/lit/ - Literature

>>20599957

>>16605917
>not listening to all genres

I fundamentally mistrust all history books. It is an irrational paranoia. I constantly doubt any historian's capacity for objectivity.

This is wrong and stupid, right?

>>9755458

Why do you assume OP that people rewarded her for being a black woman?

You have presented no evidence except the fact that she is black and a woman.

This apparently is proof itself that she must have been rewarded, proof in and of itself that the Hugo voters could not have found merit in her work because it is the work of a black woman and the work of a black woman is entirely without merit so for such a work to win then something else must be afoot.

But you are forgetting one thing.

The Hugo Awards are a Popular Award. Anyone can pay and register and vote.

So checking on librarything I find that the conservative christian science fiction author and sad puppy luminary John C. Wrights most popular work is possessed by 644 people.

While N.K. Jemisins most popular work is possessed by 2,316 people.

What do you think will happen in a Popular Award where 644 people vote for one work and 2,316 people vote for another work?

Do you think I will find similar results if I check on Goodreads? If I check their Amazon ranking?

The Hugo is a popularity contest, mass appeal books are typically the winners.

Usually they have been space operas/space adventures/science fantasies

>>9066038
>Communism relies on the state forcing an unrealistic unsustainable model in the long term

So just like capitalism?

>>6658752
>Without art, science cannot create.

>Concerning the angels, we consider first what belongs to their substance; secondly, what belongs to their intellect; thirdly, what belongs to their will; fourthly, what belongs to their creation.

>Objection 1: It would seem that an angel is composed of matter and form. For everything which is contained under any genus is composed of the genus, and of the difference which added to the genus makes the species. But the genus comes from the matter, and the difference from the form (Metaph. xiii, text 6). Therefore everything which is in a genus is composed of matter and form. But an angel is in the genus of substance. Therefore he is composed of matter and form.

>Objection 2: Further, wherever the properties of matter exist, there is matter. Now the properties of matter are to receive and to substand; whence Boethius says (De Trin.) that "a simple form cannot be a subject": and the above properties are found in the angel. Therefore an angel is composed of matter and form.

what idiot reads this shit?

>>5993789
That's like saying grammar isn't necessary to knowing how to write. Theoretically (hue hue hue) someone could pull off writing without ever learning grammar rules, but they'll get nowhere as near as they could. Even when you are breaking the rules, that is to say tonal functions, it's the fact that you know what the rules are in the first place that makes it able to achieve the effect you want. Like if we didn't read most literature with many commas, Cormac Mccarthy wouldn't be special. And it's not like he's special because he breaks the rule, it just is a part of his style.
Louis Armstrong is really the only successful case ever of such a phenomena, and that's because he didn't write the songs he played, he just improvised over them so he only had one melodic line to worry about.

First of all it's nearly impossible to create chord progressions and thus any homophonic texture (which nearly all popular music is written in as well as most other genres) without at least some knowledge of diatonic functions. Then, if you want to achieve any polyphony, then you need to know how harmony works, and ought to know voice leading rules. If you want to write for instruments that aren't in concert pitch, you need to know how to transpose.

>>5368172
>mfw dick says that because Creationists are wrong God cannot exist.

I'm functionally atheist but this book does nothing for me.

>>5280745
>He does not offer a theory of stages that turn a civilization from not much into something great, which is vital
I'll explain this a little better since its clear you don't understand.
What you're describing is not cyclical history, as opposed to linear history, you illiterate. You're transposing modern concepts such as 'progress' and 'decline' upon Greek thought, and that's why you're so confused.

>>5280745
>Plato just posits the original state as the most desirable
[citation needed]
Christ, you have no clue what you are talking about, do you?

>(generally ending with the termination of that civilization)
Wrong again! Because, since it is cyclical, you have a stage of renewal and rebirth in which the CYCLE starts over.
Only MODERNITY posits an END (either good or bad, generally good). That's why concepts such as 'progress' and 'decline' (in the HISTORICAL sense of these terms) don't exist in Greek thought.

Seriously, if you're trolling, then 10/10. It's truly subtle, yet at the same time an exposition of complete arrogance in ignorance. bravo, bravo!

Did you even read the book, you fucking subhuman? It was clearly written to show colonization as morally ambiguous from an African's perspective by portraying Okonko's culture as violent and intolerant, while also showing white colonists as exactly that.

>>5059836
Err the only reason they were able to recite thousands of lines of verse from memory was because it had a metrical structure. Otherwise epic oral poetry would be completely impossible.

>>5045587
>animal farm
>children's book

>>4758996
>Psychopaths are not by definition incapable of caring about other people.

>>4634209
>>4634208
'power' is just the dynamic through which the 'self' or 'subject' is constructed. the point is a critique of the liberal subject and an explanation of the post-structural subject.

you don't get it, because you've only gotten the 'here's how Foucault justifies our asinine activism' version of Foucault. You have, in fact, imbued Foucault with your own bourgeois ideology when you were reading him.
How do I know? Well, let's do a geneology of his ideas. First, his mentor, Althusser
anti-humanism
etc etc etc

>>4634213
>Well existentialism, for instance...
the main difference is that in existentialism you are able, as a subject, to create your own meaning, in Foucault you are unable to do so, because you are constructed AS A SUBJECT by society, as process called 'power'

>I'm not going to through this for you.
you lose
QED

but, I bet you're going to go to bed tonight, forget this whole conversation, and keep repeating that retarded shit you said like its true.

Try this. Take this conversation to a professor of Foucault, and ask him/her if I'm right. Not any professor - go to your nearest R1 university, to the philosophy department, and find someone who specializes in Foucault and ask them if I'm right.
Prediction: you won't

>>4613029

>>4591176

>>4316788
Nope.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vExjnn_3ep4

>>4206465
>Vindictus

It's "Invictus" OP, don't listen to this nignog.

>>4059916
>Dem logical fallacies

>>3926359
Well, without humanity, there isn't a such thing as morality. Do you think rocks follow an ethical code? No, morality is a social construct.

>>3721981
So the thousands of years of people writing, learning, thinking, painting and, yes, even helping people despite being shunned, prosecuted, incarcerated, threatened with death and executed because of it, that was all just imagined, because there's no such thing as immaterial gain?

>>3434419
>I always tell them there is only one race