/lit/ - Literature

How can you tell if your writing is pretentious and or childish? Is it possible to do without giving it to someone with experience to read?

>>16432350
>But that consent is invalid because a child is never developmentally aware enough of the implications of sex to consent, and the inherent power imbalance between an adult and child also makes it invalid.
Should we abolish games between parents and their children, as there are also “inherent power imbalances” to be had there?

And what are the oh-so-complex implications of sex in itself? Stimulation of genitals feels nice. Peepee inside vagina is a form of such stimulation. If both parties are old enough, the masculine white liquid that comes out (at the same moment as the male achieves the peak of pleasure) can combine with a feminine cell and thus produce a fetus and later a baby, but this information is of no use to a yet infertile child.

What other implications are there? Hmm? Oh, taboo? Oh, moral and spiritual apotheosis of sex, as something that binds your “soul” (another spook concept)?

But that’s all society. Isn’t that what the book was trying to say anyways? That anything that might make a child feel bad about sex with an adult (even if the adult is pretty and the child wants to have that experience) is caused by the society?

Yeah, right. Susan Clancy agrees with pedos. She knows that children can consent because sex is no rocket science, only the society makes it so, but there are many tribal societies where sex is tabooless and free of stigma. The same is true for many other animal species, where pedophilic sex is performed as an act of social bonding. No negative consequence of adult-child sex can be seen in any species except the hierarchical mostly judeochristian Homo sapiens. It’s a spook caused by society, and Clancy knows this. She only denied the children’s ability to consent (and half-assed it) because otherwise she’d get wrecked by everyone - she already got enough flak in academia and among regulars for the remaining thesis alone.

Bought Lolita cuz I thought it’s gud. Turns out it’s just dull, self-indulgent purple prose. The equivalent of an electric guitar player who keeps shredding all the time and thinking that his playing is captivating because of this

One cannot read a book, one can only reread it.

How was he able to write a pedophile character so well?

Ellroy, James. Despise him. Massive snob, cheap controversialist. Vulgar celebrity with little style and scope of real life aggression proportional to grand insecurity regarding his sense of storytelling. Very bald with little hope for the future in that regard.

How did he get away with it?

>dentally, I use the word reader very loosely. Curiously enough, one cannot read a book: one can only reread it. A good reader, a major reader, an active and creative reader is a rereader. And I shall tell you why. When we read a book for the first time the very process of laboriously moving our eyes from left to right, line after line, page after page, this complicated physical work upon the book, the very process of learning in terms of space and time what the book is about, this stands between us and artistic appreciation. When we look at a painting we do not have to move our eyes in a special way even if, as in a book, the picture contains elements of depth and development. The element of time does not really enter in a first contact with a painting. In reading a book, we must have time to acquaint ourselves with it. We have no physical organ (as we have the eye in regard to a painting) that takes in the whole picture and then can enjoy its details. But at a second, or third, or fourth reading we do, in a sense, behave towards a book as we do towards a painting. However, let us not confuse the physical eye, that monstrous masterpiece of evolution, with the mind, an even more monstrous achievement. A book, no matter what it is—a work of fiction or a work of science (the boundary line between the two is not as clear as is generally believed)—a book of fiction appeals first of all to the mind. The mind, the brain, the top of the tingling spine, is, or should be, the only instrument used upon a book

>>10636457
>Incidentally, I use the word reader very loosely. Curiously enough, one cannot read a book: one can only reread it. A good reader, a major reader, an active and creative reader is a rereader. And I shall tell you why. When we read a book for the first time the very process of laboriously moving our eyes from left to right, line after line, page after page, this complicated physical work upon the book, the very process of learning in terms of space and time what the book is about, this stands between us and artistic appreciation. When we look at a painting we do not have to move our eyes in a special way even if, as in a book, the picture contains elements of depth and development. The element of time does not really enter in a first contact with a painting. In reading a book, we must have time to acquaint ourselves with it. We have no physical organ (as we have the eye in regard to a painting) that takes in the whole picture and then can enjoy its details. But at a second, or third, or fourth reading we do, in a sense, behave towards a book as we do towards a painting. However, let us not confuse the physical eye, that monstrous masterpiece of evolution, with the mind, an even more monstrous achievement. A book, no matter what it is—a work of fiction or a work of science (the boundary line between the two is not as clear as is generally believed)—a book of fiction appeals first of all to the mind. The mind, the brain, the top of the tingling spine, is, or should be, the only instrument used upon a book.

>>9774611
Is there any other reason to read instead of the beauty of the words being putting together to get a magnificent painting of the world?

Literature is about the form not the message.