It's horribly written with a limited vocabulary ("Chris grinned when he found the gun," "Jill grinned as the doorknob proved unlocked," "Rebecca grinned," etc.) but it actually has some good characterization for Jill Valentine. A guilty pleasure for sure. It hides on my bookshelf behind John Grisham and Carl Sagan.
>>7576537 this was a very immersive book when i read it as a kid.
i remember not liking how the characters talked internally with italic quotes, and sometimes those internal thoughts had a dialogue with the author's description of a place, like there was a third person in the room with me and the character
You're retarded and it is vital that you grasp this before you fuck up IRL. If something causes someone to enjoy it then it is good for them. Everything in this hobby is subjective to the specific reader.
>>7576601 this perspective can be supported within an empirical model
>everyone is genetically different >everyone's set of life experiences are inherently unique >the brain is shaped by genetics and experience >qualia and experience arise from, and are dependent on, the physical matter that is the brain >therefore, qualia and emotion are different for each person
in essence, your brain can be viewed as a unique, metaphorical mathematical function. the same input to different functions produce different results. therefore, value and experience are subjective, and cannot be measured directly in an objective manner
>>7576715 I understand the position you're describing - that value can be measured objectively, in a sense, by taking the overall consensus of a population, and then averaging it, or displaying it in a way associated with statistical data - standard deviations, etc.
This would measure how a population views value. This might be a practical aid for some people, but we're not really measuring value any more than we are by measuring an individual's response, we've simply changed the scale of our measurement. That doesn't make it any less arbitrary.
But this is the problem that pomo introduced. You can't judge anything because it refuses to allow itself to be judged. (Again, don't get me wrong, there's some inherent value to a person being confident or not caring what others think and still putting out work, but that's not what I'm talking about).
No, I'm not actually going to stop anyone from writing or actually lynch someone from saying they enjoy something, but I am definitely going to judge you or I'm definitely going to judge a book or a piece of art for something that is aesthetically just "bad" compared to something that is "good."
You can't just say, "you just don't get it," or "just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's not good." Saying that causes everything to stagnate. It brings progress and everything to a stand still. It shuts down. There's no where to go from there.
That's my problem with pomo and why, "good is subjective," is an argument I despise and should be completely eliminated.
Just like everything in life, there has to be a balance. Without the critic there is no artist.
>>7576483 The one literary thing he does (besides ascribing somewhat complex political motives to his characters) is juxtaposing these Romantically oversaturated descriptions of knights, lords, and ladies with horrific violence. It's like Hawthorne walked into his study to replicate that aesthetic of firelight and moonlight he describes, only to witness a graphic murder. I just wish he'd develop that stylistic motif more.
"It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, is of a different opinion, it is only because they only know their own side of the question."
>>7576785 >aesthetically just "bad" compared to something that is "good."
if the use of just "bad" isn't implying objective quality, that's fine to do - people like to hang out with people like themselves
>You can't just say, "you just don't get it," or "just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's not good." Saying that causes everything to stagnate. It brings progress and everything to a stand still. It shuts down. There's no where to go from there.
there is no "progress" in literature - the idea that there is some archetype or platonian ideal which we are steadily approaching via "progress" is nonsense. if you are dissatisfied that a conversation cannot be had if value is absolutely subjective, that's not anyone's problem. nobody said the model is obligated to facilitate conversation or it's somehow irrational. it's akin to a flat earther being upset they can't speculate about what the edge of the world looks like when they're told that the world is round.
>Just like everything in life, there has to be a balance. Without the critic there is no artist.
this is an appeal to moderation, not everything in life is balanced. the last line though - "without the critic there is no artist"? What? Artists do not depend on critics to create, critics depend on the production of art in order to operate.
>>7578039 I wonder how many and what kind of books these people read for them to conclude that ready player one is their favourite book. I can't imagine AtlasStrategem has read more than 15 books in his entire life, all of which are likely lowbrow YA scifi trash.
>>7577984 >Artists do not depend on critics to create, critics depend on the production of art in order to operate.
Artists have more incentive to write difficult (not even in the way Ulysses is, or The Cantos are -- even emotionally difficult, or socially difficult like Ibsen must've been) literature, or take artistic risks, because they know that their efforts aren't wasted and there will be someone out there with a critical eye that will vouch for their works if they wrote a good book. It might not change HOW they write their books, but it certainly provides an incentive to write what might not be commercially successful.
>>7578302 A subjective viewpoint, which only some artists may agree with. Others may say that critics stifle creativity by creating a culture of categorisation and analysis, where identity is intrinsically linked to the media you consume (a negative concept as far as I'm concerned - the culture cares more about what is "hip" or "intelligent" to read, and less about personal enjoyment and fulfilment).
Artists would still not depend on critics nearly as much as critics do on artists, even if your idea were 100% true.
Most of /lit/ are tryhards that see books as a way to make themselves better than others. The truth is, it's okay to enjoy a book because it's just plain fun. It doesn't have to do anything other than entertain you. You do not need to get any practical information from it. Just read what appeals to you. Here's a bonus secret: You don't even have to let anyone know that you've read something you're ashamed of (which you shouldn't ever be)
Nerd culture is awful - what people mean when they say they are a nerd is that they just "like" something in pop culture, but a lot more than average. They ascribe it the name "nerd" as though it justifies their obsession with some sort of intellectual association that's also falsely self-deprecating.
Who seriously thinks that calling yourself a nerd automatically makes people think you're an intellectual?
>>7578371 This might sound strange to you, once you get used to it reading demanding books can be as fun as reading shit, and shit feels like reading the back of a cereal box. Some books might seem too hard to be entertaining because you're afraid of them of they are above your current reading level, but that's not some universal constant. Being easy to read is not a basic aspect to be fun or entertaining, the marx brothers are much harder to follow than adam sandler but you can catch every joke if that's your thing.
>>7578405 The issue here is not reading or not demanding books, but the childish behaviour of making of what other people read. This looks like people putting other people down in order to see themselves in a better position, even if they aren't (which is often the case). It's not only childish, but utterly pathetic.
no. the issue here is this is a place to discuss literature. not a place to discuss books. so yes, the people will make fun of people for reading what they are reading because they don't want to read or discuss the drivel that they're reading. there are plenty other places on the internet to discuss ready player one. go there.
>>7578430 That would make sense if this were happening in a place where someone could be offended by that. We're just complaining about subpar writing, bad structure, lousy prose and pridefully rehashed ideas. I can't imagine a world where someone who has his life made out of really bad writing and will be known wrold wide is offended by treated as trash by a few anons. The thing is, the book is shit that shouldn't even be used as distraction in a flight. If you think that's cool because it's fun you are rejecting your duty of improving as a reader. Do whatever you want, but this is /lit/ and we take /lit/ issues seriously to a certain point.
>>7578444 Ready player one is literature anon. Don't give me the cliche "literature needs to explore the mystery of human nature" bullshit. Not only RPO but also every form of fiction, whether good or bad, is literature.
Value cannot be directly measured. Value is inherently subjective. Every time someone professes to be able to measure value, what they actually mean is that they are able to measure some factor that they subjectively value, e.g "originality".
Most of the posts against this stance are just empty affirmations and assertions - arguments, they are not.
>>7578455 >you are rejecting your duty of improving as a reader. Oh, anon... That is bullshit, and you know it. I understand that some people take their literary studies seriously, but this isn't the place to have any literary discussion - in fact, I have started several threads on literary discussion that die easily because they aren't /lit/-material. Looking at the threads is enough to get a glimpse of what this board is about: "Post what you're reading", "I'm reading this, how did I do?", "Guys, what should I read next?" and etc. but rather books and fiction, and that's it. This board is not a place to have literary discussions, because no one cares - those who do are in college and that's where they discuss literature, those who aren't hardly have any knowledge of literature whatsoever (and not, simply reading 'hard' books doesn't count as studying literature).
>>7578627 Good, now the board is going to be /mu/ and their only accepted definition of 'music. If you weren't blinded to stop at the first definition that coincides with your uneducated thoughts, you could easily find many definitions of literature.
"Literature: a term used to describe written material. Derived from the Latin litteratura meaning "writing formed with letters," literature most commonly refers to works of the creative imagination, including poetry, drama, fiction, nonfiction, journalism, and in some instances, song."
>"Literature: a term used to describe written material. Derived from the Latin litteratura meaning "writing formed with letters," literature most commonly refers to works of the creative imagination, including poetry, drama, fiction, nonfiction, journalism, and in some instances, song."
You got that from one Ester A. Lombardi on about.com. But why'd you stop there, anon? Why don't you finish what she says? Because she goes on to say:
>For many, the word literature suggests a higher art form, merely putting words on a page doesn't necessarily mean creating literature.
Look up the definition anywhere. Books are literature but they are not always literature. Sometimes they're just books.
So you're suggesting that one should read only as they are told to read, to not explore, make discoveries, and come to conclusions themselves on what they personally believe to be good or bad? Are you really suggesting that? You should realize that the world is gray, son. Morality is flexible and your opinion is dust in the wind.
>>7578685 >For many Not for everyone then, thus, expecting everyone t fit in the definition you accept is pretty much repeating "stop thinking what I don't think".
>Books are literature but they are not always literature Are you drunk? That would explain a lot.
>So you're suggesting that one should read only as they are told to read, to not explore, make discoveries, and come to conclusions themselves on what they personally believe to be good or bad? That's funny, because that's precisely what some people here seem to be against. Reading the /lit/ syllabus is probably one of the worst way to get into reading. Almost as bad as reading great books and claiming that they are masterpieces without understanding a word of it, something that happens quite often around here.
>>7578773 No. That meant that you cherry picked some rando from about.com that fit your definition. Go look it up most anywhere. Literature is more than just any book. Certainly more than ready player one.
>>7578773 If by the /lit/ syllabus you mean the Greeks (Homer, Hesiod, Plato, play-wrights, etc.) then you are factually incorrect. I can't imagine any collegiate course that would advise against starting with the Greeks, assuming a high-school education. Hell, Norton's Anthology of Western Literature, the standard collegiate text book, starts with the Greeks, following the Sumerians and the Hebrews.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.