Should /lit/ read more happy writers like Walt Whitman?
>zero replies
>>24828517There seems to be a general assumption on /lit/ that you can't be a serious intellectual unless you're miserable. Which is ironic, because if you were really smart you'd figure out how to be happy.I still wouldn't read Whitman though. He wrote absolute doggerel that barely even qualifies as poetry.
>>24828517The most well adjusted people on /lit/ are in /wng/ trying to figure out how to sell slop to retards.Everyone else sounds like they're writing from the middle of a very tall bridge.
Yes :) dont know a single piece from him but yeah sure
>>24828517Yes. I've always found it interesting how tragedy is more respected than comedy despite them being supposedly equal traditions. >>24829386Imagine being filtered by Whitman
>>24828517Too many apostrophe’s.Of course when you try to google “poetry apostrophe” and learn about it, you get nonsense like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostrophe_(figure_of_speech) .Instead of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poetic_contraction or possibly some other usage.Fuck poetry. Fuck google. And fuck the english language.
>>24829411That's like saying, "Imagine being filtered by Dora the Explorer."Whitman is for simpletons who can't handle real poetry.
>>24829181i thought about replying, but i started thinking about whether Whitman was a 'happy writer', and it felt like too heavy a question to deal with
>>24829427I like Whitman's apostrophes:>O powerful western fallen star!>O shades of night—O moody, tearful night!>O great star dissapear'd—O the black murk that hides the star!>O cruel hands that hold me powerless—O helpless soul of me!>O harsh surrounding cloud that will not free my soul>>24829452Is this an anti free verse thing? What is "real poetry" according to you? Whitman is undeniable by the metric of influence and the aesthetic accomplishment of his greatest poems are obvious.
