The Mezunian

Die Positivität ist das Opium des Volkes, aber der Spott ist das Opium der Verrückten

My Mindless List o’ Rules You Must Follow to Write Great Literature

As usual, these rules aren’t going to be based on any empirical evidence or anything resembling a science o’ “good literature”, however one might define that, but be just a bunch o’ assertions I puked out in 10 seconds. As I do so, I’ll make sure to reference a bunch o’ books I’ve vanity-published on Amazon with schlocky Fabio covers on them, which should prove my point, since no bad writer has e’er had anything published, & “appeal to authority” isn’t a thing.

1. Write random.randint( 200, 10000 ) words a day

As we all know, quantity is quality.

’Ventually you’ll be able to stitch together a book from this garbage, & in this literary environ o’ “dump all my shit onto Amazon”, that’ll work great. After all, it’s the sucker reader who’s too dumb to know they can get Shakespeare & the English languages’ greatest classics online for free that has to sift through all this shit, not you.

2. Write said words @ the same time, in the same pretentious coffee shop

In conjunction with the previous rule, the less convenient your means o’ writing is, the mo’ you’ll be able to trick yourself into thinking you’re a serious worker, e’en though you’re still not producing anything o’ any worth to soceity.

3. Write your rules for writing in curt, simplistic demands

This will totally convince readers & not make them want to punch you in the face through the screen in annoyance.

Also, make sure you tell readers they have “no ’scuses” not to follow your advice, like a lack o’ actual evidence o’ its quality. This is mathematical proof.

4. Use the same language everyone else uses

Nothing turns readers off mo’ than anything new. After day-after-day o’ hearing the same cliches like “turns readers off” that have lost all meaning, nothing gives them mo’ joy than to hear this same mediocre-minded speech in the literature they buy in the hopes o’ ’scaping dull reality. But a’least now they’ll get to see a spunky teen fight off dystopian tyrants & Ancient Greek mythological creatures while spewing hashtags, LOL.

Don’t e’en think ’bout touching such dirty concepts as internal rhyme, alliteration, or similies, or your reader won’t take your made-up stories seriously.

5. No, you can’t e’en use these things in poetry anymo’

¿’Cause who e’er cared ’bout playing with language in poetry?

Only cliche Marxist drivel from someone too dumb to have e’en read Das Kapital & choppy, navel-gazing pretentiousness for you, son.

6. Base your novel round simple ad-lib sentences like, “A rogue physicist goes back in time to kill the apostle Paul”

This shows that you’re thinking ’bout what’s truly important: marketing slogans. Everything else can be padded in like compost in a fast-food burger.

7. Don’t worry ’bout being original

As mentioned constantly, readers are utterly sick o’ originality. ¿Somebody else already made a successful trilogy out o’ “average teen fights gainst evil dystopian totalitarians by dressing in fancy costumes”? ¿What’s that? ¿You mean there’s multiple series ’bout that? ¿What’s 1 mo’? If the market’s proven that people’ll buy 1 book ’bout that, surely they’ll buy mo’, e’en if they have much less creativity.

8. Ne’er use semicolons

I just don’t like them, OK.

9. Carefully plot out your book & write the beginning after the end

That way things won’t happen as natural outcomes o’ what happens before, like in silly realistic worlds, but acts as if ’twas conspicuously planned out by some author deity. It’s not as if you can go back & rewrite the beginning, anyway — once something’s written, it’s set in steel.

10. When writing rules, make sure you talk with faux tough-guy language like you’re some schmuck on Shark Tank

Make sure you talk ’bout “nailing pitches” & making “slam dunk proposals” so as to emphasize that you care purely ’bout gouging suckers who don’t know any better rather than anything resembling a creative process.

The general theme is, you want the reader to want to punch you in the head while reading your work as much as possible.

11. If you’re on Something Awful, you have to talk ’bout how much you love Cormac McCarthy, & if you’re on TV Tropes, you have to lavishly praise Terry Pratchet & call him by a stupid name.

It’s law, fineable for up to $500.

12. Warhammer 40,000 books are some o’ the greatest sci-fi literature

Seriously, 1 guy @ Reddit claimed this was the case in some thread. Let’s all point @ him & make fun o’ him for his crime o’ holding odd opinions.

Meanwhile, no Asimov, no LeGuin, no, uh… I actually don’t read that much sci-fi, so I wouldn’t know who else.

¡O! ¡Ray Bradbury! He did sci-fi, & some o’ it was quite great, like “All Summer in a Day”. Too bad his most popular novel was kinda crappy. Seriously: the fact that that dystopian hand-me-down gets so much attention & not his October-themed stories or Something Wicked this Way Comes or Death is a Lonely Business is a greater crime than that guy who listed some crappy Warhammer 40,000 books as the best sci-fi.

You know, that reminds me o’ this 1 site I was reading that had this same dipshit advice so they could peddle some mindless advice book, & the idiot was praising fucking Issac Asimov for writing that amazing story. After screaming @ the monitor, I was thinking, ¿How the hell do you expect me to trust your advice on writing when you can’t e’en tell the difference from the guy who inspired the “Laws of Robotics” & the guy who always bitches ’bout how technology is ruining the world & how photographers gotta get off his lawn, they can’t steal his house’s soul, god damn it?

I’d post a link, but I can’t find the article, ’cause I think the person replaced all her posts with the same advertisement. Might as well get straight to the point.

13. The only 2 important literary lenses for writing are “plot” & “marketing”

14. Just get a degree in business

Since you clearly despise writing as anything but a chore you can pimp out as a marketing tool, you might as well do so in a way that’s much mo’ profitable.

15. Don’t fucking do it

The secret reason you spend mo’ time reading ’bout Pokémon glitches is ’cause it’s actually mo’ enjoyable than puking out 400 words o’ day o’ mindless busywork.

16. Get a real job, asshole

I’m serious. I know ’twas cute when we said that chapter book ’bout Pikachu & Squirtle was great when you were 7, but you’re 26 now & they’re hiring up @ Burger King.

Posted in Literature Commentary

¿Are there Writers who e’en Pretend to Be Artists Anymo’?

I’ve been becoming increasingly mo’ jaded with literature in the past few months years, & the philosophy that infests the apparent mainstream views o’ writers — as well as the slew o’ schlock that seems to be published — only worsens this.

It seems that such concepts such as creativity & emotional connection have been replaced by the advice that you should puke out as many words as you can. ¿How many blog posts have I seen wherein writers brag ’bout how many words they write per day? ¡Look, they’ve already beaten those slouches Harper Lee & Bashō!

I read this article from Pretentious Title1 & shivered. I’m sorry, but if you write 10,000 words a day, I’m certain that mo’ than 90% o’ that is garbage. That’s almost as long as an entire Shakespeare play — longer than some. I’m quite certain Shakespeare didn’t write his plays in a day — probably ’cause he wasn’t a fucking hack. (To be fair, “The Spirit War” sounds like it’ll be an immensely innovative novel that’ll revolutionize literature. It’ll truly be genre-bending.)

I’d go as far to say that this insinuation that all words can be measured equally shows in itself an utter ignorance o’ literature. ¿What if one’s writing is in verse or iambic pentameter? ¿What if one needs to do research for some parts?

What annoys me the most are these inane metrics applied to writing, as if it’s a science one can apply consistently for excellent results. ¡Just do so & so every hour & instant Tolkien! See, these are “professional” writers, as opposed to actually good writers who may write any # o’ books, stories, poetry ( yeah, try applying this rule to poetry, by the way ), & such. ’Cause they care mo’ ’bout looking like good writers than actually creating good writing in itself, they reach for the quickest method they can find — any way to avoid doubt or having to think critically ’bout what makes good literature in the 1st place or having to think ’bout the million complexities involved in storytelling; so long as one writes [ insert # ] o’ words, e’en if those words are just “really” repeated, one is a “professional” writer as opposed to those lazy people who waste time thinking ’bout the words they write.

Not only are these people who brag ’bout how much garbage they spew pretentious, they’re not e’en competent pretentious people. They’re the equivalent o’ someone bragging to their literary professor that they can read Clifford the Big Red Dog. I can respect brilliant pretentious writers like James Joyce or humble writers who admit they’re just bullshitting for fun, like your average fanfic writer; but idiots who brag ’bout how smart they are are the target most deserving o’ being mocked & ignored.

Posted in Literature Commentary

18 Brainburps ’bout Contemporary Literature

The fact that this article was on Wired makes me wonder if they programmed a highly sophisticated robot write it. ¿Can we have a flip-side to the Turing Test? — the test to see if a work is so dumb you can’t e’en tell if ’twas written by a human or a robot.

It starts out fair-’nough, albeit with questionable assertions:

Literature is language-based and national; contemporary society is globalizing and polyglot.

Somebody’s ne’er heard o’ translation.

Society has always been polyglot — hence why translation has existed for centuries. E’en in Shakespeare’s time English would be mixed with French, Latin, & e’en Greece ’cause o’ how big an impact those cultures had on English culture.

Vernacular means of everyday communication — cellphones, social networks, streaming video — are moving into areas where printed text cannot follow.

Solution: don’t print the text.

¿How is this a problem for literature? ¿Why does literature need to be printed? ¿’Cause printing feels good?

Literature is quite great @ moving into cell phones, social networks, & e’en streaming videos. In fact, social networks are primary build up o’ literature, & half o’ most streaming videos involves textual chat. E’en as video builds up popularity online, text is still supreme. In fact, society’s probably mo’ literate now than it’s e’er been thanks to text’s supremacy o’er the web. Maybe in the past we could worry ’bout some dystopian future wherein everyone’s a mindless slave in front o’ the flashing colors o’ their screen, blissfully free from reading a single word; but nowadays, while the dystopian future o’ people being mindless slaves in front o’ technology may still be a prospect, you can bet it’d involve reading reams o’ text.

Intellectual property systems failing.

This implies an economic barrier to literature’s success; but the literature industry seems to be quite adept @ making tons o’ money on literature, e’en if it’s mostly shallow companies that make the money. & technology such as eBooks & Kindles have, if anything, improved the profitability o’ literature.

No, in a world where the leading country in art production still keeps works copyrighted 90 years after its creator’s death, & wherein international laws like TPP threaten to push stronger laws on the rest o’ the world, copyright is still ’live & well, despite the existence o’ a few mo’ online pirates.

If anything, literature is hindered mo’ by the increasing attention given to profitability o’er quality, leading to lowering standards o’ literature.

Means of book promotion, distribution and retail destabilized.

Which is always terrible in markets.

So now rather than authors relying on busy big businesses to market their work, they have social media, where they can do it themselves mo’ effectively. I think by “destabilized”, you mean “made easier & mo’ effective”.

Ink-on-paper manufacturing is an outmoded, toxic industry with steeply rising costs.

Which is why it’s a good idea it’s becoming less prevalent.

¿How is this a challenge? ¿Would it kill these writers to just once not contradict their own core theses?

Core demographic for printed media is aging faster than the general population.

( Laughs ). No, that’s physically impossible. Nobody can “age” faster than anyone else. Aging is simple existing in time. ’Less print readers have time traveling devices to make them go forward in time mo’ quickly, I don’t think so — & I find the prospect that the least technologically sophisticated people would have technology centuries beyond what’s possible now to absurd to chew.

I think you meant the less weaselly words ( though still fragmentary ), “Core demographic for printed media is dying off mo’ ” That’s mo’ depressing to consider, but mo’ accurate.

Maybe 1 o’ these “challenges” should’ve been the devolving quality o’ diction as online writing succumbs mo’ & mo’ to sterile & vague businessese.

Failure of print and newspapers is disenfranching young apprentice writers.

No, that’s just Republicans.

So… ¿The failure o’ print is affecting those who use it the least the most? I’d think it’d be the oldest people who are still unable to use popular technology competently that’d be most blocked from success in the industry. Young people familiar with new technology should feel in bed with… well, new technology.

¿Or is he trying to claim that literature cannot continue without print & newspapers & that young “apprentice” writers are becoming less literate? I’ve already ’splained why that’s obviously false.

Media conglomerates have poor business model; economically rationalized “culture industry” is actively hostile to vital aspects of humane culture.

& now we degenerate further into meaningless buzzwords.

¿What the fuck is “economically rationalized ‘culture industry’”?

I certainly don’t think conglomerates being actively hostile to vital aspects o’ humane culture is anything contemporary. We’ve been calling that kind o’ thing “capitalism” for the past 2 centuries, & it’s probably 1 o’ the only things certain in this world, other than maybe death & tax loopholes.

Long tail balkanizes audiences, disrupts means of canon-building and fragments literary reputation.

& now we’re delving into outright fantasy. I don’t know what creature “Long tail” is, but I do hope the Good Wizard Whitebread stops him with his Shape Spells before that foul beast can “balkanize” the audience with its 4th-wall-breaking powers.

¿Whose literary reputation is hurt? This writer couldn’t go the whole way o’ pretending there’s only 1 reputation that exists by giving that phrase an article, so we’re just going to have to figure it out ourselves.

Maybe this is an attempt to recreate the strengths o’ modernist literature through blog posts. You have to dig into deep analyses to understand what this loon’s trying to say, just like with James Joyce.

Digital public-domain transforms traditional literary heritage into a huge, cost-free, portable, searchable database, radically transforming the reader’s relationship to belle-lettres.

¿By making it mo’ accessible? Yes, nothing is a greater challenge to literature than the fact that mo’ people can indulge in it.

¿Remember when we used to fear that we’d lose literary classics — those ol’ dystopians like Fahrenheit 451? That’s ol’ news: now we worry ’bout too many people being able to get access to Shakespeare, apparently.

Contemporary literature not confronting issues of general urgency; dominant best-sellers are in former niche genres such as fantasies, romances and teen books.

I’m almost tempted to rewrite these quotes in all-caps to emphasize how much they sound like some hokey ol’ computer. “BEEP BOOP. COMTEMPORARY LITERATURE NOT CONFRONTING ISSUES OF GENERAL URGENCY. ERROR CODE 728”.

Yes, ’cause no fantasy, romance, or teen book could e’er confront modern problems. I could see the assumption for the 1st for someone immensely ignorant & shallow ( A Song of Ice and Fire could tell you a lot mo’ ’bout the complexities & corruptions o’ political forces that is just as applicable to modern society as medieval than some lit fic that dicks round with word structure & takes place entirely within a literary professors head ); ¿but romance & teen books are irrelevant to contemporary problems?

Considering the author ne’er bothers to specify what he considers to be “issues of general urgency”, we’re left with yet ’nother blanket assertion that has li’l backing, & is probably mo’ wrong than right.

Here’s ’nother better problem for modern literature: “Dumbs down complex issues into simplistic listicles”. If only there was a way to write anything with any semblance o’ depth online. But that’s impossible, ’course. I mean, you can put the entirety o’ Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs online; but you can’t write anything that intelligent online. Those are the rules.

Barriers to publication entry have crashed, enabling huge torrent of subliterary and/or nonliterary textual expression.

Just like this 1.

Algorithms and social media replacing work of editors and publishing houses; network socially-generated texts replacing individually-authored texts.

’Cause collaboration has ne’er created anything valuable, artistically. Nor can anyone hope to do anything individualistic online. Contrast this with, say, Shakespeare, who ne’er worked with anyone else & ne’er had anything to do with the cultural currents o’ his time. He was just some isolated crab in a cave, writing everything from his pure invention, with no inspiration from anyone else @ all. That’s how true writers write. Or how ’bout T.S. Eliot, who filled his poetry with references to ancient literature that everyone in his literary club knew — what we might call “literary memes” today.

As for algorithms & social media replacing the work o’ editors & publishers, that’s false — not the least o’ which ’cause algorithms & social media don’t have any self-consciousness to make decisions independent o’ their fleshy masters. A mo’ accurate statement would be that all 4 o’ these things are guided by profit, which has been the guide to the literature industry since… well, ’twas an industry. As it turns out, industries are always guided by profit, ’cause if it’s not selling for the purpose o’ making money, it’s not called an industry. ’Gain, this is called “capitalism” & has existed for centuries.

If he were making the point that profitability & quality are diverging, that’d be a coherent argument; but he ne’er comes close to proving it. If this writer were half as knowledgable o’ the history o’ literature as he pretends to be, he’d know that the literature industry has been glutted with profitable but low-quality crap fore’er. ¿Know how I always liked to call shitty online writing Boon & Mills 2.0? Yeah, there’s a reason: it’s to emphasize that this is a modern version o’ an ol’ form o’ pumping out cheap, mindless literature. The corollary is that there was a traditional means that existed since the early 1900s. This writer might be pleased to know that back in the 1930s Hemingway, too, bitched ’bout the proliferation o’ cheap romance literature — ’cept he didn’t blame new technology so much as those bitchy womenfolk. As it turns out, the idea that investing a lot o’ money in truly intelligent writing is less profitable than investing less money in convincing lots o’ people that crap is gold was conceived by companies centuries ago.

“Convergence culture” obliterating former distinctions between media; books becoming one minor aspect of huge tweet/ blog/ comics/ games / soundtrack/ television / cinema / ancillary-merchandise pro-fan franchises.

1. I won’t e’en pretend to understand what “ancillary-merchandise pro-fan franchises” means. Well, I do know: it means nothing. It’s just something the writer thought sounded cool. I would imagine that any franchise would be “pro-fan”; Shakespeare certainly didn’t write his works with the intent that people would hate them. I’m also not sure if it’s s’posed to be the literature that’s ancillary or the merchandise. In context, it seems as if it should be the literature, since I can’t imagine someone complaining ’bout the problem o’ literature being that they don’t care ’nough ’bout selling Mr. Darcy action figures; however, its connection to “merchandise” with a hyphen seems to state that it’s the merchandise that’s ancillary. The meaning o’ what he actually wrote directly contradicts what makes sense in context — which is no rarity, e’en in this short post.

2. How dare you mix your filthy lesser media in my literature. Classic literature sure ne’er mixed with other mediums. Ne’er mind that Shakespeare’s plays were “ancillary” to literature & were made primarily to be performed in essentially an older version o’ television; that didn’t apparently hurt its stature as the highest point o’ English literature. Meanwhile, that hack James Joyce would love to mix in songs, advertisements, & e’en camera techniques from early cinema into that dumb piece o’ pop-culture pollution known as Ulysses.

3. People who can’t e’en bother to use “/”s consistently shouldn’t be judging others on their literacy.

Unstable computer and cellphone interfaces becoming world’s primary means of cultural access. Compositor systems remake media in their own hybrid creole image.

Let’s ignore the fact that his denigrating comparison o’ different window sizes changing literature to creoles is racist & hilariously worded in the most pretentious way possible & ’stead focus the fact that he seems to think literature falls apart if put in a different-sized rectangle. This is in contrast to books, which have always had the same standard size for all published books fore’er.

I’m actually not e’en sure I interpreted his incredibly vague diction correctly. I’m not sure what part o’ computer & cellphone interfaces are “unstable”, since an “interface” is just any way you use them, which is a large problem domain.

Also, love the redundancy: he could’ve just said that “computers are becoming world’s primary means of cultural access”, since cellphones are, by definition, computers & interfaces are, by definition, the way you access computers. Nothing’s mo’ literate than using mo’ words just for the sake o’ mo’ words. That’s what Strunk & White always said, a’least.

As for “Compositor systems”, they are just the programming techniques operating systems use to keep screens from flickering & give windows spiffy affects when they’re minimized, as well as the way image blending works in Photoshop. Not sure how any o’ that “remake[s] media in their own hybrid creole image”; the latter doesn’t e’en seem to have anything to do with literature @ all. ¿Is he trying to imply that programmers try to hide subliminal messages in the screen’s double buffer?

Scholars steeped within the disciplines becoming cross-linked jack-of-all-trades virtual intelligentsia.

With the context o’ this writer / robot’s stuffy language, I can’t imagine him saying “the disciplines” or “jack-of-all-trades” without quotation marks. “These scholars — always be steepin’ in those disciplines, ¿you know what I’m saying?”

This 1’s actually coherent, but not relevant to literature. Also, he doesn’t provide any evidence that it’s true or e’en a bad thing. He basically just asserts something ’gain with the stupidest o’ diction & leaves us, as if his profound li’l fortune cookie o’ wisdom were ’nough.

Academic education system suffering severe bubble-inflation.

Wired listicle plagiarizing The Economist headline.

I had to rewrite that sentence to make it closer to the terribleness o’ the original, since my natural proclivity gainst English atrocities made me neglect the participle. I in my silliness wrote “plagiarizes” in simple present tense, which is far too concise to be good.

¿How the fuck can an education system have inflation? I guess this writer is trying to say that there’s too many colleges & not ’nough demand, said in an inane mixed metaphor with currency & economic bubbles ( ¿Why both? ’Cause the writer had to fill what was still a much shorter word requirement than e’en this post I’m writing & couldn’t fill that word demand with substance ). With how expensive colleges have gotten, I doubt that.

Polarizing civil cold war is harmful to intellectual honesty.

( Pause for laughter ).

All right: this is the line that inspired me to do this whole post. This deserves to be enshrined. Forget those wimps who read Eye of Argon without laughing; I’d like to see them read this sentence with a straight face.

1. ¿A polarizing war? ¡You don’t say! That’s right up there with “wet water” or “crappy shit”.

2. ¿Is the “civil cold war” some fantasy hybrid he’s writing ’bout in some novel he’s writing? ¿Do those evil commie Soviets develop a time machine & conspire to use it to go back & force the north to lose the civil war in hopes o’ debilitating the US’s global power, allowing the Soviet Union to be dominant? ’Cause you’d probably do much mo’ for contemporary literature by writing that amazing plot than writing this dumb listicle.

3. Sentence fragment is harmful to Hulk brain.

4. After making all these jokes, I’ve realized that I still have no idea what this crackpot is talking ’bout. Stop trolling: everyone knows it’s the Worldwide Mad Deadly Communist Gangster Computer God™ that controls everything, not some dumb civil cold war. Leave the insane ramblings to the experts, please.

The Gothic fate of poor slain Poetry is the specter at this dwindling feast.

Looks like you failed to copy that headline from World News Weekly & still had that line from that emo poetry you were composing in your clipboard. Oops.

I’ll give this article 1 thing: usually I feel a bit soul-sick reading these listicles, just rolling my eyes & thinking, Not this vapid shit ’gain. This article was a’least refreshingly creative in its insanity, making me slap my forehead & think, ¿What the fuck? ¿Where’d you e’en come up with that garbled mess o’ words? I’m still not sure that these lines didn’t all just come from the Chomskybot.

Posted in Literature Commentary, Yuppy Tripe

Debunking the Linguistic Rule Against “Mo’ Unique”

It’s truly the greatest threat to our present society — much mo’ than Hairpiece, fascist corporatism, or Google searches that give me stupid listicles ‘stead o’ useful info.

A common grammar “rule” is that unique can’t be modified with words like “very” or “mo'” ’cause “unique” means “1 o’ a kind”.1 E’en in the comments o’ that page people hand-wrung ’bout how it’s been used fore’er, & 1 person argued that everything could be described as “unique”.

Oddly, I have the opposite conclusion: the word “unique” has no logical meaning ’cause nothing could truly be described as “unique”.

¿Want proof? ¿Can we describe something with English words? Then it can be put in a set o’ multiple things that can be described with English words, & therefore can’t be “unique”, ’cause it shares something with an infinite # o’ other things. The paradox o’ “unique” is that if it’s possible to describe something as “unique”, then by definition, it can’t be. It’s like the sentence, “This sentence is false” or, inversely, a set o’ all sets that don’t contain themselves.

If one were to argue that “unique” only means 1 o’ some kind, not all kinds, then the argument that “unique” can’t be modified is obviously false: something that is 1 o’ a kind in mo’ kinds than something else is unquestionably mo’ “unique” than that something else. ‘Course, “kind” is so vague that there could be infinite #s ( indeed, a kind is a thing itself, which should please Lisp fans immensely ), & thus it’d be impossible to test all o’ the kinds something could be ‘lone in, & thus it’d be impossible to prove that anything is mo’ “unique” than anything else; but we’re simply talking theoretics, not facts.

A better grammar rule is to avoid the word “unique” ’cause it invokes a different bad habit o’ writing: sensational language & o’eruse o’ superlatives &mash; ‘specially since it’s so oft invoked in a narcissistic way to describe oneself. After all, there’s nothing mo’ trite than calling oneself unique.

Posted in Literature Commentary

The Futility o’ Avoiding Current Events in Literature

A common dictate in literature is that one should avoid referencing current events to avoid “dating” one’s literature.

There’s 2 problems, the 2nd being the most major:

  1. Dating a work isn’t inherently bad. In fact, sometimes people enjoy works swimming in their era, not just for nostalgia, but also for people too young to have lived in that era. I’ve known young people who enjoy black & white films simply ’cause they enjoy the quaintness.

  2. Mo’ importantly: it’s impossible to avoid. Society changes so much & so rapidly — ’specially now — that decades from now, e’en works trying to be as timeless as possible will look indecipherable.

We can see this in literature by looking @ many classics & seeing how steeped they are in their times. People praise Shakespeare for making “timeless” stories when many people have trouble understanding them ’cause o’ how starkly language has changed since then. Dickens tales take place in a time when almost nobody had electricity, when nowadays we view the power going out for mo’ than a couple days is a serious danger. In fact, in connection to what I said before, people oft praise Dickens ’cause o’ what he said ’bout the society in which he lived; we count its use o’ pop-culture as a feather in its cap, not a black eye.

The idea that one can make a work that’s “timeless” assumes that we can predict the future — that we know what will be considered “current events” in the future & what we’ll think resonates1.

Perhaps a better rule is that art should be mo’ than just current events & that it should actually say something ’bout them. The main feature in common examples o’ bad pop-culture references is that they’re just copy-&-paste references without any analysis or commentary. But then, that’s just a symptom o’ a far direr artistic crime: a lack o’ creativity.

Posted in Literature Commentary

Mo’ than 4 Reasons Why This 4-Year Ol’ Article Is Wrong & I Need to Pontificate ’Bout it for Thousands o’ Words

It’s been a trend ever since I worked full-time as a book acquisitions editor: Blog-to-book deals. I acquired or oversaw the publication of more than a dozen bloggers-turned-book-authors. Sometimes it translated into book sales, sometimes not.

Speaking o’ trends, it’s a habit o’ business-oriented (¡eww!) writers to tuck self-promotion into opening paragraphs o’ articles any way they can. I s’pose the average reader—ha, ha, ¡what vulgar dopes!—doesn’t notice, but, ahem, experts such as myself are quite aware, & annoyed by it. & nothing’s worse than writing that makes me feel slightly pinchy. Ugh.

Point is: I know that blogs can lead to book deals.

However, I want you to think twice before you decide this is your path.

Here’s the prime problem: we see here that the article title doesn’t actually match the thesis o’ the article. The title says, “don’t,” but the article itself merely says, “think ’bout it 1st.” It’s like how the writers o’ newspaper articles oft don’t get to control the name o’ their article, oft leading to contradiction, such as that fucking dweeb Noah Smith mentions. But in this case, the writer obviously chose the title herself, so it doesn’t apply @ all.

Her 1st point is that “blog writing isn’t the same as book writing.” If she defines these by their specific mediums (“blog” defined as a series o’ articles online & “book” defined as a physical collection o’ paper pages bound together), then this is obvious. In fact, to treat 1 as the other would be physically impossible. Thus, that’s not what she’s saying @ all.

’Stead, she makes assumptions o’ content from form, for arbitrary reasons.

Blog posts, to live up to their form, should be optimized for online reading. That means being aware of keywords/SEO, current events/discussions, popular online bloggers in your area, plus–most importantly—including visual and interactive content (comments, images, multimedia, links).

“To live up to their form” is as valid a reason as “’cause I said so.” The SEO point is only necessary if one is shallow ’nough to be obsessed with hits that they’re willing to sacrifice any artistic decisions for them, which is no different than saying that writing books in a way that doesn’t perfectly fit market studies is “wrong.” My blog does fine without caring ’bout anything but the bare basics o’ SEO; only current events (I do talk ’bout current political issues sometimes; but I also write ’bout ol’ issues, like video games from the 90s); popular bloggers in my area, which is a ridiculous criteria, since the whole point o’ the internet is that it’s international—¿Who the hell e’er cared ’bout whether a blog was written in their locality?; & visual & interactive content, which usually distract from useful content mo’ than it actually adds anything. For example, this article’s trite photo o’ a stamp that says “blog” on it: this is not only cliché to the point o’ being annoying (& therefore not entertaining), it adds no info. It’s neither interesting nor informative, & therefore it is useless & shouldn’t be included. She only included it ’cause it’s a mindless tradition that bloggers follow; & that’s what her reasoning for her argument that blogs must be written a certain way goes: it’s mindless tradition, as is the usual guiding line for marketing types who despise, ’bove all, independent thought.

To be fair, I do agree with her defense o’ blogging as an art in itself & that people shouldn’t use it as a shallow way to market their “real” writing. Not only is it “almost silly to have to state” this, but it’d be almost silly to have to state that trying to get attention to art through inferior art is counterproductive. I don’t know ’bout other people, but I’m not one to respond to crappy art with the thought, Hmm… I bet this person’s other work is actually good.

But she goes on to contradict her own arguments in the 2nd point. She labels it, “Blogs can make for very bad books,” but then develops this argument by saying that stories written without editing or care will likely be bad. That’s true, whether in blog form or book form—we have plenty o’ examples o’ the latter to prove that. But e’en she adds the qualifier, “unless, of course, you wrote the book first and divided it into blog posts,” which is the equivalent o’ saying, “Blogs can make very bad books, ’cept when they don’t.” The existence o’ counterexamples debunks the claim.

@ the end o’ the point, she argues that books with visuals could be put in blog form well, for no reason. Indeed, I find this counterintutive: if any type o’ book would suffer from being put in online form, it might be that with visuals, which require mo’ detail, & thus lose quality in the conversion from high-resolution print pages to low-resolution online images that must also be compressed into somewhat blurry JPEGs or pixellated GIFs & PNGs & also take much longer to load. Meanwhile, text, being so abstract, will be just as good on a computer screen as in a book. Indeed, text could be made better online than in book form: rather than having to bother with the tedium o’ flipping through pages or keeping bookmarks, one could use anchor links or search for specific text. For a real-world example, for the article I made wherein I joked ’bout some funny parts o’ the Bible, e’en though I had a hard copy o’ a Bible, which was what I actually read, since I needed those brilliant footnotes to tell me a million times that God was a rather nifty guy, I also used an online copy when writing the article to help me find passages I lost in the hard copy, since I could just hit Ctrl+F & type in the passage I was looking for, rather than flip through thousands o’ pages, paying attention to every sentence. Computer monitors also don’t need to be held open like many books, which is useful for those who like to read while eating, such as gluttonous swine like me.

The 3rd point gets close to the argument she’s obviously trying to make with this article, muddled by the title & the vagueness o’ the rest o’ this article: if one wants to sell a book to big publishers, one shouldn’t publish it in blog form. That’s specific, though. She defends this generalization based purely on evidenceless experience; furthermo’, she admits that there’s exceptions to e’en this specific example.

Also, ¿are there truly people so ignorant o’ the publishing world that they honestly ask, “¿Would it be good for me to release my book online for free, where it’ll compete with any paid version, before selling it to a big publisher? ¿Would big publishers find it professional for me to hurt their sales by doing the equivalent o’ intentionally pirating my own work that I hope they’ll invest money to sell for me?”? I thought that the “no prior publication” condition for selling to big publishers was common knowledge.

& point 4 is just the article writer pushing her own opinion on what makes “good” books & blogs, which may be relevant if one wants to sell one’s book to just Jane Friedman, but not particularly useful for the vast majority o’ writers.

The assumption that web literature—including blogs—must be a “simplified, keyword-driven, ADHD world” is just an arbitrary generalization, & one that, like all the rest, she contradicts herself by noting that books oft do this now, too. This is not a symptom o’ the internet technology, which has no relevance to any o’ this @ all, but to the increasing commercialization o’ literature. It’s what capitalism does to all art: dumbs it down to the lowest common denominator. If she paid attention to book sales, she’d see that most o’ the hard-copy books that sell the best are those that “mimic the online world by chunking the content so the book reads “faster.” It’s certainly not Ulysses that’s on the New York Times bestseller list—though you certainly can read Ulysses online, & there’d be nothing to stop someone from splitting it into chapters & posting them as blog articles, or doing the same for a modern story written like Ulysses.

Maybe it’s that most o’ these articles are written by ol’ people not used to computer monitors, but I don’t have any trouble reading “meaty” literature on a computer screen; & the popularity o’ eReaders & web literature like Worm shows that this isn’t an isolated experience. So I ne’er understood this implicit connection ’tween internet technology, which should be content-agnostic, & simplistic writing.

What I love most is that @ the end o’ the article, she has a list o’ ways blogging books may work, which gives examples such as frivolous rules, like that it be “nonfiction,” “generating buzz,” & “expanding audience,” with 1 li’l point, “solves a problem for people,” being so open-ended that it could include everything. What isn’t focused @ all is that it creates work that people actually enjoy reading or that is actually creative or interesting.

But if you do want to “blog your book,” some guy has some article called, “279 Days to Overnight Success.” I want you to read o’er that title a few mo’ times & savor its juicy paradoxical diction. But then, I guess when you’re “single-minded in marketing” (¿aren’t most in marketing?) & have “the mind and heart of an entrepreneur,” you don’t need to worry ’bout such frivolous concerns as coherency.

But then, this shouldn’t be shocking @ all. ¿You know who this guy is? Why, he’s the very creator o’ our favorite waste-creation facility on the web: ¡Problogger!

Perhaps a better rule for writers than “don’t blog your book” is “don’t write your book like an entrepreneur.”

Posted in Literature Commentary

The Best Parts o’ the Bible

When the average person thinks o’ the Bible, they think o’ a few famous stories, like “Genesis,” “Exodus,” “Jonah,” & the 4 gospels, which make up only a tiny percentage o’ its bulk, most o’ which is made up o’ forgettable fluff o’ random Jews like Isaiah & Jeremiah1 ranting for pages & pages ’bout Jews being sinful, & all o’ Paul’s repetitive letters ranting @ Christians in almost incoherent ways2 ’bout being lazy & cheap bums & their insistence on the need to have the fetish for chopping baby boy penises—look, Jesus is no bigot: he’s neither gainst nor for baby-boy-penis-chopping.

But the best o’ the Bible is found in neither those famous books, nor any o’ that other dreck, but randomly buried in “2 Kings,” which is a loose collection o’ stories in which shitty things happen to Jews—also known as “What Happens in Real Life All the Time Throughout History.”

I present to you, what the New International Version calls, “Elisha Is Jeered” (chapter 2:23-24):

23From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. “Go on up, you baldhead!” they said. “Go on up, you baldhead!” 24He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths. 25And he went on to Mount Carmel and from there returned to Samaria.

& for the record, no, this story has no relevance to anything surrounding it & could be taken out without affecting the narrative @ all. ¿But why would you want to cut out such a hilariously awesome scene?

E’en mo’ hilarious, 1 o’ my Bible’s many pretentious footnotes3 feels the need to establish that ’twasn’t Elisha who sicked the bears on them, but God, & that ’twasn’t for mocking Elisha’s bald head but for doubting God’s bear-spawning powers.

As an extra, here’s a gem from “1 Chronicles” 21:14:

Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel.

Thank you, Bible, for inspiring thousands o’ gun nuts round the US to bring out their shotguns & threaten ’way those sinful gubbernit officials & their Satanic censuses.

Yeah, I know it’s s’posed to be a parable ’bout David’s pride in the hefty #s o’ his military; but that still doesn’t warrant the ridiculous melodrama o’ having Satan personally act “gainst Israel” in making a king act pompous—as if that’s not how every king that e’er existed has acted. I don’t remember the Bible talking ’bout Satan rising up gainst Israel when Solomon had o’er 700 wives.

O, all right, let’s talk ’bout a few mo’ lines.

Going back to “Kings,” I love how it keeps saying, “As for the other events of Solomon’s reign—all he did and the wisdom he displayed—are they not written in the book of the annals of Solomon?” (11:41), only for the footnote below it to say, “Nothing is known of ‘the book of the annals of Solomon.’ So I guess the answer to your question, narrator, is, “No.”

But ’nough ’bout that downer—how ’bout this great moral for good Christians from the great Apostle Paul himself (“2 Corinthians,” chapter 8:14-15):

14At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. Then there will be equality, 15as it is written: “He who gathered much did not have too much, and he who gathered little did not have too little.”

Translation: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

I’m glad to see my favorite US Constitutional amendment is supported by the other official US Constitution. It’s too bad I posted this a month too late: that would’ve made a great moral in which to celebrate Christmas Marxmas.

Though, my Bible, in an obvious attempt to mollify right-wingers, made sure to include a footnote in a later part in “Acts” chapter 4 talking ’bout apostles sharing things ’mong themselves that insisted it wasn’t communism ’cause ’twas s’posedly voluntary & s’posedly didn’t include all “private property” (personal property), which doesn’t apply in any communist system, either. This was sort o’ like the footnote for “2 Samuel” 1:26, which had to insist that King David’s claim that Jonathan’s “love for [him] was wonderful / more wonderful than that of women” was totally not gay.

But lets end this with the best, most profound moral o’ all, by Jesus himself (“Matthew” 5:13):

You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again?

That’s some Tsen shit right there.

Posted in Literature Commentary

There Are No Perks to The Perks of Being a Wallflower

Since I’ve been doing this fiction-writing thing for mo’ than 5 years1, I’d been thinking o’ writing literary reviews, but actually haven’t found that many books I’ve read that I truly thought much ’bout. I try to read round 50 books a year, but I usually think o’ it as grinding I have to do to get better @ writing, rather than anything I feel passionately ’bout.

The exception is, ‘course, a book I felt very annoyed by, & therefore will be the 1st for me to rant ’bout.

Case in point: our protagonist & narrator. He’s a goody-goody shy nerd who buddies up with the raddest kids e’er, who all screw round doing deep shit, yo. 1 memorable scene was when they’re in some car, & 1 o’ the characters spreads her arms & says that she feels “invincible.” Said character is the sister o’ his other friend, whom he develops a crush on, not ’cause o’ her personality, but ’cause o’ her appearance—that’s the only reason he e’er gave for his infatuation. But this is a particularly creepy & hypocritical puritan form o’ infatuation: 1 wherein he praises her for not being like those other skanky hoes, ¡but has no problem with later feeling up her tits! Near after he 1st meets these 2, he tells her ’bout this dream he has wherein he imagines her naked, ’cause it’s cute when men tell women such creepy-ass shit; ‘stead o’ running, as any rational person would, she laughs & tells him no as one would talk to a 4-year-ol’.

Our protagonist also has a teacher who thinks he’s special & calls him the smartest student o’ his e’er2. This is despite our protagonist’s writing being worse than the writing I did when I was his age.3 I don’t think this is ’cause Chbosky is developmentally challenged, but ’cause he’s trying to be, since he’s an arrogant adult with—probably—average literary skills, & tries to stimulate high school diction by dumbing his writing down, based on the assumption that high schoolers are much dumber than they truly are. Also, you know, the protagonist hardly e’er does any writing, other than these journal entries, & some simplistic book reports that’d get him an F in my high school language arts classes (they don’t just let you ramble ’bout your opinions, you know; they usually have rather strict rules in regards to organization, using citations, & analyzing aspects such as theme & authorial intent & how the style, structure, & plot o’ the work fits such). It’s the same reactionary moral that many airheaded American works give: amazing skills aren’t honed from years o’ consistent practice, aided by having favorable conditions for said practice, but by just being born special (¡’cause hooray for biological determination!). I want to emphasize that word ’cause Chbosky clearly wants to emphasize how special our protagonist is, as a shallow way o’ emotionally exploiting the kind o’ narcissistic nerds who are clearly this book’s target audience to think they’re special, too.

See, 1 o’ this book’s main moral is that you just gotta go out there & do it, man, & stand up for yourself & not let other people step all o’er you. This is both typical & ironic coming from an American: Americans don’t need to be taught to think ’bout themselves & how great they are; they need to be taught to think ’bout someone other than themselves for once. Such morals also might be mo’ valuable if they weren’t regurgitated from the mounds o’ self-help books already infesting bookstores & libraries.

These morals are so bad, they’re contradicted within the very same book. See, this moral ’bout standing up for yourself comes from that female friend o’ his I mentioned earlier, after she snaps @ him for not trying to make the moves on her. In a rare case o’ sanity from our protagonist, he rightfully points out that she told him to back off, & he rationally complied. Now, earlier in this book the author made it quite clear that you’re s’posed to think that when a woman tells a man, “no,” it means “no.” There’s a point ’bout a rapist who didn’t take this advice & was demonized for it, & ‘nother point when the protagonist’s father, who is clearly meant to be a voice o’ reason, says this outright (Chbosky has ne’er heard o’ subtlety, by the way). But here, the female friend, who is also shown as a voice o’ reason here, says the opposite: when she said “no,” that was apparently s’posed to mean “yes,” a’least when you’re a cuddly nice-guy nerd, & not 1 o’ those jerk jocks, ¿amirite? What a great moral to give to the nice-guy nerds that are clearly your target audience, Chbosky.

Part o’ her big speech also involves complaining @ our protagonist for not going out there & doing stuff, getting out o’ his shell, & such, but this makes no sense. Our protagonist spends the vast majority o’ his time doing the same shit they’re doing. I mean, I would agree that screwing round & doing drugs—or worse, acting like trite, obnoxious shits @ screenings o’ Rocky Horror Picture Show—probably isn’t a wise use o’ your time; perhaps he could, if he truly wanted to be a writer, maybe practice writing. Perhaps he could read books that weren’t just assigned to him, or read some grammar books, maybe a dictionary or something. Maybe practice mo’ writing than this li’l stuff he does in the book…

Anyway, I don’t think that’s what Chbosky’s trying to say: I think he’s trying to give ‘nother typical American moral: “introverts, who are totally awesome, by the way, need to stop being their filthy selves & socialize.” Clearly the screwing round & drug use is meant to be a positive example o’ what “living” is, since… I don’t know, that just fits in with the mindless American hive mind’s traditions, & it’s the only thing that almost makes sense in this context. The problem with that, though, is that there’s no indication that our protagonist actually is introverted @ all. Quite the opposite: in 1 scene, when his friends have to do something ‘way from him, he goes crazy from friend withdrawal & bugs his sister & her boyfriend. That’s the opposite o’ an introvert. See, the thing ’bout truly asocial people is, they don’t like being round people. They truly find it enjoyable to be ‘lone, with private time. That’s probably ’cause they have this thing called “intelligence” & “creativity” & thus don’t need other people to be their personal jesters. Inane extraverts like Chbosky don’t get this ’cause they don’t understand introverts, are too narcissistic to understand that some people might be different from them, & ’cause they don’t actually respect introverts, anyway, they just want to exploit them ’cause they’re too asocial to speak for themselves publicly, & therefore a weak class, & ’cause they’re hip due to that weakness.

Actually, that I think could be the core problem with this book: it tries to build itself up as this very caring book, but it’s shallow, & it’s clear that Chbosky cares mo’ ’bout making himself look profound & caring, without actually putting the effort into doing so. This isn’t true writing, from an author’s heart & unique creativity; it’s a cynical marketing ploy—the kind that probably started as 1 o’ those inane elevator speeches before being written.

Also, having a secret backstory wherein the protagonist was sexually molested by his aunt is both the most cliché desperate grab for critic praise & forced into the plot for no relevance. It could’ve been cut out, & the story would’ve been just fine. So could all the stupid bullshit he did with his dumbass friends, like that trite bullshit with the Rocky Horror Picture Show shit.

O, god, or what ’bout that fucking hacky conversation ’bout Kurt Cobain. Unfortunately, I can’t remember the exact wording,—actually, fuck that, I’m immensely satisfied with that outcome—but it went something like this:

[Some jerkoff] said ’twas grown ups, man; [other jerkoff] said ’twas corporate media.

[The absolute biggest waste o’ flesh on the planet] said he was hungry.

Fucking hilarious.

Man, I just realized how utterly unlikeable all the characters were. What a triumph.


The Reviews

‘Cause I’m mean-spirited, I’m also going to bash some o’ the idiots online who actually thought this tripe was good.

Our 1st example is the 1 that inspired this in the 1st place, someone with the misspelled name “Wandergurl,” which I think is a character from My Immortal, on stupidly-named Book Thingo, which “earns commissions through affiliate links and Skimlinks. So if you buy a book using a link from [their] site,” you got god damn played, sucker.

Anyway, you can already tell this review if inane by its headline: “This book needs a hug.”

Then in the 1st paragraph we can see that this reviewer didn’t actually read the book, or wasn’t paying attention: she claims that the protagonist’s writing “is filled with raw emotion,” when I remember it being Chbosky’s clumsy & offensive attempt to pretend to know how an autistic writes, with the classic technique o’ having the character describe sensitive events like a 4-year-ol’ medical scientist.

O, fuck, wait, ¿what? Look @ what comes right after—right after—that quote I just put in: “in what I imagine to be Charlie’s matter-of-fact, possibly even slightly monotone—but always honest—passive voice.” Yes, that’s right: monotone, passive raw emotion. This book needs a hug, & this reviewer needs a fucking dictionary.

At first, Charlie doesn’t have any friends.

This lasts for less than 20 pages. Boo fucking hoo.

He is a little weird—even weirder than the cool kind of weird[.]

Um, I’d like to see some mathematical formula so we can deductively prove that this weirdness level has gone beyond the threshold o’ “cool” weird. Noah Smith would not be happy by such sloppy economics.

He makes friends with two seniors, Patrick and Sam, and begins to experience life, sometimes without really trying.

By the way, I can feel the raw emotions in these sentences written by a person who just figured out how to write sentences yesterday.

“And begins to experience life.” Fun fact: Charlie was born just before he met these 2 seniors. That’s why he had such trouble making friends; nothing’s mo’ uncooly weird than a newborn baby in high school.

I first heard of this book when it was released and kept meaning to read it, not realising, ten years later, that I would be determined to read it because they’ve made it into a movie!

Either this reviewer didn’t realize they would do something 10 years later based on events she couldn’t predict, or she wasn’t realizing that she was doing something 10 years later as she was doing it; but either way, ’twas quite amazing ‘nough to merit that exclamation point.

I thought it would be a typical coming of age book…

Surprisingly, ’twas worse.

[A]nd I expected to be caught up and be able to relate to the story, because who hasn’t felt like a wallflower sometimes—on the outside looking in? It was a lot more than I expected.

I can tell by the way you’re so excited that you couldn’t e’en stop to break your review into coherent sentences.

For one thing, it’s actually quite a serious book.

The fact that you e’en have to say that proves elsewise. Nobody says something like, “The truth is that Toni Morrison’s Beloved is quite a serious book,” ’cause anyone who needs to be told that’s too stupid to know how to read.

There are serious undertones beyond just the typical teenage drama of boys, clothes, girls, football and prom.

Yeah, it talks ’bout important things, like Rocky Horror Picture Show & what the characters’ favorite books & movies are. (¡Charlie’s is This Side of Paradise, by F. Scott Fitzgerald, which is super serious, guys!)

The book touches themes of abuse…

(Laughs.) Worst diction e’er.

I question whether everything bad really had to have happened to everyone in this book, but at the same time, it’s not unrealistic[.]

Yeah, it’s not unrealistic for real life to be like a badly-written book.

[S]hit does happen.

Best summary o’ this book.

The reviewer then babbles on ’bout the 90s & other bullshit.

It took me a while to read this book[.]

This book is short & extremely simplistic. It took me a day to read—& I’m a damn slow reader. Now I’m seriously wondering if I’m an e’en bigger asshole than I thought & whether this might be a middle schooler writing this.

Charlie can get a bit depressive, but he pulls through and you find yourself barracking for him, especially at the end when he figures things out.

“I didn’t actually read this book: but I’m sure this sad character has [insert conflicts], but [does something to not be killed by them] & then [like, figures something out, I guess].

I spent most of this book just wanting to give him a hug.

Stop touching the imaginary character’s abuse, please.

Author Stephen Chbosky fills the book with pithy observations, the most famous (and my favorite) being, ‘We accept the love we think we deserve.’

I’m glad I forgot that 1, since it’s as inane as the others. It’s borderline tautological, & @ the very least meaningless, since one doesn’t have much control o’er either (a’least I like to think that I think I deserve things based on what seems to be objective reality, & don’t magically consciously trick my own mind into thinking I deserve something simply ’cause I want to—rendering the whole idea o’ “deserve” nugatory). Man, think how easy psychological issues would be to solve if people didn’t have them. & while we’re @ it, ¿why don’t idiots like Chbosky just stop being dumb? ¿Can that be my pithy quote? “Dumb people are just people who haven’t learned that they’re dumb yet.” That definitely belongs on a mug.

It spits you out, a little tired and worse for wear, but somehow I feel like I’ve been made better by it.

Well, I’m glad that you’ve been made so much better off by my being spit out & made all tired by this shit. Way to rub it in.

Its raw honesty makes it truly one of the best [YOU CAN BUY PHANTASIA SCHLOCK BY ANNIE MELANINE & GET IT TODAY WITH A FREE TRIAL O’ AMAZON PRIME] books I’ve ever read.

Thank you, Adbot3031 for your wonderful review.


Next review:

Charlie’s a master of observation. Much like with the essays he writes about literary classics, he constantly tries to discern meaning in the events and people around him.

The fact that you think his literary essays showed his ability @ discerning meaning is ample evidence for why you’re a “professional cat pamperer” & not a literary major, “Kate” Nosurname McGee.

The Perks of Being a Wallflower reminded me of coming-of-age classics like The Catcher in the Rye…

…in that they’re both shitty & both have protagonists who were utter wastes o’ oxygen.

[…] and, to a lesser extent, The Bell Jar[…]

A li’l too much actual thought put into that 1. Plus, it’s likely that protagonist isn’t a waste o’ oxygen anymo’—ha, ha… ugh… I’m sorry…

Something I wasn’t expecting from this book was the focus on women and how girls develop as a result of society. This theme is present throughout the story, and particularly demonstrates how girls – young, old, popular, activist – are taught to define their value based on the opinion of men and whether or not they’re seen as attractive.

Kinda like how Sam is pretty much just the generically cute girl that our protagonist lusts after, with hardly any development (¡but a’least he gets some undershirt action, ¿amiri—? Wait…). Also Mary Elizabeth is just that yappy bitch who needs to learn to shut her trap.

Yeah, Chbosky’s an amazing feminist.


You can find a bunch o’ 1 paragraph clumps o’ incoherent reviewing @ AMAZON.COM, WHERE YOU CAN ALSO BUY MUCH BETTER BOOKS, LIKE 13 REASONS WHY, WHICH IS ‘BOUT A CHARACTER WITH AN ACTUAL PERSONALITY & WASN’T A WASTE O’ OXYGEN, E’EN BEFORE BEING DEAD.


The Guardian shows their power to bullshit:

The writing here is so rhythmic that it’s almost hypnotic.

Chbosky’s approach is always unflinching[.]

¿What? ¿You’re not going to make some trite metaphor ’bout this book being “savored” like a fucking stew? ¿You’re not going to talk ’bout how this book “reaches inside of you and pulls everything to the surface,” like 1 o’ those paragraphs WHICH YOU CAN FIND @ AMAZON.COM? Which is just proof that if any o’ those people e’er learn what a paragraph break is, they’ll be qualified to write reviews for The Guardian.

I also love how this idiot complains ’bout this book being sexist ’cause it had a male gay character, but not all the immensely sexist shit I mentioned earlier. This fucker didn’t e’en read this book.


Holy shit, fuck everything I wrote here: This Tumblr post summarized everything I had to say ’bout this book in just a couple, succinct paragraphs. It’s like the Euler’s Identity o’ Perks reviews.


Last Words ’bout the Film

1. The guy who plays the protagonist looks like a smug douche.

2. That Chbosky is a film director isn’t surprising, since The Perks of Being a Wallflower has that shallow stench o’ Hollywood.


Footnotes:

[1] I’m just as late in publishing those as I am with these editorials, & I just as much neglect to publish them. As an example, I started writing Boskeopolis Stories, which I started publishing July 2013, December 2011.

[2] Said teacher also gives inspirational inanity, in the form o’ a quote from a book by Ayn Rand, the go-to philosopher for profound-sounding phrases without substance. Said quote is some bullshit ’bout “I’ll die for you, but not live my life for you.”

[3] I heard some reviewers complain ’bout the protagonist using some big words, but I felt the opposite ’bout his diction. This is not an average high schooler, but purportedly a literary genius. ¿Have they ne’er met pretentious high school nerds? We’d use thesauruses just so we could use big words like “abnegate” & “cognomen.” I think it’s mo’ that the writing isn’t sufficiently far from their current writing level, & arrogant adults forget how li’l the average adult’s writing abilities develop from high school (I can hardly tell the difference ‘tween web writing made by high schoolers & the average “adult”).

Posted in Literature Commentary, Uncategorized