ITT: Your edgiest, most contrarian views on literature. Share the disdain

But that's the entire board, user!

I don't think it's possible for women to understand Ulysses or Beckett's trilogy.

Vonnegut is an incredible author and Slaughterhouse five is one of the best books ever written

somewhat this

most philosophy is a mix of masturbatory bullshit and restatements of ideas you can already find in Shakespeare or Don Quixote if you're sharp. the great poets and playwrights tower over the philosophers

> filters "write"

Don't know how you even discuss anything with anyone here.

The Iliad
Moby Dick
Don Quixote
Crime & Punishment
Yukio Mishima
Philosophy
Joseph Conrad
David Foster Wallace
Franz Kafka

All of these fucking bored me. Can't believe this is what you pseudo fucks read here.

I'm not an aspiring writer, nor do i wish to be one.
I'm just a simple reader.
That's why i filter these writing threads.

add Jordan Peterson to that and that's basically mine

it looks like this.

There's still about 104 threads being displayed (crude area calculation)

Can you post a screenshot of what your Veeky Forums catalog looks like?
Are there any threads left?

Some of them might be able to understand Ulysses, but if you told me that a woman understands Portrait of the Artist, I wouldn't believe you.

Quite alot.
Much better this way though.

You are the biggest faggot on this board, congratulations.

>The Iliad
>Moby Dick
>Don Quixote
>Crime & Punishment
>Franz Kafka

if you hated these what are you doing here. you don't like literature at all

I only enjoy engaging literature like A Song of Fire and Ice

Literature is merely a form of entertainment. Only pseuds see that as an insult.

Intellectualism is artistic poison. If it can be written out and clearly laid out in bullet points / lemmas, why write a novel to convey it?

Taste is subjective. Just because a load of citation circlejerk academia turboplebs or corporate profit seeking publishers say otherwise, it doesn't mean I care about the set of criteria they deem to be the objective criteria.

It's fine to give up on books at any time, even before. I feel dirty for reading books that were written for money even (and I'm not a lefty) and I think it's acceptable to skip those. Not that I do, I'm only illustrating that prejudices are perfectly fine, even ones such as that

You are almost certainly a faggot or even worse a closeted one. Fuck off

You must be a woman.

You can't "write on your free time" while working on STEM like the greedy burgers here say every other thread. Art demands commitment, you're never gonna make it playing safe, you untermensch.

The best day job is something physical that requires little to no mental ability. Grave diggers, construction laborers, etc.

Voltaire said it, if you want a happy, fulfilling life: spend it tending to your garden

Japanese light novels, the kind that get turned into lewd anime, have more literary value than the books of authors who try to write shit with literary value.

David Foster Wallace could have won the Nobel prize if he didn't off himself.

Voltaire was a stupid liberal.

What does this even mean

So like, whats the fucking punchline to that comic strip?

Depends on what you mean by edgy.

I think academia is right about 100% of the time about literature, and I prefer the opinions of academics or well-regarded critics over anything said here on this board.

Literally none of you know what you're talking about, about anything you might be attempting to speak on.

Despite the fact that that's a pretty sensible opinion to hold, you butthurt queers lose your mind anytime someone insists there's authority that exists outside of your head canon.

Philosophy Isn't a joke, It's a monument to cognitive dissonance, at its best it's a grotesque frankenscience that warps pseudo-reality to fit its own narrative.

second post best post

I can tell you what I hate about this board.
When people use "philosophy" meaning philosophical works with no fiction in it. Like . It says philosophy is a waste of time because most "ideas" in it can be found in works of fiction. Well guess what, those ideas ARE philosophy too, you dunce. Or here including "Philosophy" as a thing in the list.
Do you think Philosophy is just writers that write exclusively non-fiction about their ideas? You don't know what the fucking word means.

or maybe you're splitting hairs and making assumptions

Explain how.

this board is, in fact, absolutely terrible and no one here seems to actually know anything about literary analysis. most discussion here boils down to "i like the book so its good" or "i dont like the book so its bad"

Literature is for people who are disconnected from real life.

the 'girl' used to be a boy

I think you must be retarded if you believe a light novel is more literary than War & Peace, you cunt.

whose to say what they meant by those brief words. It's not like they really elaborated

He says Philosophy is a waste and then goes on to defend fictional works which include that Philosophy as if they are not part of it because he is using the word wrong. He is literally wrong. I then went on to word that in my post.

MOTHERFUCKER HOW ABOUT STOP POSTING SHIT MEMES AND SHITTIER SHITPOSTS AND READ A FUCKING BOOK ONCE IN A FUCKING WHILE OR FUCK OFF BACK TO YOUR SHITPOST CENTRAL CONTAINMENT THREADS ON /TV/ OR /V/ AND ACTUALLY LEAVE THE BOARD ABOUT LITERATURE TO THE PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY WANT TO READ A FUCKING BOOK, I SWEAR TO GOD IF I MET ONE OF YOU SHITPOSTING CUNTS IRL I WOULD FUCKING KNOCK YOUR HARRY POTTER CUNT GLASSES FROM YOUR FACE AND PUNCTURE ONE OF YOUR FUCKING GAY EYES GO FUCK YOURSELF I BET YOU DONT EVEN OWN A COPY OF RASHOMON BECAUSE YOU READ SO LITTLE IF ANYTHING AT ALL FUCKING CUNTS LITERALLy SCREAMING REEEEEE RIGHT NOW

Any story can be made better with a sweaty fuck scene.

Whose to say what he meant by 'philosophy is a waste",he may have been referring to philosophical treatises and whatnot
you wouldn't know. You just picked the word up and threw a fit.

you sound autistic and in need of basic social awareness, senpai

it's ok we've all been there, it will get better

It seems inappropriate if the brothers in Death of a Salesman fucked.

How would he have meant anything else when by mentioning the works of fiction he does as alright he excludes them? He says you don't need to read philosophical authors because fiction can provide that for you. It's obvious then that by Philosophy he means non-fictional works.
Ad hominem.

Reading philosophy is for people who can't think about things without an outside opinion, and it serves no purpose. That's right, I said it. Philosophy is masturbation. Instead, observe the people around you and read psychology. Fuck philosophy, and fuck you. Fuck everybody.

The Greeks are actually complete shit and if i really would've started with them like you fags suggested i would probably have abandoned literature a long time ago

>it is wrong to have outside opinions to clear on or build on with your own experiences
Might as well not ask other people fucking questions.

I will never read Alice In Wonderland because that shit is ruined for me by Tim Burton fans, fat girls and lel so randum retards.

Tried reading Infinite Jest three times now and I can't get past the first ten pages because of how repetitive and autistically specific the prose is. Doubt I'll ever finish it because of this.

>contrarian views on literature
You should only read a book if you want to

If an author's opinion on a subject in not absolutely nihilistic and he believes anything to have an inherent value to it, I will disregard it. It is fine to have characters like that, as people like that do exist, it's just the author's views that he reflects on the work that I'm talking about.

Well then I'll never read.

iktf

see also: edgar alan poe, the brothers grimm, sherlock holmes, etc. luckily though those types don't venture much outside of these writers and YA fiction so my Kafka should be safe for another 5 years or so.

there's a difference between outside opinions and meandering, philosophical vomit.

You know how I "philosophize?" I think about things. I think about what people say and why they say that and what emotions are behind that, I talk to people, I look for patterns in what people write and what they did. I think- what's a reason why?

Philosophy is just that, except being a self important fuck. Do you think I haven't already explored all the famous philosophical standpoints of famous philosophers? Of course I have. It's not HARD. It's baby shit. CHILDREN ask these questions. I can't respect people who have to READ about things to have ideas about them, jesus fucking christ. Thought is an inherently human trait. Just- fucking do it!

Stop using outdated people as a crutch to lord over other people. Everybody fucking does it, everybody thinks. And they ARE outdated.

>You know how I "philosophize?" I think about things. I think about what people say and why they say that and what emotions are behind that, I talk to people, I look for patterns in what people write and what they did. I think- what's a reason why?
Yes most people do that.
>Philosophy is just that, except being a self important fuck.
But what you just said you do is literally Philosohpy. You even said you are philosophizing.

darren i know you're on here so if you see this stop posting infinite jest memes on facebook, nobody thinks you're funny and nobody thinks you're smart you fuckin pseud and stop bringing it up in conversation too fucks sake

Calling someone a "pseud" is not proper criticism.

>But what you just said you do is literally Philosophy.
Yeah. But I'm not spending hours of my life reading 500 year old assholes rehashing basic thoughts and then telling everyone I'm so smart for doing so.

Maybe I wasn't clear: I'm making a distinction between "philosophy" in the academic sense and "philosophy" in the general, thinking about things sense.

There's also a difference between reading philosophers because you're interested in how they thought and reading philosophers because they're so smart and have new ideas.

People talking about kierkegaard and Kant and Nietzsche pisses me off. Not because they're famous philosophers, but because people seem to use them as crutches.
>"Nietzsche thought that, so it's smart and I'm smart for reading Nietzsche"
Philosophy is the act of thinking. There's a difference between "reading philosophy" and "reading how to think"

Maybe I'm not making sense, but it's something that really pisses me off.

I think understanding people is the most important thing a human can do, because everything we are as a species stems from that. Understand a person good enough, and you can circumvent arguments and tragedy. But that knowledge comes from talking to people, interacting with people, fighting with people- it's an active endeavor, and it takes your whole life to do. It takes listening to people you really do not agree with and watching people you hate. It takes effort and dedication and no one will ever figure it out.

But philosophy? Philosophy (in the academic sense) is the opposite of that. It's the antithesis of everything I believe in. It's reading what a bunch of people wrote hundreds of years ago and taking their word as gospel. It's saying, this guy said something smart, so he knows what he's talking about, so I'll believe that and won't put any more thought into it, because he's right and I'm smart because I read it and understand it.

I'm sorry. I'm just... really passionate about this and I try really hard. And then I come to Veeky Forums and there are snobbery threads and /pol/ fucking everywhere.

tl;dr: people watching is more philosophical than reading philosophy.

Philosophy is the thinking man's game. Go mix some cement pleb.

Truth is subjective but I value statistics over rhetoric. Also don't believe in god.

The most favored books by academics are merely those that are hard to read or reference old works scarcely anyone cares about anymore.

The non literature mediums are plagued by people who desperately want literary fiction but are afraid to actually read it and shit up every other medium with misguided, mismatching opinions.

american lit > english lit

I was going to critique you, but then half way through I decided it was a waste of time. You are unironically retarded. This isn't a lazy cop out response. This is the truth.

>>
What's left? You've blocked out 90% of this fucking shit board

Well I think I understanding what you say you dislike now, but it's something so specific I don't think I've ever come accross people like it.

Yeah you can make out he has zero experience with academic philosophy.

But then my department is very analytical so I might have a different experience.

Isn't France basically the only country left where departments aren't 90% analytical?

Same guy as above

>It's reading what a bunch of people wrote hundreds of years ago and taking their word as gospel. It's saying, this guy said something smart, so he knows what he's talking about, so I'll believe that and won't put any more thought into it, because he's right and I'm smart because I read it and understand it.

Who the actual fuck does this? What kind of an academic would approach philosophy like this? I think you've been speaking to too many pseuds.

We are speaking about Veeky Forums though so alright, I'll try to leave professional academics out of it. Your post itself seems to target philosophy generally as a discipline as opposed to philosophy as it is approached by your average Veeky Forumsizen but I'll assume we're just talking about the latter now.

Alright, so even if you're not an academic and reading philosophy as a hobby (as someone on this board would) I'd STILL say taking anything as gospel in philosophy is completely antithetical to the entire point of philosophy. This is true in my entire circle of friends, in which I'm including not only those who aren't philosophers but also those who aren't academics at all.

You have a good point, on second thought (see above) I guess that guy has more experience with very casual hobbyists as opposed to academics, or people with a formal education in philosophy, or people who take philosophy more seriously, basically anyone for whom philosophy has more relevance as a verb than a noun.

I'm thinking of the kind of people that quote Aristotle and Nietzsche on Facebook and think that in itself makes what they say hold more weight?

Only way I can make sense if what he's saying because having the kind of approach that guy seems to think people have entails a lot of ad hominem.

I've noticed when people on Veeky Forums talk about philosophy they really mean cultural studies/critical social theory.

Your opinion is shit.

Don't you guys discuss "philosophy" as in "what people in my university's department of philosophy teach" though?

I remember I used Veeky Forums to stir up some discussions on Kant's prolegomena and it worked out alright a couple years ago. Place is utter shit for analytical Phil but people used to be decently read on philosophers more firmly established on the philosophical canon.

>It's another "Brainlets complain because they can't into philosophy" episode

We had a good series of threads that were based around Nick Land and Moldbug but delved into Deleuze, Negarestani, etc. but they made /leftypol/ very nervous and got invaded to death.

A faggot in this thread literally filters out the words "nihilism" and "Nietzsche".

philosophy is a dumping ground for people who couldn't into science/math or art. literature is a dumping ground people who couldn't into poetry or music

>People confused by FUCKING NIETZSCHE
Out of all the hard to get philosophers such as Hegel or Heidegger (and hard is even exaggerated) someone is confused by the most entry level philosopher of all times

But all of those things have Philosophy in them.
I guess is right.

>Hegel and Heidegger not hard
>Academics debate them literally ever since they were published
>different interpretations everywhere
puh I'm glad people on an anime forum have totaly figuered them out
I bet you are one of these people that think Nietzsche is entry level while thinking he is a nihilist

You can write well with minimal reading outside a few books on literary structuralism and the creative process.

You really gotta bone up on your category placement. You're embarrassing in three ways.

>projecting this hard

>being so easily [TRIGGERED] you have to filter out reality
They weren't kidding about >>/pol/ needing safe-spaces worse than >>/lgbt/

>>filtered liberals
>>didn't filter republicans or cuck

Found the cuck, also I like the constant name dropping in the Iliad, except for book two.

Russians are overrated

>I think academia is right about 100% of the time about literature

But academia spends 90% of it's time arguing against itself...

First chapter is the only thing good about it anyway.

>nothing better to do
>better
>unconsciously having value judgements dictate the worth of things around you and having them speak through you

Of course ur an idiot

With every book you read your mind and thoughts and personality become less unique and original and more consolidation of institutional powers ("gleichschaltung" in the language that has all the best words). Congratulations on getting one step deeper into the hive mind.

this

>/pol/ not filtering zizek