thousand anons.

>>3162779
I've been browsing this board for three years, what the fuck are you on about.

Oh, god! I've been browsing /lit/ for three years now?

>>3162812
/lit/'s really three years old?

Holy fuck, I guess you're right.

>>Have your damn book board

I miss the old days. But I was younger than, you get excited over things more easily I guess

>>3162810
I was here from about early 2011 to mid 2012. I literally can't think of a single thread that had a decent literature discussion. Not one.

-Typewriter master race
-ASoIaF
-Mah handwriting
-I have nihilism
-Hemmmmingway
-How do I into philosophy?
-Whats the deal with Ayn Rand?
-Ulysess
-Are comics and lyrics lit?
-DFW
-Objective morality

Pffft, /Lit/ is my favorite board. Sure it gets crappy threads now and then, but that's just like every 4chan category. All of you guys are awesome. Moot simply doesn't read.

>>3162809
>I see several fountain pen threads daily
0/10
do you even /lit/?

>>3162817
+ Should I get a kindle?

>>3162792
Is THAT a joke? Does image related look like 4chan? It's a shitty colour scheme, shit layout, posts don't pop up when you role over replies, etc. It's a shitty knock-off.

Does Moot even read?

To be honest, the most pressing problems are these:

1. Not being able to have serious discussions about books
>Probably stem from the fact that /lit/ doesn't read that much

2. Peerpressure into reading certain books and groupthink
>Some people who reads a small amount, read experience one good author, and defends that shit to hell and back. Everyone else have to agree with him otherwise they are wrong.

3. External influence
> /lit/ is experiencing a influx of crossboard visitors, namely /mu/ /pol/ and as of lately /v/. Face it, reading is becoming popular, but people who visit lit bring with them their shitty boardculture and tripfags, which ruin the rather neutral anonymous atmosphere that is here.
I'd also say that I think metathreads like these are important to discuss future solutions and improvements of this board.

>>3162825
>Is THAT a joke? Does image related look like 4chan?
Go to the options in the drop down menu (Top right). It caches your preferences so you only have to change it once.

>shithole
check /x/ and then come back and give /lit/ the love it deserves.

>>3162829
1. stems from the fact that /lit/ is polarized between people who read mostly genre-fiction and detest 'pretentious' literary fiction, and people who read mostly literary genre-fiction and detest 'plebeian' genre-fiction.

Split the fucking board

I don't understand, /lit/ is the only board where you can have an in-depth discussion. All other boards I've visited seem to be overridden by self-loathing misogynist racists, clearly one cannot debate constructively with that lot. I've also received plenty of good insights in American literature which was quite unknown to me because during high school we haven't read a single North American author. This board is quite dear to me.

>>3162844
>self-loathing misogynist racists
Get out.
Get out from 4chan.

>>3162844
I think that's the point. All the other boards are full of racist teenagers shitposting about mundane things. It makes /lit/ an outcast. We are the quiet kid who likes to learn, we don't fit in with the rest of the site, and as a result we are labelled pretentious and regarded as a shithole.

>>3162845

>>>/otherboard/

/lit/ is the de facto humanities board. Always has been, always will. It works fine that way.

>>3162848
No, that is what single handedly ruins board. The belief that you belong to a certain identity, that you in-fact "belong" with this board.

If you can't tolerate other peoples political opinions, you don't belong on 4chan it is as simple as that. You are trying to force this board into some kind of groupthink but you have no authority to do that. You don't have any right to say that this is wrong and right.

You have the right to be anonymous, and you judge every single post from their merit alone.

Your responsibility is to create interesting, thought-provoking threads and keep them on-topic, and not to answer to posts and threads that are or will inevitably lead off-topic.

I don't need you to tell me what /lit/ is about.

if any of you kids had been on /lit/ for longer than a month you would realise how terrible this place has become. seriously, it physically pains me to browse /lit/ now. you are like a group of children playing make-believe.

>>3162848
And why do these off-board faggots come to /lit/?
To talk about Joyce, and Dostoevski, and get recommendations?
Or to talk about GRRM, and Terry Pratchett, and ask for help with their homework?

>>3162859
Yep.

>>3162859
Do you 420-browse?

>>3162862
>Or to talk about GRRM, and Terry Pratchett, and ask for help with their homework?

No. Just no. You do not shit on Based Pratchett. Not now. Not ever.

>>3162868
>>>/sp/

>>3162865
420 is a lot better than 4chan. The age range is the same, but everyone there is more peaceful, tolerant, generally laid back, and more willing to learn about things. The specific boards like History, Philosophy, Botany, and Astronomy are all open to civil discussion, and discuss things in greater depth without resorting to "Hurrrr you fucking niggerfaggot." Unfortunately it is so slow. If it was faster I would move there permanently, instead of switching between here and there.

>>3162881
>The guy you replied to here

Yeah, me too. I'm just waiting for the right time to migrate. /lit/ was my last interboard migration, i'm done with 4chan.

>>3162862
There have _always_ been fantasy fans on /lit/. From before the board even developed its identity as a "highbrow hangout".

Make threads about things that interest you and avoid attacking threads that don't interest you (unless they are blatantly off-topic or something). Let people discuss whatever books they want. It only becomes a problem when you start trolling each other and derailing each other's threads. Lit readers and fantasy readers need to learn to coexist peacefully, for the sake of the board.

>>3162757
>it's the same 50 people recommending the same 15 books to one another over and over again

Ways to make /lit/ better (without taking drastic action such as splitting the board)

1. Sticky some rules (no music, movie, anime discussion, no homework requests etc.)
2. Get mods/janitors actually willing to do their jobs properly
3. Filter some words ('pleb', 'tier', 'badass' etc.)

>giving one shit about moot

>>3162893
>2. Get mods/janitors actually willing to do their jobs properly

Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope.

>>3162897
What's the problem amigo?

>>3162894
>giving one shit about moot
Yeah, He kinda runs shit around here, and could easily delete the one board he feels is a "shithole" with a few mouse clicks.

>>3162881
It's not nearly as much fun as 4chan, though.

KC's /int/ can occasionally rouse itself for a good literature thread, but I think most of the readers on there also frequent /lit/. It might be good if we could get an English language literature board over there, since we would retain a lot of our current user base while losing all the tourists from /mu/, /v/, etc. The only problem is that our more left-wing posters might be alienated.

>>3162893
No, it's _our_ responsibility to self-moderate. We basically just need to be more civil to each other and learn to ignore/report off-topic and blatant troll threads. Sounds simple but evidently it isn't.

>>3162831
Okay. Thanks. How do I rid myself of this?

>>3162918
A. Donate the 10% they need
B. Ignore it as it's pinned to the bottom of the page and doesn't interfere with you reading threads.
C. Install a plug-in to block it.

>>3162928
I've got scriptblocker and adblock. Mind walking me through it? I keep clicking on it accidentally.

>>3162899
I've yet to see one janitor / mod do their job properly and I've been on 4chan since 2007.

>>3162916
>our_ responsibility to self-moderate
I hope you're kidding.
It doesn't matter how you and I act, people are going to be dicks.
I've lost count of the amount of times my reports have gone ignored. /mu/ shitposts, /sci/ shitposts, /tv/ shitposts, /a/ shitposts, /co/ shitposts, meta shitposts, babby cup, threads completely unrelated to literature that already have boards designated to them, blatant Harry Potter/Twilight/50 Shades troll threads etc. etc. etc.

What do you think would happen if your justice minister stood up in cabinet tomorrow and said "We're disbanding the police force, the courts, and the military. It's _your_ responsibility to self police."

>>3162965
How is reporting threads self-moderating?
You self-moderate through not replying to trolls, formulating your questions and replies and a sensible manner, coming up with creative ideas and pictures.

Instead of:
>Lets discuss this book
Start with:
>What is the underlying motive of the main character when he [VERB] in chapter 3? Could it be the fact that author mean to show the symbolism of [WHATEVER]

The main reason why there aren't proper discussions about books is that the initial post isn't well formulated. There isn't a thought to follow up on.

And the problem isn't creating shit threads, it is people replying to them. Do your part. Lurk moar. Reply only to what is interesting and on topic.

>>3162965
I see what you're getting at with the police analogy but you can't just ignore a group of crazed hoodies burgling your house - but you can ignore a shitpost. I think one of /lit/'s biggest problems is the laziness of its core users (ie. the people who come here every day and are genuinely interested in discussing literature). We just don't make enough of an effort to counteract the shitposts with our own goodposts, and are all too frequently drawn into shit slinging contests with trolls. I mean, I get that most of us just come to 4chan to blow off steam, but if we really value this place as a social outlet then we have to put a bit of effort into it; we can't just expect good content to appear out of thin air.

>>3162936
I don't know which blockers you are using, but you can block the full html content by blocking the <div id="contentd9048"> tag to the </div>.
Or just get rid of the image <img src="http://cdn.420chan.org/s/img/soulsfooter.png">, which is probably easier for you.

Don't block the link <a href="http://shop.taimalabs.com/products/soul-of-the-banned">, that will keep the banner there, but wont let you follow the link.

>>3162980
>What is the underlying motive of the main character when he [VERB] in chapter 3? Could it be the fact that author mean to show the symbolism of [WHATEVER]
I agree with that to some extent, but every time I make a post as specific as that, it's either ignored or presumed to be a homework request.

>>3162862
Well, one must admit that not all the well-written books are food for thought, and not all the books that are food for thought are well written.
I find some very recognized writers to be an absolute failure as artists. Their worth was overinflated by society/other writers/critics.
I love reading, but I personally enjoy Stephen King ot John Kennedy Toole (for example) far more than I enjoy James Joyce and William Faulkner.

There are lots of books out there and some of them very welll written, capable of provoking emotions, of being addictive and of becoming unforgettable. Some praised authors (whom I lovingly call 'the deep ones') are not as deep nor as good as they want to seem.

Joyce for example is a selfish son of a bitch so closed into his own little world that he fails to depict anything beyond it. Books are like friends to me: I tend to avoid the self-centered snobbish assholes.

Boy, I sure may have said terrible things up there, but I feel as relieved as if I just took a poo. Sorry for the Engrish, though.

>>3163001
>or presumed to be a homework request.

yeah, i've experienced that a few times too. you just have to stick to your guns and really force the thread.

>>3162980
That post would get at most 4 replies.
And 3/4 of those would be people criticizing the post.

>>3163007
I think most people feel like you. And I like you. Please stay on /lit/, don't let the so called "hardcore" readers win.

>>3163007
>Their worth was overinflated by society/other writers/critics.
Isn't that what it means to be a great artist?

>Joyce for example is a selfish son of a bitch so closed into his own little world that he fails to depict anything beyond it
Can you elaborate on that? I'm not sure I get what you mean.

I do miss the old /lit/. I was here from about week two or three, and stayed about 12-18 months. There was a lot of shitposting, of course, but the board was alive, interesting, and relatively fast. I think the ratio of troll to quality post was significantly higher...I suppose I could go read some archives to see whether that's really true, but I only have so much time to get nostalgic over a goddamned imageboard.

The reason I left was pretty much one person: D&E. Hostility, snobbery, pretentiousness (not always, but often), and a compulsion post in every fucking thread really turned me off. Maybe he really wanted to be king of /lit/ or something, but we ended up with Donald Trump instead.

Anyway, I'm back now, and although I think there's some pretty serious decline here, I don't think it's irredeemable. I hope that the anons who sprinkle this board with some really insightful posts stick it out for a while longer. (And thanks, guys.)

Final thought: please don't split the board. Any slower and this board is dead.

Off-topic:
>>3163007
> Joyce for example is a selfish son of a bitch so closed into his own little world that he fails to depict anything beyond it.
In all seriousness, it makes me sad that you think that. I can understand how one could throw up their hands with Joyce, but there's so much there for you to mine. You might give half an hour to a short commentary like "Re-Joyce" by Anthony Burgess--it could open your eyes to something you've missed.

>>3163054
>I think most people feel like you
People think and believe all sorts of crazy shit
Which is why majority rules isn't applied in all cases

>>3163071
>reading because he loves reading the authors he enjoys

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

i am the most powerful tripfag on /lit/

>>3163087
>Conveniently ignoring that there is such a thing as human expertise
Do you hate doctors too?

>>3163101
You are an insufferable asshole, who posts god awful poetry and rants about flaccid cows while claiming to be an apex primate.

>>3163109
>Do you hate doctors too?
I agree that lots of people can appreciate the complexity of a frontal lobotomy, but I'd rather not have to endure it.

I like /lit/.

I used to go on /k/ an awful lot, because I like guns. One day, I found myself checking out a black man to see if he was a threat. Then I realized that the pervasive racism on that board was fucking with my head.

The thing I like about /lit/ is, while it's stupid, it doesn't have a background noise of racism {/pol/, /k/}, misogyny {rNinek] and so on.

>>3163087
I enjoy Joyce, and that crap about him being 'selfish' is utter nonsense. He's one of the most penetrating authors I've ever read.

Please stop perpetuating this "merit vs. enjoyability" false dichotomy.

>>3163110

im the greatest hth

>flaccid cows

when have i ever talked about the sexual impotence of cows?

>>3163130

cows dont even have dicks so idk what the feck youre getting at

>>3163135
>cows dont even have dicks so idk what the feck youre getting at

Cow is a colloquial term that can apply to Bulls, Cows and Calves.

Ive been on this board for about 2 years. /lit/ catalog is bookmarked and its one of my favorite places. Ive had about 20 of my favorite books recommended here.

I guess there arent enough traps and meme phrases thrown around in here to make Moot happy. I think the fact that in his Ted talk he discussed /b/ as an internet revolution shows that his opinion on this board is irrelevant. I have gotten excellent genre, non-fic. and literary canon recs here, and I hope it never changes.

/lit/ brings this to mind every day
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnbFgRv8-Kw

>>3163148 (cont)
And while the level of discourse here is sometimes disappointing, I hope you all remember the survey thread here a couple weeks ago where it was revealed that everyone is 18-22 with a couple of outliers (like myself). For those demographics this place is the fucking 4chan school of athens

>>3163056
>Isn't that what it means to be a great artist?
I don't think so. Da Vinci was a great artist. In his art we see beauty at first, and then when we analyse it and go deeper we see a very well thought work. Surprising inside, but elaborated and beautiful also outside. Joyce feels sometimes as if he focused too much on the meaning, but left the form unfinished, using a stream of consciousness that often seems unrealistic and so obsessive that it becomes rather plain and boring.

>Can you elaborate on that? I'm not sure I get what you mean.
One of the things that bothered me the most is that he makes a lot of references which most people will not get unless they had the same education, read the same books or even lived in the same place. He does this way too much to make of his readings something enjoyable (for me, at least)

"latter is a real concern"

game, set, match. insuranburn /lit/ immediately, mods.

>>3163151
/lit/ is the opposite. It's mainly relativists who hate science.

>>3163157
In most cases you can not guess the reference if you didn't get it at first so you have to do your research, which either forces you to stop the rhythm of the reading and find the missing information or to leave small lagoons in the plot, which may be brilliant in some parts (and if you get the 100% of things without having to look here and there) but it just feels as if it needed to be reviewed a few times more.
I recently read "the Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man" and it left me with the following feeling:
Joyce&co would have enjoyed that novel far more than any "outsider" of their little world, that is why I consider him selfish.
As for the bad portrayals. I find the child stage of "the Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man" way too caricaturesque and simplistic. Some people say that this was Joyce's intention, but in some parts it feels like a bad joke in the wrong moment. In his books, he has his good points, sure, but I feel it needs a "something else". I heard a lot about Joyce and was very eager to read some of his works, maybe I expected something more flashy and impressive.

It's not like I didn't understand Joyce (or so I think, I'll read it twice just in case) but it's that it didn't provide anything special to me.

>>3163162
>reading at a surface level

>>3163161
Compared to the shitstain that is /b/ or /v/ represents, or the completely ass community of /mu/, that is a pretty minor violation.

Ive been in two history threads, both of which were generated out of a book discussion, that were deleted by mods. That is fucking atrocious.

>>3163161
Go to bed, moot

>>3163155
Had a very good laugh (with you, not at you). Thanks.

>>3162807
the best part of /lit/ are the /mu/tants

>>3163187
Nope.

>>3163163
Are you saying the "something else" that Joyce is missing is the "flashy and impressive"? I'd be hard pressed to find a novel flashier than Ulysses. If anything, its flashiness is better grounds for a critique than its "selfishness".

OTOH, Dubliners is far from flashy. Its stories are (generally) subtle and understated, so that you're much more likely to simply miss the point altogether. ("The Dead" is the most anthologized story partly because it's the easiest to understand.)

Joyce certainly writes for an educated audience, and moreover for the educated audience of his time. Most of us don't have the education to support a reading of Ulysses without outside help. But other than that difficulty, I'm not sure his writing is so exclusionary as you seem to think. His "little world" is English-speaking, educated people. Sure, most of us didn't study Greek in grade school, but can you not find resonance in the parts of Portrait that deal with religion, alienation from peers, ego, ambition, depression, and adolescent sexuality?

I'd grant that reading Joyce is not much like reading Hemingway, Dostoevsky, Steinbeck, or Dickens. But I wonder whether you'd say the same things about other highly "referential" writers like Pynchon or Nabokov? If it's that whole approach to fiction you reject, then I feel bad for you son.

lit is one of the best book sites on the net DESPITE its immense faggotry. the problem with that is that everyone is a faggot especially when discussing real shit.

sure when discussing anal porn videos or the newest game on steam, every fucking guy can have an opinion THAT MATTERS but with literature there are going to be a lot of faggots trying to faggot it up. that's true in real life or any other book-centric medium (for the most part) but lit is still pretty refreshing

that's including the genre/highbrow wars which i think is welcome rather than each tribe ensconced in their own little perfect wank zone which is what happens with more "legitimate" form of webmedia.

moot can suck a dick. i don't sit on lit all day because sure the pace is slow, but i check it once a day and there is usually something that peaks my interest

/ck/ is where the real lols are

>>3162815
Then start one. I completely disagree with you by the way.

The best threads are when someone posts something striking about a book, and others discuss his points. Don't do "itt we talk about this book or this author" that doesn't work.

I love /lit/ by the way, I have been here since the start and most if not all of the 200 books I've read since then I started reading because it was mentioned on /lit/ or as a consequence from visiting /lit/.

It gets crappy threads now and then, but it's not as bad as people make it out to be.

>>3163187
IF YOU LIKE CONVERSING WITH /MU/TANTS, GO POST ON FUCKING /MU/. YES I'M MAD, YOU'RE RUINING THE BOARD I LOVE ;_;

>>3162857
>>3162857
>your responsibility
>I don't need you to tell me what /lit/ is about.

I don't need you to tell me what the fuck to do, either, which I'm guessing is your argument.

>>3163070
>The reason I left was pretty much one person: D&E
Deep and Edgy was a great addition to this board and really taught me to think differently. And even though he always angered people, his threads had serious discussion. I don't know what you're on about.

>>3163214
>peaks my interest

piques*

(i do this for your own good)

>>3163239
There is only 1 thing that is ruining this board Sunhawk

>>3163239
he's good at schooling highschool-aged newfags, but he never posts anything particularly constructive. he's also a total attention whore and embodies all of the worst things about tripfags.

>>3163246
I can't decide whether I love or hate Sunhawk. Either way, he's still a dumbass.

>>3163239

D&E is a 50 year old basement dweller who perpetually recycled the same "hurr define subjectivity" routine in order to make some use of his worthless degree in aesthetics. im glad he's old news all thanks to a beautiful collab between the hunchbacks at /sci/and yours truly

>>3163257
Are you referring to 'Night of 1000 Deep&Edgy's?'

Also, define perpetually.

>>3163241
thanks :o

i admit my knowledge of things such as that are not great. for instance, i thought i knew the difference between affect/effect, but didn't realize that you can't affect change because that's essentially saying changing change so you have to effect change. only learned that last week and i'm 27

>>3163239
I can see how that could be. But I basically agree with this: >>3163248

D&E was better read than most, but leaned heavily on his background in theory to make every thread about something he knew about; to me, this is the tactic of someone desperate to prove his intelligence at every turn. Did you ever see him grant a major point, confess to being wrong, or incorporate someone else's ideas? I don't think I did. He reminded me very much of some people I knew in school that way. And since I'm older than most (all?) of you kids, have been to school, and live in the world of academia, I didn't get any benefit from his constant name/idea-dropping.

>>3163257
Is this true? I wasn't around when he left. I didn't realize he was older than me--I always thought he was a recent college grad with way too much time on his hands.

>>3163262
>>3163257

Ah, the night of a thousand D&E's followed by the "D&E gate". That was quite a night.

>>3163267

Yeah, everyone started posting as D&E and then Stan trolled /sci/ which lead to one of them cracking D&E's trip and posting it in on the board.

>>3163267

to be fair, he's probably in his early 30s.

>>3163208
>For an educated audience of his time.
In England or Dublin, overfocused in his own anxieties but pretending to be over them. Kind of like a drama Queen, crying out loud and yelling "BUT I'm ok!!" when somebody asks.

Definition I found on "Hipster:"
Describing someone who is as self-important as the emo, but with self-declared superior taste in fashion, music, and art. The Hipster identifies with being so far head the rest of general society in terms of "indie-ness" and aesthetic that they take being misunderstood and overlooked as a compliment - because the masses of pop-culture whores don't get it anyway.
THIS.

I understand what you are trying to defend here. Religion, peers, ego, ambition, depression and adolescent sexuality are sure a nice topic, but I didn't like it explained as he did and, honestly, I've read better. Especially in "A Portrait of The Artist" I get the feeling that Joyce is trying to show me what is "cool" in order to raise his self esteem.

We can always say that it's like listening to Classical music and Rap music, a matter of tastes.
Depending on how my next reading on Joyce goes I'll assume that I'm not smart enough for this style and go back to my regular novels, but I'll try anyways.

>>3163278
Did D&E really leave because he couldn't post with his old trip? It's not like many could have consistently posed as him--he at least had a distinctive style.

>>3163282
Oh good, then I still win.

>>3163284
With Hipster, I meant Joyce, of course.

>>3163285
he still posts from time to time, though we're not quite sure if it's definitely him or an imposter.

>>3163284
Thanks for responding. I think you're way off with the overbroad definition of "hipster" (a common problem with that term), and if that's the view you take, I'm not sure how you'll avoid dismissing most ambitious art of any kind. Joyce certainly thought a lot of himself, of course, but so did most great artists, and in fact so did most mediocre ones. I don't find that to be a useful metric for valuing the art they produce.

Anyway, in the end I think I just don't get how you'd read Portrait and come away with "Joyce is trying to be cool". But I'm sure he'll do fine without your approval, as you'll do fine without his writing. I'm glad you plan to give him another try, but I really do recommend that you read a bit of others have written about him (positive or not). You might be glad to have a different perspective on him. And although there's no requirement to like Joyce in the end, you *will* be the worse off if you don't have a good sense of *why* he's regarded as one of the giants of literature. "Hipsters gonna hip" is probably not sufficient.

>>3163285
He lost a lot of credibility and didn't post much afterwards. Unfortunately this led a giant wave of dumbasses to adopt tripcodes and shitpost on /sci/ as a revenge, they were littering the board for a while. I don't browse /sci/ that much, but I guess it couldn't have gotten any worse.

>>3163299
I think it has been a nice discussion anyways. I recently discovered /lit/ and I think it's a pretty nice place. At least it gave me another perspective to look at. Thanks!
(although I promise nothing)

>>3163120
I didn't claim that there was a dichotomy. I am claiming that there are some that read purely what they enjoy, and that there must be room for these people on this board without being scorned and called the P-word.

>>3163284
It's not fair to portray Joyce as stubbornly anglo-centric and playing to an Anglo/Irish audience, when he spent most of his adult life on the continent and it was mostly the Parisian literary circles that plead the case for his work,

"For myself, I always write about Dublin, because if I can get to the heart of Dublin I can get to the heart of all the cities of the world. In the particular is contained the universal"

>>3163235
exactly, now you are thinking like an individual, how does it feel

>>3163327
That's a fair comment but it's hard to take these people seriously when they
plead the case for <insert generic multi-volume fantasy/sci-fi series>,
and with their next breath venomously disparage 50 Shades of Grey, or Twilight, or whatever the current flavor of the month is.

>>3163285
No, D&E is still around.
I was insulting him yesterday or the day before.

http://fuuka.warosu.org/lit/reports/post-count

He switched to D'Averc !UfFKGtFx2M!!/0aWHODYBc0
afterwards. Posted as D'Averc until it was discovered shortly after he was D&E, then he resumed as D&E with that tripcode.

He was using a few other names/tripcodes as well, but I don't remember them.

>>3163350

wtf
why is my tripcode on that post count with the name Deep&Edgy instead of satan

>>3163359
Probably because you use Deep&Edgy with that tripcode the very first time you used it.

If you don't use a name at all the first time you use a tripcode, it only shows the tripcode.

>>3163350
Didn't he post as Deist for a while too?

>>3163368
Sounds right, but I don't remember for sure.
But since search is down (can still use google or other search engines though) can't really look that easily.

>>3163368
yeah, he's probably deist, too

one obnoxious cunt with schizophrenia and too much time on his hands

>>3163366

hahahha
makes sense since i actually switched to this trip the night of 1000 d&es, posting as one and then just kept it because my old trip wasnt secure

>>3163377
Here's an example of tripcode only that you can see on the list there.

>>3162764
Except for /b/ , /a/ & /mlp/ all boards don't follow correspondence to what they were made for.

>>3162764
>No one here ever corresponds about literature. He should really just close this board down.
as opposed to /sp/, /co/, etc., which are always on-topic and always great.

>people who don't know anything about philosophy talking about philosophy
>"meta" threads about how to categorize types of literature
>threads that aren't about literature

honestly everything else is ok

>>3162804
It's worse since it's slower.

Am I the only one that thinks naming the board /lit/ instead of /books/ was the initial big mistake. All it seemed to do was attract a disproportionate amount of posts and posters that moot would consider "pretentious assholes"?

I post here a lot lately, but I think a more generalist board topic/guidlines - especially with its attitude to printed media would make the quasi-intellectual bickering and trolling less prominent.

>>3163338
a surprising sense of self-affirmation and confirmation and freedom that isn't pretentious

/lit/ IS the best board on 4chan, it's just become customary to call any board on 4chan shit.

Seriously, I thought /mu/ was good before I came here, holy shit.

it now seems evidently clear that i am king of both /lit/ and the world

/pol/ is having a literature thread while /lit/ has its existential crisis after it has been decried by the the almighty creator.
>>>/pol/7518696

>>3163415
>seems
>evidently
>clear

not king logician though

That's right, you can just talk about history on the boards that aren't shitholes, like /int/, /r9k/ and /pol/.

>>3163419
>implying we don't have this recommend-threads ever day
>implying that thread is any good


why u even poast 'ere, mate

>>3163408
Haha, I laughed. Touché I guess.

>>3163406
No, I agree. There's a lot of good stuff here; unfortunately it's clouded by an orgy of pretentious faggots. I've been coming to lit on and off for a couple of years, and it's like philosophy threads make up half the threads on the front page at any given time. The ironic thing is that if we were to get rid of them with a philosophy board, I'm afraid there wouldn't be enough people left here.

/lit/ reeks of pretentious snobs

>>3163438
People who say "reeks of pretentious snobs" reek of pretentious snobbery.

>>3163441
Struck a nerve?

>>3163438
Of course, you are better than all of them, right?

>>3163444
You are talking to a tripfag.

>>3163446
suck my penis

>>3163435
Well, I'm not trying to slag off the more erudite undergrads engaging in the literary equivalent of sack tapping/hazing rituals too much. It's entertaining for what it is, but it also leaks into other threads. It gets old.

Like I've just taken to espousing a particular line of argumentation for the duration of a thread and trying to get people to refute it since I have nothing better to do.

>>3163449

WE VurtKonnegut NOW

>>3163457

Are you stupid?

>>3163507
Dude, quit attention-whoring.

>>3163449
>>3163461
>>3163507
Stop pretending to be me.

>>3163512
>lol listen to the tripfag so ironic.
I agree, since tripfagging, especially with a secure tripcode is even more attention whoring.

Source: Personal experience and observation.

>>3163513
As a result of this development, I've decided to start using a tripcode.

>>3163519
GREAT NOW WE'LL NEVER LOSE TRACK OF YOUR BRILLIANCE

>>3163519
That's not funny.

>>3163513
Sorry Vurt, I actually think you're one of the best namefags, but you should really get tripped up

>>3163519
Imposter.

>>3163526
>>3163519

>>3163527
>best namefags
>mfw paradox
>mfw irony

>>3163536

How is that ironic or a paradox?

>>3163536
Meh, I'm the best of the worst, it's not really a paradox.

>>3163518
That hurts my feelings. All the best things I've done for this board I did anon, just to avoid the appearance that I was using a trip for attention. I use a name because (1) we don't have per-thread IDs; (2) I want to be able to maintain conversations within a thread, and sometimes across threads; (3) I don't give a fuck about the anonymous "ideology". I use a (non-secure) trip on the off chance that someone would try to impersonate me--though I'd like to think I don't give people a reason to. I've never understood why some people lump all tripfags together with broad, clearly untrue statements like yours.

tl;dr hating tripfags is just another kind of racism.

>>3163548
I've found that in most contexts, it's best NEVER to acknowledge that you have a tripcode. I use mine for accountability and resolved to change my name every now and then so it doesn't seem that I'm constructing any sort of identity.

The board's pretty friendly, though, so there's never really a problem. I'd actually like to know how many people who figure that 'tripfaggotry' is necessarily a bad thing are from this board.

>>3163419
>that recommended reading list

I feel like hilarious and eye-opening just means shitposting and Nazism. Quality hasn't been the best on /lit/ lately, but you'll see rogue professors or people who studied with Joyce scholars or what have you, which is generally worth wading through everything else. It's just not a very fast board.

>>3163610
Why is constructing an identity a bad thing?

>>3163548
Oops, sorry. I mistook your second character as a second exclamation point.

Insecure (not non-secure) tripfagging is just as silly as namefagging, if not sillier.

Hey, it could be worse. Derrida could be frequenting these boards. I remember he visited once but I ran him off. Thank me.

>>3163644
Because the site culture dictates it as thus.
I suppose. Whichever way though.

>>3163654
If you're going to pretend to duplicate my tripcode, at least try a little harder. Anyway, I explained my reasons, and your ability to script-kiddie yourself an approximation of my trip isn't relevant. If I "lose" my identity, I'll just post under a different name/trip, or anonymously (as I do about 50% of the time).

Anyway, peace to you, brother. We're arguing about bullshit.

>>3163664
>at least try a little harder.
I only spent a few seconds.

The EF6 tornado must have landed.
Because you are devastated.
etc.

Where the fuck did this new wave of tripfags crawl out from?

>>3163678
>implying it isn't one person using a lot of trips.

>>3163678
Most here I can recall having been here for at least a few months.

>>3163678
>mfw tripfags

in all honesty almost no one on this board introduces or tries to discuss literature outside of entry level stuff and college syllabus standard reading

you see little to no discussion of modern literature and less discussion of writers who aren't incredibly respected

>>3163686
I try to start some threads. They drop like lead shit. I still try. They still drop.

>>3162777
>>3162793
These are the kinds of people that bring down this board. The, 'REAL LITERATURE VERSUS TRASHY PLEB GENRE FICTION' kind. Please leave, never come back, and die in a fire.

>>3163681
>not having a tripcode that is all numbers symbolizing pseudo-anonymity where an anon is their post numbers.

See mine? It's somewhat close.

>>3163686
I do. I always start threads about books outside of the Western canon, but they 404 with only a few abusive posts inside.

No matter how you word a post, if it isn't one of about 30 books it just gets ignored.

>>3163695
>not knowing the cardinal rule of getting your thread going
You have to samefag your thread until it can attract people. Discuss with yourself if you have to.

>>3163528
VurtKonnegut is dead.

>>3163690
The second guy does have a point. If you can't discuss a book beyond "which is the most awesomest fight guise?!", you should not be on a literature board. I mean, I'd be fine with even a simple discussion of ASOIAF politics or something.

>>3163690
I think ASOIAF is a nice book, just it's not ok to spam /lit/ with threads about it ONLY, there are much more books, some of them better, some of them worse.
1 topic= nice addition
200+ topics= omgstop!

The feminism, cis privilege, gender neutral shit from tumblr has to stop. When a potentially decent thread about Joseph Heller descends into another shitfest about female circumcision in Uganda, you know something's wrong.

This asshole has to stop too. Every time a book like fear and loathing, anything by the beats, even Stoner by Williams is mentioned, he spams the same "hurrrr420weeeeeds" shit. I understand the straightedger doesn't like drugs, but stop trying to censor drug related literature.

>>3163630
>>3163686
I feel the reason /lit/ is so slow is just the nature of the board. Someone on /mu/ can say "Hey, check out this song/album." and in no time at all, others can go and listen to it and have a discussion about it. With /pol/ it's basically just "here's an article supporting my point. Your thoughts?" followed by a discussion (whether or not it's filled with shit posting is solely based on the nature of the OP.) /lit/ requires someone to have read a book before they could try offering some opinion or otherwise they get dismissed for either not finishing or reading the damn book.

I think one major way we could improve this board is to start injecting more contemporary literature into this board. Or at least creating an environment that doesn't involve the same classical authors that some people just don't want to read for various reasons. It'd make the board attractive and more "cultured" in the sense that there would still be shitposting threads but it would be balanced out with genuine discussion.

>>3163743
>stop trying to censor drug related literature.

Not censor. Laugh at.

>>3162746

>ruining this board and turning it into a 'shithole?'

>Implying /lit/ wasn't always bad

ISHYGDDT

I don't care what moot thinks. For every DFW thread (which really aren't inherently bad if only anyone ever actually read his books), there are threads where people get turned on to books like Stoner, Amsterdam Stories, etc.

>>3163743
I think it's Roach Guy, the arch autist of 4chan.

>>3163780
That really wouldn't surprise me.

>>3163780
>arch

installgen2

>>3163743
lol I have never seen "Why isn't it legalized" discussed on /lit/ and probably seen at most 2 stoner type threads in the past year.

/lit/ is a great board if you contribute -- you start to appreciate those who do to

>>3163699
>>3163700
I agree with you both, I was just referring to the incessant bitching for the sake of bitching directed against genre fiction in general simply because it's genre fiction.

>>3162754
>General dislike of Snow Crash
Really? I mean, I took a few months break from /lit/ and only just returned, but no one used to hate that book. In fact, I was in a cyber punk thread not too long ago and it was recommended a few times.

>>3162825
>Does image related look like 4chan?

Bottom right of your screen, select "Tomorrow"

>shit layout, posts don't pop up when you role over replies, etc.

Those are all relatively brand new features.

>It's a shitty knock-off.

This site is, for all intents and purposes, an English "knock off" of 2channel.

Doesn't make our chan or theirs any bad. I use multiple chans, but not 420. They all offer different experiences than you might get here.

I'd probably say some posters would consider us shit due to:

>Slowness
Self-evident. Leaves collections of bad threads mixed with the good ones for a long time
>Population
We're very, very small compared to most other boards
>"Pretentiousness"
We're more "pretentious" than even /mu/ because reading is just one of those things where some people hate it on its very principles and shit. Also, we're pretentious
>General board attitude
We don't have the teen-boy outlook and attitude of /b/, /v/, and /a/, and thus, as another poster put it, we don't really "fit" on 4chan.

That said, I don't agree - I love /lit/. I've had great discussions here, learned a lot, got great recs, and other such things. Can't say the same for most other boards. We have our troubles and our obnoxious tripfags and our shit threads but I think there's a nice balance of good among that.

>>3163860
(cont.)

Why do people here dislike posting about philosophy? I can understand that it does take up a lot of threads here, but the fact that many authors use philosophical themes in their works, or write essays on philosophy, or are philosophers as well as authors, makes me feel like we should talk about it here.

>Moot says /lit/ is a shithole.

Moot thinks he has a global ownership of the word Moot.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/20/4chan_threatens_over_moot_name_use/

It's not really that bad on here. Personally I think it's a nice mix of serious and troll. And it will be a slow board, as a lot of its target audience will have this big selection of books when they want to read; a web page will not be the first choice of preference when someone here wants to read.

Yeah, some of the cringe worthy attempts at winding people up are just an embarrassment, and the gender thing is just boring now, but on the whole it's not beyond tolerance. As long as the odd gem shines through the shit, which it does, from time to time who cares.

And I think the board can survive the odd drug thread. As I tried to point out the other day: a lot of the time writing about drugs is a kind of post trauma therapy. There is some worth in it as a genre of it own, even it probably deserves to sit on the 'self help' or self published tier of literature. Personally I have problems with alcohol, so how the fuck you think I feel. Ever tried escaping from that piss water in real life or media?

So everyone sit back, relax, take a drink, inhale, touch yourself to some porn, whatever, and wait for another identi kit thread about Infinite Jest to crop up. It's kind of comforting in a weird way.

>>3163887
Because it's all the fucking time. In any given week, 75% of the threads are about philosophy and philosophers. This is not a philosophy board. Other books exist, too.

>>3163887
>Why do people here dislike posting about philosophy?

i come to lit for naughty pictures and drug news. Whe you make philosophy threads, it forces extra scrolling on me. So I do my best to discourage them.

>>3163887
>but the fact that many authors use philosophical themes in their works

Because those authors don't get discussed half the time. /lit/ has become a haven for threads like:

-Help me pls, life has no meaning am I a nihilist?
-Implying objective reality exists
-I'm having existential crisis
-Is eastern philosophy any good, I wanna be a Buddhist
-relativism says all songs got equal value

>>3163915
Fuck off, roachguy.

I thought tg was the history board?

>>3163936
No, it's for guys who like boardgames.

>>3163937
>implying there are boardgames on /tg/
it's for faggots who play dungeons and dragons and magic the gathering

>>3163937
>boardgames

You mean tabletop games.

>>3163994
Is there a difference?

>>3163923
Yes, philosophy homework threads suck, just like ASOFAI threads suck.

Undergraduates gonna undergraduate.
Genre readers gonna genréad.

>>3163997
All boardgames are tabletop games, but not all tabletop games are boardgames since they do not all make use of a board.

>>3164001
Ah, okay. Cards and jigsaws are considered 'tabletop games.'

>>3164024
>not using a jigsaw board

Look around. Looks like the kiddies just got out of school.

>Magic the Gathering
>two Lilith St.Crow threads
>The Dark Tower
>Terry Pratchett
>greentext shitposts

>>3164060
>Looks like the kiddies just got out of school.
It's not kiddies, it's Americans. For half the day this board is a wonderful place, then the other half, when the Americans are awake, it turns to complete shit.

I haven't been to /lit/ in months but I was here in the beginning and I can tell you exactly why /lit/ is a shithole. Who wants to hang around these insufferable twats who all think they're on par with James Joyce? /lit/ is full of the kind of smug pretentious douchebags you find lounging around in Starbucks and Barnes and Noble. The kind who don't really want to talk about books of any kind, they just want to name drop and be praised for having read the classics. It's pure ego stroking for a group of unaccomplished pretenders who all say they're writing a great novel, which will obviously never materialize, and this group has not a single bit of talent, wit, or personality to share among them.

Even all this pretense and smugness would be fine if these same assholes didn't also try their hardest to shut down threads about any book that they haven't seen listed on the classics list at their local community college's library. The concept of reading for education, or pleasure, or any purpose besides posturing eludes them. And so everyone who comes here leaves immediately and never returns. The people who remain have their gigantic egos so far up their asses they don't even notice that they're the butt of jokes from every other board on this site, which is really saying something because the other boards aren't all that great either, but at least they enjoy themselves and aren't plagued by insufferable ego masturbation.

>>3164076
"Everyone on this board is a pretentious asshole, I am so much better then all of them."

>>3164080
The sad thing is, you probably think you made an actual argument, when all you did was ignore the central truth and resort to attacking the poster.

>>3164090
I didn't attack him, silly, I paraphrased.

>>3164091
Except he never made any comment about himself or even pretended to better than anyone. He only said he doesn't want to hang around smug assholes.

>>3164090
why do you think there must be an argument? sure, he may be right, but the self-righteous poster is guilty of the accusations he hands to /lit/. does this not also deserve mockery?

>>3164076
This sounds exactly like something the people you're describing would say.

>>3164096
>or even pretended to better than anyone.
He/You didn't have to explicitly say it, the insinuation is obvious.

He called us 'smug pretentious douchebags[...]plagued by insufferable ego masturbation.' I really don't think he was including himself in that description.

>>3164110
So your argument is that not being a smug pretentious asshole, and avoiding all smug pretentious assholes somehow turns everyone into smug pretentious assholes? This argument of yours doesn't hold any water.

>>3164114
I'm saying only a smug pretentious asshole would sneer at people he regards as smug pretentious assholes, oblivious to the fact that he himself is a smug pretentious asshole. Anyone who isn't an SPA would endevor to help people, instead of finding a lofty location to sneer from.

There's no actual discussion of literature. Most of the literature-related threads are people listing books they've read without giving any sort of opinion of them. Then there are the countless threads about e-readers and homework help, and the shit troll threads dealing with the usefulness or uselessness of certain university degrees or whether one medium can be considered literature.

Maybe if we had a fucking moderator these problems wouldn't be so prevalent.

>>3162746
Firstly, I would like to say that everyone on every thread are claiming the same trend. Get over it, this is what happens when noobs come in and the old folks go out. Shut your faces and deal with it.

Second. How is /lit/ shit? I have been here for literally a handful of days, and can honestly tell you that /lit/ is one of the most on track threads on this site.

Third. History thread? Why yes!

>>3164122
>I'm saying only a smug pretentious asshole would sneer at people he regards as smug pretentious assholes

No, pretty much everyone in the world sneers at SPAs. No one likes them. Even the humblest, nicest person in the world doesn't like them.

I don't quite understand moot here. /lit/ seems like one of the most civil and decent boards on 4chan. Some of the arguments people have on this board are hilarious not because they're full of memes, bad spelling and stupid points, but just the opposite. Usually they're devoid of silly memes, the spelling is good and the points are in many cases valid. If 4chan boards were personofied then /lit/ would undoubtably be the gentleman.

>>3164127
>No one likes them. Even the humblest, nicest person in the world doesn't like them.

"If you want others to be happy, practice compassion. If you want to be happy, practice compassion. Love and compassion are necessities, not luxuries. Without them humanity cannot survive."

>>3162746

HAH! Moot acknowledges that /lit/ is a shit-hole. Does this mean he's likely to kill this rotten board, I wonder?

>>3164138
I think moot can slither between all other boards with ease. He consumes popular TV and loves those Japanese cartoons. He can go to /fa/ and ask about a new grey hoodie, and talk about video games on /v/. I think /lit/ is the only board where Moot really feels like an outsider.

>>3162746
Very simple. The problem with this board is possessive teenagers. You know, the dickheads who will post in a thread solely to insult the subject matter, and drive off any new or diverse patrons with their foul-mouthed insistence to stop liking what they don't like. That's why I come here no more than once a week. Just not into the negative, man. I mean, cool, go ahead and make a thread about how much you hate Twilight or Battlefield Earth or everything by King, but don't go into those works love-threads and tell everyone to go to another board with that "pleb shit." That's why this board is a shithole. That's why even /b/ has better discussions of literature. Out.

>>3164142
Fuck off fascist theocrat.

>>3164142
You can be compassionate and still not like someone. Compassion doesn't mean liking people, it just means having sympathy for their plight and wishing to better them. Much like how I feel sympathy for the pretentious douchebags and wish to better /lit/ by teaching them to be more accepting and less pretentious. In fact, the Dalai Lama would agree that their ego is why they're such miserable people. Buddhists seek ego death, the elimination of all ego and the sense of I as an individual. That is the meaning of Oneness. The Dalai Lama would support efforts along these lines on /lit/.

>>3163659
Christ, the last thing /lit/ needs is an influx of /r9k/. THANKOO.

>>3164142
Shit, son, you've been trolled by the Dalai Lama!

>>3164149
Makes ... sense.

>>3164198
>>3164149
>that smug pretentiousness
>moot hates us because we're better than him

>>3164203
>moot hates us because we're better than him
Sir, I completely agree.

>>3163815
>/lit/
>anything-punk outside of a very small selection of classic novels
Although, thinking about it I haven't seen that steampunk DFW posted recently, so maybe people have become more permissive and I haven't noticed, but certainly there was tittering about it after moot had said he'd finished Snow Crash. I think that was late last year in an /a/ rec thread.

>>3164161


One of the best places to discuss literature is - weirdly enough - /sp/. There have been some really intelligent threads over there. It's a pretty clever board, to some extent.

If you want to talk military history, /k/ is pretty good, and /tg/ don't mind talking about fantasy books.

/lit/ is where the insecure come to pretend they're well-read parroting ideas from sparknotes about dead white male authors.

>>3164221
i suppose you only read dead female slave's diaries

you simply do not recognize the existence of aesthetic value or what?

>>3164221
The pub-talk trinity if ever there was one.

>>3164231

See - that's exactly what I'm talking about. What a cunt.

>>3164235
you should have seen it coming, where do you think you are.

>>3164235
Cunts are power.

>>3164231
>you simply do not recognize the existence of aesthetic value or what?

aesthetic value is subjective. I know you hate it, but there are plenty of people who prefer to sit down and enjoy Enders Game, The Colour of Magic, and ASoIaF, to Ulysses and Gravities Rainbow. Reading is about gaining pleasure from your hobby, and not everyone is a literature student who reads solely for the complexity of prose.

/lit/ has been shit since the Tripfag Golden Age ended
>No more TyBrax
>No more Quentin
>No more Tom Waits For No Man
>No more D&E

Truly, these are the end times.

>>3164221

I regularly post on /sp/ and I have never seen a literature thread. /sp/ does do good off-topic, but not literature. No no no no no no no no no no. No.

>>3164273
We still have D&E.

>>3164278
He's not enough

>>3164273
>TyBrax

Didn't he turn out to be autistic or something?

I had a dream. I had a dream that this was a glorious new era of /lit/. A dream where the ordinary reader no longer has to cower in the shadow of Pynchon and DFW. Where Brett Weeks and Clive Barker can come out and talk to Joyce and Hemingway, and Nabokov can sit with J. K. Rowling. No more segregation. No longer will Palahniuk and King have to give up their seats to postmodernists on the bus. We are all equal. We are all readers.

>>3164272
did i say aesthetic value was objective or something? does the fact that it is subjective mean it is any less real what the fuck are you on about

i'm talking about this douchenozzle's thinking the entire reason for people reading canonized works is bragging-rights or dogmatism

if you actually paid attention to what the fuck you're replying instead of being an insecure little fuck you'd understand i'm not dissing whatever bullshit it is you like

>>3164281
We still have OnionRing.

>>3164286
except this is totally bullshit of course

the groups don't overlap in any other meaningful way other than the fact that they consume what they do via words.

think of it as akin to asking comic book fans, visual arts fanatics and movie buffs to mingle simply because their mediums share this insignificant detail

obviously we are going to hate each other and this isn't really changeable

>>3164289
You moron. Learn to read.
you simply do not recognize the existence of aesthetic value or what?
aesthetic value is subjective
you simply do not recognize the existence of aesthetic value or what?
aesthetic value is subjective
you simply do not recognize the existence of aesthetic value or what?
aesthetic value is subjective
you simply do not recognize the existence of aesthetic value or what?
aesthetic value is subjective
you simply do not recognize the existence of aesthetic value or what?
aesthetic value is subjective

>>3164289

>accuses others of insecurity.

>>3164297
>aesthetic value is subjective
>value is subjective
>is
>IS

just because something is subjective does not mean it does not exist, you fucking retard, it's still a valid reason for reading.

i don't even know why i'm replying you clearly aren't even reading these posts.

>>3164286
/lit/ seems to grudgingly admit that King is a good writer even though his content usually sucks. Palahniuk doesn't get the respect he deserves, but so what? Eastern Europeans are derided in /pol/. Every board has an agreed-upon nadir.

>>3164286
>Why can't we talk about J K Rowling and Dan Brown and Stephen King and Clive Barker
You can, but people here just tend not to like them. Take it to the reddit books thing or something. There's more than enough to talk about in books without having to discuss stuff that already has enough outlets should you want to talk about it.

>>3164302
Epic troll!!!1

Moot thinks /lit/ is a shithole? That guy has weird tastes, I think /lit/ is one of the better boards.

>>3164314
>weird tastes
>founder of 4chan

no shit

>>3164314

Look at the argument above you. It's not a great advert for the board.

>>3164307
Can I discuss popular authors instead of the same dead white males we talk about everyday?
>Take it to the reddit books thing or something.

-/lit/

This is why /lit/ is a shithole.

>>3164319
>living white males > dead white males

???

>>3164296

Only children think this way - most normal people read "classic" literature as well as "genre" literature.

Most people over 25 are done with their "hey, I R readan Joyce I intellectual" phase. You can't read the same book your whole fucking life. Unless you're on /lit/ of course, then you don't have to even read it - just pretend you have and join some kind of imagined patrician community.

It would be sad if it weren't so ordinary.

Even his holiness DFW had Stephen King on his Lit. Theory courses.

As someone who visits /v/ and /pol/ regularly there's no way anyone could class this as the worst board on 4chan.

>>3164286

That sounds horrible. The board's called literature, not "popular novels written by retards".

THREAD TARGETED
NUKES DEPLOYING

>>3164303

I don't know why you're replying either, since you clearly have no clue what you're talking about.

>>3164323
>inb4 someone posts a photo of DFW as Dalai Lama

>>3164323
>most normal people read "classic" literature as well as "genre" literature.

yes, but normal people hardly ever visit 4chan, the demographic is actually not over 25.

we all know popular and pulp fiction are always in the backseat of great works.

>>3164272
>solely for the complexity of prose
keep projecting bro

/lit/ is a shithole.

It's not at all as shitty as most of the other boards, but it's undeniably a shithole. There's just some decency at the core of all this shit that a few of us really treasure.

I'm really pushing for /tg/ to take the bulk of the pop fiction readers that just have to talk about it on 4chan. I also wish people wouldn't be so defensive and offensive about liking genre fiction. That's not *the* problem with the board, just one that's seeming to resolve itself.

Really the biggest problem is unaccountability, but /lit/ hasn't seemed to like the idea of forced trips.

>>3164319
It's less alienation and more that his point was that the audiences are different. If the majority of the people on this board don't like genre fiction, it makes sense not to talk about genre fiction. r/books is probably where you'd get better discussion of it, I don't know.

---

And the biggest and most devestating problem ever is the word, 'pretentious'.

>>3164331
>NO U ARE

>>3164319
If you want to talk about your living white dudes that make mega-bucks, just take it somewhere else. There is often, however, discussion here outside of literature only written by white people or people with penises. Lurk more.

>>3164337

>Forced trips.

Why not circle jerk somewhere else then?

>>3164328
>The board's called literature, not "popular novels written by retards".
You do realise it is posters like you that make this place a shithole, right?

Most of us have read a substantial chunk of the Western Canon and have already discussed it to death. Modern literature isn't necessarily bad, you have just conditioned yourself to think that.

/lit/ needs more Tao Lin

>>3163762
Pretty much this

>aesthetic value is subjective
the delusion of the retard

I don't think this is particularly a shithole, this board is a neutral platform where good and bad can and have occurred before.

One of the major reasons why Moot may think a history board is a bad idea is the potential corruption of history and the spread of deceit, and Moot probably doesn't want to aid that, although anyone with decent intelligence knows to judge the creation of a human with a grain of salt.

>>3164340

This is the other part of the problem with /lit/ - the users are simply uninformed and not well-read, which leads to the idea that there's only Stephen King or Joyce in the world.

There's more to contemporary writing than

> living white dudes that make mega-bucks

but this board is so bound up with repeating the opinions of others and sticking to the "acceptable",on the rare occasion when opinions are actually expressed, rather than just a list or a title, that it's like dealing with a group of curmudgeonly old men who think everything was better back in the day.

>>3164337

>forced trips.

Why don't you go to reddit?

>305 posts.

The biggest thread on /lit/ in a long time is one about what a shithole /lit/ is/

>>3164346
Half of /lit/ is incapable of understanding Tao Lin

>>3162857
if all of 4chan could be like this, we could have nice things.

sadly, we cannot have nice things.

>>3164373

There are clearly a lot of people who would like the board to be a lot better than it is.

>>3164337
>Really the biggest problem is unaccountability, but /lit/ hasn't seemed to like the idea of forced trips.

I don't know why you imagine that /lit/ will last long if people are accountable for their intellect/taste (or lack thereof). If your mistakes are likely to follow you around, you're less likely to stick your neck out. Forced trips would be the death of (what little) diversity and nuance (there is) on /lit/. And then what would be the point of a /lit/ board?

>>3164372
I do, for niche shit. I prefer some of the community here, though, and I'm honestly content with it as is.

And I'd already accepted that it's not something anyone here wants.

>>3164379
You know what, yeah, it's an awful idea. And it wouldn't really positively effect those who act negatively, like I'd figured.

>>3164388
>saging on a board this slow, on a thread this active

>>3164394
Yep.

Did you really need to point it out? If it doesn't make a difference whether I do or not, what does it matter that I do?

>>3164401
plus the obnoxious name plus the tripcode it's too much.

>>3164394
And one that's exceeded its bump limit.

>>3162746
What is wrong with /lit/?

The threads that get the most posts on /lit/ are never /lit/ related.
Like this one.

You'd think the big fear would be a history board turning into /pol/. That or it would be saturated with pop-history.

>>3164419
It is a shithole.

It's full of kids who are still reading there way through the 'essential authors' and are to judgemental to branch out, or read purely for pleasure. So we have a group who can only discuss maybe 30-40 authors and will shit on anyone trying to discuss anything else.

>>3164438
Then why are you wasting your time here?

For someone who dislikes this board so much, you sure love posting on it.

>>3164435
As one of our resident historians, people here on /lit/ know sweet fuck all about history, but at least it isn't non-stop no-citation eisegesis here.

>>3164285
I'm pretty sure he was a suicidal socially retarded shut in.

I miss him

bump