/lit/ - Literature

>>4984427
C&P is more famous.

>>4984435
Sorry. PM me if you want

>>4984437
Why would it embarrass me to win another thread like this one?

>>4984414
Yes, but it would fall on deaf ears and we're at bump limit anyway.

>>4984412
This post bears no logical relation to mine.

>>4984404
>he lost like every argument ITT
[citation needed]

>>4984392
>Why won't you type up a long tedious list to satisfy my whims?
You're inordinately obsessed with me.

>>4984396
>>4984394
>>4984391
I tend to prefer authors' relatively obscurer works. I'm sorry that this upsets you.

>>4984387
>he's got styled on in like 5 itt alone
[citations needed]

It honestly feels like some of you believe if you repeat something enough times it will magically become true.

>>4984384
No, I hate the French. But I read the existentialists in high school before my prejudices had crystalized, as do most angsty teens.

>>4984373
Ulysses is too mainstream for me. I have said this before.

>>4984358
I sparknoted high school reading unless it was something that actually interested me. Otherwise it would have cut into pleasure-reading.

Aced English class anyway, heh.

>>4984356
A: I would never complain about something if I hadn't read it.
B: I have complained about Sartre and Camus.
C: Ergo, I have read them.

It's logically unambiguous.

>>4984342
Actually I'm singing a concert of mid-Renaissance music tonight. Josquin, Brumel, the list goes on.

>>4984339
>muh high school reading list
We don't all treat art like a laundry list to be competed.

>>4984328
Did you mean to quote >>4984329 ?

>>4984320
That would be tedious as I've read most of them.

>>4984310
>you pretty clearly got styled on in every argument thread still going on
[citations needed]

Meanwhile I predict no direct rebuttals to >>4984309 .

>>4984298
Why are plebeians obsessed with "taste"? Is it because they lack the critical capacity to articulate why my favorite books are bad? Would one of you like to tell me why TBK reflects poorly on me as a favorite book.

>>4984287
/lit/ isn't actually any different from /mu/, save for a faint hint of self-awareness on the part of the latter.

>>4984271
see >>4984033
>I would never complain about something I hadn't read
Is this really such a difficult concept for so many of you?

>>4984278
Music is the superior medium.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6B_YFry2og
Nothing in the written word can convey this.

>>4984262
>What is an implicit accusation?

>>4984249
I have raised the intellectual level.

>>4984247
I've been looking at other threads and they are filled with equally vapid posters.

>>4984239
I used to read every Discworld book as soon as it came out, beginning in 6th grade or so

>>4984254
>Actually read [Camus and Sartre]?
Was the original query, which I unambiguously answered in the affirmative. Nice try, though, albeit rather wordy.

>>4984217
Could have fooled me, double-idiot.

>>4984220
Commanding me to type out a list isn't an "argument", sweetheart, and refusing to comply with something so tiresome is the common sense response.

>>4984223
Ironically, I first read Dubliners when it was assigned in high school, but was never assigned my actual favorite novel.

By all means, though, carry on with the argumentum ad strawminem. You're covering yourself in glory itt ;)

>>4984213
About as much as Paul McCartney approaches Mozart (aka with such different goals in mind as to render them all but incomparable in any constructive critical sense).

I'm disappointed in you, /lit/. I've come to expect such a low caliber of reasoning ability from /mu/, but you have a reputation as an "intellectual" board. I see clearly itt that this reputation is unfounded.

Also you have dreadful taste in classical music.

GIDF out in force itt
>>>/tumblr/

>>4984204
On my honor I have never so much as glanced at the first page.

Frankly it's too mainstream for me. I tend to prefer authors' relatively obscurer works.

>>4984198
>Salinger vs. Shakespeare? Fitzgerald vs. Keats, Shelley, Wordsworth?
Haha looks like somebody was born in le wrong generation ;)

>>4984159

>>4984172
>Classic indirect answer.
Explain how it does not directly answer the query, if you even can.

>>4984180
For a board (ostensibly) devoted to literature, you haven't got the best readers here.