>>93501845What's pleasurable for you now isn't inherently pleasurable for you later.
When you spend your life partaking in hedonistic self indulgent media with no interest in the profound or transcendent, you become a bendis, or any other of those shitty marvel writers thst can only write through a pop culture lens. That's not the path of an artist, that's the path of a media fanboy. No different than pedophilic otaku.
>>93501779It does it in such a hackneyed way though that even the incomprehensibility isn't communicated well. It's not an intentional mess, it's just a mess, with no flow, no motiff, no reason to be.
You literally don't gain anything from investing time into it that you couldn't gain from doing something more productive, so why waste time with it? It clearly doesn't respect your time to begin with.
>>93501878I agree. But this isn't romanticism we're talking about, this isn't something meant to illicit the highest of positive emotions. It's meant to illicit mediocre emotions. It can't use the argument of "its, like, meant to evoke feelings, man" if it does a shitty job of it, and is using the wording for the argument that actually justifies uncomfortable taboo art instead of romanticism art.
It doesn't justify it's own existancd, and you have bad taste because you're trying to justify it existing, rather than discussing any real merits the book has, any glimpses of knowledge or beauty it has provided. Because it doesnt.
It's nosie, white noise meant for children, made by adult women who might as well be Mal adjusted children, which can only be enjoyed by other children and poorly developed man children.
You're a Peter pan and you should be fucking ashamed of your terrible tastes.
