Https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/books/review/sean-penn-bob-honey-who-just-do-stuff.html

holy... I want more

Attached: PennProse.png (812x906, 136K)

Still better than Joyce.

never heard of this guy but id take a mallet to him

this reads like richard mcbeef

>Ridley Scott

Leave that senile old man alone.

/r/books hates him so that means we like him right?

No woman knows the meaning of her favorite songs. Women are idiots to begin with.

No, fuck him, I'll never forgive him for lying about the bishop of Jerusalem in Kingdom of Heaven.

Nice imagery here and there but some words feel way too forced.

what did he lie about??

Made him out to be a generally cowardly and unsympathetic character. In real history, the bishop had a fair amount of courage and was instrumental in brokering the truce between the crusaders and Saladin. But Ridley Scott is a degenerate atheist, so of course he couldn't show that.

nigga it's a movie, it's meant to diverge for entertainment and artistic reasons. stop seeing snakes in every bush, it's unhealthy for your mind and happiness.

I'm not that poster, but I'll agree with him. Scott's own personal vendetta against the church led him to paint anyone of real religious aspect in a poor light.

nah, you can see Scott's prejudices towards Christianity all over that film

I bet he smells delightful.

Attached: seth-rogen-good-boys.jpg (1000x562, 213K)

Nabokov's debut novel was even shorter

Plus he had it in for the Templars.
The Templars did nothing wrong.

what the fuck is this shit. hes trying to do the postmodern thang I assume

See not tell works in books like it does in movies. The wife should have been introduced in a scene before this where her idiocy is properly expressed through her actions and words. Then you start this scene with "Every morning when Bob woke up it felt as if his ex-wife was still beside him in bed." Then you just explain the negative emotions he's feeling that he conflates with the image of his ex-wife.

What the fuck is this clunky, needlessly verbose shit. ITS BAD

>We are not simply a people in need of an intervention, we are a nation in need of an assassin.”
>A mildly conservative politician with crass mannerisms bothers Hollywood liberals so much that they consider assassination justified
The absolute state of normie liberals

Attached: wfUVEvx.png (455x561, 462K)

That's an insult to post modernism

You're just jealous that he got published before you.

>mildly conservative politician

he's a narcissist zionist neoliberal reactionary, he's the absolute opposite of a level-headed conservative

It's really interesting how Penn is able to garner hatred from the right and the left equally.

>he's a narcissist zionist neoliberal reactionary
>Narcissist
No, people keep throwing this term around without knowing what it means
>Zionist
Yes, as are most US politicians
>Neoliberal reactionary
I'll take oxymorons for 200

Trump is a midly conservative New York politician who existed as a New York Democrat for years hence his *protectionistic and pro Union* stances. In no way is Trump a neo-liberal

He literally made God a character.

You can't discern a vendetta or prejudice from one movie. More like the original poster has a prejudice against the irreligious, than anything.

>it's another "americans don't know the meaning of neoliberal" episode
getting really stale

Is there an audiobook version?

Let me guess, ... It's about the adventures of a handsome actor who escorts a spicy Latina reporter to meet a drug lord named El Slappo, right?

>spizzerinctum

Attached: 1521215322700.jpg (1024x1024, 46K)

>It's a European thinks Donald Trump is pro free trade episode
I hate those episodes, like I get they don't know what they're talking about

>it's another "europeans don't know the meaning of neoliberal" episode
really getting stale

>I'll take oxymorons for 200
Who is Margaret Thatcher

I saw his post on Good Reads and the top comment was something along the lines of *autistic screetching* why are his favourite books all by men waahhh

Absolutely pathetic. They literally can't talk about anything other than the fact that his favourite books are by men.

This guy is retarded as well, talks about statistical bias and doesn't understand what bias is.

Definition of a cuck.

Attached: 1519401007234.png (1046x582, 88K)

>Thatcherism is reactionary
Are you just using reactionary synonymously with conservative? Emberassing.
>It's a britbong doesn't understand politics outside of his little island episode
Trump is nationalistic but is absolutely not in favor of free trade / minimizing unions. His entire platform is to be a right wing protectionistic response from neo-liberals policies ffs

>Emberassing
Missed an a

>Are you just using reactionary synonymously with conservative?
Nope. She was reactionary in the context of the EU, she was an ardent nationalist who did everything to favour his country in the short term at the expense of the union.
And let's leave Trump out of this because the man just does anything he thinks will get him votes.

>She was reactionary to the EU
*Conservative towards Britain as I understand it. It's hard to call someone who is essentially just a nationalistic liberal a reactionary if you read history, then again it is a somewhat subjective term. It both means far right and someone who simply favors the status quo, so the attempted coup attempt by the Soviet Congress against Yeltsin during the 1993 constitutional crisis was technically committed by communist reactionaries

>Trump just does whatever he can to get votes
Yeah, no. He doesn't. Another bong ignorant of politics outside of his own country. Typical. If anything Trump intentionally avoids the path of least resistance

>his country
Subtle

still not as cringey as morrisseys description of intercourse
>pic related

Attached: morrissey.jpg (571x251, 34K)

Why? It's so verbose just... why?

Attached: the petals fall twice.jpg (750x971, 301K)

>minimal ass-piss
>ass-piss

This is up there with GRRM's beautiful line about a ship groaning like a fat constipated man trying to take a shit (or something).

Attached: ass-piss.png (638x120, 28K)

Attached: 1445972464054.jpg (482x427, 36K)

So prolix, and it's a fucking sentence fragment. Morrissey gets 1st prize in pseudery.

"Bulbous salutation" is rather a funny phrase, though.

what the fuck is with these people that everyone has to abide by their set precedent of what a "worthy" commentator is.

>waddamean your book about quantam computing doesn't have several passages devoted to transgender black asians. how dare you call yourself a writer!

>It's hard to call someone who is essentially just a nationalistic liberal a reactionary if you read history
A "reactionary" in the context of EU and the geopolitics of the time, as I've already said.
>Yeah, no. He doesn't.
Oh yeah he does. His manoeuvers are shortermism of the worst kind. And I'm not a bong.
;)

>A "reactionary" in the context of EU and the geopolitics of the time, as I've already said
Well then I guess Hillary Clinton would be a reactionary to communism because she is a capitalist. Right. Okay.

>Oh yes he does
*Oh no he doesn't? But do go one about what you read on Vox or see on Liberal Fox News aka MSNBC/CNN

Jesus... this guy was a scenery chewing pseud his entire life. He even acted in a Malick film. I can only imagine the high-octane cringe dripping from this book.

>A "reactionary" in the context of EU
I guess Stalin is a reactionary in the context of Marxism because he was a nationalist and favored statism.

Stop blatantly moving the goalposts holy shit, Donald Trump is not a neo-liberal and the only way to call neo-liberals reactionary is to engage is extremely obscure semantics that is inherently left leaning (as it places liberalism in a reactionary stance)

>Malick
>pseud
Reminder that he's a Harvard-graduating Rhodes Scholar who met with and translated Heidegger

>Reactionary of the time
Define "the time"

>You can't discern a vendetta or prejudice from one movie.
>But you can do it from a single Veeky Forums post

Attached: 1518995764586.png (408x406, 33K)

>the otherwise central zone
tf is that

>Well then I guess Hillary Clinton would be a reactionary to communism because she is a capitalist. Right. Okay.
False equivalence, unless America is going towards a communist revolution. Anyway, Tatcher had views that can be considered reactionary regardless of context.
>But do go one about what you read on Vox or see on Liberal Fox News aka MSNBC/CNN
Classic trumptard. If you don't like my daddy you must be a brainwashed librul. I don't read/watch either of those, by the way.
>I guess Stalin is a reactionary in the context of Marxism because he was a nationalist and favored statism
They don't call it "red fascism" for no reason.
>Donald Trump is not a neo-liberal
Oh but I'm not the user that was saying that. I don't think Trump is a neoliberal. I don't think the man can be really classified, he just goes with the flow and does whatever.
>call neo-liberals reactionary is to engage is extremely obscure semantics that is inherently left leaning
Again: Margaret Tatcher. Learn to differentiate between the ideology in theory (or worse, how you imagine the ideology to be in theory) and how it is actually applied.

probably the cunt

The left hates him for El Chapo, and the right hates him because he’s a Hollywood liberal. Am I correct in this?

Anyone involved in philosophy is a pseud.

I like this bit.

>She begins to writhe, cackle, and cough out her laughter uncontrollably. Her eyes watering, she nearly poos. Bob spies what might be a dime-sized and expanding moisture blossom from her rear-end-center, signifying perhaps some minimal ass-piss.

I just looked this up. He started graduate study at Oxford but left before getting his degree, then started teaching philosophy at MIT. How the fuck was he teaching philosophy at MIT with just a bachelor's degree?

>implying prestigious colleges have any academic worth

>False equivalence, unless America is going towards a communist revolution.
According to communism yes since communism is the logic conclusion to capitalism. Therefore Hillary is a reactionary neo-liberal.
>Thatcher had views that are considered.reactionary.
How do I put this. "No" just "No" a female leader of a democratic nation is not a reactionary.

>Trumptard
Trump is a liberal protectionist and I'm not a fan you absolute child. This is what happens when youngfags post here , fucking hell

>They don't call it red fascism for nothing
Marxist Leninist is red fas is according to edgy anarchists alone. So it's a /leftypol/ episode. Sad!
>I'm not the person who called him a neo-liberal reactionary

Umm...
This is where the comment chain begins. It's how the conversation started and you're defenending the same definition that the original poster was talking about.

Then you go on to repeat *the same sentiment*

Can deluded newfags stop posting on Veeky Forums? Like please?

>t. cincinnati state community college dropout

>implying i'd ever waste money on the education i could easily achieve with a library card

It's not that bad, guys.

Attached: penn.png (630x1444, 77K)

That bit about the cherries is tough reading.

Are you kidding? “Prometheus” was all about the protagonist finding faith in god again with her little cross pendant and blah blah blah

Is that really in it

> Bob fumes at his fellow Americans for not embracing the unnamed female candidate: “Too shrill? Too hawkish? Isn’t it true that you never wanted qualifications? … Was she the worst possible candidate or are you the most arrogant, ill and unqualified electorate in the history of the Western world?”

Attached: 888.jpg (500x534, 40K)

Huh, guess Veeky Forums isn't that different from /tv/
lmao at both of you

this is the funniest thing ever, how is moz so based

what tf is the book even about?also, a poem mentioning louis ck? kek

This is the sound of a man who has not been told "no" in a long time.

It's some dystopian pile of shit, it's like American Psycho I guess.

>The left hates him for El Chapo
is this from your own perception?

why would leftists hate him for el chapo? he helped getting him caught, right?

Anyone feel like analysing the finale poem? 1/3

>What would be a nightmare?
>What would be a dream?
>One thousand golden churches?
>Melted wings of clotted cream?
>Communes of corruption,
>in no mood for nuanced things
>just tit for tat instructions
>as the pompous pendulum swings.
>Cyber wars a-wagin’
>by hands that seem so clean
>while Yemen’s children die
>in a terror best unseen.
>In aggregate atmospherics
>our country dance boots
>burst its spleen.
>Fussy fated fusion fists
>at the tip of a laser beam.
>From Jupiter it must look so small
>the petty pustule bickering of it all—
>in war between women and men
>un-adhering to nature’s call.
>At the Mandalay in Vegas,
>so much terror death and shock
>little men made big
>by legal bump fire stock.
>Sexual misdoings awakening a rage
>Net-pix recasts readers,
>hiding its cabal
>with the “slick Ted” turn of a page.
>Though warrior women
>bravely walk the walk,
>derivatives of disproportion
>draw heinous hypocrites
>to their flock.
>A child’s question comes on Sunday
>“What if Monday died?
>Would there be only six days a week to live?
>And if Monday can die,
>so can the rest of days
>and I.”
>Puerto Ricans catching hand towels,
>but they have no home nor light
>So let’s all just be loving
>no need to scream and fight.
>Fat men tell fat lies
>while G-men sift their treasures
>this season of treason’s triumph
>under Moscow’s active measures.
>There are no men nor women
>only movements own the day
>until movements morph to mayhem
>and militaries chip away
>whether North Korean missiles
>or marching Tehran’s way.
>Where did all the laughs go?
>Are you out there, Louis C.K.?

2/3

>Once crucial conversations
>kept us on our toes;
>was it really in our interest
>to trample Charlie Rose?
>And what’s with this “Me Too”?
>This infantilizing term of the day...
>Is this a toddlers’ crusade?
>Reducing rape, slut-shaming, and suffrage to reckless child’s play?
>A platform for accusation impunity?
>Due process has lost its sheen?
>But, fuck it, what me worry?
>I’m a hero,
>to Time magazine!
>Mandatory service
>might humble a man, woman, or three
>but it all adds up to a scratch
>when “we” is never we.
>They’ll do all that they can
>to scare, play and distract you,
>keep you up all night
>with news of nothing but a who’s-who.
>Some seize on scientology,
>padlock wives inside a cupboard
>So when is it time to say,
>“We all knew about Ron Hubbard!”
>And while we feuded, failed, and fought,
>we watched Sagan’s precious dot
>turned tawdry on its axis
>raising humanity’s mortal taxes.
>Net neutrality no more,
>have we all become the big man’s whore?
>So rattled, addled and saddled
>our entitlement is recklessly embattled.
>Hawaiians felt the drill
>while denial had thirty-eight minutes to kill,
>but the mainland’s recognition?
>Too exhausted, so quickly left nil.
>And Bob? Well, he’s been resting
>hours have gone by
>here’s what we must see
>when survival tells no lies.
>Night has fallen over the retirement home.
>The elderly sleep in their beds.
>The Buick door creeps open,
>amber security lights overhead.
>Step by step he approaches,
>a killer disguising his dread.
>When he crosses foyer to counter
>the blonde, face down,
>resting her head.
>“Excuse me, miss,” whispers Spurley.
>“I’m looking for a Bob?” he said.
>The girl’s velvet voice gently answers,
>“A man named Bob is doing his job... in bed.”

>Puerto Ricans catching hand towels,
the retarded gesture trump did in puerto rico kek

3/3

>But underneath the counter unseen
>had the voice really come
>thrown so clean
>from Annie, completely bald and in underwear
>and body so supple and lean.
>And the girl seen resting her head?
>Gosh, she suddenly looks big
>over there.
>Her tight shirt of institution
>around shoulders bursting
>its microthreads bare.
>Then suddenly lurching like lightning
>charges that blonde-haired body so big
>Oh, boy— Oh, boy— Oh, boy—
>That blonde girl is Bob in a wig!
>Spurley sped for cover
>in shield of tendril-rooted teasel
>but Bob wields his wild mallet
>POPPITY POP!!... will drop the weasel.
>Spurley concusses like a canvas
>its skin splayed from its easel
>drops a load in his dewy drawers
>spreading a sewery stench of diesel.
>No humanity of hows
>nor witness to whys
>He coughs up his gas bloating guts
>bends over desk
>and dies.
>Cascades of curdling blood
>pour past Annie’s eyes.
>Though she now screams in horror,
>so finally complicit is she,
>Sounds a bit like us, don’t it?
>In love and killing...
>completely complicit
>are we!
>And Bob Honey?
>A being.
>Unbranded,
>unbridled,
>and free.

youtu.be/wbWSHUh6IB4?t=1m5s

>>might humble a man, woman, or three
???

>have we all become the big man’s whore?
This is the foundation of Murica.

This is written like an elaborate Veeky Forums shitpost

The left hates him because of his derision toward the #metoo movement

>it's okay when pynchon does it
Go neck yourselves

wut?