[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/lit/ - Literature


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


Is it true that you can’t really “get” a book until you’ve read it at least twice?
>>
With higher quality books, yes.
>>
No, but it's true that you won't get any pussy if you spend your time rereading everything twice like a Special Ed regular.
>>
>>22077507
you can “get it” from reading the synopsis
>>
>>22077510
Who cares about pussy
>>
>>22077514
>>22077511
>>22077510
An unliterary is one who reads books once only. . . . We do not enjoy a story fully at the first reading. Not till the curiosity, the sheer narrative curiousity, has been given its fill and laid asleep, are we at leisure to savour the real beauties and ambiguity of the text.
>>
>>22077514
Every physiologically and mentally healthy man.
>>
>>22077581
False, become volcel



[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.