Thread 24793280

What is it called, when you have a way with words? This guy has it

>>24793280 (OP)
The bard is literally a genius, this analysis however is high school public teacher tied

>>24793293
maybe you just didn't get it, it's ok

Every day it's revealed to me that my standards for literature are far too high. If I just catered my work to idiots, it would be the praise of millions.

>>24793316
That's a very random thing to mention
unless you were hinting that TLP's works are "for idiots", and then immediately countering your own argument: millions? Alone/TLP?

So either you're very random or very wrong

>>24793280 (OP)
Normally, you would call it eloquence. In Alone's case, I don't think it applies. He has what one might call a low style (vulgar, caustic) salted with sharp and stinging wit and irony. I don't mean amy insult by that, I really like his style, but he's not eloquent (and I think that's intentional, given the audience he's trying to reach and affect).

>>24793280 (OP)
This is just a slightly better version of your a dime a dozen pseudointellectual internet snark. It's what you would read in the occasional insightful post on /lit/ before the /pol/tard flood, but worse and not really insightful.

So good

>>24793326
you sure are a fucking retard. i'll make sure to turn down the flame as low as possible, that i won't fry your mothy mind

>>24793355
nice argument, next time try an actual argument
Or just keep throwing empty insults, maybe that's your limit, sorry if so

>>24793362
why throw pearls before swine? you got what you deserved. were a formal argument necessary, you would have had it.

>>24793367
Oh, at first I took the "fedora manchild" act as a funny extra, but turns out it was the entire joke.
Sorry for not noticing, I actually wanted someone to discuss it with hah

>>24793376
you should not be surprised to find that no one welcomes you, or wishes to speak with you under any circumstances.

Literary question here: what’s the term for catfight but it’s 2 gay men?

>>24793316
Are you an artist, or are ya a producer? Do you love humans, 0r mere consumers?
Which pound between Love or Fear
weighs most to you.

>>24793391
At one time I was naive enough to love people, but now I realize they just want to be ground into the dirt by my boot. That I rape them is their rightful place, clearly. There is no fault in this, it is what is desired. I was cruel for ever refusing to rape them.

Tlp > Freud, it's unanimous yeh?

>>24793316
I'm sure it wouldn't.

>>24793429
your certainty is worth precisely fuckall

>>24793280 (OP)
Oedipus Rex is not a story about an Oedipus complex. This guy is retarded. The Oedipus complex is complete bullshit, but Oedipus Rex is still a wonderful tragedy about how it's impossible to escape the mechanisms of fate, no matter how noble, how intelligent, or how virtuous you may be.

This is like using tvtropes to analyze the Bible. Complete idiocy.

>>24793441
Oh, like your "work"?

>>24793477
>Supposedly many people reject Freud's interpretations, maybe there was even resistance to them, but what difference does it make to you? The point is you can't read Oedipus without involving Freud. And since you don't agree with Freud-- you are now done with the play. And if you do agree with Freud... you are now done with the play. Are the outcomes the same? Then it was inevitable.

>>24793489
of course it's not valuable to retards, that's the point.
picrelated (since you're retarded, this here example is one where you're the dumb nigger)

>>24793503
So you agree that my certainty is equitable to the quality of your "work", which is to say worthless to retards, and being that it was worthless to you, that you are yourself such a retard.

gg kiddo

>>24793477
So you skimmed the first three sentences and figured you didn't have to read the rest. Embarrassing mistake.

>>24793541
it's not remotely personally worthless, otherwise i wouldn't have written it. the lament here was that it was never going to be valued by retards since it was not designed for them.

>>24793498
>The point is you can't read Oedipus without involving Freud
Actually, this is how everyone read it for over 1,000 years.

>the psychological problem of the oedipus story that isn't that he killed his father and had sex with his mother, but that that he did not know he killed his father and had sex with his mother.
i read this sentence like five times what's up with that second that how does that work grammatically

>>24793552
May be a simple mistake, the guy didn't really have an editor, the entire book is a long stream of thoughts about freudian interpretations and narcissism

>>24793548
>"The insightful question isn't why it resonated with audiences for so long, but why it so suddenly stopped resonating with us. Now it's boring. What happened? The short answer is Freud interpreted the story..."

>>24793552
The "that" between "story" and "isn't" is probably a typo. Should read:

>The psychological problem of the oedipus story isn't that he killed his father and had sex with his mother, but that he did not know he killed his father and had sex with his mother.

>>24793503
>do nothing and enjoy literal paradise on earth your whole life
>this is bad because muh civilization or something
Europeans are the real retards here

>>24793572
>why it so suddenly stopped resonating with us.
It hasnt stopped resonating, though. We're still reading it. Which is pretty amazing considering how many ancient books have become lost or forgotten. You keep posting this clown's baseless conjectures as if there's a point to them.
>Freud interpreted the story...
But he didnt. It's about fate, not sexual perversion. The story is not about sex.

>>24793572
>The insightful question isn't why it resonated with audiences for so long, but why it so suddenly stopped resonating with us. Now it's boring. What happened? The short answer is Freud interpreted the story..."
This is committing a bunch of very pedestrian intellectual mistakes. First of all he says audiences. Which audiences? Which eras? Which social class? Which country? Most people for the vast majority of human history were illiterate, and most of then didn't ever go to theater. The people that knew about the play were the people who were educated, and that education was based on greco-roman sensibilities, ergo they'd be more primed to appreciate it... assuming the vast majority of them actually did, which is an unproven assumption. The second part is just projection mixed with sloppy thinking, he says that "now it's boring", this is own personal assessment, that he is for some reason generalising to the rest of humanity, "it has stopped resonating with us" maybe he means that the play's obscurity is due to Freud's interpretation dampening the primordial power of the art piece or some such bullshit, but he must know that dumb normgroids that don't know about Oedipus wouldn't know about Freud either, so this makes no sense.

>>24793546
It was designed by a retard, though.

>>24793611
if only that were true, communicating with retards such as yourself wouldn't be so fucking agonizing.

>>24793615
Mm no digits. Suffer in silence, tard.

>it's another "OP finds out about The Last Psychiatrist and thinks it's the deepest shit ever" thread
Yawn. The guy was an entertaining blogger and he always provided a unique viewpoint on mainstream media, but that's as far as his value goes. I read most of his work. At best he would only ever be half-correct in his assumptions, and whatever points he made in his writing (and often he literally did not make any points) were secondary, or tertiary, to his emotional rants about society and culture.
One article he did was about The Hunger Games movies, and how it's incorrect for the media to portray Jennifer Lawrence's character as a strong, independent woman because, in his words, "she doesn't kill anyone in the film." He said this with full confidence, and with snark too.
Now I'm not sure if the comment sections ever returned to his website, but before it disappeared you could see even moreso than usual a great degree of people disagreeing with our writer on this point. This was because he was wrong - Lawrence's character did kill in the film. The fact was so obvious that even I, reading the article ten years since the film released, remembered that detail, and it struck down so mortally the article's point that its writer released immediately a cope-filled sequel, which only further proved how his work has no intellectual merit. Facts were secondary to his emotions being justified.

You're reading, or more aptly fawning over his book, claiming that "TLP > Freud" as if TLP made a single cogent point in any of the excerpts you've posted: the first one only states the obvious (in incredibly convoluted prose: "he didn't know he got what for sure he didn't want" jesus fuck); the second restates the Laius complex but pretends that it can't coexist with an Oedipus complex, and falsely concludes that the latter is a reaction against the former (ignoring the nonsensical mechanics of this, what about situations in which the father does not have this complex, or didn't know he would have a child?); the third begins with a boomer-tier culture war rant and then devolves into pure sophistry, pretending that Oedipus Rex cannot be uniquely interpreted post-Freud (it can) so that he can restate his ancient, frankly retarded point about psychoanalysis being a "defense against doing," as if knowing the problem isn't the first and most important step towards solving it.
(Not to mention that line about "the even more sanitized title 'Oedipus Rex,'" which makes zero sense; what about it is sanitized? which strawman is rhyming "Rex" with "Sex"? why does it matter?)

"Sadly, Porn" is a dogshit book written by a nasal-voiced alcoholic PSYC lecture who says nothing but thinks he's saying everything. The only thing its fans can claim in its defense is that, by attacking TLP, you are in defense. Literal cope. If you still haven't bailed by the time he starts schizo-interpreting Shel Silverstein then the loss of brain cells is on you.

>>24793603
I'm not gonna defend OP just posting stuff from TLP as if everyone will be struck by it the way OP obviously, but having read the work in question, it's not committing even a quarter of the mistakes you think it is. I'm not going to make a case for why you should read him, but the author is more than capable of writing precisely, and began to choose not to for reasons related to his subject matter (clinincal narcissism). Take it or leave it, he's not talking to you unless he is.

>>24793618
>(Not to mention that line about "the even more sanitized title 'Oedipus Rex,'" which makes zero sense; what about it is sanitized? which strawman is rhyming "Rex" with "Sex"? why does it matter?)
The title in Greek is "Οἰδίπους Τύραννος," "Oedipus *the Tyrant*." Sophocles' city, Athens, had already prided itself on overthrowing the Pisistratid tyrants.

>>24793552
It didn't stick out to me until you pointed it out, but after thinking about it, I can't convince myself that it's completely wrong. The first 'that' is emphatic, the second one is used normally.

>>24793618
I'm sad people like you exist, you think he has nothing yet you with your high iq and understanding of it all have never produced anything of value to anyone else, no one ever thinks of you as having changed their mind, of adding value to one's life.
But by all means, keep thinking yourself above
Maybe you'll get someone to believe it, and it will have been worth it

>>24793393
Gay.

>>24793618
>(Not to mention that line about "the even more sanitized title 'Oedipus Rex,'" which makes zero sense; what about it is sanitized? which strawman is rhyming "Rex" with "Sex"? why does it matter?)