Just finished Heart of Darkness by Conrad. That being said:
ITT books that would for sure piss of SJW's.
Pic related
>>7682995
>books that would for sure piss of SJW's.
all good books piss off SJWs
>>7683012
This book should piss off the kind of people who get pissed off at sjws though
>>7683012
I don't see how it would piss off SJWs. I feel like Ignatius spouting shit about "much degeneracy, muh decadence" would piss /pol/ off more desu
Heart of Darkness is probably the worst novel I've ever read.
>>7684123
Wuhhhh... Hopefully you were offended by t because the prose is gorgeous
SJWs doesn't read books
>>7683027
Myrna is an SJW. She tried to teach the Negro how they were being oppressed and was ultimately ignored.
Ignatius is a currently unrealized archetype. The moralizing conservative who tries to lead the savages and degenerates to salvation, where their guidance 'incidentally' requires an increase in power and authority. I imagine an American temperance movement leader or any other similar situation where people found opportunities to expand religious (and personal) power under the guise of social progress - Toole may have had the Civil Rights movement in mind.
>>7682995
Despite the descriptive passages, Conrad is clearly disgusted by what is going on around him. If you are interested in it, read King Leopold's Ghost or The Crime of the Congo by Arthur Conan Doyle.
>>7684373
I wasn't offended, no. I found the prose horrible. What about it did you like?
There's no ambiguity to any theme or sentence structure. Every description is overt and not evocative at all. It's a collection of sentences like 'the pretty tree was tremendously profound and moved with a such a mysterious air that my trembling heart picked up a pace or two.'
Nothing but adverbs and broadcasting.
>>7682995
>>7684422
>no ambiguity
How is that a bad thing?
>>7684534
Because similar to how I want room to imagine an image, or what an image is supposed to look like and its intended effect (instead of being told 'the tree was disconsolately beautiful,' or something like that) I want room to think about the themes of what I'm reading, what exactly they're trying to get across. If I didn't get anything out of the prose from HOD that I couldn't have just gotten out of a simple synopsis and regurgitation of its themes - so, why bother reading it then?
>>7684543
I haven't read HOD, but I don't understand your mindset. Why bother slogging through tons of convoluted gibberish when you can simply say "the sky was blue" and move on with your life?
Simple prose is a good thing. It helps convey complex ideas in a way everyone can understand them.
>>7684555
I don't disagree with you - simple prose has its utilities. The problem is that Conrad's prose isn't simple. He wouldn't say 'the sky is blue,' he would say 'the mysterious sky was remarkably blue in such a fantastic way that it conjured within me a deep feeling of fantastic and rogueish peace gazing up astonished at its cloudy depths.'
That's literally his prose style.
>>7684566
Oh dear. Yeah, that's pretty.. um.. yeah.
I'd still read it just for the sake of it, though.
>>7684576
>>7684566
Quick question to you two gentlemen.
Have you both studied literature, even in a minor capacity, to be able to understand and appreciate styles, forms and attractiveness of writing or is it just from your own reading and erudition that you can evaluate a mans writing and decided whether it is good or not?
Unless the writing is atrocious, even with screenplays, tv remotes etc I will not be able to say if it is bad or not.
While I was reading that "quote" I was legitimately thinking 'thats some nice writing'.
>>7684566
friendly reminder that its all subjective and just because you have a vendetta against a great book ( proabably because youre a libcuck and it triggers you) doesn't mean the book is not great.
>>7684400
Ignatius is /pol/ wtf are you talking about.
>>7684607
I honestly think it would be an interesting read. But yeah, if it's always like that I bet I'll find it a bit annoying every now and then :)
I'm sorry if you mistook me for one of the autistic, pretentious /lit/ dwellers though. I actually enjoy some books /lit/ would loathe.
>>7684607
I've formally studied literature only on the most entry-level. It's a passion, not a career. But I mean, this is Conrad. Many have spoken against his prose - Nabokov most famously.
>While I was reading that "quote" I was legitimately thinking 'thats some nice writing'.
Well I wrote that trying to make it as bad as possible, but 'bad' to me is probably good to someone else. I wouldn't argue against subjectivity - all I ever asked was what about the prose was good to someone while explaining what about it I thought was bad, and I received no very good defense.
>>7684609
I'm not a liberal.
>>7682995
only if you horribly misread the book
Conrad basically says that the Africans have just as much culture as the white people (on hearing the drumming in the distance, he compares with church hymns), but that despite how advanced/regressed our cultures our, we still have the potential for evil in our heart.
Chinua Achebe was bitching only because it was written by a man who, despite english being his third language, remains a far better writer than Chinua will ever be.
>>7684411
Yeah, but sjws are still triggered by him. Look up Chinua Achebe's essay about Heart of Darkness. That's what is usually held up as a counterweight.
