Have you read St Elliot's holy testament?

I don't think it was just an issue of "control" with him. There was something pathological about his emotional detachment. He was probably a sociopath. Guys like that all have the same eyes too. You look into those eyes and you see zero emotion. Like no one is home. They all have it.

I really looked forward to connecting with it being a lonely loser autistic virgin myself but he was a narcissist bitch who thought the world actually owed him shit

Elliot Rodgers was a creation of anonymous sites, specially Veeky Forums and bodybuilding.com. Noticed how obsessed he was with height doesn't matter that he was loaded and had a future better than 99% of the world. In his sick mind if he wasn't a 6'3 rich chad he had no chance of finding love.

>Elliot Rodger was truly a Saint
enjoy hell lol

He had plenty of emotion, if you read the thing posted in the OP

>thought the world actually owed him shit
Nice self-hating virtue signals bruh
>I-it's not like I deserve anything I don't have
>I'm not like the guys you hate, really!

St Elliot's holy testament is the greatest piece of literature in the history of mankind.

wow, thank you for this.

I do hate myself, I don't deserve anything, and considering this is an anonymous image board I don't care if you fags hate me. I shared my personal frustration, I don't see what you're trying to accomplish with this post

I'm on page 45
It's truly a masterpiece

Saint Elliot - founder of the Thot patrol

I've read it, twice. It's one of the most pathetic (in both the ethimological and colloquial sense) texts I've ever read: I can understand his pain and I related to him in multiple passages, but the way he reacted to his own suffering is laughable and idiotic.

He never did anything, he didn't try to improve his situation or himself despite having ludicrously ample possibilities to do so - and even if he had done so, I'm willing to bet his self improvement would have been aimed externally, to get something from those surrounding him rather than because he really wanted it (one could trace a few similarities with how a sizeable chunk of this board relates to literature). His greatest efforts in socialization were to put himself in the presence of other people and hope they'd notice him and give him the "respect he was due" (something he regarded as a stoic, heroic effort due to the fact he took their existing happily as a personal, planned affront).

He placed any happiness he could have had outside himself in what I imagine can be thought of a radicalization of envy/narcissism; he was extremely egotistical and as a consequence nothing he did was for himself directly, since the only thing he valued was what he called "respect" or "deference" from others - which in reality were his own feelings projected onto others; he berated everyone around him for failing the recognize his imagined greatness, which never actualized in anything (as he gave up on any activity once understanding he wasn't the greatest in the field by nature [writing, skateboarding, "competitive" videogaming, studying]); he thought he deserved sex, there and then, from every available source around him, the same way he thought he deserved any other status symbol (because that, in the end, was what he thought of sex: that it was the greatest achievement of a man in a society), but since sex necessitates of another active partecipant, he preferred to think that every woman in the world was evil towards him (and then wallow in self-pity) rather than doing something actively in order to actually have sex; he mortified his intellect and vocabulary by going online and absorbing the notion that everything could be neatly categorized in nice little dichotomies, thus condemning himself to a lifetime of never being able of recognizing the complexity of the world, how its various system work and interact and where he was in this awful mess (now, does that remind you of any other board that likes to simplify everything to memes and buzzwords and in doing so creating its own shackles?).

He ended his life the same way he lived: by trying to give himself a meaning by robbing others of theirs, and even in doing so he fell laughably short of his projected aim. Any empathy I might have had for him, he choose to systematically deny. His only success was escaping, cowardly, the life he wrought for himself and, if not for his suicide, would still be trying to worsen.

Stupid nigger should have just worked out and watched anime.

That shit solves prolly 95% of a man's problems.

My Twisted World is the perfect story of a man wishing his was perfection but simultaneously realizing that he was not perfect and he would never achieve what he wanted.
His strife is in-depth and 100% understandable. Even the way he re-emphasizes certain themes and ideals in the manifesto is brilliant.

Comparing him to a normal is fucking stupid. Like what did. I

>virtue signals
>on an anonymous board
Memes aside, do you honestly believe the world owes you anything?

I'd like to see a Rodge apologist write a response to this that's even half as well thought out

This, dude needed a hobby

>Dude lmao XD he needed a hobby!11
How is this even of note? This has all been said before. Instead of discussing what he should have done we should discuss what his life and manifesto mean to ourselves and to Elliot personally. Saying he needed a hobby or grow up is completely undermining My Twisted World and I assume the only people who do that are those who do not understand the manifesto.

It was the validation of his worldview, the universe a neo-Tolemaic construction orbiting around him and the radiant light of his life, as he thought himself to be the only "real" human, as in "the only one whose life and happiness have weight" - which you can easily see by the fact he thought his lifelong process of self-pitiness and self-debasement was worthy of being immortalized.

To me, it is a vision of what I might have ended up being like if I hadn't discovered the possibility of giving myself my own meaning to live - as well as a valuable tool to understand how some people, on and off this site, think life is like.

There. Now tell me why I don't understand it.

The part about his sister banging some guy in the next room was pretty funny.

What was your favorite part?

Lol you're butthurt and also in need of a hobby

You don't understand it. Clearly.

His late teenage years. Also, when he details how he felt hopeful, still, after first coming to Sainta barbra. The parts of him in high school being bullied are also good, but they were brushed over. (On purpose of course.)

And here we see more evidence that anyone who does not understand My Twisted World is a mere child.

>You don't understand it. Clearly.
I feel like you're baiting/mocking me, but for the sake of discussion: give us your view of this book, its meaning, the reasons why you say it was the work of, if not a genius, a very talented and intelligent man - and I hope you're not going all Mysteric on me saying that only those who already know can understand

>I'd like to see a Rodge apologist write a response to this that's even half as well thought out
If you were old enough to remember the night it came out, you'd remember the full critique and comparisons which Veeky Forums made. You have shit taste and follow people with shit taste because they put their shit taste in long form. user's major argument is
>i hate all the tropes of modernism, postmodernism, and the greeks
and could be used as a criticism of everything from Oedipus Tyrannus to Dostoevsky and be just as well founded.
It's amazing how many people pat themselves on the backs for criticism which for any other work would be considered subnormal while thinking they've made some outstanding moral and literary judgment. It's like they haven't read even the introduction to The Picture of Dorian Gray.

Look, I'm the user who posted the "critique" and I think we're working on a different level here. I didn't want to critique My Twisted World as a literary work, I merely felt like providing my opinion on the man himself - obviously, operating under the assumption/fiction that the experiences and thoughts of Rodger-character are a faithful representation of those of Rodger-author (as he himself states in the text, repeatedly). I choose to believe this, which I know it's debatable; if you want to talk about the literary merits of the book itself my critique is shallow and missing the point by a rather enormous margin, but you would be interpreting erroneously as well.

And just to avoid getting ridiculed for my stilted sentences
>ESL

>I wanted to talk about the not Veeky Forums parts on Veeky Forums
>I'd like to moralfag while being inappropriate and disrespectful to basic rules of conduct

>>i hate all the tropes of modernism, postmodernism, and the greeks
You just pulled that out of your ass. Your argument consisted of
>user's post was long and therefore bad
>now I'm going to name drop some authors so everyone knows how smart I am

>wah other people don't like what I like
>and what I like happens to be a narcissist's pathetic justification for killing people who did literally nothing to deserve it

no, modernism, post modernism and the greeks all share in the form of tragic reversal and irony which user was critiquing. if you apply the same criticism to Dostoevsky's Underground Man, it fits as well as it does Oedipus. my complaint would be obvious if you'd read either of those things, or had any knowledge of basic theory Aristotle in Poetics if you'd like to not be an idiot
user applied none of those tests of his critical reasoning (e.g. would anyone laugh at my critique of a similar character for the same reasons?), and the user who liked it as a critique went along with it like it wasn't dreck purely because he was longwinded about writing dreck. You're now white knighting him instead of engaging your critical faculties, and obviously don't have enough range of reading done to realise how juvenile that criticism is considered when applied to anything else. It's not that I'm smart, it's that you're dumb enough I wonder if your school system is badly designed, or if it's just you being an idiot because you're about 12 and haven't taken basic English criticism that far yet.

>tfw your crush never bullied you.

Except we're talking about an actual person, not some fictional character
>Aristotle in Poetics if you'd like to not be an idiot
Going in my backlog, thanks

>blaming others for your inability to get laid

Thank you

So? William Burroughs the real person shot his wife in the face isn't any good as criticism of his writing, neither are any of the things you might find repugnant in his writing. This is basic criticism shit: whether you identify with the character, like him, or hate him, that is no method of judging the text itself. Death of the author is probably another trope which that user is deeply against, though he'd sound like a tit if he got to debate Barthes.

Poetics is a great resource; make sure to spam it when you're done.

The text itself is great. Yeah, it's unfortunate it was made by a real psychopath, but that doesn't detract from Sade's works either. Yeah, it's surprising a psychopath wrote something so great, and unfortunate again that he didn't realise why so much of it is such great farce, but it's still a very worthwhile text. Lots of narrators and characters are going to be whining and repugnant, but that adds to this work, just like Proust being a whiny cunt adds to In Search of Lost Time's length and beauty, or Cathy in Steinbeck's East of Eden being so goddamn evil makes that all the more epic.

Most of the reasons that people have for hating his manifesto are fucktarded as far as literary criticism is concerned; you have to do something stupid like decry a major movement or figure alongside Rodgers to find a literary criticism that works, and then all you're doing is saying "it's bad because it's like how Joyce repeats 'yes'" and hoping that you don't shit on a movement/author that has a lot of fans.

There's many ways you can read the work, which, again, is usually praise for a novel, and instead just choosing to say "but killing people is wrong lol" isn't revelatory even outside of literary criticism; it's an utter banality that doesn't need four paragraphs masquerading as incisive literary criticism- in short, it's dreck.

Dude, again, look: why are you trying to make it sound like I critiqued Rodger's writing? I didn't, there's not a single word in the whole post related to his writing, I'm not masquerading as "incivisive literary criticism". I don't hate his manifesto, I think it's a great piece of literature. I'm not even saying "but killing people is wrong", are we referring to the same post?

>Death of the author is probably another trope which that user is deeply against
I have Mythologies on my bedstand for fuck's sake, why are you assuming so many things.

I'm in a quote chain responding to this user praising this user's critique

>I've read it, twice. It's one of the most pathetic (in both the ethimological and colloquial sense) texts I've ever read:
I believe calling it a pathetic text is a critique of the text. He then goes on to critique the character for reasons that if you criticised Underground Man or Hamsun's Hunger narrator for you would be laughed out of class
>I can understand his pain and I related to him in multiple passages, but the way he reacted to his own suffering is laughable and idiotic.

So, maybe you're lost.

>Not reading the annotated one on rapgenius

Except for it's all me. Look, I agree with everything you said, but, as I stated here I wasn't trying to form a literary critique of the text - I was reflecting (with no intention of it being a profound reflection, too, just a collection of impressions I had) on the author and those behaviours of his I see others perform.

I wholeheartedly agree with every statement you've made on literature, which is why I'm trying to just say that I wasn't talking about literature (which, I agree with another user, should have made me refrain from posting).

>I believe calling it a pathetic text is a critique of the text.
Probably fucked it up, I merely wanted to say that I found it to be both a greatly emotional read (or at least, eliciting an emotional response), thus referring to the greek root pathos, and what I find as the autobiography of a life I personally view as colloquially pathetic.

But yes, the whole first paragraph of my first post is awkward bullshit that I should have deleted after re-reading the post, I'll give you that.

I'm addressing it as the user that isn't you took it: as a critique which people who said it was a good text wouldn't be able to match. Part of that is getting you to acknowledge that it's no good as literary criticism done, and then to say it's no good as character criticism. You seem to be relying on "but it's just real world character criticism" to not fall under literary criticism, but unfortunately for you, it does because where did you get your character criticism from other than the text? If you want to claim you're reliant solely on other people's characterisation of him, that'd still be a win for me.

I seem mean because I've also read a whole bunch of Aristotle and other writers on rhetoric, which you should check out for criticism, because you form your argument sloppily. I'm trying to point out your mistakes in argument so you don't use them in critique again, not so as you go die in a fire in case that's not apparent under me whomping yo ass :P

>Probably fucked it up, I merely wanted to say that I found it to be both a greatly emotional read (or at least, eliciting an emotional response), thus referring to the greek root pathos, and what I find as the autobiography of a life I personally view as colloquially pathetic.
I think what you wanted to do was use big words, and that worked for the user who's not you I responded to first. It doesn't work if you know what the colloquial meaning of pathetic is, but you wanted both big words in it. That's okay if you just want to sway people like the user I started replying to, but it's bad form if you want to not eat shit later, you know?

I think we're about done here: I know it's been better for me than it was for you, but it has been fun.

Check out any of the texts I dropped if you're looking for more pathos (and pathetic behaviour) in your characters, because the people who now post about identifying with Eliot in part used be the Underground Man posters before the shooting and machete massacre. Hunger's about as funny as the iced tea incident regularly too.

man i FUCKED UP those tags. regardless, nice talking to you

autism

Well, thank you for your criticism, it's appreciated. Part of the reason why I kept trying to reply was that I felt it is a good, thought out criticism coming from a well-read (for once on this board) person.

Captatio benevolentiae aside (I swear, I can use big words appropriately in my native language), I'll check out what you recommended, as reading my post again I can see the problems with it and I really feel like I ought to do better than that. If you don't mind, feel like dropping a couple of titles of books about rhetoric? I was thinking about picking up the Organon, even though it may not be as strictly relevant as the Rhetoric.

In any case, it has been a nice conversation and the kind of ass whooping one needs to reconsider his place in the grand scheme on things when he feels like he's reached the top. Thanks.

for shitposting purposes, Schopenhauer's Art of Being Right will make you a god, and you can just jump into that. Aristotle's Poetics and Rhetoric together are a good start if you want to go chronologically, and then Cicero's On Invention, and Rhetorica ad Herennium. At this stage, you're pretty much a lawyer, but you can also read Cicero's Brutus to hear him on other people's style, and Orator as a defense of his own style. Cicero and Schopenhauer will make you dangerous, so use your powers wisely.

I'll give you the TL;DR using his own words.

"When I reached the classroom, I saw some pretty girls waiting outside. My new classmates, I thought with excitement. I was a bit dismayed that they didn’t pay any attention to me. They didn’t even look at me. I was sure I had an attractive appearance that day, but those girls didn’t seem to notice it. Perhaps I was deluding myself. As all of the students started pouring in, a group of typical popular-type boys sat near me. Theiroverly social and obnoxious personalities offended me, and I felt like getting up and leaving. They somehow knew all of the pretty girls in the class, and it broke my heart to watch them chat up the girls. How could I compete with those popular kids? I hated them so much. I’ve wanted to be like them all my life, ever since elementary school, but they never accepted me. They have caused my life to be a living hell for so long."

Thanks mate, I'll go through them.

It's not having no emotions as much as having a self-victimization mentality.