>you barely know your classics >you read any form of genre fiction >you don't have a solid grounding in philosophy >you only speak a single language >you rarely read for more than two hours straight >your literary analysis proceeds from ideology >you tend to believe that if you like a given work, it's justified on an artistic level >you don't have at least have some understanding of the Three Tragedians and Homer >you have a hard time explaining why you like a given work >you have a hard time forming structured and relevant literary criticism >you rely on the opinions of literary authorities and refuse to judge works for yourself
>>you barely know your classics >>you read any form of genre fiction >>you don't have at least have some understanding of the Three Tragedians and Homer How's that work then?
>you barely know your classics Working on this >you read any form of genre fiction Got me there >you don't have a solid grounding in philosophy Working on this >you only speak a single language Je suis polyglotte >you rarely read for more than two hours straight Yes but I'm getting better >your literary analysis proceeds from ideology No >you tend to believe that if you like a given work, it's justified on an artistic level No >you don't have at least have some understanding of the Three Tragedians and Homer Working on this >you have a hard time explaining why you like a given work No >you have a hard time forming structured and relevant literary criticism No >you rely on the opinions of literary authorities and refuse to judge works for yourself No
David Anderson
Yea Forums contrarianism doesn't get old. What do you mean by genre fiction? Lovecraft or orwell are technically fantasy and historical "genre" fiction. Just because something is fiction doesn't necessarily mean it's automatically schlock especially when bizarrely, all classics are excluded because they're old. Just because classical music is played on piano, doesn't mean it's not often full of market appeal and cliches.
Jeremiah Cruz
>you barely know your classics no >you read any form of genre fiction yes >you don't have a solid grounding in philosophy yes and i don't care >you only speak a single language no >you rarely read for more than two hours straight yes >your literary analysis proceeds from ideology yes >you tend to believe that if you like a given work, it's justified on an artistic level yes >you don't have at least have some understanding of the Three Tragedians and Homer no >you have a hard time explaining why you like a given work no >you have a hard time forming structured and relevant literary criticism yes >you rely on the opinions of literary authorities and refuse to judge works for yourself yes
Jack James
Is gene Wolfe genre fiction?
Hunter Scott
Post the longer list.
Jacob Rogers
lol your painting is ER
Carson Hall
Truly, you have cut me to the quick with this unexpected barb.
Jose Baker
Why the elitism though? Isn't becoming more fascinating than being something?
Joseph Green
>if you don't appreciate one thing as much as another How would you quantify or qualify this?
Noah Smith
What's the matter in reading for the plot?
Parker Harris
>Newfags still falling for this bait
Jose Perry
All the real classics are genre fiction desu. >Epic Poetry [fantasy]
Luis Jackson
>>you barely know your classics Yes >>you read any form of genre fiction Yes >>you don't have a solid grounding in philosophy Yes >>you only speak a single language No >>you rarely read for more than two hours straight No >>your literary analysis proceeds from ideology Yes >>you tend to believe that if you like a given work, it's justified on an artistic level Yes >>you don't have at least have some understanding of the Three Tragedians and Homer Yes >>you have a hard time explaining why you like a given work No >>you have a hard time forming structured and relevant literary criticism Yes >>you rely on the opinions of literary authorities and refuse to judge works for yourself No
Connor Scott
all of them apply to me except this one: >>you tend to believe that if you like a given work, it's justified on an artistic level i'm not leaving though, and you can't make me
Christian White
It's ok if the book is written for the plot. Most worthwhile books are not.
Mason Green
>Epic poetry and god texts aren't genre fiction. >There's a such thing as analysis apart from ideology. >I've never been financially self sufficient. >Don't ever visit a forum to learn, only to establish you already know.
Hey guess what kiddo? Nobody cares how hard you can whip your literary dick around on the internet. You're still a posturing dipshit loser.
Grayson King
Being is becoming Becoming is being
Ryan Brown
Leave this board if one of these apply to you:
>You exist sometime after the big bang or the great start of creation >You are a creature of both matter and spirit >You can communicate in at the very least 1 sound or gesture
Christian Robinson
yes to all yet I'm won't leave lol
Connor Jenkins
Tldr, sum1 fil me in plz
Evan Gomez
and what if I don't care about philosophy?
Logan Wright
you forgot >you breathe oxygen and need sustenance to live
Ryan Wright
I've only read BotNS, but have read it over and over. IMHO, the third book is the best one because of Sev's philosophical/theological tangents. Having told some heavyweight (Catholic) analytic philosophers about "the origin of dark forces" and "infinite regress as an indirect proof for God," almost everyone has agreed that these are meaty arguments and analogies. The second best part are the stories littered throughout, which trends the series closer to Blake's invented mythology than anything. >tl;dr If Gene Wolfe is genre fiction, then so is Proust.
Luke Cruz
I bet you even these Novalis posters haven't read a single verse of Novalis.
