Tragedies

Majnun and Leyli, of which there are about a dozen variations, but Nizāmi Ganjāvi wrote the best one.

As novels go, The Possibility of an Island.

what a wonderfully strange post

The last letter of Queen Marie Antoinette.

Your existence.

my diary desu :(

The Death of Ivan Ilyich

>neo-Veeky Forums does not know what a tragedy is

Well that's sad. You could say that's... a tragedy

>thread about tragedy
>exactly one (1) post out of seventy-five (75) that rises above extremely low-effort
>OP clearly made the thread because he is a wikipedia-jockey who wanted to feel superior after reading a cursory definition of tragedy
>some 90% of the posts are a namedrop without any thought behind it presented

Why is this? Is it because Veeky Forums users don't actually want to talk about literature, but merely like the thought of being well-versed in it and well-read? How does such an attitude make sense on a board characterized by anonymity and impermanence? Is it because anons are afraid to speak up, due to the harsh environment, exemplified in a stellar manner by OP, but pervasive on the entire board, of being hateful, spiteful and calling people plebs for holding any opinion which differs from one's own without providing justification for the contempt? Is it because Veeky Forums has just got caught up in a cycle of low-effort, thoughtless shitposts breeding low-effort, thoughtless hate, and no one is bothered to even try anymore?

As for your question OP, I think this thread is a good example of tragedy, as a synechdoche of Veeky Forums in general. We have a forum for the discussion of literature, marked by anonymity and impermanence, which should be more than enough to voice any opinion, without fear of being ostracized for being a plebeian or an idiot. But we don't use it. Even worse, our use of the board allows us to nourish the delusion of being well-read and literary, despite obviously being incapable of stringing together even three sentences on why we like something, why we consider it eminent tragedy. It's low-effort automatic behavior through and through, cranking out some contextually not too outrageous claim to what is a good tragedy in order to fulfill the function of the board, which is evidently to allow anons to feel as if they're patrician for spouting the right opinions, but anonymously, without any commitment, commitment to following up or presenting one's reasoning, something which would instantly dispel the delusion of literary erudition. It's an automated and self-perpetuating resentment machine, completely anodyne in it's underlying consensus, the only "challenges" presented between anons being unsubstantiated shit-flinging and name-calling, which is always low-effort, and never a real challenge.

And for some reason, we're here forever. That's tragedy.

books where the dog dies

So can all of you get of your high horse and explain to me the meaning of this:
>freedom and glory of tragic emotion

from this post How can there be freedom and glory in tragic emotion?