> Duuude A Song of Ice and Fire is so fucking deep man, it's

>>8477013
If you're searching for objectivity, then don't go to literature or really any entertainment medium. You can use established literary theories, justify them by explaining why they should be applied, but if the person you're talking to disagrees that's kind of it.

>>8477013
Just walk away, friend. It's unfortunate but I have to agree with him, even if I consider him a pleb and his taste worthless trash.

>thats just your opinion man
The ultimate pleb statement. If you arent fetishally looking for objective meaning and purpose you shouldnt be allowed to talk about books.

>book is intentionally ambigious
>the purpose of this ambiguity is that "people see things differently, man."
EVERY TIME

I need to write a piece that is ambigious about its ambigious implications that actually has an extremely straightforward morale on the top.

File: image.jpg (8KB, 290x174px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 290x174px

>>8477013
>posting a marble statue

>>8477176
>Posting a fleshy sack of shit

>Skyrim soap opera is the best anything of our generation
I have friends that like it, but they know it's just for entertainment.
If anyone tries to pull the "best writing" card just mention that the series is genre fiction and not literature. They can have the "best fantasy" trophy, I don't think McCarthy, Pynchon, Dellilo, or Whitehead particularly care for it and mentioning GrrM among them is laughable

>>8477013
you thought he was talking about literature but what you are describing is actually just a pretentious sort of social babble

so yes he will take offense if you actually talk about art

>>8477013
I think you and the other character in your story are both wrong OP. I'll tell you why.

The other guy used the term entertainment, and in that, hes correct. R.R.Martin's books are for entertainment. There's obviously a criteria to literature, but when it comes to opinion, it's possible to believe that incest fantasy dragon kingdom 2 is one of the best books of our generation.

The only reason to tell some loser that his tastes sucks is to be a pompous loser yourself, unless of course you are in academia and someone is trying to get their collection of furry porn into the Smithsonian or something, taste is taste and it doesn't fucking matter wirhour years of discussion and critique.

It will always be personal opinions, even at the top.

In short, stop being a fucking idiot, don't use the words patrician or degenerate, don't post busts of ancient men, because its the fucking current year and you have NOTHING in common with them.

You are an adult in your own time, you enjoy classic novels, that man enjoys it when the woman shows her tits and fucks the big guy and like a dragon comes out and shoots the fire and shit totes kewl man.

Let it go, culture is on your side, if you are afraid of culture dying, it will live inside of the cultured forever.

And no anime tiddies can change that.

>>8477013
>blah blah blah look at what some normies said, how do I show 'em lit?

> Shut the fuck up Anon
This, no one cares about your whiney lit-validated opinion

>>8477242
here's your (you). Great contribution lad.

>>8477237
He's right.

At the end of the day, you can't force uncultured people to be cultured. Just like what you like, and allow degenerate plebs to like what they like.

You should also hang around different people. I have pretty pleb friends that don't read classics at all, but they still show appreciation for them, and realize that the things they like aren't really the best.

>>8477321
>here's your (you). Great contribution lad.

Instead of saying no, why don't you ask him to elaborate on his claim. How many books of this generation has he read? What makes this one so great?

I'm still not sure why /lit/ denizens sit around imagining these scenarios and pretending they happened. Are they just so lonely that they try to figure out what it would be like to talk to normal people about books? Nobody gives a shit what you're reading out there.

>>8477013
>> Shut the fuck up Anon, why do you have to be so pretentious all the time and why do you think your opinion matters? There's no objective metric for books or any other form of entertainment, it's all subjective.


you should of been like
>if you dont want to hear someone elses opinion why state your own opinion on books you fucking idiot

or this >>8477363

>>8477013
The answer to your question is you don't know how to argue. Simple as that

>>8477363
This anon got it

You need the person to make positive claims and then argue that those claims are not true. You can't prove a negative in a vacuum. It is the same with you can't prove that I am actually a magical little girl typing to you right now.

Ask me for proof of the claim, then break down the proof. For art, ask for good reasons to support the claim, then show why these are not good reasons to support the claim.

>>8477604
The show is so popular that people do discuss the books openly. Ordinarily you're right, but this is a unique case.

>>8477216
Mentioning DeLillo and McCarthy as the best contemporary writers is laughable son.

>>8477013
resort to intersubjectivity
the people who care about and study literature agree with you and disagree with them
there's no objectivity to taste but your group is more literate and literary

appeal to authority. im sure you know some established figure they respect. make up a reason why you dont like the book and attribute said quote to the person.

cheap but youll win the day

>>8477013
Reminder that there is not and can not be any objective value in art and everyone's tastes are just as valid as yours

>>8478734
validity becomes a moot point then, it's like you're trying to make a normative decree from a position you've just denied the existence of

>>8477013
>there's no objective metric

Said no good connoisseur ever. You want skilled, insightful, visionary work by people who have put in the hours and blessed by the muses. Good art follows a standard of excellence. There is no denying this, despite what these flaccid mental invalids think.

>>8477013
If there are no valid standards other than individual taste then their statement that it's 'the best' is meaningless- it just means it's their favourite.

Also >>8477363 and >>8478122

>>8478755
I didn't say that value doesn't exist or that we can't use useful objective parameters.

I meant that there are no usable objective parameters for determining the value of art, leaving subjective "enjoyment" as the only determinant of value.

>>8478776
sorry I was attacking the intelligibility of the "just as valid as yours" point in conjunction with the denial of objectivity, not attacking the denial of objectivity

>>8477216
>just mention that the series is genre fiction and not literature
Why would you want people to think you're a pseud, anon?

Also OP is an autist and a fag.

Well first of all they claimed it was "deep" and there are objective measures of that. Secondly, there are objective measures of what *theoretically ought* be interesting. So certain technical skills like stream of consciousness.

Subjectivists literally need to kill themselves.

>>8477013
The meaning lied in his reverence for the icefire book not its literary merit. You misunderstood the language game of your interlocutor.

File: 1466967495616.jpg (108KB, 450x360px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 450x360px

>>8477013
>What's your answer to it?
Laugh up half a lung onto their face and then never speak to them again after slowly cackling away into the distance.

>>8478806
Oh really? I would love to hear what those 'objective' measures look like.

>>8478122
How would it be any different just because you take it to a lower level and analyze individual claims? What exactly can you say other than statements like: "This book used this many words." or "This book had a higher variation in words". It's meaning less any says nothing about the overall quality of the book.

I guess there are literary metrics you could apply but how are they just not a bunch of arbitrary rules agreed by an arbitrary set of people. I might aswell come up with my own rule of metric called Plebian analysis that judge each work on how cliff hangers each chapter has. The only difference would be that there are a bunch of self proclaimed experts that would not take it seriously, but who cares? Desu.

>>8478861
Basically. Some things are so preposterous they don't even merit a refutation other than scorn and ridicule.

>>8478697
>there's no objectivity to taste but your group is more literate and literary
You realize that this is a hidden tautology, right? It bears mentioning that these are also the people who define "literary", so of course they will be more literary. Note that this also doesn't mean that they're more correct in their views.

>>8477363
How do I bcm smrt like u