How do you feel about WW1 poetry /lit/?
Most of it is simple and quite forgettable, but poignant at the same time. I have the
PenguinAnthology of First World War Poetry and I have probably read through it two or three times.
Sassoon; the general, counter attack, syicide in the trenches and his prose works memoirs of a fox hunting man and diary of an infantry officer
Owen: a terre, the last laugh
Frankau: voices of the guns
Graves; goodbye to all that
What innovative features would you like a website about sharing and reading books to have?
Alright /lit/ I need your help, ever since I watched My dinner with Andre some months ago I've wanted to read a book that was similar to it, the movie is basically 2 hours of conversation, there's no real plot it's just two guys talking about many different topics ranging from life experiences, mundane stuff and philosophical shit.
So, does anyone know of any book that fits this description and is worth it?
Asimov does this, two characters talking in a sterile setting, but those ideas explored might not interest you.
Cormac McCarthy's Sunset Limited
I think Beckett does these. Waiting for Goddard, no?
I really do recommend Walter Pater's Marius the Epicurean for a passive stroll through ancient Rome discussing philosophy.
writers of lit, what is your major motivation to write? also, do you have your readers in mind as you write, even if the reader is just yourself, or you just let your mind come through your pen/keyboard?
i think i do it to one day read the book ive never found and that would answer all my questions.
>Motivation to write? Self-expression and posterity.
>Readers in mind? Not much. I just craft my writing as I see best. If you keep readers in mind too much you run the risk of losing your individuality.
Why must a protagonist be likable?
I feel most comfortable writing entitled characters who get laid low by dangerous situations.
This is where an engaging story comes in handy.
I hated the Talented Mr Ripley, but I kept watching to see him get caught. Disappointment he didn't, but it was still well written enough.
>I hated the Talented Mr Ripley, but I kept watching to see him get caught. Disappointment he didn't, but it was still well written enough.
of course the fake butterfly watches the movies of highsmith.
stop half assing the bookish dyke part if you want to pretend to be our dead gf.
books about gluttony?
Bump, I read some texts about it when I was in highschool, I believe one of them was a extract from "Les caractères" from La Bruyère. We actually did a while chapter on this topic, but I don't seem to remember very well.
Are there any other historians as incredibly good at writing as Will Durant?
Also: thoughts on pic related? In love with it atm.
And you might also like Fernand Braudel
He's okay but it's pretty obvious that this is an older book. He has the same wrong opinions that were common in the earlier parts of the last century. Reading his entry of Nietzsche is every bit as wrong and misleading as Russel's.
What is better: To fully and whole-heartedly embrace our animalistic/humanistic instincts, or to attempt to transcend them?
Or is it possible to do both at the same time?
Yes Doing both is transcendence and balance.
Where's the best place to start with Henry James? How much of his work is worth reading?
Portrait of a Lady.
Stay away from his early stuff.
His later novels (Golden Bowl, Ambassadors, Wings of the Dove) are only worth reading if you can stand them, you'd have to be a college-level reader, I'd say. If you can't stand them, it'd probably be good to come back to them eventually when you're a more "advanced reader", so to speak.
Daisy Miller is a great short read you can read in a day and worth reading any time you like.
His short stories I guess can be...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>you'd have to be a college-level reader, I'd say
I'm 25 and have been reading literature seriously for 10 years now, I just haven't gotten to Henry James.
Why should I avoid his early stuff?
Why does /lit/ care more about the quality of the prose, than the actual content itself?
For the same reason that I know you read Brandon Sanderson and Patrick Rothfus.
Why isn't Asimov even mentioned around here?
Isn't he a meme here too?
>I've been here for hours, and there's still no mention of Asimov
Isn't there a sf general up? Ask them what you should think
Who are his influences?
The usage "based off the book" (instead of the older and, to me at least, clearer usage "based on the book") has made its way from casual speech to appear in an online NPR article. I've come to you, /lit/, to get your opinion on this. This usage, which I had always associated with less intelligent, less well-read people, has now become mainstream and acceptable; indeed there are people who look at me funny when I say "based on." Is this just part of the natural, inevitable evolution of language? Am I a foolish elitist for fighting it? It might not bother me except that it makes English less clear--"based on" produces a mental image of one thing being supported by another, while "based off" does not. I know language is not a logical thing, but shouldn't we keep in mind Wittgenstein: "Everything that can be said can be said clearly."
Does anyone here even like reading? I just do it to not look like a pleb.
I lov it!
Reading is just so scrumptious.