Wallace can't wri-

Yep, if I'm not reading a physical copy, it's black background.

>the bathroom door composed of thirty-six that's three times a lengthwise twelve

legitimately stopped reading here

...

I'm sure you've stopped reading many times. Maybe read the book, and you'd realize it's written that way for a reason. Actually, if you were intelligent you'd probably pick up on that anyway. Oh well.

>it's written that way for a reason.

Because the author is a self-aggrandizing hack?

You got me buddy, that's why.
Doesn't have anything to do with your refusal to actually read.

He writes that bad because I refuse to 'actually read'? Wow his writing sure does a number on his fans.

It's written that way because the character whose perspective it is from is doing crack in the bathroom at her friend's party, trying to overdose. Making that kind of observation after reading so little, especially so little of such a long novel with many stylistic changes, is one of the most pathetic things I've seen in a long time. You couldn't even finish a paragraph, friend, you're opinion is worthless.

your

Let me ask you something, have you ever done crack? Any stimulant that intense? That'd exactly how your mind is working when you're going that fast. Don't be one of those sad faggots who criticizes and work without having read it, especially if you're going to use canned responses you stole from other shitposts.

why are you on Veeky Forums if you can't read?

>That'd exactly how your mind is working when you're going that fast.

Sure it is.

It's bad because the character is doing crack? Just because there's some concept involve doesn't make it successful. You're making excuses.

Okay, well I was addicted to meth, heroin, and crack for 7 years, and it hit home for me. Mind explaining exactly why you feel differently? In what way is it not accurate or affecting? I assume you'll be able to explain it, not in Veeky Forums bullshit formatting and cookie cutter responses, but intelligently, since you are somehow able to tell a writer is a hack by reading a few sentences.

I'm going to assume you meant basically the opposite of what you typed and ask again: what about it is bad? You're embarrassing yourself bud.

Wait we were supposed to agree that Wallace can write by reading the OP but coming to the opposite conclusion is unfounded?

When did I imply that? I asked you, specifically, to explain yourself. You're likely the same one, but I've seen this here a lot recently. You'll change the subject or greentext every response rather than engage in a discussion. Whether it's because you have nothing to say or because you're too dumb to explain yourself, I don't know. I don't care if you came to the opposite conclusion, I'm wondering why. I thought that was pretty clear.

Coming to the opposite conclusion and refusing to explain yourself beyond "i didn't like the door description" is kinda unfounded.

Oh ok well it's not accurate or affecting. Thanks for the discussion.

In what way is it not accurate? Do you have experience that contradicts what was written? I'd like to hear about it. Come on, user. You can do better than this! You were so sure of yourself, I'm legitimately interested in what you have to say.

Yeah I was an addict for 7 years.

Oh okay, you're just 12 or retarded. What are you doing here then? Coming up with idiotic and copy-paste criticisms until someone calls you out? Couldn't you spend that time reading instead? You'd probably have something intelligent or interesting to say, or at least witty.

Wallace was a good writer who wrote poorly

Dude, you posted an excerpt from a novel and claimed that everyone lied about DFW not being a good writer because a paragraph spoke to your years as an addict in an 'accurate, affecting' way (this is the entirety of your justification), then you thought that people weren't agreeing with you because they didn't read the whole excerpt like the idea that one of the characters doing crack somehow excuses what the character is saying instead of just the fast pace at which it is being 'said'. This has been a shit, dishonest thread from the beginning and trying to save face by pointing out that I don't have anything to say despite you setting the precedent just goes to show how stupid, shallow, and completely unaware you are. Back to the Jest.

You argue like my girlfriend, man. You haven't responded to a single thing I've said or answered even one question. You just change the topic immediately. I think it's good, you think it's bad, I'm wondering why. It's just that you seemed so confident in your opinion, after reading so little. I only wanted an answer. Why change the topic and posture instead? I don't get it. Also, when did I become OP?

I gave you an answer. It's not accurate or affecting. Again, thanks for the discussion.

>didn't even read one paragraph
>gets BTFO and starts acting like a little bitch

you're literally bringing down the average IQ of this board please leave

Who invited Reddit

So here's what you've done so far: make a retarded criticism, refuse repeatedly to explain yourself, change the subject multiple times when backed into a corner, start saying this is a dishonest thread when someone is literally asking 6ou to have an honest discussion, mimic like a child, repeat yourself.

>Veeky Forums

Nobody, so please leave.

Care to expand?

So saying it is affecting is fine but saying it's not affecting is acting like a retarded child or whatever shit you're telling yourself.

Again, changing the entire point and refusing to answer the question. Nobody asked for my opinion, m but if you engaged in the conversation instead of acting like a child I would gladly tell you how I feel about it. The only reason I said anything about it was to try and pry something at least a little bit coherent out of you. You do realize you've turned the discussion on a different direction to cover your ass with literally every response you've made, right? I find it just a tab bit sickening that someone could fail repeatedly at making anything resembling a well thought out comment but still feel like they're in the right.

I've lost all hope

No shit I don't feel like having an 'honest discussion' with someone like you. My first response is fine as criticism: he's a self-aggrandizing hack.

In what way? Do you mind going a bit more in depth on what exactly you mean by that? Someone like me? You mean you don't want to have a conversation with anyone who calls you out on shitposting disguised as criticism? That's the highlight of my night, user: calling out those who clearly don't read at all.

I mean he is a self-aggrandizing hack. If you're having trouble with the words, look them up.

Okay, I'll just pretend you know what you're talking about and that comment came from a place of knowledge and experience. So, how did you get that from a few sentences? Was it word choice? Rhythm? Or just the part about the door? I want clarification because it makes me uncomfortable to know that there's people like you on here changing people's opinions. In fact, I'm pretty sure you took that sentence from a different post on here, some time in the past, likely posted by someone else too lazy/young/dumb to have actually read the book themselves.

Yes the textual evidence led me to the conclusion regarding the text, and the text led me to the conclusion regarding its author.

>Post one paragraph
>Someone disagrees
>HURR READ THE BOOK

I see. Well, I had a different reaction. Both times I read the novel. I honestly thought it was well done, how the language progressed into more and more obsessive and choppy sentences. On top of that, the conversations and knocking on the door that repeatedly broke up the ravings was a nice change of pace and really made that last paragraph (it's a pretty long and complex scene, but you'll figure that out when you read it) hit hard for me. Her intentions going into it gave it a really dark backdrop, so her obsessing over the details of everything in that style being hard not to giggle at made it feel dirty in a way, which is how I'd want to feel reading about a bathroom overdose. I recommend reading at least that section, but you might want to work up to it. I recommend starting with John Green, Stephen King, and Ernest Cline and moving up, slowly, from there.

>can't finish the whole thing
>think your opinion holds any value
>cry when called out like the psued you are
This place has gone to shit.

Should OP have posted the whole book for you kiddo?

If you want honest conversations out of people it's probably best you don't keep peppering your responses with accusations of the other being retarded/a child/unable to read or whatever. It adds nothing to the conversation and it's just you trying to be dominant rather than be honest.

I did finish the whole thing lol

If he wants to talk about the book rather than the paragraph then maybe he should have

I'm being honest about my impression of you, based on your posts. I though I gave every chance for discussion but, like always, it turns out nobody here reads or wants to be made to think. I honestly don't care if you're butthurt and feeling dominated - I'd appreciate it if we switched spots and you would dominate me a little. I feel like I could learn something from someone so skilled at twisting conversations and manipulating their way out of intelligent discussion, a while standing strongly by an opinion they can't explain.

It's not like anyone's posting any intelligent criticism of the paragraph, so what's your point? He couldn't even back himself up on a few sentences.

>I though I gave every chance for discussion

Not before you started posturing. Besides, you thought I was the guy who stopped reading at the sentence about the door.

>can't explain.

won't* We've been over this, how there's no point having an honest discussion with someone like you. And now actually we're going over it again, without you realising. So much for being a reader.

Regardless if the criticism is intelligent or not, telling someone to read the book because they didn't like (which, for some reason, means they didn't 'get') the paragraph defeats the purpose of posting just a single paragraph in the first place.

How is repeating yourself and refusing to explain yourself whole acting superior not posturing? How is what you're doing now not exactly the same? I'd appreciate it if you explained a little more thoroughly why asking someone to explain their uneducated shitposts is detrimental to conversation. Also, yeah, you talk just like that guy so I don't know how I was supposed to tell the difference, but I apologize.

The issue has nothing to do with someone not liking a paragraph (I'm not sure how you're not getting this), it's with making bold claims without even being able to finish that single paragraph you keep referring to. Why are we now pretending that first comment was sincere? It's a pre-written Veeky Forums response to try and stir up some butthurt, but it's always easily turned right around on the poster when you ask them to explain what they meant. I definitely respect where you're coming from, but it seems irrelevant in this scenario.

>not posturing?

I did that after you started posturing lol because I didn't want to have an honest conversation with you. Not that it excuses your initial response of posturing

> why asking someone to explain their uneducated shitposts is detrimental to conversation

You fucking idiot I said here why I wouldn't want an honest discussion with you. Learn to read.

That's not an explanation at all, considering all of that was I response to him acting exactly like what I was calling him. The irony here is that you're now calling me an idiot when you're saying some of the dumbest shit in the entire thread. Did you read the thread from the beginning? I find it funny that you're now telling me I can't read while you're virtue signaling and trying to play daddy to a troll.

>it's with making bold claims without even being able to finish that single paragraph

No, the issue is with telling the person who didn't finish the paragraph after a few sentences that they didn't get it because they didn't read the book.

Since you can't read here are the important sentences:
>Maybe read the book
>Making that kind of observation after reading so little, especially so little of such a long novel with many stylistic changes

Two stupid responses, yes?

Yeah what a surprise you were projecting the whole time.

That wasn't what I said at all. I pointed out (in the nicest way possible) that the style he was criticizing was there for a reason, a reason he'd understand if he would read the book. How is suggesting that someone read a book on a literature board rude? He seemed to be focusing on one aspect, so I attempted to explain that aspect and supply a little context, hoping to convince that person to pick it up and see that his criticism made little sense.
Again, both of those responses followed childish comments that completely ignored the point. I am baffled that you're confused by this. If you want to at devil's advocate, do it with a little more tact. I'm not convinced you aren't the same fucking guy, with useless responses like that.

In what way, friend? Please explain.

>No, the issue is with telling the person who didn't finish the paragraph after a few sentences that they didn't get it because they didn't read the book.
>That wasn't what I said at all. I pointed out (in the nicest way possible) that the style he was criticizing was there for a reason, a reason he'd understand if he would read the book.

You referred specifically to me "telling the person" and then use my response to you as ammo? This is getting really pathetic really fast.

How is that not an honest statement? You can't explain that a passage someone didn't like for a specific reason works in context?

Be honest.

is a response to
It's all right there man. There's no point trying to narrate the conversation.

I'm not talking about honest statements. See:

Take a shot every time the word "and" comes up

I guess I just don't get what the problem is. I see the point you're trying to make, but it's so poorly executed that it comes across as a little ridiculouss, no? My original posts were only trying to show how I thought the style was supposed to work in context, and he immediately reverted to greentext and childish games like repeating what I said. In addition, trying to call me out for being dishonest about how crack makes a person think in that way, yet couldn't explain himself on that one either. You're doing exactly what he did: ignoring the other poster's points and hiding behind canned Veeky Forums responses in order to change the conversation into something completely different. And your original argument was that I was being dishonest. Explain what you mean, please.

You're assuming that 1. I posted the paragraph and 2. that there's something wrong about a paragraph sparking a discussion about the novel that contains it. That's such a reach that I'm not sure what you're hoping to get out of this.

His criticism was against not only the whole book, but the author as well. That seems like a much larger stretch than just explaining why a paragraph was written in a certain way. You sure you're standing up for the right person here?

>ghastly-ly

>My original posts were only trying to show how I thought the style was supposed to work in context

Lol I can see the post myself dude. Again, stop trying to narrate the conversation.

Here's your post:

>I'm sure you've stopped reading many times. Maybe read the book, and you'd realize it's written that way for a reason. Actually, if you were intelligent you'd probably pick up on that anyway. Oh well.

Here's your narration:

>That wasn't what I said at all. I pointed out (in the nicest way possible) that the style he was criticizing was there for a reason, a reason he'd understand if he would read the book.

See why I think you're dishonest? Or should I 'explain' myself further than just presenting your actual post with your recollection of that post?

No, the point is there is something wrong with telling someone they should read the book because they didn't supposedly 'get' the paragraph. It's a lazy deflection telling the other person to read a 1000-page novel because they didn't immediately like the first few sentences specifically posted to show how the writer was good.

Whether you posted the OP or not is actually irrelevant to this main point. It doesn't alter it in any way.

No, my criticism was against the author, the other person said they stopped reading. All the posts are right there dude. You have no excuse for this poor retelling of events.

Again, you're assuming those were both my posts, just like you got butthurt when I did the same to you. I feel the need to narrate the conversation because you're hopelessly lost and trying to prove a point by mixing up different people's posts and contradicting yourself. If you honestly believe his criticism didn't deserve all the posts (not all of them were mine) that it got in response then you're worse off than I thought. Every one of my responses tried adamantly to get an explanation out of him and, minus some perhaps over the line insults, went into about as much detail as possible about what I took issue with and why. You're going back through this like there was ever a conversation to begin with. In reality, it was a troll who got called out and decided to repeatedly resort to childish (can you think of a better word?) word games. At that point, yes, I'm going to fuck him up. If that bothers you so much, get him to give me the only thing I wanted, from the beginning, a little more explanation to the things he said with so much confidence.

This is hopeless. You seem to have no idea which posts were mine and which weren't. Additionally, you've missed the entire point of my going after him like that. So, just to clarify, saying an author is bad and refusing to explain why is perfectly fine, but suggesting that someone read a book before criticizing more than they've read (the paragraph, only the paragraph, as you've so generously pointed out) is counterproductive? Do you see how idiotic that sounds? Not only assuming I made every single post that wasn't his, but changing what my point was entirely to create some kind of strawman supporting whatever pompous bullshit you're trying to promote.

>Again, you're assuming those were both my posts

So which is the post where you were explaining something the nicest way possible?
1) Actually, if you were intelligent you'd probably pick up on that anyway.
2) one of the most pathetic things I've seen in a long time. You couldn't even finish a paragraph, friend, you're opinion is worthless.

You're not actually altering the point at all.

>childish (can you think of a better word?) word games.

How is it childish to refuse to have an 'honest conversation' with someone who is trying to facilitate one with 'over the line insults'?

>get him to give me the only thing I wanted

See above, and the other couple of times I've explained myself here. Also one user stopped at 'legitimately stopped reading here' and the rest has been me, still refusing to have an honest conversation with someone who thinks telling someone to read a 1000-page novel is a good, honest beginning to a conversation.

You and your protector are literally resorting to assigning me roles I never played in this thread. Please, keep going, I was bored but now I'll sit back and watch you two scramble. I said maybe half of what's been attributed to me. Funny that the posts I actually wrote, the ones calling you out and asking for just the slightest explanation, are being ignored to create some narrative. I'm not entirely sure where you are heading with this, but I'm genuinely looking forward to finding out.

Asking if the paragraph was written that way because the author is a self-aggrandizing hack is funny. It's a joke. Getting defensive and saying 'you just don't understand this out-of-context paragraph because you haven't read the book and also you're stupid' is called getting butt-blasted.

You're right that this is hopeless though since literally quoting you still makes you deny things you literally said. What's the point! This will be my last post here since I'm just linking back to times I've already addressed your arguments anyway.

My posts started with asking for an explanation of the criticism on the author, and I've received roundabout bullshit ever since. If you'd rather bullshit this hard to get out of responding, that's on you. I tried to explain what I liked about it, and I tried to shake a genuine response out of you, but you've used the same tactic I called you out on in the beginning, over and over again. Many of the responses to you were written by others, because I'm obviously not the only one who thinks your posts have been worthless. I'm excited to see which direction you take this in now, instead of just responding to the original question.

>twin roses of flame

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAHAHAHAHA

Over half of what you've quoted (including the original post you keep referring back to) was written by someone else you grandstanding faggot.

Yeah, it's pretty clever since a glass rose is slang for crack pipe. I giggled too.

>clever

it makes that retarded slang sound like a soneteering cliche

This might be in the top 10 most inane arguments I've seen on 4chinz