/lit/ - Literature

Consider, momentarily, using your brain.

>>19788796

>Is impressed by simple, straightforward, declarative prose
We are truly lost to text messages and pidgen Ebonics/Spanglish zoomer culture. The first clause isn't good, the other two clauses are fine. I would try the following rephrase:


You are advised that your inquiries are futile.
We hope, for your own sake, that this second warning will suffice.

idk, reading books i guess lol

>>19788831
reddit spacing. opinion discarded.

>>19788796
Get an office job and fire off some emails desu.

>>19788844

Don't care, never used the other thing, been using this thing since '04, am right, never changing.

>>19788831
>Is impressed by simple, straightforward, declarative prose
Yes, it amazes me how, in such a simple and brief text, this manages to be both intimidating as well as commanding an air of elegance and intellect. Redditspacing and pompousness aside, how do I achieve this?

>>19788796
There should be comma after "inquiries".

>>19788900

Don't be afraid to use simple language effectively. Listen to a speech from the Queen. When she speaks, she carries the full weight of the State and Western Society, which she embodies. She leaves the details to her PM that month. You are thinking especially of commands or "suggestions", one man ordering another around. In order for a command or a threat to really intimidate, it must be clear to the addressee that the command/threat is credible: failure to comply will have negative consequences.

The sort of "based" language that you wish to learn need not be a dickwaving contest based in actual power. You can just as easily craft insults, praise, intimations, sentiments, even similies, which carry force. Read the Gettysburg Address. Short, sweet, power, to the point. Some other man gets on stage and bloviates for a half-hour, then Lincoln comes up, does his ten sentences, and steps down.

Notice how I've cited two true leaders, not policy wonks or middle management. The sort of discourse you're looking for is simple, cuts the crap, and may be big picture. Good CEOs know how to cut through noise and get to the simple message. I knew one once.

It's a grammar work which won't teach you how to "be based" in your writing, but How To Do Things With Words will give you some concepts to think about.

>>19788960
>the Queen
>true leader
>she carries the full weight of the State and Western Society
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>19788831
You would get laughed at if you wrote/said that. Unironically have sex and learn how not to sound like a retarded nerd.

>>19789085
So what makes OP's effective and not what that reddit spacing faget came up with?

>>19789085

That's the point, though. In the movie the threat is credible. It isn't being issued by some internet tough guy.

>>19789099

The context of who's issuing the thing, as I've just said. The first clause in the OP is still bad though.

>>19789103
How would you correct it

>>19788796

You mean to say eloquent, not elegant. To make matters more confusing, the two words can be construed to have similar meanings, but they remain distinct.

>>19789100
>>19789103
stop doing unnecessary linebreaks if you want anyone to listen to your grammatical advice, redditor.

>>19789123

For that, try reading the thread.

>>19789135
>elegant: pleasingly graceful and stylish in appearance or manner.
can pseuds just fuck off, please?

>>19789140

>>19788861

I

am

an

old

man

and

I

don't

use

Reddit,

I

just

have

taste.

>>19789135
No, I mean elegant. A simple and effective use of language without falling into the snobbishness of an unnecessary word salad.

>>19789157

You mean eloquent. You are confusing the two words, and what makes it even more confusing is that you can actually mount a decent argument that you really meant elegant, even though you didn't, because the meanings of the two words are similar but distinct. Another very similar pair are discreet/discrete.

A few miles away from me, there's this jewish jewelry shop. The banners say that they have "eloquent" jewelry. Their jewelery is not well-spoken, it is instead elegant. Elegance also suggests ostentation, which can hinder good speech, except when it doesn't.

>>19789181
ugh nigga just KYS!

>>19789181
just go back to r*ddit already, holy shit. we could've had a nice thread here but now it's just fucked.

>>19789190

I promise you the word the OP really meant to use was eloquent. Look up usages of both words, see how they work in context, take your lumps, sleep on it and learn it. t. fluent English speaker

>>19789200

I have repeatedly stated that I don't use reddit, I never have. I have continuously posted on 4chan on a daily basis since 2004. You might try reading.

>>19789202
obv cuz he said simple. nigga but r u white? only a white nigga would care this much ong

>>19789099
the fact that when the guy hands Tom Cruise the note through the gates of the Epstein compound an atmosphere of menace has already been established throughout the entire film

>>19788831
while I agree the OP text isn't particularly special, it's much better than what you wrote

>>19789212
>>19789190

You can tell when someone is about to.

>>19788796
>elegant
It's terrible.


Your inquiries are useless. Give them up.

We hope for your sake this second warning will be sufficient.

>Stop thinking so much. I will not tell you again. Got it?

FTFY

Be born with high verbal iq (120 minimum)

>>19788844
4chan can't distinguish between indentation for readability and Reddit spacing which is used for the deliberate delivery of snark. The post you replied to is the former.

>>19788796
This is very basic

>>19791739
the original is better.

>>19791739
>>19791816
go back

>>19791739
It isn't terrible; you're one of those "people" who confuse brevity with sophistication. In trying to make the prose clearer, you've lost the tone.
>>19789103
>The first clause in the OP is still bad though.
No, it isn't. The pronoun "which" in this case adds a note of, oddly human, venom - as if the author had taken a moment to reinforce the point as much for his own benefit as for the reader's. Without it, the tone would be robotic. With this letter, Kubrick reminds us that the secret society is beyond powerful but not inscrutable.

>>19791739
the relative clause "which are completely useless" lends the original an air of contempt which is absent in your version. the contempt is important

>>19791892
The "tone" I lost was the tone of a pretentious halfwit who can't write. If that's what was intended, sure.

This is all looking more and more like some elaborate in-joke. If so, good luck with it, but I doubt it will prove as popular as 360 degrees.

>>19791910
>The "tone" I lost was the tone of a pretentious halfwit who can't write.
How are you this dense? It's written in a hurried, high-handed manner because the person writing the letter is a member of an elite, secret society. A person who is, in the back of his mind, still scared of being found out despite his arrogance.

The term "pseud" gets thrown around a lot, but, truly, you are one of those people who cannot see the forest for the trees. Learn to recognize context.

>>19788831
>>19789135
>>19789181
>>19789202
>>19789207
>>19791739
>>19791910

>>19788844
reddit lives rent free in your head

>>19792035
fuck

>>19792035
bitch

>>19792035
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

>>19792035
AHHHHH

>>19792035
Fuck you coward

>>19792035
I'll remember this, bitch.

>>19788796
Be brief

>>19792035
shid

>>19792035
I hate you!

>>19792293
Don't think it suffices with being brief, it's also and primarily about the choice of words what I think OP originally asked about.

Have you ever seen leaked emails from powerful and educated people and they write like retards? No capitalisation or punctuation, spelling errors, vulgarity. The undercurrent is that this is powerful people getting shit done, and there is a double game going on - careful crafting of public messages for the plebs, and then the true process.
The OP note is direct and elegant, while the hint of an error in the first clause conveys that this is inside baseball, sent by people who are not fucking around.

>>19792924
>The OP note is direct and elegant
you mean eloquent. it's a common fallacy, but the two terms are not the same.

>>19792945
No, I meant elegant. Why would you assume I meant eloquent?

>>19788844
dubs of truth lol
you've won the internet for today

>>19792035
Why must I...

>>19791944
Actually you nail it here. No more need be said about the note really. It's not something to emulate but works perfectly as as the "hurried, high-handed" veiled threat of a secret society member.

>>19788831
i agree with you

I'm curious whether Kubrick/the screenwriter might have spent time hashing out the note and various phrasings, and sat around spitballing whether to include a minor punctuation error in order to create a specific effect. Or whether it was just written straight down and considered just fine.
The way the note was handed over, the fact of its being printed/typewritten in such a way, the framing of the shot, all may have been just as important or more so, to the filmmakers.

>>19788796
Brevity combined with precision. Don't be unnecessarily wordy and get to the point as soon as possible, but also communicate exactly the information you want to get across.

>>19793070
Knowing Kubrick, yes. He would have called the top copywriter in New York at 2am New York time and asked him how they all sounded, then asked him some general questions about his craft and technique. Then called the guy's rival 20 minutes later and done the same.
Then he would have done the same to the editor of the Oxford Dictionary, run past a few variations.
He would hang up if they expected payment.
Then he may have called Frederic Raphael and said
>Freddie I need you to rewrite the note on the card
>Again Stanley!? Look can it wait, I'm still doing the dialogue with the black hotel clerk
>About that, can we make him slightly fag?
>Stanley i just spent the last 3 days learning patois
>look, just send me a new draft of the card with the threatening note, I want 10 variations by this evening. Emilio will pick them up

>>19788831
>>19791739
Remove useless inquiries, and consider these words as a second warning.
Hope, for your own good, that this suffices.

D-did I do good?

>>19793461
too plebeian sounding

>>19793461
Give up on inquiries further and be considerate of these words as a warning the second.
We are hoping for the good of yourself that sufficient this shall be.

>>19788960
Your faggotry is not eloquent.
>Use simple language effectively. Listen to speeches from the Queen. Notice how she carries the full weight of the State and Western Society. You believe in commands or "suggestions," how one man orders another. Yet commanding another requires a credible threat, and how failure to comply implies negative consequences.
>The language you wish to learn is not a dick-waving contest: you can craft insults, praises, intimations, sentiments, and even similes. Read the Gettysburg Address. Short, sweet, power to the point. Other men stand on stage and speak for half an hour, yet Lincoln stands, speaks ten sentences, and steps down.
>Notice how I have cited two leaders—not policy wonks or middle management. Look for simple discourses, the ones that cut through crap and reveal a bigger picture.
>Grammar work will not teach you. But doing things with words give you concepts to think about.

>>19793519

That's because I was simply giving instruction on [thing], without directly modeling it. I was right btw. At least someone is using eloquent properly now.

>>19792961

Because he, like me, understands what words mean.

>>19788816
fpbp

>>19788796
Read The Elements of Style, 4th ed., by Strunk and White. Its short, and has a lot of straightforward advice on writing concise prose.

Other than that, read more and pay attention to sentence structure.

>>19791739
this just sounds desperate

>>19788960
>Western Society, which she embodies.
What the fuck you're talking about anglo trash?

>>19793070
>>19793429
OP here, and this is exactly what I expected and hoped it would be discussed about when starting this thread. I am merely obsessed with the impact of language on another human, and given the tone and context of this movie I thought this brief note exemplifies what so many other writes have tried to convey in their work, and how a certain, quick amalgam of words are capable of causing an immediate impact upon the reader (context of the movie aside).

>>19793507
>as a warning the second

>>19792035
dubs and everyone's mom is saved

>>19792035

>>19792035
Don't test my luck, faggot.

>>19788831
Yours is much worse lol

>>19791997
kek based
>>19792035
pls

>>19794375
based danger dog

>>19788831
>You are advised that your inquiries are futile
this isn't a supervillian in a volcano

Kubrick btfo all of /lit/ pseuds from the grave

>>19792035
I knew someone was going to do this

>>19792945
no he didn't you fags need to come off it. Eloquent usually refers to speech, not to writing. The retard is you for unironically insisting that you're right just because you're overly proud of knowing 1 word. Of course writing can be elegant. fucking retards

>>19794779

He meant eloquent. Eloquence is frequently also used to refer to writing.

>Of course writing can be elegant.

Yes it can, but when language is described as being "good", "sharp" etc, which is clearly what the OP meant, eloquent is the word that is meant. Please just look up the word and look up some actual usages in books.