Do you do a fiction and a nonfiction concurrently?
>>24849267YesI'm currently reading Kim by Rudyard Kipling and the Modern Library Ethics anthology
Yeah, I'm reading a Quaranic concordance with my left eye and The Complete Works of Schism R. Asunder with my right.
>>24849267lol i was hoping that david weber book was like a dank dense history of the schism of 1054 but apparently it's just some shit the author made up about a space church or something. should have known from the cover art cuz it was sus but i had a hope.
What can we learn about the "Holden Caulfield Archetype" from recent revelations that Sam Altman raped his sister
>>24850472>recent revelations that (((Sam Altman))) raped his sisterAre there proofs or is it just claims?
Serious question: do you think the 21st century will be seen as a sort of dark age? From where I’m looking, market of art and ideas is too oversaturated for anything interesting to stick out. The notion of rebelling against the dominant culture no longer has any weight, because due to decades of waning attention spans and centuries of similar rebellion, we simply don’t have a culture coherent enough to rebel against. The avenues left open to contemporary writers seem to be1) - mindless bestseller slop that we all know about (romance, YA novels, poetry books by bitter women and ethnic diaspora groups)2) - /lit/-bro rehashing of the classics, attempting to live in a past which no longer exists and perhaps never existed3) - hyper-obscure avant-garde literature, written by fairly intelligent academics but destined to be read by only three people.The transformation is probably irreversible. There will never be a return to the older world of literature, and whatever comes after us will have to be completely original. I’m welcoming recommendations of anything written in the 21st century that you think is quite good.
>>24850037It will be another generation or two. All physical media has to be phased out firat, then there will be a period of hyper accelerated retardation before the plug is pulled one way or another, erasing 99% of everthing
>market of art and ideas is too oversaturated for anything interesting to stick out.sounds to me like one of those old timer jokes>nobody goes down that road anymore, it's too busyhave some faith in man's ability to get bored with the current scheme. maybe this will last a hundred years, maybe a thousand, maybe a decade, but eventually some novel way of thinking will emerge, some modality of artistic endeavor shall roar, and all will take heed.
>>24850037>...and perhaps never existedWhat a cliche.The period from the printing press to the internet was pretty unique, and this digitization and then by copyright utter destruction of everything that came before will wipe out nearly everything. Absolutely a dark age, but mostly due of a culture of anti-intellectualism and corporatism. Almost nothing will survive the evolution of digital media and copyright. Give it a few hundred years.
>>24850037>The transformation is probably irreversible. There will never be a return to the older world of literature, and whatever comes after us will have to be completely originalI strongly disagree. It's the other way around: the problem is we have no great unifying literature or art. Where's our Grapes of Wrath? A Tale of Two Cities? Frankenstein? Moby Dick? Three Musketeers? Dante's Inferno? Etc etc. At most you have genres. Markets. Hobbyists interesting in a specific genre, those are still around. But a literary work that will be read and examined by the general public in 20-40 years are dying off.
Atheist-sisters, our response? He has five of them!
>>24843519Intelligence is somewhat irrelevant to whether they were right or wrong in this. Aristotle believed eels began as worms that themselves began as wet soil, for example. In my experience, people who equate being correct with being intelligent are quite ignorant and often very stupid.
>>24849187Pascal’s wager:You play the lottery. You can either win or not. If you don’t win, nothing happens. If you win, you become a millionaire. What does “odds” mean?
>>24843490good book goes over the subject quite wellFor all the people arguing about this each of these arguments is specifically laid out in formal argumentshttps://archive.org/details/edward-feser-five-proofs-of-the-existence-of-god/page/n71/mode/2upWith tons of text arguing for each specific proposition.Point out which proposition is false or does not follow in each of the arguments please Doing anything other than this is just being a retard
The whole atheism thing kind of rests on a false framing of the argument as1) There is a Godand2) There is no Godit's between1) There is more to reality that which can be measured, modeled, and predicted in accord with predictive sciences vs2) There is nothing real except that which can be measured, modeled, and predicted in accord with predictive sciences But to lay it out clearly like that is obviously retarded. Everyone who denies the existence of God just accepts the second view implicitly or explicitly even though it is completely retarded, incoherent, and ungrounded. Anyone who does not assume reality is only a bunch of empty physical matter we can measure and manipulate believes in God, or they are just retarded and participate in our "scientific" culture and are unwilling to abandon it, so they say they are vaguely spiritual while wanting to stay attached to the idea that actually it just is a bunch of atoms and nothing really exists. I think this is why eastern religion larpers are drawn to it, it has the scientific rejection of reality and the self as illusory but makes them feel like there's still some spiritual "orientation" to it. I don't think they are genuine participants in the eastern religion though, they are still fundamentally still doing the same western scientific project and spreading it.
>>24846564>Everything must have a cause, or a mover>Therefore something must exist that doesn'tIt would be funny if theists weren't so brain damaged and shallow
This is the only genre that makes money and the money train isn't stopping any time soon. Short of a puritanical John Carpenter style government, there will always be demand for this shit.The question is, can a dude write successful girlporn? This is the literary question.I'm going to read this milking farm thing and see if I can't get a knack for how women write. I'm suspecting it's a bit like this:>Minimal attention to details and the world, emphasis on personal impressions and feelings; the world as a set of things that make you feel different ways.>Braindead, 12-15 year old brain simplicity. Imagine a Middle School girl trying to "speed download" social gossip updates to a friend.>Vanity, ego, zero accountability, petty delusions, cliches. This will require a bit of research and marketing savvy just to collect up what today's cliches are. Fortunately, women are dead simple and just go on TikTok/Twitter and see what buzzwords come up a lot.>Sultry language.This one's tough. From what I understand explicit, gross language is what sells this shit and is the female equivalent of visually seeing porn. On the other hand, I have a feeling that I could write porn that is vastly more detailed and explicit than what women read and would alienate them. I have a feeling it's just stuff like, "sweaty" "bulge" "heaving" "cock!" "pulsing". Words that sound distinctly naughty but remain vague. It's not about visualizing, even through text, sexual mechanics. It's about breaking social taboos so women feel "naughty" and liberated from their neurotic sexual restraints.>Female attractionThis is tough. How far do you go with "big muscles, ripped body"? How much do women want to read that, and when is it too much? Women like being dominated but they like to feel it was their choice to be dominated. As a man who understands women very well, I don't want to tap into their sexual triggers too accurately because that might lead to a sense of "revealing too much" about female sexuality which women don't like. They like most of it to remain implicit and simple.Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>24850035>Minimal attention to details and the world, emphasis on personal impressions and feelings; the world as a set of things that make you feel different ways.>Vanity, ego, zero accountability, petty delusions, cliches.This is on point for feminized writing, but I could never sell my soul by adding more of such trash to the world
>>24850035Being a writer is one of the worst get-rich-quick schemes you can embark on. Even if you acquire the skills necessary to tell a cohesive, marketable story your odds of making a killing—or any cash at all—are extremely low.
ye olde: >>24835665Recommended reading charts (Look here before asking for vague recs).https://mega.nz/folder/kj5hWI6J#0cyw0-ZdvZKOJW3fPI6RfQ/folder/4rAmSZxb>Archive:https://warosu.org/lit/?task=search2&search_subject=sffg>Goodreads:https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/1029811-sffg>Thread Question:What's your favourite decade of sci-fi?
>>24850457If it's not on tik-tok it doesn't get discusses.
>>24850423what is there left to write about the thing?
>>24850479Ummm... it's literally absurdly, insanely massive. You could make any story about exploring it and finding weird, interesting shit on it.
>>24850487don't make me tap the sign
>>24850495What sign? There is no sign.
"Next Generation" editionPrevious: >>24845792/wg/ AUTHORS & FLASH FICTION: https://pastebin.com/ruwQj7xQRESOURCES & RECOMMENDATIONS: https://pastebin.com/nFxdiQvCPlease limit excerpts to one post.Give advice as much as you receive it to the best of your ability.Follow prompts made below and discuss written works for practice; contribute and you shall receive.If you have not performed a cursory proofread, do not expect to be treated kindly. Edit your work for spelling and grammar before posting.Violent shills, relentless shill-spammers, and grounds keeping prose, should be ignored and reported.(And maybe double-space your WIPs to allow edits if you want 'em.)Simple guides on writing:Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>24849453You're projecting, anon
>>24850147Yes weWHAT IS GARDNER'S FIRST NAME?WHAT IS GARDNER'S FIRST NAME?I NEED TO KNOW!
>>24850273*are
Do you guys use Vectorpea and Photopea to design your book covers? I've found them to be just as good as the Adobe products. Kind of amazing actually everything you can do just in browser.
>>24850475i used to hate web app shit, but now that i have a real job with a locked down work laptop where i can't install photoshop and it's not a mac so can't use pixelmator, i've realized the appeal of just opening your browser and using some shit. i get that they have to lock down work computers or normies will install a horror show of malware but it's like i actually need photoshop for this project tho. pain point alleviated, thank you entrepreneurs.
What is your favorite novel, short story, or poem from 1925 (the year which some have called “the greatest year of literature”)?
>>24850245just looked at the Wikipedia page '1925 in literature', and the only ones i've read are:>Virginia Woolf, Mrs Dalloway>Franz Kafka, The Trial>William Carlos Williams, In the American Graini've never seen In the American Grain discussed on here, it's pretty interesting.
>>24850287Thank you for your paranoid racism, Mr. Buchanan.>>24850298How have you not read Gatsby? Everyone has to read it for school.Might as well knock it out now before the year’s over so you can get in on the centennial celebratory fun:https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/f-scott-fitzgerald/the-great-gatsby
>>24850245Is metropolis a novelization of the film?
>>24850245Great Gatsby had a reference to Lothrod Stoddards Rising Tide of Color - yes its truehttp://www.google.com/search?q=great+gatsby+reference+rising+tide+of+color
>>24850245I have recorded 3 things that I have read from 1925:The Great GatsbyMockery Gap (T.F. Powys)The Heart of a Dog (Bulgakov) Probably Heart of a Dog has stuck with me the most.
where are all the contemporary conservative philosophers?
I wish I could kill everyone who disagrees with me
Libtards and the left expend a lot of energy defining their identity according to their political beliefs and a lot of time patting themselves on the back. What a bunch of midwits.
Conservatives spend all their time in a futile attempt to make the clock run backwards and blaming the other for their various spiritual and sexual failimgs.
>>24847254>philosophy without epistemic humilityNow that's a fucking disaster waiting to happen.I bet these people are Act-Utilitarians too.
>>24849075this
Why hasn't he won the big one yet /lit/? He's more than deserving.
>>24846006It's ok to be retarded anon
No he sucks big white cocks you moron. Fuck off back to goodreads
>>24847749You don't even know why you like it dipshit. No one with unironic bike-cuck psychology (as the book advocates) is a basket weaving forum user. Not even our trannys.You like it because you want to be seen as the sort of person who likes him.
>>24842420My Murakami > Your Murakami
>>24849253both Murakamis suck though. what a cursed surname
Give me one good reason why he isn't the greatest writer to have ever lived
>>24848880Seethe
>>24848106This sounds very gay.
>>24849140>What are his essays/critiques like?Against sainte beuve is a must read. On reading is alright and iirc it also contains the neat inciting incident that lead to the recherche. The rest is not life changing but if you like him so far you will like the rest as wellHaven't read his other novel and only skimmed his verses which I found unimpressive but tbf I don't really get poetry generally
>>24848297You've been missing a lot
>>24848423>sprawling verbosityIs that really what you got from his prose?
Previous: >>24841342
>>24850382Are you referring to the action-adventure NES/SNES/Turbografx action-adventure platformers, or the PS1/GBA Metroidvania ones?Because Aria of Sorrow is fairly different to Super Castlevania IV.
>>24850390Metroidvanias
Wrote a shitpost short story about my friends. I like to ask AI what it thinks of my story, as a baseline for the average reader. It described my story as dysphoric. Suffice to say, I'm not going to take AI seriously anymore.
>>24847640Dead eyes, dead eyesAnd are you just like me?>>24847745>Adrion HirschiYou just know he was a /g/fag, and not the linux kind.
This is a weird thread. >>24847856 is wrong because I don't wanna see animals dying. But he says his points well. Meanwhile >>24847891 writes like an ESL middle schooler in the projects and is focused on the irrelevant points. Which is he can have one, two, five, ten, hundred animals of dying hippos, they're all irrelevant. The fundamental issue is I don't want to see it. But I don't want to agree with someone who says "lol idk" in the literature board, so hippofag you have my blessings to keep posting your gross shit.
When you read a book, do you visualize the landscape and the people, like a movie scene flowing through your mind?
>>24843673I agree, that it is hard to really visualize truly foreign things you've never seen before. And this has tripped me up, reading some speculative fiction that deals with alien concepts, because my visualization defaults to more familiar memories and I have to remind myself of the differences. This is why I like to look at art of strange, alien places and beings. It broadens my familiarity with things outside my experience and makes my imagination richer. The same logic behind training generative AI models, I guess.
This thread actually makes me wonder if some people don't enjoy reading plays or even fiction in general just because they can't imagine what's happening.
>>24847693This is exactly how I operate. I've had running stories or 'scenes' that I day dream or think about before bed. I add little bits or change bits, I don't write it down though. I just remember it all.
>>24842322I can't see or hear anything at all. For me, the main part of the enjoyment I get from reading is how the author is using language, as well as the concepts he's coming up with. I don't like film adaptations of books I've liked, because they're so slow compared to my reading speed and they (by necessity) miss out the myriad of small details and prose quirks of the author. It's just a film and I know the actors are just actors and everything is fake. With text, it feels as real as any of my memories are, because I have no ability to visualise those either. When I think back to things that have happened to me in the past, I'm essentially describing those events to myself in prose. My pet theory of aphantasia is that it's a fundamentally different "operating system" that a certain percentage of people are running.
>>24842322I don't tend to visualise as I'm reading, I just read and remember the words. When I'm thinking about certain scenes afterwards they'll manifest visually without needing to think of the words.
Is Buddhism the most pessimistic of all the sacred traditions in existence?>no explanation for 'samsara'/contingent existence to begin with, if you try to ponder or believe in a cosmogonic account you're insane and trapped in delusion>this samsara is meaningless and our lives are always caught in suffering no matter what, dukkha is the sole enduring truth of this world>transient existence caught between different modes of being, continuity between gods/devas, humans, animals, etc>Mahayana tries to make Buddhas into the equivalent of deities/benevolent gods I guess>you have absolute free will to escape samsara if you wish, but that may take many lifetimes. or you're born into a society without buddhist teaching, and if you can't find one elsewhere, you're screwed>even beauty, goodness and the wonder inherent in existence is a trap. it makes you temporarily forget dukkha and then you expend your good karmic 'points' and go to hell on the rebound, like if you're reborn as a deva >the Good is just one side of the duality, Nirvana is beyond bothMeanwhile, Neoplatonism or Tantric Shaivism or Advaita Vedanta have a similar totally transcendent dimension to their practice, but they revere the world and believe it to be inherently good and a ladder to be climbed via appreciation/love/gratitude and ultimately knowledge of the divine author (not separated from self) behind it. The world IS to be left behind but it isn't some Gnostic-tier nightmare trap or as dark as Buddhism says Samsara to be. Am I in delusion as Buddhists would believe? I used to be quite hostile to Buddhism on account of dogmatic metaphysical principles but don't view it the same way anymore. The actual ascetic practice is heroic. But this particular attitude toward the cosmos is a significant hurdle
>>24850028The Buddha was essentially a via negativa philosopher of transcendence and his whole project is concerned and engaged with achieving transcendence. Thus he isn't interested in metaphysics.You're an uneducated dilettante normalfag that hasn't read the suttas. Filtered bitch.
>>24850379>yet none of these losers have any superpowers besides accepting things as they are.Which is unfortunately a very hard thing to come by. Its quite the irony that the ends of deep introspection is often a base attunement to causality and those attuned to more basic causal things get distracted by abstractions.
>>24850393this is why I think Buddhism actually gets the way to transcendence more or less correct. because Buddhist meditative states somehow align with the experiences of Christian or Islamic mystics, and there's no good reason why besides the possibility that they're all converging onto the same thing.
>>24850329>humans have managed to answer many smaller 'why' questionsThat's the problem. We think that because we can have answers to these other "why's" we can have answers to questions for which there are no answers (that will please us). This is a matter of evolution and the way we are designed to work by Nature. It's a question of optimization of energies. Why am I tilling this field? So I can grow the crops. Why am I moving this rock? To make a path. We are NOT wired to do things for no reason, and so we ask why are we even here in the first place? This question, as you can see, is just a side effect of evolving to survive as human beings on this planet and the necessity of managing our labors.The real insight is to stop asking this question, to recognize it for what it is.Buddha did not speculate on cosmology because he knew it was beyond our ability to ever actually know. If he was around today, he would say the same thing to the question of what was there before the Big Bang or why the Big Bang happened. And he would have completely accepted evolution and natural selection (and cosmology as scientifically laid out since the Big Bang). Nothing he taught would have changed.
from what i've read on it (all by thich nhat hanh) it doesn't come across as pessimistic to me. but if i'm understanding correctly his schooling of it is the hybrid one that involves some of the chinese stuff
>says whales are fish fucking droped lol
>>24848311You are the retard.
>>24848223He knew it would rile up autistic moderns like (You), OP.
>>24848223>droped
>>24848223Melville was right all along, whales are a type of lobe-finned fish
>>24849348shut up you clade-loathing freak
