I just read the first volume. Why should anyone even bother writing anymore if this guy just analyzed human consciousness so brilliantly it is hard to grasp?
Yeah, it's only worth writing about topics besides consciousness.
Joyce and Proust basically nailed it
Post some examples. Otherwise I'm just going to assume you're a bandwagon-jumper.
Who?
>>8185824
>he thinks Search of Lost Time is anything but fancy phrases with forced "deep" stuff to tie them together
What can you gather from the first volume, anyway? That we remember stuff because we smell or taste something? That people sometimes fall in love because they like paintings? At least don't admit your ignorance if you want to be taken seriously.
because you haven't got to the rape or dykes yet
Proust used to hire out hotel rooms to torture puppies with pins
>>8185867
For a long time, I went to bed early :^) read it fucker
>>8185887
>fancy phrases with forced "deep" stuff to tie them together
Isnt this what literature is? And how is that a bad thing?
>>8185889
There are dykes in the first volume though.
>>8185887
what did you gather at all from literature? That humans love and hate and life is meaningless and stuff? At least don't admit your ignorance and study STEM.
>>8185951
they don't get really scary til the later books.
>>8185962
I'll have something to look forward then, thanks!
>>8185887
>fell for the depth meme
how old are u?
>>8185996
>don't understand what I'm saying.
you aren't really saying much, senpai
>>8185867
Proust can't be sampled. The comparison to Joyce is in this respect apt. Both these writers—though in Proust the effect is all the more subtle, making quotation all the more difficult—consciousness is effectively simulated not at the level of content—the narrator's individual memories in Proust, and Bloom's particular thought-fragment-obsessions in Joyce, are hardly important as such—but rather at the level of form, in which the novel itself, indeed reckoning the reader herself into its process of production, by the very turning of its pages, becomes the locus of a remembering-machine which, by our own act of reading it, we come to recognize in ourselves.
>>8186039
I'm OP and you're literally replying to different posters every time as if you're having an argument with a single one. Also, your argument is kinda weak as it reduces the point that Proust is trying to make to very simple observations and excludes his excessive introspection and his profound knowledge of human desires and how the interact with the way we shape the objects around us. I have to admit I still have to catch up on the rest of this very long journey but it isn't like I didn't admit that in my post, sorry about not reading a book with 3500 pages in one go while I finish my degree. Your false sense of superiority makes you seem like a bitter basement dweller tbqh. Rethink your life and never visit a Proust thread again.
>>8186048
Bravo. That was a tour de farce of bullshit. To avoid hypocrisy, I must admit that I too have let drop tall heaping paddies to bake in the sun of this illustrious virtual meadow.
DICKSQUAD
>>8186124
>it reduces the point that Proust is trying to make
And what is this point, pray?
>his excessive introspection and his profound knowledge of human desires and how the interact with the way we shape the objects around us
These are just empty words that can literally be applicable to any classical author.
>never visit a Proust thread again
Fine, I'll let you pseuds who only read the first book discuss it and tell yourselves how intelligent you are for reading this.
Again, I never said I don't appreciate the book (the first one, at least), just that its qualities don't really lie in the analyzing of the human consciousness. Very often the characters' actions don't make any sense (why was Swann so in love? why did he marry Odette after she blatantly told him she cucked him with multiple men?) and they don't have any background. I loved the minor characters like Madame Verdurin or Vinteuil, but the bulk of the book is just trying to add by force some very dubious actions for the sake of having a plot. It will become more obvious in the second volume.
And I don't really understand where you saw this excessive introspection in the first book. It's just a kid remembering how he used to crave his mother's kisses and the places where he grew up. It doesn't even come close to something like Notes from the Underground or A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man.
If you have brains and want to prove me wrong, your next reply will have examples from the text instead of calling me a bitter basement dweller.
Do you guys happen to know some site with extensive amount of paintings? All those ages and most important paintings and authors in each?
>>8186222
>you pseuds
Stopped reading there.
>>8186222
>cucked
stopped reading there
>>8186222
>brains
Stopped reading there
>>8186222
>Very often the characters' actions don't make any sense
You are the one who doesn't understand how they make sense, dummy. You reducted of the entire thing to their characters, and still couldn't grasp the humanity in them. Like the humanity that makes us do weird stuff like what you said made no sense.
You have to grasp human condition better, that's what I gattered. Read more, read better.
>>8186222
Wish I'd stopped reading at "it", thanks for the spoiler alerts you bitter basement dwelling choad artist.
>>8185898
get your memes straight, man. It wasn't puppies, it was rats.
If you like that sort of thing, move on to Robbe-Grillet when you're done.
>>8186788
>Like the humanity that makes us do weird stuff like what you said made no sense.
Fair point, this might be the case. But still, you could say this about any book with bad characters and say that "well, people do random stuff sometimes lmao". I prefer realist novelists like Tolstoy, in whose books you can really understand each character and the decisions they take. Those are the novels that really delve deep into the human consciousness.
>>8186878
Pro-tip: if you haven't read a book, don't fucking read threads about it.
>>8185887
It's people like you, with your tendency to reduce things into crude, simplistic themes and ideas, who will never be able to enjoy a writer like Proust. You misunderstand him entirely.
>>8187185
That's because people aren't completely rational beings but driven by emotions and associating thought, not the "Point A leads to Point B and that's why he fell in love" that Tolstoy uses. Proust paints a far more extensive picture of the irrational, associating parts of human interaction. You seem unable to comprehend those themes.
>>8187489
And you seem unable to comprehend Tolstoy
