Post your unpopular Yea Forums opinions. Here's mine: footnotes should be used instead of endnotes...

Post your unpopular Yea Forums opinions. Here's mine: footnotes should be used instead of endnotes. They may not be as "clean" but they are infinitely more usable. I don't want to flip 1000 pages if I either want to see the source or get a translator's thought process or whatever.

Attached: Ez5JXRMXsAIZUux.jpg (750x411, 39.31K)

Poetry is not defined purely by rhyme or by steady meter. There is no such thing as "meterless poetry." This board is horribly unread in poetry and its forms.

Footnotes and endnotes both have their different uses, and a good editor/author will know how to use both in one volume effectively.

I don't read prefaces, I only read translations, paying for overpriced books (in most cases) is a waste of time, I prefer fiction mostly only in films, that's about it.

dostoevsky is extremely tedious and his influence has largely been a disaster for fiction

>Post your unpopular Yea Forums opinions
Western literature is overrated garbage. Orient has quite a lot of good works.

The Three Musketeers is shit. The main characters are unlikable doushbags.


Most female authors are shit.

Oh yeah? Name some

As someone who enjoys Dosto, what aspect of it do you find tedious, and who do you think it influenced?
I know a lot of thinkers like to cite Dosto, mainly for some vague existentialist inspiration, but I don’t really see who he has influenced with his actual writing style.

>Most female authors are shit.
But not the Queen, surely.

Attached: Sally-Rooney.jpg (1303x518, 249.77K)

fiction is fucking stupid and so are the people that waste their time on it. it didn't happen, so who gives a shit?

I like boring novels. There I said it.

Attached: 4646.jpg (656x679, 55.6K)

>what is a roman à clef?
>what is a historical novel?
Not only is Yea Forums horribly unread, but this board is also usually decades behind discussions in lit studies and the art scene.

As Aristotle said, when comparing literature to history: it concerns itself with universals of the human experience, as opposed to specific instances, and is therefore more philosophic.
Literature tells you more about people than any scientific study or war-account ever could.

Why yes I think materialism doesn't exist how could you tell?

Attached: gigachad.ab28dd28.png (750x920, 307.34K)

are you one of those fags who thinks they're a renowned scholar on the Great Depression because you read the Great Gatsby?

But didn't Aristotle say something about everything having a particular quality that's independent of an object's existence or the sum of its parts?

As a rule footnotes are best used to expand on the content on the page while endnotes are best for sources that will be irrelevant to the vast majority and fairly easy to use for reference work when needed.

LOTR is ponderous, boring, and dull as dishwater. The movies are great.
Finnegan's Wake is a glorified shitpost.
A Seperate Peace sucks, as does The Red Badge of Courage
99.99% of poetry is garbage

>99.99% of poetry is garbage

This is about what he says concerning poetry, not in regard to physics/metaphysics etc.

>A Seperate Peace sucks, as does The Red Badge of Courage

I remember reading those in high school. Forget what they were about

Alright. Just checking

No, but I bet reading confederacy of dunces would give me a pretty good handle on you.

>renowned scholar on the Great Depression because you read the Great Gatsby
you should read a little about both before saying such silly things

Women are unironically inferior writers and readers (and thinkers in general), and they have ruined the publishing industry with their insufferable, juvenile, retarded, hypocritical drivel.

I know we like to shitpost here but I will die on this hill.

Attached: men vs womyn.png (1328x1254, 2.67M)

this would be better if the "what men read" was all great female writers and "what women read" was male-penned trash

Dickinson, H.D. And Woolf alone refute this, but at least try reading Emily Brontë.
I have been in your position; don’t judge it all on Rowling and Austen.

Unrhymed poetry is just prose with line breaks. Even the best blank verse is just rhythmic prose, well-written prose for sure, but still fundamentally indifferentiable from prose.

Why do you have to sound so bitter? You're expecting a lot from a board you probably already knew was trash. Keep your highbrow shit in whatever academic circlejerk you frequent, you'll probably enjoy life more.

I've read all three of them and you're right, they were great. But an exception cannot disprove the rule. The vast, VAST majority of women writers are shit, and the same is true for the vast majority of women readers, editors, etc.

>great female writers

Attached: 1649339129045.png (1000x871, 407.9K)

So poetry didn't exist until the medieval era?

I don't think I agree with the premise that unrhymed poetry simply didn't exist for centuries, but sure, I'll take that position if you want me to

Fair enough. I’m misogynistic in other ways, so I’m not going to pretend you’re satan over it.

If unhrymed poetry is "just prose with line breaks" then the implication is it is not poetry at all. What is it exactly then that you're trying to imply if you mean unrhymed poetry is still poetry, but it is also just prose with line breaks? That line breaking is all that is sufficient to make a poem?

I'll still consider it to be poetry out of courtesy, but my point is that it's not actually different from prose in any meaningful way

don't let your dream memes be meme dreams
I'm not bitter. this is an unpopular lit opinion thread, and my unpopular opinion is that Yea Forums should read more literature from the past five decades and get familiar with recent literary theories. just look at these retarded post above discussing prose poetry like it's 1955.

I'll still consider it to be poetry
out of courtesy,
but my point is that it's not actually
different from prose
in any meaningful way

Is that a poem? And if it is, is it a good one? Are the things that make an unrhymed poem a good unrhymed poem the same things that make a good prose passage a good prose passage? Can all good prose passages be transformed into good poems with the introduction of line breaks? Can all good unrhymed poems be transformed into good prose passages by the subtraction of line breaks?

>I’m not going to pretend you’re satan
Which already puts you above 99% of the people willing to discuss politics or ideas in general, nowadays.

Attached: rich pepe.png (225x225, 9.6K)

> discussions in lit studies and the art scene
Here’s an opinion: academic critique is a garbage field of fart huffing pseuds who’s major goal is inventing a reason for their own existence.

>blank verse is prose
>fundamentally indifferntiable
except for like THE FUKKIN STRICT METRE AND THE LINE LENGTH. posters like you refuse to even check the most basic wikipedia definition of the words you use.

Updated version.

Attached: men vs womyn.png (1328x1254, 2.75M)

I don't read books with endnotes. If it doesn't use footnotes, I'm not reading it. Also,
>Finnegan's Wake is a glorified shitpost
Total agreement. Most "literature" since the late 19th century also qualifies as glorified shitposts.
Absolutely agree, poetry rhymes, prose doesn't have to (but it can).

most of it yes. but not everything since 1970. being mistaken and elitist is just as bad as being ignorant and snobby.

what's the best boring novel?

Women should be barred from the workforce.

If a poem's meter isn't readily apparent, is it even worth scanning? The experience of trying to figure out some poem's underlying structure just to be able to understand how a random substitution or stress is "meaningful" is beyond tedious. Like even if you figured all of that out, the chances of someone arriving to the same conclusion as you are so slim, it's not worth putting in the extra work.

You should stop reading a book if it bores you and move on to the next one. Completionist attitudes contribute to the loss of joy in a hobby.

If you look at it that way the VAST majority of both male and female readers and authors are shit.

>waaah, I can't read a book unless I like the characters


Attached: the modern man 2022.jpg (1328x1254, 515.38K)





dosto is YA

this but tolstoy

The usual retarded reply. Yes, the majority of both sexes are trash, but the virtual totality of good authors are men. This suggests that if 90% of male authors are trash, then 99.9% of female authors are trash. The difference is considerable enough that if you made a list of the best 100 authors (past or contemporary), you'd end up with 95 of them being men.

Men and women are not at the same level here. It's like in chess: you can correctly say that in both sexes, the majority sucks. That's true. But the top 100 players are what? 98 men? 99? Clearly, women are inferior. The same is true for literature.

Attached: 1649494035359.jpg (717x833, 97.44K)

So fucking chaddish my God take me now.

Not him but Dostoevsky is 99% backstories and segues that are completely unrelated to the plot. He can't mention a random guy without devoting 10 pages talking about how one time that guy's wife's brother was the village retard and did something. I can't fucking stand it. I just want to know what happens in the story, not waste my time reading biographies of random fake villagers

>reading only because you want to follow the plot as quickly as possible
user, those "detours" are the meat of a good book. If you only want to know what happens like an 8 year old child on a sugar rush, read the plot of the book on Wikipedia.