/lit/ - Literature

>>16718757
Nothing. The unusual colouration just makes the whale more mysterious

Jerusalem

Jerusalem

Moore's usually insightful and has a nice voice, but it's hard to find one without some pleb going "muh capeshit" at him - this is my current favourite: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpajFQECzAk

>>7046604
Does saving a few dollars really make you life all that much better? Maybe for people close or in poverty, but for the average working class person, saving two or three dollars won't make their life any better.

You make it seem that supporting local business is wrong. You must be a typical American who has never left the country.

But this country lives by the dollar, so it doesn't surprise me when Americans think that they will be exponentially happier when they buy from Amazon instead of the local stores.

If anything, buying from the local book store will make you happier because you know you are supporting the small business and the family who owns it, instead of giving more money to fat cats in their headquarters at the other end of the country.

>>6595863
"I'll touch you" said the man in grey, "I'll fucking touch the shit out of you, Sally."

"No Anon, please don't touch me." Sally replied, clutching her breasts in an awkward brush.

"See those trees?" asked Anon, "I'm going to fuck 'em."

http://futurelibrary.no/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Library_project

fucking why? won't be shared until 2114? fuck off

>>5571795
At no point did I claim what I was saying was original or insightful. Indeed, "The short proclamative sentences about 'deep' issues of existence etc." -- again at no point did I suggest the topic or my relations to the topic were in anyway momentous or insightful, or even use the word 'deep' at all, so I really don't know why you are using quotation marks here -- and their style thereof, were merely an expression of my thought process. I'm not sure why you have ascribed to them 'proclamation'. I was expressing my opinion on the matter, nothing more. Should I waver with 'maybes' and 'what ifs'? Should I precede all of my opinions with the following disclaimer: 'ALERT! ATTENTION ALL READERS, MY COMMENTS ARE BASED ON OPINION AND IS ENTIRELY SUBJECTIVE!!'? It's actually beside the point anyway because not only did I _not_ profess to thinking I was shitting gold as I wrote that post, but I alluded to such within the text.

Anyway I'm sure you have something incredibly insightful yourself to say on the subject having thoroughly lambasted my attempts. In fact, instead of wasting your time by responding to the tune of 'you're an idiot', why not attempt to explain why this time?

EDIT: Can I offer a hypothesis? I think that because of the medium of communication you are applying a tone and voice to my post that is contrary to the one I used when writing it. Having just read it back I can see how it might be taken as arrogant or, indeed, overly self-indulgent ('proclamative' - kek). That's not the case, as I stated earlier, the style was merely a consequence of my thinking it through as I wrote - in a brain-spill manner. I wasn't trying to state these things as fact.

POST-EDIT:
>inb4 autism for excessively long responses.
I just ain't got fuck all to do today man.

>>5418209
>maybe if I just deny everything and call him a retard he'll go away

You're a joke. Fine. Let's start at the top shall we.

I stated the opinion that I have no interest in collecting money. Your response was to imply that I was merely using this opinion as an excuse for my assumed lack of wealth. Considering the information you had on me - less than a few greentexted words - you chose to dismiss my opinion with out any information with which to back up your hypothesis. Not only does this suggest a narrowness of mind, but it implies a complete lack of understanding and, crucially, a willingness to understand. Now you will have noted that my following response was highly exaggerated -
>everyone subscribes to my views

This use of hyperbole was intended to do three things. One, to highlight the ridiculousness of your assertion. Two, to help you to reconsider your assertion. And finally, when the second point inevitably fell on deaf ears, to show you up as the witless tit you are.

>>4626167
>YOU DON'T KNOW WHO KAFKA IS? FRANZ KAFKA? WHY, HE'S A LITERARY GENIUS, HE IS. TALKING ABOUT NOT KNOWING THIS MAN. I KNOW THIS MAN. KNOWING THIS MAN MAKES ME SMART. IF YOU DON'T THIS MAN, YOU ARE NOT SMART. SEE HOW THAT WORKS? SIMPLE! SO SIMPLE! *JEFF GOLDBLUM LAUGH*

>tfw reading Romance of the Three Kingdoms for the first time and you try to figure which of the characters' names you should remember, how to pronounce them, and distinguish between the ones that sound the same

>>3985817
>All the acting in the world takes place in front of a camera or in a stage
So naive

Good acting

What has literary criticism done for society? How has it benefited anyone?