Thread for any ideas on how to start threads about topics. Especially any guidelines or exemplars that have/could make better, more in depth, posts and responses.
I feel like there should be some sort of general outline for certain topics that would help posters make a thread which would lend itself to better responses and possibly be incorporated to the sticky if possible.
Honestly any time i see a response 1-2 sentences long I just filter it out, and it has made this board only rarely worthwhile. There's so many ITT threads and general meme posting only attempting at serious conversation to the point where I feel like a general structure needs to be imposed, or at least socially enforced by people who care about the board.
How can we make this board better, everybody?
>>7378511
1. Do not post asking opinions about a writer with no other context.
2. Provide citations. Passages best, followed by sections, followed by works. If you want to discuss something, be specific.
3. Don't try to be funny in the OP. You can't base a thread on a joke. Without something else to riff on, your joke will almost certainly be horrible. Jokes come later.
4. Always provide your opinion on something before asking for those of others. If you don't try, why should we?
>>7378515
5. /lit/ is not your blog. Namefags and tripfags are despised because they generally ignore this. Faggotry will be grudgingly tolerated otherwise.
6. Do not start threads to instigate emotionally-charged political debates and do not reply to threads that blatantly attempt to do this.
Ban all christposters
>>7378529
We're trying to be serious here. Why should christposters be banned?
>>7378529
These are the bad responses I'm talking about that should just be glossed over.
>>7378537
Because they add absolutely nothing to /lit/ and are simply here to evangelize. I don't mind hearing about the literary merits of the Book of Daniel, but when some asshole from /pol/ goes on about how it totally predicted Jesus and if you don't agree with him, you wear a hat, than he needs to fuck off back to /pol/
7. Do not start threads that are meant to proselytize, evangelize, or polemically attack a faith. Discuss religious literature and the religious themes within literature but do not try to "sell" or "disprove" a faith because it doesn't belong on this board.
>>7378521
well that sure does mean a lot coming from a total fuck animal , why don't you go back to your barn stall and eat turds
>>7378515
I like these, though I feel like citation can just be a quote. But the general way to treat posts that you're leading to is what I've been wanting.
To hone down on conversation about text in the specific, I think a good specific guidline for talking or even referencing the specific (which they usually teach in composition or at least in high school AP, but gets lost in the informal) is
>specific (quote)
>general (derived from the quote)
>abstract (how it relates to the context which you put it in)
A lot of threads I've seen have just been generalities about authors or concepts that get down to just basic foodfight level discussion of the text.
> x said y
In the non specific is really cancerous and bad
If all of us want to get better at reading and writing we should be treating this board like a serious outlet for analytical convo and discourse
Armchair talk about literature will just make us armchair artists and academics ourselves.
I've been thinking maybe the only solution is a closed off serious lit group (I'm pretty sure I've seen threads addressing this before, but don't really know what came of them.)
>>7378546
That's just being mildly irritating and is not limited to christposters. If anything, I find it interesting/useful to be reminded of Christian interpretations of the old testament as these show up (if obliquely) in other works. There are much worse offences. Also, we'd never see Aquinas or Augustine on the board if not for them. I'd say they're a plus and bring something different to the board.
>>7378554
It doesn't need to be closed-off. We can converse here without being dilettantes or parroting memes and if someone does in a thread, it's easy to ignore them.
>>7378560
I agree with that. I was wondering whether it was the anti-christposter that had posted it.
>>7378558
What I'm just worried about is the efficiency of the board. I lurked for 2 years and posted for 2, and the state of the board hasn't really changed.
Maybe that's good and we don't need essay format responses and some shit posting is just a fact and okay, but the way I feel is that 4chan's format doesn't work for the long form conversation that the board actually needs, and the fact that there even is shit posting on a literature form is already indicative of an overwhelmingly dilettante set of posters.
From what I've seen, what generally happens is that there is a sea of surface level posts while sometimes 2 or more people who care, or have the relevant domain knowledge, have a good stream of conversation.
I think that either we need to impose a set of stringincies (like some in this thread) that promote more actual care, because shit posting will honestly dissuade anybody who is trying to contribute. Or completely jump ship for a better and more strict structure if we can't direct the spirit of the board.
Bumping for the morning with some examples of fucking horrible threads.
>Recent purchases
>What i read/what I expected
>"Lit memes"
>does anybody else do this thing that i do?!
>"literary lifestyle"
>best/worst
>bookshelves
>any thread that ends with "go!"
>>7378596
i will also bump
yeah it's kind of shit today
>hi, i'd like you to write me an essay because i dunno shit about literature to make a good essay by myself
>i'll totally blame this problem on other people
>i won't even bother to tell kids that saging is polite because even the posts i bump with are shittier than a post saying "bump"
>of course i'm trying to help, didn't you see me killing another non /lit/ thread with my non /lit/ thread
>guys how come sci-fi generals have more book discussion than us when i'm always talking about users instead of books, you think we'd have more book mentions by now since i've spent so long talking about all the other users i don't like and how that's totally books
Daily reminder the board is always shit because you're here being shit.
>inb4 responses about how your mom says you're totally cool
fuck this new generation who want praise for trying to help not actually helping
>>7379596
>"wrong generation"
>>7379630
>bumping this shit thread
I meant the new generation of posters who are perplexed as to why nobody is spoonfeeding them information to lord over other people who read as little as them. I'm sure OP appreciates you trying to bring new people into this thread so that they can all moan about how other people not them are the problem. Meanwhile, I'll think I'll take a break for two weeks now that I've posted more than 1,000 words on Greek exegesis and provenance this week because your best response was "hurr durr, beatniks". I feel I learnt so much from you.
