/lit/ - Literature

>>13780882
I bet it's Japanese light novels. Also,
>isn't good literature subjective

>>9822152
Pic related is you right now. There isn't an agreed upon meaning because not everyone can spend 25 years studying nothing but literature or music or film. Art and its parameters for being judged became (with the Modernists) democratic rather than the work of elitists who dedicated their whole life to it.

That's why, today and throughout the past century, we have autistic shitbags such as yourself thinking not only that their opinion on any artistic matter should hold any weight, but that it HOLDS any weight.

>Avatar is a shitty example
It's the utmost example of commercial success, for commercial success is a direct reflection of the impact it had on people who went out of their way to buy it so much it's the #1 best selling film of all time. You need to come to terms with it and accept that "social impact" is irrelevant when gauging the quality of anything.

>Rest of you sperging out and trying to justify sales as the ultimate indicator of quality
Keep being a basic bitch.

>>9822160
Scaruffi was made into a meme by asshurt Beatlesfags, but he is correct about everything. They're commercial garbage and nothing more. They had a formula, much like most musicians of their time. Beach Boys were better in every way, except the commercial aspect of it.

>>9822163
Is this an implication that I don't listen to Dadrock? Or, once more, we have a loser who feels like projecting his own status onto others because it causes him angst to look in the mirror?

>Then why did you use fame as an indicator of quality
If you bothered to read the entirety of the post, maybe the message you would've gotten wouldn't have been "BEATLES WERE BAD BECAUSE THEY WERE FAMOUS".

You're mentally impaired it seems, and through extreme mental gymnastics and selective reasoning to justify how much of an actual clinical retard you are.

>>8850608

That's why I put it in scare quotes. I expected the people with more mental facility than you to be able parse out the meaning. I don't consider wallowing in mindless escapism and cheesy boarding school novels fun, but a lot of people do - which is how we get misunderstandings like this btw.

>>8850635

>It's purely subjective

"Well I liked it, so it must be good!" is not an argument.

>>8411506

>>7995764

>>7126222

he wants respect from the poor
not respect from the rich


top pleb

the problem with this image I'm using is that it pretends it has internal consistency.

the first two pictures use criteria to compare different things with one another (at least for the most part), whereas the later pictures pretend that there is an objective barometer for absolute quality

>book x is objectively better than book y because it employs literary techniques
this doesn't follow. who determined that the presence of concepts such as stream-of-consciousness made a book objectively better? does it get better if there is more of it? which techniques are better than others?

ultimately, our brains are complex input-output systems. the same input produces different experience depending on which brain it goes into, under which circumstances, etc. value is subjective.

>>7116983
>muh feelings

>>7110662

>>7089222

>>7024956
>if you're mean to me you must hate yourself
Have you ever considered maybe people just don't like you because of you stupidity?

>/lit/ should accept every opinion just like r/books and /tv/eddit
>hurr durr it's all relative man, if you think otherwise you must be an elitist
kill yourself

>>6915570

Well that's why we have the canon. Both ordinary readers and knowledgeable academics have enjoyed these books for hundreds or even thousands of years.

>quality ideas
>quality writing
>depth and breadth of knowledge
>innovation
>mastery of the medium

I mean if you want diversity read Juan Rulfo or Virginia Woolf not fucking Sherman Alexie or some shit.

>>6915582

Very sad to be honest.

any board worth its salt will inevitably have threads about philosophy, because the more profound and essential the topic of discussion gets, the more philosophical it inevitably gets.

/lit/ -> books -> criticism -> literary theory -> philosophy

/v/, /fa/ or /ic/, etc -> product -> criticism -> theory -> aesthetics -> philosophy

/sci/ -> phenomena -> methodology -> paradigms -> epistemology -> philosophy

And so on. In fact as a rudimentary rule of thumb a constitutive part of overall quality of the board can probably be derived from the degree that philosophy impinges upon the topics of discussion.

>>6455202
Do you mean genre fiction? Seems like those are the types who would hate on phil whereas classics overlaps with it.

>>5107941
4

>>5020721

>>4901551
he meant the tripfag user known as "Deep & Edgy"

pic related, something he made

>>4747375
>x is the best book this decade/in the genre/about dogs/et cetera
>has read nothing else this decade/in the genre/about dogs/&c

When plebs can't see the difference between "I like" and "I have a large volume of personal and questionably academic experience in x that informs my opinions regardless of individual taste" I want to give them the angry D.

I can tell you the purpose, which I learned from the world but studied in depth watching other boards. By shunning objectivity, not making comparisons or having a base in established concepts, there is no discussion, no conversation, no give and take. It's a circle jerk.

>I like this and that's all there is.
That's all sergeant subjective has to say. He might tell you what he likes specifically, what it recalls within him but little else. It's a poor way of building a shared world between islands of solipsism.

Subjectivity is a transitory period when one isn't widely read and hasn't tired of talking at others for validation instead of relinquishing it to speak with them in conversation. It's hard to hold on to a limited view when widely read and impossible to defend your position without metrics in the shared world.

Subjectivity is fapping in the dark while objective dialogue is sex with the lights on. This is why destroying a tumblr feminist's argument is objectively rape.

I was listening to some poetry readings of William Wordsworth on Youtube and, to my honest surprise, was suggested a video titled
> Rachel Wiley - "10 Honest Thoughts On Being Loved By A Skinny Boy".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRFOTqTicvY

Could someone please explain to me the criteria which qualify this as poetry? Also, is this the future of poetry? or am I just a grumpy old-fashioned guy who 'just doesn't get' progress?

>>4484571

According to the people of /lit/, there seem to be universal truths in literature and the idea that literature is determined based on subjectivity lessens the medium to resemble other forms of media entertainment. Consult the pic for more information.

So OBJECTIVALLY speaking, what's the best book that's ever been written? Remember, keep your damn subjectivity out of this.