ITT: Unpopular opinions regarding literature that you wholeheartedly hold.
Prepare for ruffled feathers.
Heart Of Darkness is bad.
The best bits of Blood Meridian is the shock value. The book holds very little else in redeeming quality.
Neil Gaiman is bound to go down as one of neo-America's classic writers and he will be cited and quoted 50 years after his death. He's partly enjoyable but mainly because he panders to Tumblr-tards.
The Dark Materials trilogy is really the only YA-fiction people should read outside of young adulthood.
Conan Doyle was right: Sherlock is a bad series of books.
People on /lit/ don't discover literature themselves and rely heavily on what they find on charts and what they hear about on /lit/, which is why everyone just reads the same shit over and over.
I bet you niggas can't even tell me who Yorick is without looking it up. I bet none of you actually read.
>>8132228
Complete Akira > Watchmen and other Alan Moore-core.
romeo & juliet is shit
>>8132243
Hamlet's one of the most popular pieces of literature ever dude
>>8132243
he was a fellow of infinite jest :)
>>8132243
>People on /lit/ don't discover literature themselves and rely heavily on what they find on charts and what they hear about on /lit/,
whats wrong with that? do you go to the book store and pick books out at random?
>>8132228
Nietzsche ripped off Stirner, which is ultimately pointless as Schopenhauer (Nietzsche's predecessor) was right anyway.
Reading about reading is far superior than reading.
>>8132567
It leads to things being popular because they are popular and lauded without any point of reference. Reading from a meme-core chart can open doors, but it more often gets in the way of doing actual research. Spoon-feeding is a bad habit to get into.
>>8132633
Speaking frankly, I don't know how to find information other than having it spoon-fed to me. I've tried exercises such as reading only primary sources and avoiding commentary of any sort, but I'm still just following this chart or that guy's recommendation, or this wiki list of writers from x time.
How does one have an opinion?
>>8132633
And yet discussion of books between people are the only way to find worthwhile stuff to read, unless you do what the other anon said and randomly select shit. What would you rather see?
>>8132228
A book doesn't need to be patrician to be good.
>>8132559
Is everybody in IJ a fellow of infinite jest?Because right now I think so
>>8132579
>far superior than reading
evidently not
>>8132228
pynchon is shit
dfw is shit
joyce is shit
99.99999% of post-war literature is shit
>>8133478
Damn right
Wallace Stevens is the greatest poet of all time.
Kurt Vonnegut is corny but good (not mutually exclusive).
Nietzsche was correct about many things and deserves all of the credit he receives. At the very least, he rebutted the pessimism put forth by Schopenhauer with fiery prose, psychological nuance, and intellectual courage.
Camus is a hack who did little more than redress Nietzsche's ideas in palatable terms. Happy Sisyphus and the Ubermensch are fundamentally the same. Camus is only venerated because he was hot, cool, and died young
Hunter S. Thompson is overrated.
Aristotle was an infinitely better philosopher than Plato. By extension, Empiricism should not be feared, and mathematical platonism is the only useful or interesting form of platonism which remains.
Catch 22 is fucking garbage.
The fact that Utilitarian is a normie philosophy does not make it wrong. In fact, it's totally correct, despite how nebulous the definition of collective happiness may be.
Shakespeare is slightly overrated.
Nabokov's work suffers because it is thematically empty. His novels function not as artistic communication but as beautifully crafted puzzles. I like puzzles, but I am rarely moved by them. Nabokov sought to engender the sublime -- or, as he calls it "that tremble in the spine," or something -- through style, but forgot to unify his work with purpose (which is a must in this medium). The sole exception may be Lolita, which is almost accidentally profound.
>>8133496
Hehe, I used reverse psychology on you >:)
>>8133506
>>8133627
kek fucking trolled you angry bruh?
>>8132575
>Nietzsche ripped off Stirner
I agree with this but not that second thing.
>>8133630
damn... you sure got me, Haha upboated :)
>>8133604
>utilitarians are correct
>>8133604
I agree with most of what you said, will check out Wallace Stevens.
I'd like to date Ayn Rand, make her understand she a cutie, then abduct her and keep her in my dungeon where I will devise sexual predicaments based around denying objectivism.
Same thing with Rowling, forcing her to appreciate classics (making her orgasm when I read real literature and spanking her when reading YA).
I have no plans for GRRM.
>>8133649
Rad. Hope I didn't set your expectations too high. I love Wallace's work because it alligns with all of my preferences (it is dense, thematic, and imagistic). You might leave disappointed if you're more into clarity and narrative.
>>8132239
Why do you think Heart of Darkness is bad?
Yui and Ritsu are the best girls. Mio and Azusa are overrated.
Also, The Stranger isn't very good and Albert Camus' position as an important existentialist is the biggest academic sham of the 20th century.
>>8133604
>Hunter S. Thompson is overrated.
You shut your whore mouth.
>>8133727
I'm not that anon, but I found the prose to be empty and repetitive. I felt like I was dredging though reading it, I read it twice and hated it twice
>>8132575
>Nietzsche ripped off Stirner
This
>>8133748
I am nodding my head so hard right now. Let's be friends.
Shakespeare is not overrated
>>8133786
What do you mean by the prose being repetitive? I could understand finding the novel thematically repetitive, for Conrad designs almost every element to serve his thematic ends (e.g., the entire river passage would be useless if stripped of its symboling meaning); I could also understand finding the plot repetitive, as the novel is paced like an amputee running a fucking marathon. However, I think the novel is stylistically awesome. I got the "idea" of HOD within the first few pages, but Conrad never ceased to engage me with the ways in which he stylistically transposed that idea through metaphor and symbol.
>>8133886
lit loves Shakespeare, dude. How is that an unpopular opinion?
>>8133748
Ritsu is my favorite desu.
Also Jean-Paul Sartre is not a very good writer or philosopher.
>>8133668
...
>>8133668
>Same thing with Rowling, forcing her to appreciate classics (making her orgasm when I read real literature and spanking her when reading YA).
Joyce wasn't great and he was not even the best stream of consciousness writer
also Mugi is best girl and she only sleeps with quiet and friendless white American guys like me, not blacks
>>8133604
>Camus is a hack who did little more than redress Nietzsche's ideas in palatable terms. Happy Sisyphus and the Ubermensch are fundamentally the same. Camus is only venerated because he was hot, cool, and died young
Camus is a hack as far as philosophy goes but he was a decent novelist desu.
>>8133604
Hey Stevens bro. I can't help wishing I could be your friend. Unfortunately the internet is not conducive to my rather restricted notion of friendship. I didn't even agree with all you said. But re: Stevens and Aristotle, I agree, except I think that Rumi is a better poet in a substantive sense. I don't know Persian, mind you, but I still think Stevens is the most technically proficient poet.
Dead on about Nabokov.
I think on a societal level utilitarianism is a necessary evil, but on a more individual level utterly stifling.
Nietzsche's entire philosophy was a way of justifying not killing himself despite being a sickly lonely loser.
Schopenhauer's entire philosophy was a way of justifying being a miserable cunt despite having it all.
>>8133604
Most of these are pretty true, especially Vonnegut who gets thrown out way too harshly on here. I disagree about Camus and Nabokov though.
Camus is Nietzsche minus one key point; Nietzsche's solution is that the Ubermensch must _create_ his meaning, his values. In Camus' view inventing yourself a meaning is simply another way of dodging the problem because that creation is arbitrary; you're just deluding yourself. Camus owes no more debt to Nietzsche than the entire existentialist and absurdist (because Camus has to be a hipster with his own special label) movements.
I don't really think Nabokov "forgot to unify his work with purpose". Nabokov was very much a stylist; his purpose was to create beautiful works, not necessarily to package up a moral in a novel. The fact that his books aren't trying to teach you something doesn't discredit them.
>>8133977
You are not familiar with Schopenhauer's philosophy.
>>8133604
>Nabokov's work is thematically empty
You were doing pretty well there, and then you had to go and say something unbelievably retarded.
>>8133977
You are not familiar with cock philosophy.
I think the best American novels and poems are better than the best English (England) novels and poems.
Absalom Absalom! was not very good at all.
Blood Meridian nearly matches up to Moby Dick in terms of aesthetic splendour-- and the folks here that despise BM are literally just too stupid to enjoy it
Ulysses doesn't live up to its name
Pound was a complete shit poet
Byron is canon because he was coolguy and friends with Shelley and Keats
Shelley was a sloppy poet
Harold Bloom has good taste but is a poor critic (Whitman is not as insanely profound as Bloom thinks)
Hart Crane was the best modernist
stillicide is the best english word
>>8134004
i am desu
>>8133932
She actually doesn't sleep with anyone until marriage like an upright and proper Christian girl, you fucking pig.
>>8134034
Not even that controversial (novels) and absolutely retarded (poems).
>>8134050
Pound is a good artist, okay poet. Same with Hemingway, good artist, bad author.
Byron is canon because he took the sublimeness of french and brought it into the English language. Shakespeare is good but it tithers on the precipice of sublime and eeks into the same English poetics.
My opinion? Tolstoy is worth learning russian for.
>>8134000
>In Camus' view inventing yourself a meaning is simply another way of dodging the problem because that creation is arbitrary; you're just deluding yourself.
Perhaps I just don't understand Camus, then. I always thought that Absurdism boiled down to "the universe is meaningless. Do whatever helps makes it bearable and embrace its meaninglessness." If this is is the case, would "embracing its meaningless" not be interchangeable with "saying yes to life," and would "doing whatever makes it bearable" not be interchangeable with "find your own meaning"? Nietzsche seems to define "meaning" and "purpose" in the same way that Camus defines "raging against the Absurd" - that is, creating something out of nothing, while denying any objective essence, in order to make life livable.
>The fact that Nabokov's books aren't trying to teach you something doesn't discredit them.
While I find the phrasing "trying to teach you something" a bit reductive, as it characterizes theming as pedantic, I do see what you mean. The problem is that I fundamentally disagree with both you and Nabokov. It all boils down to personal aesthetic values. I believe that purpose/theme elevates and enrichens art, and is especially necessary in the medium of literature. At the very least, I find that the purposelessness of Nabokov's work makes it less beautiful.
>>8134101
Mugi is half-Finn. She worships Tengri like all true Finns.
^'saying yes to life' sounds too much like the title of a Tony Robbins book
>>8134050
all wrong except about bloom
Damn straight.
>>8132247
I mean..yeah. Of course Akira is better.
>>8134161
Yeah, the thing about Nabokov is largely a matter of taste.
Absurdism, Camus specifically, rejects the idea that you can ever succeed in finding meaning. However, and this is where it distinguishes itself from nihilism, it does not reject the idea that you should look.
The analogy of Sisyphus is the canonical one. You can't succeed, and you have no hope of succeeding, but you carry on in spite of it.
This is basically what Camus is trying to say.
>>8134161
camus = kierkegaard - christianity
Prequel books to Dune are more entertaining then the original Dune.
>>8133748
DONT YOU THINK YOU'RE FORGETTING SOMEONE ANON?
>/a/
>>8132567
1) Delve further into the bibliography of writers you've already enjoyed.
2) Find the writers and artists that inspired/influenced their writing and read them.
3) Find classics that aren't so frequently discussed - recommendations are not a bad thing inherently but you should also learn to decide for yourself whether something sounds like your cup of tea or not.
4) Look at the writers that are popular today and see what it is their diluting to sell to the mainstream.
Nothing wrong with using charts and relying on recommendations - I always like recommendations and it brings literature into a social scenario if you hit it off with someone (plus, I think recommending books to people who read is a recommendation that's more likely to be taken seriously rather than casually shrugged off). However, it also feels very rewarding to discover writers you never knew about before/others might not have heard of. Sometimes it can be as simple as picking up a book at random from the store, as long as you've read the blurb and thumbed through it briefly to see if it's enticing.
>We could probably do without psychoanalysis in general and we definitely should throw out all French psychoanalysis (and all it has inspired). Starting with that chucklehead Lacant.
>Most of French philosophy is absolutely overhyped and the only reason it is still considered is because people like to romanticize the meaningless culture and life stiles it propagates.
>Hegel is bae.
>Schopenhauer actually came to the conclusion that phenomenology was the solution to all his problems, but he was too depressed to realize it.
>Dogen Zenji may just be one of the most underappreciated philosophers of our time.
>As a whole, phenomenology hasn't been as fleshed out as it should be by now.
>Greek themes and structures are not nearly as relevant as most people make them out to be and they have become quite obnoxious. Especially in poetry.
>We have fully explored sex in every art-form and philosophy and can stop now, as it has become nothing more than cheap attention whoring.
>The current Dalai Lama isn't a smart man and quite frankly a bit of an asshole and it shows in his books.
That's it for now. But I have many more unpopular opinions.
>>8133668
> forcing Rowling to appreciate classics
Nigga, you stupid. She's hugely fond of the classics, she never shuts up about Austen, Bronte or Shakespeare.
>>8133748
> Mio
> overrated
You shut your mouth.
Mugi is pretty cool. Why does nobody like Mugi.
>>8133932
Nah, Mugi is a dirty girl when her parents are out of the house.
Poppin that pussy to Young Jeezy.
>>8135937
I kinda agree about sexual representations. If it serves little to the narrative or theme, it always seems somewhat gratuitous to me, no matter what medium. Although I could just be a prude.
Žižek is a pseudointellectual fool who doesn't even know his Hegel that well.
The world would be better off once Chomsky dies (his theories of linguistics verge on the ridiculous at times).
Stephen Pinker is a fool.
Things Fall Apart is a bad book about perhaps the most unlikeable and unsympathetic group of faggots ever. It's filled with dangling plot threads and whomever Achebe intended me to feel bad for failed miserably.
Infinite Jest has some brilliant moments but it's so bogged down in show-offy crap that it's virtually unreadable. DFW was a huge show-off who had to be a smartass about everything and it shows. His style is irritating and I'm increasingly convinced the errors he made in IJ were not intentional.
Just because something in writing is on purpose doesn't make it good or acceptable.
Sylvia Plath is good.
People are capable of, and probably do, think and see things differently. It's just easier to pretend otherwise. The world is trending towards monotony; barring a global war nationalists and identitarians are prolonging the inevitable.
Azusa a shit.
I don't read for intellectual reasons, only for prose and feels.
>>8134161
>At the very least, I find that the purposelessness of Nabokov's work makes it less beautiful.
I don't think I agree with you that Nabokov's stuff is thematically bankrupt, though. He just happens to hammer home roughly the same stuff with each novel.
He's big on people's inability to achieve permanent, fulfilling transcendence (be that through love or art), and that shows up in most of his oeuvre.
>>8136233
> Just because something in writing is on purpose doesn't make it good or acceptable.
> Sylvia Plath is good
Not unpopular opinions at all. Ariel and The Bell Jar are considered modern classics and intentionally writing something isn't bound to make it good, which is why JK Rowling's intention of writing the Harry Potter series is a good example of that.
>>8136233
>I'm increasingly convinced the errors he made in IJ were not intentional.
Bullshit
>>8136233
> People are capable of, and probably do, think and see things differently
No shit, faggot.
>>8136272
Everything and More is filled with errors because he was a show-offs faggot. I don't think it's unfeasible that the occasional incorrect usage of long words or mistranslations/misattributions are errors.
>>8136262
With the former point I was talking about retards that are like "oh this book is filled with errors/long and boring/meandering and sloppy/vague and unclear on purpose so that makes it not shit." I'm all for making the reader have to work at fully comprehending a book and experimental literature, but I also believe the purpose of writing is communication, and to stop short of that is just poor, regardless of whether it was on purpose.
I don't think you need to read to be a good writer. Not in the traditional sense of sitting down with literature, at least.
>>8136322
I bet your writing is shit. You can really tell if a writer doesn't read much, everything in their work seems diluted, superficial and one-dimensional. Genuinely, if you don't read much and you want to seriously write, it'll show in your work.
>>8135948
Well, I am no prude.
But the use of sexual themes more often than not is a cheap trick to demand attention. And at some point it just hyper-stimulates. Not to mention that, when used in excess, it detracts from any possible nuanced experience one may have.
I just don't know, dude. Maybe it's just that many creators have become so calloused to it my mere exposure, that they have to go to new extremes to create the same experience.
Or it is as it seems. A cheap theme to pick, rationalized with regurgitated social criticisms, which aren't relevant anymore. Plastering an atelier with six feet high HD close ups of genetalia isn't offensive because we as a culture are prudish. It's offensive because it became such a norm, that we need a break from it. It's at the point where sex scenes in film are becoming straight up porn, because they so desperately want to have the same effect in an increasingly jaded society.
I'm at the point that every time someone shows me contemporary art or /lit/ with this shit, that my first question is "What's the added value here?" I shit you not, I've had selling artists tell me "Because it's hot lol."
>I know this upsets me more than it should.
>>8136334
I read constantly, I just rarely sit down with novels because I don't have that kind of attention span. But I'll read short stories, I'll read the news, I'll read textbooks and academic journals and essays, I mean, I'm reading what you just wrote right now. I don't think I'm personally a particularly good writer because it's not something I've ever really practiced, but I don't think that not being able to commit to reading long form writing would be what stopped me.
Wuthering Heights is the only masterpiece written by a woman.
>>8136337
I understand your concern completely. Don't worry, man. It's pretty refreshing to find someone who feels similarly about this type of thing. I'm not against sexual portrayals, but if they serve no purpose other than "Because it's hot lol" then it just seems immature, and I think quite a lot of portrayals of sex in media is just that. Immature. It makes sense they'd portray it for extra attention but even then that's not enough reason, imo, for it to really be used.
>>8136352
Maybe you should try practicing your reading. Like, maybe if you think your attention span isn't long enough, try reading a few novellas or plays (they're, more often than not, reading material you can finish in a day or a weekend).
>>8132567
I actually do this. I'll look at a title or author and just Google them to see if they have any good books.
I like reading Light novels in between western novels.
It's like an mouthwash for my train of thought.
I haven't finished Infinite jest. But at least I can spell methamphetamine.
>>8136357
Are you being contrarian for the sake of it, my man?
What about To The Lighthouse? The Bell Jar? Frankenstein? What about George Eliot or Elizabeth Gaskell's writings? I know men are very prominent as writers but I'd be surprised if you didn't at least enjoy another classic written by a woman.
>>8132567
Sometimes, yes. I'll go to the section of the shop that most appeals to me and see what there is by browsing extensively. Reading blurbs, maybe the first chapter or two, see if it's what appeals to me. I've picked up some of my favourite books like this. Sometimes it's just nice to take a chance like that.
Literary theory has ruined the English Department.
>>8136368
I can't finish ten page articles out of readers in a single sitting even when I enjoy the material and took my ADHD meds. Believe me that I've tried and I'd like to be able to, but I honestly can't name the last book I read cover to cover.
I understand how reading literature would obviously be an asset to any person wanting to write, but I think pinning writing ability on any one quality is essentializing the process and negates the beauty of diversity in thought. There isn't any one unifying factor that makes good writing because there isn't only one kind of good writing.
>>8132567
If you know literature and know your taste you know what to look for.
>>8136360
>Don't worry, man.
But it's getting worse and worse. T_T
Pic related; it's one of the most successful German photopgraphers right now.
And nobody in the scene calls anyone out on this BS, because it would be "prudish".
>fml; this is why I like Thoreau
>>8136418
Hey Anon! Over here!
>>8136489
HI WHO'S THERE
>>8136462
Man, that image is so tacky. If you didn't mention that the photographer was German, I'd have assumed it was straight out of Portland, Oregon.
The Beats are horribly underrated on /lit/ and if anything should be credited as the last poetry movement to actually be relevant in their own time.
Rimbaud's story is more interesting than any of his poetry.
>>8136504
The beats are horribly overrated and have spawned endless waves of students grasping for profundity in trite drug discussions
>>8136504
Beats are pretty overrated elsewhere, anon
Personally I don't mind Burroughs but I've never found much substance in the rest of the movement
>>8136501
It's at the point that I almost every modeling friend I know has been asked to strip at shoots which never stated there would be akt/nudes. It just became the norm. And I'm not talking creepy Craigslist shoots, but published artists you know by name.
Shit, dude. I've had to start giving female models advice on how an airtight contract has to look, if they don't want their ass out there in the world, should they ever want to be in a public position.
>>8136540
>a luxury pimp browses /lit/
>>8136562
Nope, just happen to live in those kind of cities for unrelated reasons.
Saying shit like "all of Freuds theories are complete shit" or "Nietzsche was just a maniac" discredits your opinion. It's simply almost impossible that a relatively intelligent person who spent their life thinking about philosophy/psychology/whatever never had some good thoughts. Even if you despise someones philosophy you should take them seriously.
Young adult fiction is perfectly respectable reading material
>>8132243
Yorick is a fictional character in William Shakespeare's play Hamlet. He is the dead court jester whose skullis exhumed by the gravedigger in Act 5, Scene 1, of the play.
>>8137144
If the only good thoughts someone had were straight up stolen, then I can.
Freud being a prime example of someone who took some contemporary ideas from psychological laboratories (concepts like biographical factors of childhood and psychological mechanisms you are unaware of) all around Germany and then added a whole bunch of BS out of thin air, raping the philosophical term "lust" in the process, because he almost exclusively did "research" on sexually repressed prolétariat women.
The only reason he and his derivatives are relevant today, is because he fled to France, due to the university of Vienna setting up psychoanalysis in the pedagogy institute instead of psychology. That and because the whole sexual liberation thing. And the fact that psychoanalysis does that annoying thing of Kafka-trapping all critics.
If anyone starts backing up their argument with psychoanalytical thesis, you can pretty much disregard it all. Because you know that person has no clue at all about empirical evidence management or forming a non-circular argument. And if you chose to humor them, you can be damn sure that they will barrage you with endless anecdotes and a lot of "obviously"s.
I hope these are going to rustle at least someone.
1) Brothers Karamazov is not worth its fame even among Dostoyevsky's other works.
Despite having an awesome (double?) 'twist', it drags on way too much in multiple segments and delves into pointless theological discussion the point of which seems to be to cement the author's worldview and ridicule strawmen characters.
2) Naked Lunch is an overly long /b/ troll post from decades before /b/ existed, and if you really read it through, you have problems.
K-ON! manga is better than the anime adaptation.
>>8137257
you are objectively wrong
the anime brought more popularity, which meant more porn, so the anime is better
>>8137272
>fapping to K-ON!
Are you a monster?
TBK is only good up until the murder.
1) You can count on one hand the number of good books written after 1900
2) You can count on one hand the number of good books written before 1800
3) Every popular piece of Russian literature is, in essence, glorified Bible-bashing
4) The study of metaphysics has done nothing (or even, more harm than good) to address the fundamental problem that metaphysics raised.
5) We could lose the entire French literary tradition, and be no poorer for it. Dare I say, richer even.
6) Erotica requires more talent/skill than any other genre.
That's all I got, for now.
>>8137417
Contrarian/10.
>>8137417
>1) You can count on one hand the number of good books written after 1900
Agreed.
>2) You can count on one hand the number of good books written before 1800
Only if you have read only five books, pleb.
>3) Every popular piece of Russian literature is, in essence, glorified Bible-bashing
No.
>4) The study of metaphysics has done nothing (or even, more harm than good) to address the fundamental problem that metaphysics raised.
You're full of shit.
>5) We could lose the entire French literary tradition, and be no poorer for it. Dare I say, richer even.
100% agreed.
>6) Erotica requires more talent/skill than any other genre.
That ain't umpopular, I guess.
>>8137417
>2) You can count on one hand the number of good books written before 1800
>Gilgamesh
>Illiad
>Odyssey
>Eneiad
>Beowulf
>Nibelungenlied
>The Lusiads
>Don Quixote
>Divine Comedy
>every play by Shakespeare
>Utopia
>Paradise Lost
And exept for Gilgamesh I'm just mentioning European stuff.
>>8137449
>Only if you have read only five books, pleb.
I have read almost every notable work of literature from across the world, over the course of several millennia. If you want to know these works, just say.
>No.
You haven't been paying attention, then.
>You're full of shit.
Quite the opposite. Right from the beginning, the entire field of metaphysics has been built upon numerous misconceptions and errors. I will give you a clue, however; Nietzsche, in 'Human, All Too Human', came very close to realizing the truth.
>>8137466
There is one work in your entire list that is actually worthwhile. I will leave you to ponder which.
>>8137417
>5) We could lose the entire French literary tradition, and be no poorer for it. Dare I say, richer even.
You know, I've been trying to come up with some French literature that did anything other than further propagate French literature and I can't think of anything. At least not post-revolution.
>>8137417
4) The study of metaphysics has done nothing (or even, more harm than good) to address the fundamental problem that metaphysics raised.
"I read the introduction from Being and Time" the post
>>8137483
The single one you've read, I guess.
>>8137483
>There is one work in your entire list that is actually worthwhile. I will leave you to ponder which.
At least two things on that list had huge impacts on social thought, you troll.
>>8137483
So, which are them. Both after and before 1800.
>>8137486
Thank you for seeing my point.
>>8137492
I've read the entire work, but it has only partially informed my view. Less than you might think.
>>8137497
Impact and worth are not one in the same.
>>8137498
I'll be with you in a moment.
>>8137483
The three first ones, Shakespeare, Don Quixote and Divine Comedy are already more relevant than your favorite century, Mr. pleb.
>>8137417
ROmanticism is objectively one of the most heinous literary movements.
Just read more Baroque.
>>8137505
>Impact and worth are not one in the same.
Introducing romance, making huge additions to a language and revolutionizing European theatre is worth a whole bunch. And that was Shakespear alone, you cuck.
Let's see if you can find the pun in there.
>>8137505
What does make a book work reading?
I bet you read for fun.
Pre-1800 (in no particular order):
1) The Oresteia
2) Bhagavad Gita
3) Mencius
4) Sallust
5) Utopia
Post-1800 (in no particular order):
1) Siddhartha
2) The World as Will and Representation
3) A Tale of Two Cities
4) Human, All Too Human
5) Cloud Atlas
>>8133786
>I didn't enjoy it = It's bad
>>8137560
>>8137560
I want to talk shit, but this is actually not a bad list.
>>8132243
The defense mechanisms people will allow themselves to construct just so they may feel superior to the people they associate themselves with.
>>8137560
jesus
h
christ
>>8137560
Patrician /lit/erati as fuck.
>>8137224
>Kafka-trapping
>>>/reddit/
>>8137635
He's not wrong.
>>8137560
You got me.
Fucking KYS.
>>8137560
>Bhagavad Gita
Dear patrician, pleased to make your acquaintance.
>>8137560
>>8133506
What's the 0.00001% that isn't shit?
>>8137693
Lotr and Lolita.
Based 1955.
>>8137670
Any time, friend. Glad to help any aspiring /lit/izens.
>>8137560
>5) Cloud Atlas
Literally genre fiction.
>>8137560
How the fuck was that kind of undergarnment called again? It's on the tip of my tongue.
>>8137716
>Implying it's not the Ulysses of our time
>>8137719
>It's on the tip of my tongue.
Pervert.
>>8137719
Silken tap pants.
>>8132247
/co/ and /r9k/ fuck off from this board.
>>8137747
Thank you.
Now I know what to buy for every gf from here on out.
>>8132228
something /lit/ hates is actually good
something /lit/ loves is actually shit
>>8137767
something /lit/ ironically likes is unironically good
something /lit/ ironically hates is unironically bad
>>8135937
>says Hegel is bae
>attacks French philosophy/psychoanalysis
>says Greek themes and structures aren't relevant
Top ignorant desu
What % of your understanding of philosophy comes from Wikipedia?
>>8136233
>Zizek doesn't know Hegel
>has written literally thousands of pages on specifically Hegel
>has probably read many times that on/by Hegel
Ayylmao
>>8132575
>Specifying that Schopenhauer was Nietzsche's predecessor
Either you are a complete pseud or people on /lit/ are retarded enough to need this info
>>8137798
>unironically dislikes Hegel
>unironically likes French psychoanalysis
>isn't fucking sick and tired of having Greek mythology shoved down his throat day in and day out
Shit senpai, you seem like someone who spent a lot of time perfecting his smug grin.
Do you vape, bro?
>>8132243
What if you just come to this place as if it were a library, looking for titles and then doing your own research on them to see if they are worth your time?
>>8137806
Both Zizek and Hegel are charlatans, so your point is moot.
>>8137819
>implying I like psychoanalysis
>defense mechanism triggered to cover being outted as a shitposter that has probably never read Hegel
>>8137832
Refer to the second line of >>8137833
The rapper breezly bruin is unironically one of the best poets of the twentieth century.
I've only published one peer-reviewed article of literary analysis, but it is more important to the field than Bloom's entire ouevre (>muh speed-reading).
I don't have any paper so shut up is one of the 10 best books of all time.
Keats fandom is a barometer for people with shit taste in poetry (some exceptions of course).
Flannery O'Connor is overrated.
Borges is a one trick pony. (must admit it's a damned good trick)
>>8137833
Hab ich. Auf Deutsch. Während ich Philosophie in Stuttgart studiert habe, unter anderem bei Professor Luckner.
I think you may have misunderstood the part about the Greeks. I wasn't referencing philosophy but the arts. Theatre in particular.
Also I don't really care about Hegels political views.
Or the whole idea thing.
I just like him in general.
Atlas Shrugged has a god tier plot.
>>8137860
I was referencing Hegel's attitude towards Sophocles in the Phenomenology of Spirit
There is no real distinction between literary and genre fiction, it only matters within the context of marketing.
>>8137879
Literary fiction is Canon-track fiction.
>>8137875
Yeah, Greek plays were relevant two centuries ago...
But I'm quite certain that we are now quite past writing poetry about nymphs and have plays follow the classical theatre structure as if written by first-years.
Personally I just can't help but cringe at it. Overdone doesn't describe it.
>>8137879
>anachronistic fallacy incoming
>>8132228
Joyce is a bore
>>8137853
>but it is more important to the field than Bloom's entire ouevre (>muh speed-reading)
Have you read the visionary company?
>>8132243
I read that shitty post didn't I?
>>8132567
kek. yes.
People say you can't judge a book by its cover but...you can. Also the title. I have found many good books by simply doing this, like Catch 22, Kurt Vonnegut's works, American Psycho, etc. You can just tell they're going to be good. As a bonus, you don't end up reading what everyone else does
>>8137560
I'm going to read "The Ortesia" just because some random dude on 4chan got an above average amount of replies when he mentioned it and sounded smart. I may post about it in the future, we'll see.
>>8137977
>I have found many good books by simply doing this, like Catch 22, Kurt Vonnegut's works, American Psycho, etc.
>you don't end up reading what everyone else does
Mhm.
>>8137977
This. A book is a work of art, and the cover is part of that work of art.
DFW doesn't deserve to be memed on nearly as hard as he is. I think you're all just bullies >:(
>>8138020
damn I just butchered the title
>>8138053
it just happened to turn out that way. But it was of my own independent thought. Also what can you get in a library in the middle of Illinois that hasn't been read by everyone anyway....
>>8138101
>Also what can you get in a library in the middle of Illinois that hasn't been read by everyone anyway....
Do they have the Quran?
>>8137977
nice bait. subtle.
Dostoevsky is by far the greatest novelist to ever live, and Don Quixote is the only non-Dostoevsky novel that can compete with Crime and Punishment, The Idiot, and The Brothers Karamazov.
More people on /lit/ should be accepting of others not liking a classic piece of literature, because so much of what we enjoy comes down to personal taste than good reasons.
>>8138155
For real? Are, like, these 10 people super culturally open or did they mainly want to confirm what FOX News told them?
>>8137919
It's still fucking relevant today for understanding Hegel (and other philosophers for that matter) you god damned neanderthal
East of Eden is a poor example of literature
>>8138391
Understanding content created two centuries ago is not "relevant today". It's just a part of general knowledge.
As I said: Creating new content with Greek themes and structures (particularly in the arts) is overdone and can stop now.
>>8137946
I read the first 20 pages, and realized it was vague dilatory trash. I dodged a bullet by not reading the rest.
Auerbach's Mimesis: Now there's a work of criticism.
>>8132228
Even though /lit/ calls it "high school tier and overrated" over and over, The Great Gatsby is still my favorite book.
>>8132247
TETSUO
>>8134011
NICE ARGUMENT SENPAI
>>8132228
Reading isn't for faggots.
>>8132228
I have lots.
The majority of pre-1900 books are boring
All philosophy texts are either full of pointless obscurantist lingo and swiss-cheese reasoning or are analysing trivialities to autistic levels of rigour
Taipei is a piece of garbage as a book but it deserves some credit for portraying the particular type of 21st-century asshat it does with near-perfect accuracy.
Camus is shit. He did nothing for philosophy and his characters act completely unlike actual people because they're just empty tools for whatever point he was trying to make.
Borges is overrated and largely boring.
Shakespeare is also overrated despite being a good playwright and historically important.
Finnegan's Wake is a prank Joyce pulled on the literary community.
The only reason /lit/ dislikes Murakami or Vonnegut is because they're too popular. Both are good.
>>8137853
what trick?
Most "literature" has no intrinsic worth and is only subjectively appreciable, that is, when one is already in the sufficiently intrepid mood to read a work like Ulysses, etc.; however, there is nothing that makes reading Ulysses or Shakespeare better than reading Stephen King, unless you count the fact that it is a greater exercise for the brain as a good. I've read Ulysses 2 and a half times, about 30 of Shakespeare's plays, a shitload of Faulkner's novels, etc... My life is not significantly better because of it, it was just a good hobby to pass the time. I could just as well have been fulfilled by any other subjective artform or hobby I set my mind to.
shakespeare is purple as fuck, and not in a good way.
>>8132228
Twilight is a good book and should be considered a classic.
>>8134050
>--And he sent me no word? He did not ask you to send me to him? No word to me, no word at all? That was all he had to do, now, today; four years ago or at any time during the four years. That was all. He would not have needed to ask it, require it of me. I would have offered it. I would have said, I will never see post again before he could have asked it of me. He did not have to do this, Anon. He didn't need to tell you I am a pleb to stop me. He could have stopped me without that Anon.
Skim reading is the only proper way to read.
If Stephen king had someone to write his endings for him and somebody to slap him hard when he self inserts his books would be decent.
>>8138841
I didn't even know that was a normal way of reading. I just start skimming when the book gets boring.
What are the pros of reading like this all the time?
>>8137568
Welcome to /lit/, you must be new here
>>8132243
/lit/ is a circlejerk of opinions and memes, but that's like any board here, maybe a little more concentrated because it's smaller.
If nothing else, it gives enough contrarian opinions to make you think about why people like/dislike popular texts, broadening your perspective
/lit/ helped me discover/enjoy Tao Lin, who I never would've heard of otherwise, and also gave me more streamlined access to big, popular, circle-jerky books like Infinite Jest
>>8137693
i don't know but i reckon at least one good book has been written in the past 70 years. i just haven't read it yet.
>>8132243
We've all read Infinte Jest you fig
>>8137977
i haven't laughed this hard in a long time. thanks for that, friend.
>>8138852
you get to be like that one guy on youtube who reads fifty books everyday and drives a lamborghini and keeps his books in his garage.
ITS FUCKING BERENSTEIN NOT BERENSTAIN
mario and the search for the inner spaghetti party quest is the greatest piece of literature ever written
>>8139150
nice try, /pol/.
>>8138863
>enjoy Tao Lin
you're not doing it right
>>8132239
>Heart Of Darkness is bad.
I have to admit I haven't read it for a while but it struck me as a shittier and less interesting moby-dick
>>8135940
Everyone likes Moogles, it's just attention isn't drawn to her as much as the others. But it's always sweet when it is.
There has not been a single philosophical work of consequence written since 1900
>>8133604
>Nabokov's work suffers because it is thematically empty
>writes the same book like four times
>different scenery and plot
>obviously a man with an overarching obsessive theme running through his work
>thematically empty
The fuck is wrong with you m8? That's like saying Stephen King doesn't like to run people over with cars in his books since it happened to him.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOJewWUvZ34
>>8132228
Victorian literature is the most insightful period of commentary on the human condition. We aren't temporally far enough removed from it for most people to realize it.
>>8139320
That's not controversial that's the standard opinion
>>8139320
Any philosophical work produced before Frege was just practice.
K-on is the single greatest narrative of all time
Nothing of true importance can be learned from philosophy, science, arts or theology.
To get to the core of it all, you just need to live authentically. And to do so you need nothing external.
>>8136373
Same here. I usually read King, Koontz, or fantasy. Not going to read Gaiman again. What you read desu
>>8137833
HINT:
the ones pulling down their tops are sluts trying to hide their perforated meatholes
>>8134050
probably one of the plebbiest posters on this board, which is sad cause you definitely think you're smart and well read and insightful and have "good taste"
the definition of pseud desu.
>>8136233
>Infinite Jest has some brilliant moments but it's so bogged down in show-offy crap that it's virtually unreadable. DFW was a huge show-off who had to be a smartass about everything and it shows. His style is irritating and I'm increasingly convinced the errors he made in IJ were not intentional.
Hundred percent agree
>>8138619
I don't have time to spoonfeed you. Google "themes in Nabokov" instead of shitposting.
>>8133668
I'm pretty conventional, but I do think that, given time (by which I mean a few hundred years), people will come to realize that Joyce was better than Shakespeare.
>>8133668
>I'd like to date Ayn Rand, make her understand she a cutie, then abduct her and keep her in my dungeon where I will devise sexual predicaments based around denying objectivism.
I'd pay money for this porn.
Even if I wasn't allowed to fap.
dostoyevski is overrated af
the only greek works you should read are the philosophy ones
shakespeare is overrated
romanticism was a fucking cancer
most of poetry is shit anyway
>>8136402
I think thats pretty obvious to any of us who are in one
>>8139394
Agreed.
People who don't see the truth in communism today, will never be able to see the truth.
>>8138706
muh false humility
>>8132228
Literature is overrated.
>>8137853
>Flannery O'conner is overrated.
I agree, she's only slightly better than Joyce.
BUKOWSKI AINT THAT BAD
>>8133748
>tfw when you're a combination of Yui and Ritsu IRL but with less talent
>>8133604
>forgot to unify his work with a purpose (which is a must in this medium)
what the fuck do you mean by this?
I started out ironically supporting Trump but now I think I will be unironically voting for him, memes have taken over my life.
>>8143554
>I will be unironically voting for him
fucking lel.
I mean, I'll vote for him too but I'm still doing it ironically.
>>8143591
>not wanting to dumb down the masses to feel relatively more patrician
>>8143591
Substantiate your claim.
>>8143621
>implying uni isn't the best place to face others with mild smugness
When the last tree is cut down, the last fish eaten, and the last stream poisoned, you will realize that self study doesn't work.
>>8143637
>implying uni isn't the best place to face others with mild smugness
If you study STEM and face the humanities plebs with smugness? Sure.
Otherwise, hurry up with my coffee.
>>8143625
He's been saying so for months now.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-vows-to-slash-funding-for-education-epa-1452551107
>>8143642
>To Read the Full Story, Subscribe or Sign In
Right...
Full article with proper full interview or gtfo.
>>8143647
You can access it by googling the article. Same for most paywall sites.
>>8143647
Thus fuck? I could read it just before posting.
But I don't really get why I have to back that up. It's common knowledge and an official stance he has been maintaining for months.http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Trump+education+cuts
>>8143660
>We're going to be cutting tremendous amounts of money and waste and fraud and abuse. But, no, I'm not cutting services, but I am cutting spending. But I may cut Department of Education-- Common Core is a very bad thing. I think that it should be local education. If you look at a Jeb Bush and some of these others, they want children to be educated by Washington, D.C. bureaucrats.
If that isn't sensible as fuck, I don't know what is.
Unlike you believe in "white privilege" bullshit and are a big supporter of Common Core to make all of your country's kids equally stupid.
>>8143660
>>8143642
>>8143591
You could've linked this:
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Donald_Trump_Education.htm
It's full of brilliance. Plans to make college tuition go down. Plans to de-implement common core and give back control of education to the individual states. Stuff like
>We're 26th in the world. 25 countries are better than us at education. And some of them are like third world countries. But we're becoming a third world country.
But no, you had to give me misquoted clickbait instead.
>>8132243
Yorick is the priest from The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman, m80 :^)
>>8143668
Further propagating significant differences between educational quality between states instead of working on increasing educational standards throughout is not smart. I fucks over everyone who happens to come from a state with shit education, reducing his job chances and increasing costs further.
It isn't about "white privilege" or "muh free education". It's about having every kid having a reasonable opportunity to make more of himself than he was born into.
White Fang > Call of the Wild
Mrs. Marple > Mr. Poirot
At the Mountains of Madness > The Call of Cthulhu
Authors keep getting appreciated for their inferior works.
