/lit/ - Literature

>>4971526
You're inside the mind of a psychopath, bro

Who teh fuck cares, mate? Reading for neat word arrangement has to be the most ridiculously superficial thing there is. I mean fair enough if you like it lyrical or whatever, but holy fuck shut up.

>>4971546
>Hurr durr durr hurr hurr hurr hurr durr durr hurr hurrrrrrrr drrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Shut the fuck up

>>4971546
I appreciate content over appearance, in that a book can be written badly yet still be amazing. But surely, is there not a limit? At what point do we draw the line?

>>4971550
You're a faggot who lusts after lace panties instead of the snatch, bitch.

>>4971553
You do realise you are on /lit/ right now, don't you?

>>4971553
Groping snatch through lace panties is a pretty good feel though. You squeeze and your fingers slide into crevices as she gasps and bends involuntarily forward to allow you easier access.

>>4971553
>Hurr durr durr hurr hurr hurr hurr durr durr hurr hurrrrrrrr drrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

It's supposed to be like that. The unfiltered bombardment of long menial description is center to the book and represents superficiality, self-centered "me" culture, and other such things. It sets the tone of our psychopaths way of looking at the world.

>>4971555
And I'm on here with an appreciation for soul bound to pages; for the immortalised mind games of Nabokov and company; for creativity; for supreme creativity, the crafting of completely new worlds and perspectives --not fucking fancy use of punctuation. But it's a common capital amongst empty retards, I guess.

>>4971568
THAT is what I was looking for. Thank you. I'll give it another chance.

>>4971567
>>4971565
>>4971555
>how you sound right now

haven't read the book but i believe you are treating a stream of conciousness as if it had any actual formal pretensions.


frseeeeeeeeeeeefronnnnnng train somewhere whistling the strength those engines have in them like big giants and the water rolling all over and out of them all sides like the end of Loves old sweet sonnng the poor men that have to be out all the night from their wives and families in those roasting engines stifling it was today I'm glad I burned the half of those old Freemans and Photo bits leaving things like that lying around he's getting very careless...

that's joyce

>>4971526
>reading it in Tom Cruise's voice, lel

The reason I picked up this book was the first sentence.

That shit is wonderful -- please try and hold correct opinions in the future.

I write like that and my teacher always gives me hell about it.
I always have B or C and the same recension.

>>4972147
If that's the only way you can write, then you really suck at writing. It's fine to write like that if you can do it in a way that will make people enjoy it, but writing for school is about writing in the way the teacher wants you to write.

>>4972160
it's not the only way i can but it's the common way my mindflow goes

When i write something i consider shit-tier it gets praised X.X

its shit ellis is so worked up about writing long lists of brands that the characters are wearing that he forgot to make the book good

>>4971526
>I'd heard nothing but good about this book
The sickest people of all are not Patrick Bateman or Bret Easton Ellis, but really the jerks that say "nothing but good" about this book, like it's a nice and blameless piece of entertainment (and I saw them doing it on purpose, recommending this book to fragile people, teenage girls... that really go buy the book).
These people are real perverts IMO. The next step is probably giving away pictures of bestial porn to little children.

>>4971546
Having incorrect grammar obfuscates the author's intent further than what is necessary.

>>4972549
>author's intent

lol

>>4972549
>Having incorrect grammar obfuscates the author's intent

Are you sure?

>>4971540
no, just the mind of aterrible writer

>>4971546
>>4971552
is there no justice for tradition and respect for our written language?

>>4971553
>>4971565
nothing wrong with lace panties.

>>4971568
>>4971583
so, you wanted a bullshit justification for horrible writing?

>>4972115
haha what? now, i must re-read it in TC voice.

>>4972537
kind of

>>4972549
eschew magniloquent obfuscation, faggot

>>4972676
>is there no justice for tradition and respect for our written language?

No.

>>4972676
The only somewhat complex word in his sentence is "obfuscates". Was it too magniloquent to read little boy?

>>4972676
>is there no justice for tradition

Ugh.

>>4972681
it was asked rhetorically but thanks for the confirmation.

places like /lit/ need to stop promoting mediocre shit. the hollywood empire does enough of that.

>>4972695
>>4972703
can't tell if precocious pretension or too ignorant to spot a joke.

>>4972711
>places like /lit/ need to stop promoting mediocre shit

Idiots like you need to stop shitting the place up with misfounded ideas promulgated in the delusional belief that someone, somewhere, will be impressed.

>>4972714
>BEE, Palahniuk, Vonnegut, Bukowski, etc...

fine reads for their simplicity but it is mediocre and just that. these hams are praised when they should be taken as lightly, if not more so, as fantasy

>>4972711
>precocious pretension
That phrase is contradictory.

>I'd heard nothing but good about this book,

Perhaps disassociate yourself from the functionally retarded then?

>>4972728
>having developed early
>ostentatious
pray tell

>>4972751

Maybe you explain why you're offering an adjective as a synonym for a noun.

>>4972751
Precociousness is having developed a skill or possessing a talent at an age less than when that skill is generally developed. Pretension is attempting to show an esteemed quality (in this case, a skill or talent) but actually lacking the quality.

These words have an an almost antonymous meaning to each other, so someone having the quality of "precocious pretension" is contradictory.

>>4972774
>precocious - adj
>pretension - n
pray tell

>>4972781
>not understanding a hyperbolic insult
>not realizing it to mean one's pretension to have been developed from an early age

please be trolling, anon; i refuse to believe people are this dumb

>>4972791

Pretension - n
Ostentatious - adj

Try and keep up.

>>4972822
oh god, you're serious...

ostentatious is the definition of pretension, which is why i used it when defining these terms for you.

why am i feeding this autistic fuck?

unless you've something of substance to say, i will no longer respond.

i think you'll do better here, mate /r9k/

>>4972842
Ostentation can also be conspicuous.

>>4972842
>ostentatious is the definition of pretension

An adjective is the definition of a noun?

I'll give you a hand, dog - ostentatiousness (see? It's a noun now! Magic!) is characterised by pretention (among other things). But then, equally, precocity (more magic!) is characterised by youth (among other things). Would you then say that 'precocity is the definition of youth'?

Of course you wouldn't. I absolve you, go and sin no more, and by 'sin' I mean 'pretend to be any kind of authority on the use of language'.

>>4972862
okay, fuck it, last one...

>context
nigga, do you know this?

also,
>>/r9k/

>>4972871
so, you would have preferred i said "to be ostentatious"
lrn2context, you autistic faggot.

let's try the autist test: i'm out, my work day is done and i'm off to the bar, i am telling you that i will not read your response. if you respond, you are autistic, if you need an explanation as to why that is, you are autistic.

let /lit/ see the autism flow through you, i'm out

>>4972893
>context
yes, in the post I REPLIED to you were discussing the definition of words. It is not the same body of text as your original sentence.

So whats next? Are you going to say that this was all an ironic troll?

>>4972893
>so, you would have preferred i said "to be ostentatious"

Actually, I would have preferred that you not offer a quality characterised by X as 'the definition of X', since that's not how definitions work, at all. Ever.

>i'm running away now and if you reply i win

Yeah, that seems about your speed. Enjoy pretending to like, know stuff and be all smart and shit.

>>4972711
So are you kidding or not? Getting defensive about a joke doesn't really make any sense.