I'm writing a semi-autobiographical novel about my experiences with schizophrenia, and I was wondering: should I make it so it is always evident that the content in the book is untrue and a result of an ill mind or should I make it ambiguous so at the end, I can end at the beginning, fulfilling the character's delusions that reality is bending into a circle?
its up to you
psychological illness within stories is not a new concept
we don't know your writing style so i think you should do what feels natural. give it time. i can imagine that this is a personal story. what resonates with you?
/lit/, confess your sins so we can point and laugh.
This dude messaged me on kik last week and said he'd give me money and buy me clothes if I modelled then for him (I'm a guy and he's a closet gay). Then I convinced him to buy me a quarter ounce of marijuana wax (which is a pretty considerable amount of money) up front so I could "sell" it for him and split the profits with him, but I'm actually just going to take the wax, delete my kik and never talk to him again.
This is my most recent sin but I do a lot of weird stuff like this for money.
So this is the greatest novel about
loveever written? Just finished it, and cried for about 10 minutes.
Rate my stack, /lit/? I'm already reading Dune and rereading Fear and Loathing. I've already read Siddhartha. Which should I read next?
Also, post yours.
What are some comfy books?
Have you already embraced the aesthetics of literature? The reading just for the pleasure of reading?
Yes, I've been reading nothing but one page of this book every day for the past five months. It takes me at least three hours to complete my daily reading because I savor every syllable.
Happy Birthday, Gene
Recommend me some good non-fiction on Russia
So I'm in my second year of Uni and it seems like every other prof wants to make a name for himself by going
[popular author] was GAY/BISEXUAL/ACTUALLY A WOMAN
[popular work] is a metaphor for COMMUNISM/ATHISM/IMPOTENCE
What's the dumbest theory you've heard?
Why is discussion of this man's work prohibited on here? Every time I try to make an argument or post anything at all against Marxism, I am immediately met by the majority of users saying "gb2 /pol/" or "/pol/ tripfags are leaking". In fact, most of the time, I am banned when attempting to discuss Marxism.
However, I think this is the precise board to discuss such a topic on. Marxism is specifcally centered around a group of texts, and these books are "law" for the Marxist community. Since Marxism has until known proven disasterous when...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
I honestly have no idea whether you like Marx or not from this post.
Most Marxists fall into two categories:
1) you haven't eben reddit.
What does it say?
Go reed it.
2) the eternal toldyaso, who explains every event in terms of class warfare and the inevitable decline of capitalism with a certain Jehovah's Witness-esq glee when shit goes wrong.
I'd love to talk about Marx's ideas, there's a great reason why nearly two centuries of people have been enamored with his thought, but a discussion warrants a little less elitism and dogmatism.
>Marxism is specifcally centered around a group of texts, and these books are "law" for the Marxist community
Marx/Engles's works consist of one major economic manuscript (Das Kapital), one philosophical manuscript (The German Ideology), two political manuscripts, (The Communist Manifesto, and Anti-Duhring), and whatever the fuck Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State is. None of these are considered "Laws", by anyone. With Kapital, and Origins of the Family being purely descriptivist, and with every major Marxist (Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Mao, Deng, Castro, Sankara), making at least one notable alteration to the Economic theory (Labour Aristocracy, anyone?), and the German Ideology has been radically altered by various philosophers since (Sartre, for one), the Communist Manifesto is largely considered an entry-level text, and no-one takes it seriously compared to the others, and the only book that MIGHT, fit your description, Anti-Duhring, has been largely ignored in the righting of other texts that have followed, such as the State, and Revolution, or The Permanent Revolution, or basically anything by Rosa Luxembourg, and before you respond "well those later books are books of laws then", bare in mind that Not all Marxists are Leninists, or Trotskists, or Luxembourgists, or Leftcoms, or Rightcoms, or any one of the million different splinter groups that make up the Marxist movement, and agree on nothing but the fact that Marx's, and Engles's writing was for the most part correct.
>Since Marxism has until known proven disasterous when attempted
Marxism is just a school of economics, based on the philosophy of Diamat. If you mean "Scientific Socialism", then we're in for a much longer argument.
so now that you've read the first page of mason and dixon why don't you go finish it.
How's the writing career going, /lit/?
starting a book on a topic i'm not 100% sure about, so i feel like i'm not supposed to be writing about it
but yet i write
why does /lit/ like stirner so much
What an overrated piece of shit. This book contains NOTHING that I haven't already figured out on myself by actually studying religion and having common sense. Why do edgy fedoras praise this book so much?
Real talk. How is it even possible for a guy to do what he did? Why has no one come close? Is there a chance he was more than one man?
>le shakespeare is head and shoulders over all writers throughout history meme