i never understand why people label books/writing as 'negative' or 'positive.'  a book can't be negative. even if it was full of the most hateful, antagonistic shit, it would still be somebody's expression.  it would still be someone taking experiences and ideas from his/her life and making it into something.  it's always positive.  it's always the result of someone taking time to create something.  you have to suppose an idea of what is 'positive' first to then say someone's shit isn't that.  and that is negative because as one person you design a way to dismiss and label someone else. sadness, anger, hate, all those things are positive depending on how you deal with them. like, if i write a book about sadness and hate and anger, it's positive--because instead of killing myself or someone else, i sat down and made something.  i engaged my thoughts and tested them and wrote them down.  that's positive.  most people i know who are 'pessimistic' or 'negative' or 'unchill' are much more realistic and willing/able to help others.  it's incredibly negative to accuse someone else and his/her writing of being negative, when it's an expression of his/her life. calling someone else 'negative' or his/her writing 'negative' is dismissing the entirety of what lead that person to do what they did.  that is the most negative thing i can think of.

but here's a joke so people don't think i'm being 'unchill.'

(in 'larry the cable guy' voice):  y'ever have summa that rice pilaf?  you know, when ya fall asleep eatin chi-neece food and then you have ta peel some rice off ya titties.


Anonymous said...

Surely propagandist literature is an exception.

sam pink said...

the first line originally read 'creative books/writing' but then that didn't make sense to me.