You're a retarded cunt m8

>>7706126
fuck you

File: 1446039573140.png (560 KB, 784x3888) Image search: [Google]

560 KB, 784x3888

>>7706120
Overall, it's not that bad a list. Proust and Mann should definitely be deeper, though.

I'm just dumb senfam

>>7706113

I'll get to it. Give me some time.

>>7706113
That's not Timaeus.

I enjoyed how surreal yet gritty its world was and the pulpy prose. Its highly overrated though.

>>7706035
It isn't overrated, but it did give an excuse to film Neuromancer, without the boring, plodding, Neuromancer plot.

>>7706027
>science fiction
The most inferior genre there is, with not one worthy writer. Why even try.

Elliot Rodger's manifesto

No but seriously try Le chaos et la nuit by Montherlant.

File: firesplain.jpg (51 KB, 521x250) Image search: [Google]

51 KB, 521x250

>>7705880
You can't go wrong with more Céline, obviously.
Once you're done reading his other books, I suggest you try a few novels by Thomas Bernhard, like Woodcutters or The Lime Works. He's known for his misanthropic humour and eccentric writing style.

You might also enjoy the movie Fires on the Plain by Kon Ishikawa. It's about a sickly Japanese soldier trying to stay alive during World War II. He gets lost, wanders around ruined landscapes and meets all kinds of degenerates. It's a very...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.

thanks for the recomendations. il def. check those out. btw, watched burmese harp and was very pleased, so i guess il watch this one now

>>7705860
No, it's not. Like myself and almost everyone else who as read it, you didn't understand it. Though the preface gives a good summary of what makes it great--its interesting plot, its nightmarish qualities, and its ideas, which are possibly the best an American has ever had--it lacks the shine required to illuminate it; so, if you want to actually understand it, I recommend you read some supplementary materials.

t. Gassposter

>>7705860
Hawkes is a man who literally said this

"I began to write fiction on the assumption that the true enemies of the novel were plot, character, setting and theme, and having once abandoned these familiar ways of thinking about fiction, totality of vision or structure was really all that remained."

So you have to understand that's what you're in for before reading his books.

>>7705888
I don't really agree with this. Hawkes had a very well-defined style where his books weren't so much about things as they were externalizations of his psychic landscape. They're not really meant to be understood in the sense that something like Ulysses would be where Joyce deliberately did things and came up with charts that explained the designs to his friends.

The only way to really "get" Hawkes is to "click" with his sensibility. There are some places that use The Lime Twig...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>7705829
Its all pretty neat if you're gay and like acid, though

>>7705829
Welcome to burroughs.

The gayest acid trip you'll go on.

It makes me want to shoot my wife.

>>7705768
No, we're not doing one of these stupid threads. Take it to /tv/

>>7705768
>And but so, she really was the broom of the system.

Fuck you, bandanna man.

>So my friend was all like Yeah I had to park under a palm tree and there was a gull's nest right above it and I haven't had a chance to get a car wash yet, and but then I get inside the car and it's even worse on the inside and I'm all Dude this is The Seagull and Other Stories here

yeah just no, Chekhov

>>7705755
>Do you imagine scenes like from a movie in your head, do you pretend to be the character who's speaking first person, do you switch between perspectives or 'shots'? And does it all just come automatically to you?

Yes , but as far as i know ,not everyone can. A lot of people read without the need of "visualizing" what is reading ,so you shouldn't worry too much about that, just read.

>>7705755
It's a combination of imagery and emotion/feeling. I tend to feel what the author is writing as much as seeing it.

For me it's also not like a movie or anything but snippets of images in between sentences.

When you are reading do you give the characters a "face" of you just imagine them as a "concept"?

I've read one of his short stories, so far. It was very disturbing. I bought one of his books, also, bur haven't read it yet, it's sitting on my shelf. What do you think of him, OP?

Big names of Belgian literature: Simenon, Maeterlinck, Michaux, Yourcenar.

Belgian literature has a strong symbolist bent to it I find. There is a straight line from Maeterlinck to Michaux.

>Belgian literature
Your Eulenspiegel novel in French is very popular in Russia
>the story
thoughts:
first paragraph: if he was born at least 30 years earlier it would blend finely with all of the fin du siecle decadance and expressionism
second paragraph: ok, he has an idea for a piece of modern art but is too lazy to make it. i've seen it before in Barthelme, Pelevin, Delillo; all of those vanguard pomo writers keep doing that shit. such conceptualism! I just do know enough of the hipsters flocking...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.

Jean Mogin is real (check his wiki) but this does seem a bit off. It doesn't seem early to mid twentieth century European (I've seen this story before on lit, about a year ago, and saved it).

Penguin books are cheap because they are shit. Norton Critical Editions or Oxford World Classics whenever possible.

>>7705678
Really, if you stick to the well known classics, they really are fine. /lit/ just hates what is popular. I prefer Oxford, Cambridge (if possible) and Everyman, but if Penguin is the cheapest? I don't mind.

And for Moby Dick, it's difficult to mess that up. It was written in English. Criticism is usually levelled against it for the translations used and typos in them.

>>7705696
Oxford World Classics are pretty much exactly the same price in most cases though.

If you're even asking this question it means you're not ready for Ulysses.

>>7705664
just read it if you're interested in it. You can revisit it later after having read the Odyssey if you feel like it. It's not the fucking bible it's just a book

>>7705704
What a pretentious and completely fucking useless way to respond to this question

>>7705664
As far as I can tell, a good understanding of the Odyssey can definitely improve the experience of reading Ulysses, but there's nothing to suggest that it's explicitly necessary. If your interest lies with Ulysses more so than with The Odyssey, then I would go ahead and read the former first. seeing as Ulysses is a difficult read regardless of whether or not...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.

Pretty good. Probably won't get much positive reception here because of overwhelming continental demographic

Like all analyticals: a combination of pseudo-math and pseudo-philosophy without the scientific rigor of the first or the brilliance of the second.

He's answering very specific problems that pertain to logic, which is cool but boring.

Pynchon is a hack and if you like Pynchon you will die a stupid virgin.

>>7705482
>when Thomas Pynchon was posting here
Luckily you also lost the archives there the fake pynchon poster came back for attention and revealed himself to be a super annoying self-absorbed faggot, who kept playfully telling people not to search for his identity and then bumping the thread when they gave up.

>>7705499

I don't believe you.

Modern economists are either cultists or dissident cultists. Mainstream economists are basically autistic scientistic retards who think the entire universe is reducible to their gay little formulas, and non-mainstream economists are Marxists in history departments.

With the natural sciences, for example, you may have some critiques of the epistemology of mainstreamers or their dumbass political and philosophical views, but ultimately you can be pretty sure that Lawrence "Complete Retard" Krauss at least knows how to figure out a star's wobble or something. With economists though, it's not the same. There's no Newtonian-Einsteinian mainstream to basically maintain. It's a few different camps with "luminiferous aether"-tier ideas that they defend with inscrutable mathematical rituals and disdain for everyone who even slightly disagrees, and who delude themselves into thinking they have the same mainstreamness as the Newtonian-Einsteinian thing in science because nothing more mainstream-y has presented itself.

Don't listen to economists. They are actual morons.

>>7705475

well given how interested I am in this year's election cycle, what should I read? I'm in a situation where my gut wants to support Trump after called out Bush for 9/11 and the Iraq war, but I feel retarded for it. I just want to get a better bearing before I say I like Trump out loud.

>>7705500
if this isn't bait you are a retard