Okay, sorry for remaking this thread again, I just accidentally

>>8347921
It's horrendous.

Get off the internet, you're a weirdo

>>8347927
Why is it horrendous? You left out the interesting part of your critique.

Why is it shit? You left out the interesting part of your critique.

It's bad because of its plainess. The adjectives are boring, the subject is stupid and the prose is repetitive. It's too shallow to be anything other than a tumblr post.

>>8347958
>too shallow
you're an idiot

>>8347921

stop bumping this spam thread.
no one fucking cares about your shitty writing op.
wait for critique threads and post there instead of shitting up the catalogue.
can the janitors please clean this selfabsorbed spamfest?

saged

>>8348566
I just want some actual honest feedback, everything everyone has written has been utter garbage in response to this writing.

>>8348566
Also, I wasn't the one spamming my own thread, that was someone else. I'm sorry that it kept getting spammed, that wasn't my doing.

>>8348574
Your writing is garbage. Go away.

>>8348613
You go away.

>>8348619
Literally everybody who has responded to you has told you you're shit. Deal with it. Preferably somewhere else.

>>8347921
same thing i said in the other thread:

you're grasping to say something profound, while mired in cliches and overwriting:

"interminable, unshakeable nature"
"staring into the void" (ew)
"encompassing triviality"
"malice toward the void"
"vision was shattered" (ew)
"interminable reality"
"rebellion against staring the inevitable end in the face" (ew)

you're using big words to try to make your prose more profound. your emotional masturbation session is well-comprehended by everyone here, it's not beyond us.

>>8348639
>>8347921
why did you just switch threads to reply to me

>>8348639
I already replied to this comment in the critique thread.

>>8348673
so you did

>>8348639
>"rebellion against staring the inevitable end in the face" (ew)
You know, I didn't necessarily mean the inevitable end as in death, I meant it as in the nothingness, the reality which exists regardless of your thoughts.
>"vision was shattered" (ew)
I don't know why you think this is "ew". I think it was an apt description of what happened when I realized that the false notion of what I wished was going to happen came crashing down. It's almost as if I built up a naive notion, like a child who thinks that they can shoot dragon ball z laser beams out of their hands, but then realize shortly afterwords that they can't. I built up that illusion and it somehow got destroyed when I realized that the punk I was talking to would be stupid, regardless of anything else, the interminable, unchanging, endless reality.
>"staring into the void" (ew)
I quite like this terminology to be honest.
I think the other stuff you have a problem with is just pedantic anyways, I don't think there is really a problem with that stuff you pointed out, and I think that you just don't like the wording because you don't like the writing itself, probably because you come into it with pretenses of how you feel about the subject that I'm writing about.

>>8348629
Yeah, there's a lot of shitposters on this website who don't have anything good to say. That's what it's proved to me.

>makes four threads asking for critque
>refuses to listen to any
>autism

>>8348706
>refuses to listen to any
>insulting autistic people like an ignorant retard
I didn't refuse to listen to any of the critiques, I read them and I think they're anti-intellectual, dishonest, and retarded. Also, what the fuck even is autism? Do you know? Because when you use it as an adjective, like someone who doesn't even know what autism is, then you just look like a massive fucking moron.

>>8348732
>you use it as an adjective
No I don't.

>>8348738
>adjective
ad·jec·tive
ˈajəktiv/
nounGRAMMAR
a word or phrase naming an attribute, added to or grammatically related to a noun to modify or describe it.

Is this deny the most obvious truth hour or something?

>>8348732
You don't understand a fucking thing.

>>8348688
i take umbrage with them because they are cliches. the part from Writing Tools I posted in the other thread also applies here. >>8347725

where they are not cliches, they are banal. they look cribbed from some sort of discount sartre and nietzche without profound meaning (in the case of nietzche).

nothing about it is original. originality is not the end-all, be-all, but they also aren't well-presented as a second strike. that's what i have against it.

improve your craft and you could be good.

>>8348751
>added to or grammatically related to a noun to modify or describe it
Exactly.

>>8348732
tell us the intellectual merit of your piece. how does it differ from nihilist and existentialist thought in any way? what makes it profound and original?

>>8348778
It's purple.

>>8348778
>how does it differ from nihilist and existentialist thought in any way? what makes it profound and original?
Existentialism and nihilism? You mean, relating to existence, and the rejection of principles? I suppose there's some nihilism in there, but the point of the writing, was to try to figure out why, in a moment when I was feeling silly, I felt angry at that person who was insulting me, who I didn't care for what so ever. It seemed absurd to me, that I should have any feeling over the situation at all. The writing I just made was an attempt at uncovering, and digging down deeper into the meaning of why I felt the way I did, and it didn't really have anything to do with nihilism or existentialism, as far as the main point goes. It actually was surprising to me, when I discovered what it was that made me so angry, and I think that self discovery is actually one of the most interesting and rewarding things that anyone can undergo, which is something that I feel I experienced when I was writing the piece, and I have yet to see anyone tell me that they understand what I was feeling, but comprehensively diagnose the piece of writing itself as a piece of writing, and tell me why I wasn't successful in doing so, and show me something about myself through my writing that I didn't even know about myself. That would be something that I would be astonished, if I could actually see someone do.

I really enjoyed writing the latter portion of the OP, to be honest. A lot of people seem to think it was sappy and cringeworthy and ineffective, but to me that was a moment when, after I had just gotten up to look through my Hieronymous Bosch art book to take a break, I had just come back to the keyboard with my thoughts swirling in my head, and I went and just winged it all the way through until the end, and I felt satisfaction, so much so that my whole brain came to a full stop, my thoughts seemed to all collapse back onto themselves and form a full circle, and I felt that I had conveyed the point that I was trying to make.

Please stop giving this guy advice and replies. He will never be a good writer, and any criticism will be taken by him as encouragement to share his attempts at progress.
https://sys.4chan.org/lit/imgboard.php?mode=report&no=8347921

>>8348812
>Existentialism and nihilism? You mean, relating to existence, and the rejection of principles?

don't play coy.

google definition: "the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless."
"often in the belief that life is meaningless."
"often in the belief that life is meaningless."
"often in the belief that life is meaningless."

>"When I say staring into the void, I guess I mean just realizing the absolute nothingness you're faced with, the all encompassing triviality of it all."
>"I was simply hoping against what I knew to be the structure of the existence outside of me, that somehow the conversation wouldn't be so trivial, that it all meant something more.
>"It's that hope which was lost, it was the sight which was lost and left me alone in the nothingness after the vision was shattered."

these are common nihilist and existentialist threads. clearly you have not read The Stranger, because this story is essentially you "shooting an arab" and self-investigating afterward.

>>8348882
>clearly you have not read The Stranger,
I have read the stranger, and I suppose your analogy is comparable.