Please leave and never return if you agree with any of the following;

>you think Rhythm and Rhyme is just useless rules and laws restricting creativity
serious question, is this sentence grammatically correct?

it should be are

[rhythm and rhyme] is just [useless rules and laws] restricting creativity
yes

you're retarded. Thats not how that works

It's called a syntaxic metonymy, you'd know about it if you belonged here.

leftists shit?

>you think Rhythm and Rhyme is just a useless rule and law restricting creativity

or

>you think Rhythm and Rhyme are just useless rules and laws restricting creativity

Thanks for nothing pleb.

The notion of "reading for entertainment" is itself vague: if I am entertained by, say, "The Sublime Object of Ideology," does my emotional reaction itself obviate the "intellectual" purpose of the venture? Or does OP merely act out the obverse of the common, philistine conception of all art as "entertainment," i.e. that art exists to the end of alleviating the audience's boredom? To me it seems the latter, since to adhere to the former position is (only slightly) more foolish. OP is, in part, attempting to assail the notion that art exists to "keep one occupied": that art should be distracting.

But to use the word entertainment here is, I have shown, disingenuous. One can be entertained by a work that probes philosophy as easily as one can be entertained by e.g. the stock drivel of young-adult fiction or Stephen King. That is, all works can be "entertaining" as long as one entertains their notions. I can analyse Stephen King's writing from the perspective of Kantian deontology, and I would not call this undertaking "plebeian" as long as it is carried out sincerely.

Further, there is nothing wrong with entertainment. That OP attaches a negative connotation to this word displays a working ideology, namely, that of the academic elite: art should be consumed because it is "intellectually edifying," not for so base a purpose as being entertained (interested). Thus, especially since OP probably copied this without reading it fully, the ideology of postmodern spiritual elitism can be seen working in conscious and unconscious dimensions. Consciously, OP wishes to demonstrate his erudition, and unconsciously, OP is determined to attack the disavowed "plebeian," the worthless "art-destroyer" who himself consumes art at an unconscious level: at the level of "feeling good."

This is not a defense of philistinism, which assuredly exists. This is to show that academic authoritarianism breeds it (philistinism), and vice-a-versa. They are two sides of the same token of artistic misunderstanding.

>syntaxic metonymy
Good one

I'm sorry but concordence is usually respected even in syntactic metonymy. You used "is" for a structure that had plurals on both sides. Nonobstant the left side, the right side justified a plural form of the verb if it itself is a plural form. See the above corrections. I am curious to know what other languages you may speak, as it is in one of the sins you mentioned.

syntactic metonymy*

But user, doesn't detaching oneself from entertainment as a drive to consume art potentially free us from insidious influences? Entertainment can be manufactured and used to supplicate the masses, but this is much less true of intellectual edification. Even if there is emtertaining art out there which can be engaged with intellectually in good faith, those in power can easily dilute it in an ocean of Soma. Doing so with works that edify without entertaining requires more sophisticated deception, and as such the dilution can't proceed to the same extent.

However instructive it is, you won't read it unless it interests you i.e. unless it entertains you.

If you are blinded by the soma clouds, that is the fault of your own impotence. I cannot think for you.

I do agree with some of the content of your post, namely that art is sterilized through mass-media proliferation and incorporated into the capitalist hegemony over discourse, and that most people choose not to see this in order to preserve their "happiness" (i.e. material satisfaction, however paltry). I wouldn't use the word "entertainment" to describe this sort of creative enterprise, I would call "self-deception." That is, people consume this art (for the most part) to trick themselves into complacency. The entertaining (interesting) aspect of the art becomes subservient to its meta-deceptive aspect.

>I don't know my classics well, and disregard anything before Dostoevsky, other than sparknotes prereqs to better understand GOATstoevsky
>I think if I like a work it's artistically justified because it spoke to me artistically hence why I like it
>I think no ones opinion should be accepted or respected
>I speak a single language, the best language, and I've caught myself thinking "wow Proust [pronounced like 'house'] was really good with words!" while reading his translation
>only Shakespeare I read was Leo DiCaprios R&J movie
>the plot is one of several things I read for so yes I read for the plot
>I read for entertainment, yes, written words are a form of communication and you can read them for an infinite number of reasons, the same way you can hear sounds for an infinite number of reasons you fucking faggot
>I rarely read nonfiction
>I don't have a solid grounding in philosophy
>idk who the 3 tragedian are but I've seen the simpsons a lot so I know homer
>idgaf about cultural horizons
>I love contemporary literature, DFW and Pynchon are objectively more talented than 99% of authors

and I'm here to stay, faggot

no u

I only read my literature textbooks. Feels good to be welcomed.

Topple a 2D pyramid upside down, you get that star. Jewish revolutionary spirit.

>you barely know your classics
I dont know them
>you read for entertainment
Sometimes I do
:(
also
>you rarely read for more than one or two hours straight
Books are like magnets, could easily sit 7+ hours straight if it's good :0 if you can't manage 1 or 2+ you must really not like the book or have very limited time

>he doesn't realize the greatest work of the 20th century is fantasy

I didn't know it was possible to be both pleb and a snob at the same time

I'll still assume that it's not and you just copypasted this stuff without reading and/or understanding it

>people are taking the pasta seriusly

what the fuck

I'd add:

>you think philosophy is self-help, the history of philosophy, or some manner of -ism others make for you

I know it's pasta, but it's pretty blunt and true.

>>OP
>>you read any form of genre fiction
Fiction is the stuff of legends, the building block of mythos and religion.
>>OP
>>you think fantasy, science fiction, detective fiction, young adult fiction or horror are literature
They are better literature than some of the professed "classics" pseuds read
>>OP
>>you barely know your classics
Classics are by definition only read because a bunch of people thought they were good. This means that these people followed the norm of what was considered to be good, instead of experimenting with new authors no one's heard of
>>OP
>>you tend to believe that if you like a given work, it is justified on an artistic level
Notions of "artistry" in a text are pseudosophical self-inserted biases based upon what the "greater" artistic world at large would consider to be artistic
>>OP
>>you think everyone's opinion should be accepted and respected
Everyone's experiences should be respected. All we have is experience. Analysis is secondary.
>>OP
>>you speak a single language
If you speak multiple languages you will not be able to master all of them. A speaker of a single language can master his thought processes in one language instead of being a jack of trades in multiple scarcely examined languages
>>OP
>>you read for the plot
What else would one read for? Even your pseudosophical notions of "artistry" can only manifest themselves when a plot is present
>>OP
>>you don't have a solid grounding in philosophy
Philosophy is unfalsifiable drivel
>>OP
>>you do not at least have some understanding of the Three Tragedians and Homer
Not indispensable in the slightest
>>OP
>>you have little to no understanding of literature outside of your cultural horizon
There's enough literature in western culture to last one ten lifetimes
>>OP
>>you make your literary analysis proceed from ideology
>you engage in literary analysis in the first place
>>OP
>>you think intricate prose is 'pretentious' and that the author 'should just get to the point'
'Intricate prose' is another phrase for 'nice-sounding monkey noises arranged in such a way to get your chimp-brain to laugh like a chimp who just heard another chimp grunt in a certain way'
>>OP
>>your rarely read poetry
read above
>>OP
>>you think Rhythm and Rhyme is just useless rules and laws restricting creativity
The type of "creation" stemming from rhyme and rhythm is the precise aforementioned monkey noises designed to make your brain think that something amazing is going on. So not necessarily restricting creativity, but just redefining creativity to mean 'simplistic monkey entertainment'
>>OP
>>you have a hard time forming structured and relevant literary criticism
>engaging in literary criticism
>>OP
>>you rarely read for more than one or two hours straight
>doesn't spend more time writing and thinking and creating than he does reading

>a 2D pyramid

>Doesn't know what a 2D pyramid is
I bet you don't know what a 1D hypercube is either get out of my face plebian

Aren't you fed up of the mods banning you for spamming this shit over and over again? (with the same pic even)

>He is an officer and a gentleman.
>The seminar is only juniors and seniors.
>My diary is ink, paper, and tears.

Allow me to play doubles advocate here for a moment. For all intensive purposes I think you are wrong. In an age where false morals are a diamond dozen, true virtues are a blessing in the skies. We often put our false morality on a petal stool like a bunch of pre-Madonnas, but you all seem to be taking something very valuable for granite. So I ask of you to mustard up all the strength you can because it is a doggy dog world out there. Although there is some merit to what you are saying it seems like you have a huge ship on your shoulder. In your argument you seem to throw everything in but the kids Nsync, and even though you are having a feel day with this I am here to bring you back into reality. I have a sick sense when it comes to these types of things. It is almost spooky, because I cannot turn a blonde eye to these glaring flaws in your rhetoric. I have zero taller ants when it comes to people spouting out hate in the name of moral righteousness. You just need to remember what comes around is all around, and when supply and command fails you will be the first to go.
Make my words, when you get down to brass stacks it doesn't take rocket appliances to get two birds stoned at once. It's clear who makes the pants in this relationship, and sometimes you just have to swallow your prize and accept the facts. You might have to come to this conclusion through denial and error but I swear on my mother's mating name that when you put the petal to the medal you will pass with flying carpets like it’s a peach of cake.

thanks user i think you solved my existential crisis