Nicholas Sparks the difference between people who read nicholas sparks and who do not read nicholas sparks and the 'value' of 'literature' that is 'dark'

iamcool__ posted on Apr 17, 2012 at 01:34AM
there are two (among many other) kinds of people

(before reading, understand that i am typing about the extremes of each kind of person; in reality it is, like everything, a spectrum; so when i say 'never' i am being extreme, as i can't list every possible reaction along the spectrum of kinds of people)

(also understand that this is only an attempt at understanding, at articulating something: that 'dark' literature really wants the same things that the people who dislike 'dark literature' want;

this is not a condemnation of anything or anyone but only an attempt at something)

the first kind of person reads nicholas sparks, watches movies like KING KONG, thinks about 'money' a lot in a certain way, and often 'blames' other people for their own unhappiness;

this first kind of person believes that literature is 'bad,' that writers like
samuel beckett, albert camus, sartre, joy williams, lorrie moore, jean rhys, every german philosopher, every other philosopher, every author ever taught in universities, every author who has ever consoled anyone else (nicholas sparks will never console anyone, but only postpone or eliminate thinking; and consolation can only ever occur in the prescence of actual thoughts), and just about every writer who has ever won an award, made someone feel less lonely, made someone feel less depressed, less prone to blame other people, less caring about 'money,' more accepting, more compassionate, more calm, and more accepting
are 'bad'

this first kind of person will never understand the second kind of person, but will only ever believe that the 'other kind' of person has 'psychological problems' that 'need to be fixed'

the second kind of person reads 'literary fiction,' cannot watch a hollywood movie without 'feeling bad,' and almost never blames other people for their own unhappiness, but is usually calm, quiet, and accepting; and is not really ever 'unhappy' because they know they are not alone because there is a history, in literature, of people who have expressed their feelings--
whereas who expresses the feelings of the first kind of person (?) (have any nicholas sparks' or oprahs from 5000 B.C. until today, 2006 A.D. ever survived?), who has no philosophy of life, really, but when troubled or confused drinks alcohol and maybe blames all their unhappiness on a person who is the second kind of person and then goes to their room and watches TV and drink wine in order to not have to think about their troubles or their confusion, which is understandable; this is not an attack or criticism of the first kind of person);

no one expresses the feelings of the first kind of person because the first kind of person has no philosophy of life to express beyond what is said by oprah, nicholas sparks, and KING KONG (these things that are produced firstly for money; there is no oprah in societies that place no value on money), and so they are never really 'consoled' but exist only in a series of temporary solutions (wine, etc.) and thoughtless moments (TV, blaming others) until they die

which is not 'good' or 'bad,' as what is the difference, really, of a series of temporary solutions and one permanent solution (which is to know things, to have knowledge, and then to accept those things, to be consoled)
--before, which are similar to what they themselves have expressed, and so they know that they are not alone, and everything, despite (and because of, actually) how much they talk about depression and death, is really okay for these people (because they have accepted all the truths of the universe--death, etc.--nothing can really harm these people and they will never commit suicide unless the first kind of person tries to change them and then surrounds them with other first kinds of people);

the second kind of person talks about depression and death to continue the history of consolation (8000 years, or whatever, of literature) and to try, always, to be aware of the consolation that all things, like death, loneliness, and limited-time are true and cannot be changed and therefore do not need to be changed, but need only (and there is no other way, really, except to postpone temporarily: nicholas sparks, oprah, wine, going to the room to drink wine) to be accepted

no one knows which kind of person lives the 'better' life; no one can measure which kind of person is 'happier'

but here is one difference between the two kinds of people:

the second kind of person is able to understand and accept the first kind of person; is able to understand why a human would want to block out unavoidable truths like death, mystery, meaninglessness, etc.; and is able even to understand and accept the following:

that the first kind of person cannot ever understand or accept the second kind of person, but will only ever view the second kind of person as a 'problem,' as a person with 'psychological problems' that need to be 'fixed'

this is because the first kind of person, due to a lack of compassion, insight, and sustained thought that is the result, among other things, of living in a society that would not exist without the idea of 'money,' and therefore produces things like nicholas sparks, oprah, TV, and therapists (a day in the life of the first kind of person: confusion, unhappiness, blaming someone else, therapist, nicholas sparks, oprah, TV, alcohol, bed), cannot understand that people in the world are different, that there are no 'problems' only 'differences'
people are different; most people do not understand this; there are no 'problems,' only 'differences'; there are only different points of view
and so this first kind of person will always try to 'change' the second kind of person into something exactly like themselves (and they do not know what they themselves are; what is the philosophy of life of nicholas sparks, or oprah, or KING KONG? how do they deal with things like death, loneliness, existence, mystery, etc.?), which is probably something concretely vague but abstractly optimistic, positive, and loud; because they themselves are 'psychologically healthy' and do not need to be 'fixed' but only need to 'fix' everyone else around them

now extrapolate what i just typed from psychology (family, usually) to sociology (class), culture (different races), and politics (different countries)
war, genocide, racism, class hatred, murder, hatred, frustration, etc.
the first kind of person wants everyone in the world to be exactly like themselves; wants everyone who is the second kind of person to 'fix' themselves, which is understandable to the second kind of person

and also understandable to the second kind of person is that the first kind of person probably (probably; who knows, really; no one knows) causes more pain and suffering in the world because of their lack of compassion and understanding, which is due in part (again, repeating myself, because repetition works) to them blocking out information that is true, such as death, meaninglessness, sadness, loneliness, brains in skulls, the irreversible movement of time, etc., which is because oprah, nicholas sparks, and KING KONG would never make money if they did not block out inaviodable truths; and they need to make money, because for the first kind of person, who gains no consolation from art, who gains no consolation ever, really, but exists only by continually and temporarily solving problems by either drinking alcohol, reading nicholas sparks, watching TV, watching hollywood movies, or by talking to therapists (who also exist because of money, and really just tell you the same things oprah, nicholas sparks, TV, shrek, and alcohol do, which is to just keep thinking positive and everything will be okay, just keep going, and block out anything troubling; or else act, the therapists do, as a kind of friend, who will listen, and make you less lonely, which is nice, and works; though of course they are not friends, and will only temporarily and falsely make you less lonely, as you have to knowingly pay them continually for them to listen to you, and make you less lonely, unlike a real friend, where no money is involved, just like in literature, if literature is defined, and it is, as if you do not block out death, etc., then those things render money meaningless and futile, as any writing where money is not the ends of any means)

beause money itself, just by existing, blocks out inavoidable truths

money makes you believe you can 'own' something in this world; makes you believe that the higher the number of something the better; it equates accumulation with betterness and happiness; compassion or 'other people' is not even a word that is compatible with 'money'; everything, from the view of 'money,' including other people (including, even, money itself), is only a means to the ends of 'more money')

in the middle-class and upper-class the first kind of person believes that money can solve their problems whereas the second kind of person knows that money cannot solve their 'problems' (in part because to the second kind of person there are no 'problems,' only 'facts' that need to be 'accepted')

(it is more difficult for someone who has always lived in poverty, has only ever had to worry, understandably and without a choice, about money to become the second kind of person; this post is really only about people who do not have to worry about starving to death, freezing to death, or dying in war)

here is a list of people who are the first kind of person: almost every person who has ever existed who, if judged only by their actions and the concrete results of those actions, the 'first kind of person' would consider to be 'evil'

here is a list of people who are the second kind of person: almost every person who has ever existed who, if judged only by their actions and the concrete results of those actions, the first kind of person would consider to be 'good'

there's a kind of feeling the second kind of person knows and sometimes feels that the first kind of person can never understand, know, or feel; this feeling is not good or bad; cannot be called 'happy' or 'unhappy'; but is something like consolation, just a very intense and almost neutral and unqualifiable feeling of consolation, that everything exists and is true and cannot be changed (a kind of realization of the impossibility yet inevitability of things, or something; maybe a kind of understanding of how there can exist consciousness without free will) and that the only thing there is, then, really, is acceptance, which here is synonymous with consolation; the feeling that the only thing there is is consolation

the first kind of person will say, 'why do you talk about depression and death so much?'

because the second kind of person is almost always sarcastic, because when they accept the truths of the universe they will realize that these truths go against 'consciousness' and so more than one tone (conflicting meanings) must be used in order to communicate 'truthfully,' without blocking out any information

the second kind of person uses phrases like 'i am depressed' and 'i will kill you' in order to encompass both kinds of people, the first kind and the second kind, therefore understanding and accepting both views (therefore, also, not blocking out any information; oprah, KING KONG, nicholas sparks, and shrek cannot exist without blocking out information)

the first kind of person will say, 'people will read what you type and want to kill themselves; how can you live with that, if someone reads what you type and then kills themself?'
read what i just typed

i just concluded that to the second kind of person the only thing there is is consolation

this kind of consolation does not tell you to commit suicide

it is not negative (it isn't anything but what it is)

and to get at this kind of consolation you can't block out any information; you have to be truthful

and the only kind of writing that does not block out any information (and what is the definition of 'truth' if not 'that which does not block out any information) is the kind of writing done by the second kind of person

the second kind of person wants this consolation like the first kind of person wants to read nicholas sparks, watch KING KONG, or get drunk and stop thinking

the first kind of person is saddened by what is consoling (meaninglessness, limited-time, death, mystery) to the second kind of person while the second kind of person is saddended by what is consoling (therapy, nicholas sparks, oprah, answers) to the first kind of person

but the second kind of person is able to type the sentence above this one without using the word 'problem'

the second kind of person does not force his or her literature onto the first kind of person while they are in their room reading nicholas sparks
so, to answer the first kind of person's question, above, about suicide:

the rhetoric of nicholas sparks, therapy, and oprah are just as likely to cause someone to commit suicide as the rhetoric of 'depressing' (consoling) literature; the difference, what makes one more 'dangerous,' more suicide-causing than the other, is that the first kind of people force, if not physically then psychologically, the rhetoric of nicholas sparks onto the second kind of people, since they view the second kind of people as having 'psychological problems' that need to be 'fixed'

Nicholas Sparks No risposte