3.5.13

DON'T BELIEVE ANY REVIEW YOU READ

most reviews seem like a combination of vague/abstract/sweeping statements, lies, inaccurate chains of thought, irrelevant information, personal prejudices, blind allegiance to traditions, personal belief in one's ability to judge for others, passive insults, reluctant/qualified acceptance of talent, asskissing, exagerrated statements, reference to older authors and his/her work as template for how one can be better, unresolved psychological issues, jealously, desire for acceptance/shittalking how 'cool' the author and his/her group is, and other insecurities/pettiness.

5 comments:

Jesse Prado said...

damn

lindsey said...

sam, are you aware that jeff hanneman from slayer died yesterday? sucks, dude.

Anonymous said...

I think this basically applies to the whole of human communication.

jereme said...

you forgot: pandering value by attaching to another's achievement; attention gathering; dickhole romantics; identification plea-bargaining; lamedickery; snooches; do-you-like-me; refund investments; high hatting; shit snorkeling; exhaustion.

Unsure why people are saddened by Hanneman's death. His fucking liver gave out. Seems like the final destination of a true gangster's journey.

Luke said...

there are no means to justify or validate the worth of any written works created now or ever. There can be no strong or weak nor perfect or imperfect; there are only different persons who write. If the perception of a “line” created by time is considered an illusion, the urge to create a sense of progression or evolution can also be omitted. Such thinking is necessary involving the nature of art, where the artist’s intent is not to create something that is better or worse but only to create that which he/she wishes to convey.