>>8282112
It's on the pile. Should I?

>>8282112

Yes.

Growth of the Soil is better.

no but i promise i'll get around to it eventually

I tried to read it when I was younger and at a lower reading level and I just got too lost in the way he would write

>>8282119
Yes

>>8282311
dubs

transcendentalism is fucking stupid so there better be more to it than that

>>8282112
Read it in high school. AP Lang teacher practically lived his life by the wise teachings of the book, so he was knowledgeable and incredibly helpful with analysis and went really in-depth into every idea the book presented and from all angles. It was my first experience with more 'real' analysis of literature; I didn't care too much for the book itself, but that experience in class I must say I thoreauly enjoyed. :)

>>8283456
Boston WASPs with too much money-ism

It's in my kindle library, to be read after Siddhartha, which is to be read after 2666, which is to be read after Catch-22. I'm getting there anon I'm getting there

I'll read once I've read all the good books.

>>8283463
:-)

garbage author

passivist manchild baby

>>8283602
>to be read after Siddhartha, which is to be read after 2666, which is to be read after Catch-22.
So before the end of the weekend then?

It's a required thing for our highschool.

>>8284003
>So before the end of the weekend then?
>"2666 is over 1100 pages long in its Spanish edition"
I wish

>reading Walden when you can read Industrial Society and its Future in half the time

>>8282112
Couldn't get through it. I like his whole "let's make my vacation profound" shtick but he's too hardline about it.

>>8286339
kekekek

I've read enough to know that I'm probably not interested in ever reading it