>>215421604
Republics and democracies collapsing into kingdoms, empires, and dictatorships is INCREDIBLY kino and I'm tired of pretending it's not. Every single time it's happened in history it's basically been real-life cinema. The fall of the Roman Republic and the rise of the Roman Empire is as good as any movie or TV show ever made. The collapse of Athenian democracy into the reign of the tyrants is similarly kino. There's a reason it's such a cool plotline in Star Wars, because it IS cool. It's basically naked will-to-power on the part of those seizing control. We all love to see it, even those of us who supposedly love democracy.
I bet there's a decent chunk of people rooting for the same thing to happen in the United States, right now, for precisely that reason. We want to see IRL kino. We want to see Revenge Of The Sith IRL.
4chan Search
6 results for "26b1694a8340c31d2ffdb9a6ac51942a"
I have a theory that it's all down to hair.
Men like beautiful hair. Long, lustrous hair, or maybe a cute short bob. Hair is a huge part of a woman's overall attractiveness.
Basically every race but black people has "normal" hair. White people, East Asians, Subcontinentals, Hispanics, SEA Monkeys, they all have 'normal' hair, that flows and billows and that you can wear long in a beautiful curtain. Obviously the color will differ, but the texture of it is the same.
Then there's Black people hair. A bush, basically. A nest of nettles. It's unaesthetic hair, and their women are stuck with it. It's one of the primary motivations to not date a black woman. And of course they know their hair sucks, too, deep down, hence their women all wearing wigs and weaves. But that's just deception and no non-Black person buys it. We know what their hair REALLY looks like, unless they're from, like, Ethiopia.
Men like beautiful hair. Long, lustrous hair, or maybe a cute short bob. Hair is a huge part of a woman's overall attractiveness.
Basically every race but black people has "normal" hair. White people, East Asians, Subcontinentals, Hispanics, SEA Monkeys, they all have 'normal' hair, that flows and billows and that you can wear long in a beautiful curtain. Obviously the color will differ, but the texture of it is the same.
Then there's Black people hair. A bush, basically. A nest of nettles. It's unaesthetic hair, and their women are stuck with it. It's one of the primary motivations to not date a black woman. And of course they know their hair sucks, too, deep down, hence their women all wearing wigs and weaves. But that's just deception and no non-Black person buys it. We know what their hair REALLY looks like, unless they're from, like, Ethiopia.
Joe Burrow's career has spiraled into ruin ever since he made that pro-choice Instagram post.
I have a belief that there are "big" writers and "small" writers, and then there are some writers that can do both. And within all three categories there is the capacity for greatness.
"Big" writers (and poets) are writers most at home in grand events. The most obvious artist that comes to mind here is Milton: Paradise Lost is a story that can't really get any bigger. Wars, battles, cosmic happenings, the mechantions of the universe, this is the foray of "big" writers. Melville's another writer that comes to mind in this regard. What you'll see in some of these writers, correspondingly, is that the intimate details of human beings are sometimes lacking in their work. Milton, for example, doesn't really do a great job of "characterization" in Paradise Lost. "Big" writers are more comfortable at the largest scale, and sometimes struggle at smaller ones.
On the other hand, "small" writers are writers whose work is very intimate, and they most excel at plumbing the depths of the human heart. Jane Austen immediately comes to mind here. So does James Joyce: what's a "smaller" novel than Ulysses? These are writers whose work may take place in a small neighborhood, within a small span of time, and with a small cast of characters. But they understand how humans work on a fundamental level and excel at depicting it in their work. They don't turn outward to the cosmos, they turn inward to the soul, and explore that, instead.
Then there is the rare writer or poet who can do both: who can handle the very big and the very small with equal skill. Tolstoy comes to mind here, as does Shakespeare. These are not common, and they tend to be considerable geniuses, even by the standards of great writers and great poets.
Alll three types of writers can be great geniuses, but there's a clear differentiation between them and the types of works they write, or so it seems to me.
Thoughts on this thesis, /lit/?
"Big" writers (and poets) are writers most at home in grand events. The most obvious artist that comes to mind here is Milton: Paradise Lost is a story that can't really get any bigger. Wars, battles, cosmic happenings, the mechantions of the universe, this is the foray of "big" writers. Melville's another writer that comes to mind in this regard. What you'll see in some of these writers, correspondingly, is that the intimate details of human beings are sometimes lacking in their work. Milton, for example, doesn't really do a great job of "characterization" in Paradise Lost. "Big" writers are more comfortable at the largest scale, and sometimes struggle at smaller ones.
On the other hand, "small" writers are writers whose work is very intimate, and they most excel at plumbing the depths of the human heart. Jane Austen immediately comes to mind here. So does James Joyce: what's a "smaller" novel than Ulysses? These are writers whose work may take place in a small neighborhood, within a small span of time, and with a small cast of characters. But they understand how humans work on a fundamental level and excel at depicting it in their work. They don't turn outward to the cosmos, they turn inward to the soul, and explore that, instead.
Then there is the rare writer or poet who can do both: who can handle the very big and the very small with equal skill. Tolstoy comes to mind here, as does Shakespeare. These are not common, and they tend to be considerable geniuses, even by the standards of great writers and great poets.
Alll three types of writers can be great geniuses, but there's a clear differentiation between them and the types of works they write, or so it seems to me.
Thoughts on this thesis, /lit/?
went to a bar last friday and a drunk chick with big tits made out with me
bars are kino you guys are just fucking losers
bars are kino you guys are just fucking losers
>>148971137
The fat glasses MC girl is going to have a TON of porn that gets posted to /d/ and /aco/ and /trash/.
The fat glasses MC girl is going to have a TON of porn that gets posted to /d/ and /aco/ and /trash/.