>>7613933
Your opinion is wrong.

>>7613933
I shudder to think what Soviet-approved serialized novel in 4 volumes would be like.

Is this a Russian book about an Italian mob outfit?

>>7614592
It's the book the godfather is based off.

Is that the dude that won the Nobel in competition with Nabokov, Sartre, and like half a dozen other demigods?

>>7614625
That's the one; Borges was another of the losers

You are for certain read "I just read this"
But you are implying "Did I just read this?" has something to do with the book.

The post becomes:

A sentence stating a fact about the implied book
and a sentence asking about the previous question or a sentence asking about the book implied in the previous question

The distance to the book is farther than the first sentence and loses the affirmative quality because of the second sentence.

>>7614652

The post entails a plurality of complementary valences.

On one level, purely metaphysical, is the question of degree of genuine engagement with the text, the question whether OP truly 'read' the text, and to what extent understood and internalized the text.

On another level, the post carries a prima facie literality and correspondingly a definite memetic fecality.

>>7615501
>memetic fecality

>>7614642

I feel slightly awed after looking at the list of losers.
Is it that good?

>>7615817
I liked it, I think it's a good novel, even with the somewhat forced pro-communist bits.
But it probably shouldn't have beaten Nabokov and Borges.

>>7615501

In addition to the meanings behind the word 'read', there are layers to be gleaned from 'this' as well. Did OP read the book, or the image, a la Maigret? Which pronoun has what referent? A White Horse Is Not A Horse, after all.