>Maybe people will think I'm smart if I use obscure language!
Seriously /lit/, I dare you to name me a more dissapointing writer!
>>7746780
>I dare you to name me a more dissapointing writer!
You
>I'm so dumb I can't understand what he says!
hahahah
>do phd research on lacan, foucault, derrida, levinas, kristeva
>spend half my adult life reading them
>come to /lit/ and post universally well-known fact that they were obscurantists (and occasionally hacks)
>undergrads who have never read any of their work post "Seems like you just can't understand them m80 :^)"
>briefly consider posting CV on /lit/
>>7746840
you know you can get a job at mcdonalds without doing the literature phd first right?
>>7746840
Seems like you just can't understand them m80 :^)
>>7746780
>dissapointing
>>7746840
>Having a phd and still making low quality bait threads on lit
>>7746780
Who is that semen demon?
>>7746840
Sure, they were obscurantist but you do the most memetacular and silliest psychoanalysis as to why, and it's so utterly boring, terribly sad and banal. The OP is pretty much my response to the OP: a soft slow blowing out of air, at potential wasted.
>>7746840
dumb frogposter