/lit/, let's try something here:
Name an area of literature you generally don't enjoy/strongly dislike (whether it's genre fiction, YA fiction, existentialism, high school-core, postmodernism, etc) and then name an exception to that which you genuinely enjoyed/appreciated.
For me, I strongly dislike YA fiction as it's often derivative and a diluted form of works that influenced it, however I do enjoy the His Dark Materials trilogy for tackling more than just transparent political allegory and creating something that transcends typical YA-ficiton shit.
don't usually like the american southern gothic literature but love Cormac mcCarthy
don't usually like sci-fi but love Philip K Dick and the Strugatsky Bros.
I don't read ethnically diverse authors unless if they're nationalistic like Yukio Mishima
>>7670597
I hate dystopian lit but Brave New World was awesome
I have nothing for sci-fi but "Dune" was amazing
I never saw the appeal for realism but "La Peau de chagrin" was pretty dope
i detest comic books. but Neil Gaiman's Sandman was great
How come all the collages for the book recommendations on the wiki are dead?
>>7670586
What do you mean? I just tried clicking on several of them and they all worked.
By collage you mean the collected recommendation images, like these?
>>7670593
No, the ones with the book downloads http://pastebin.com/Mg6JwscV
>>7670595
That's not a collage, that's a link to a download.
They're dead because I stopped wanting to update the pastebin, traded it off to someone who I think didn't feel like keeping it updated either. Anyone else is free to make another paste to link there and re-upload the stuff; I'm just not on here much anymore.
Which ones do you want?
what books would you read to prepare to death? or what book would you read if you know you have one uear left?
>>7670318
I would read or watch something annoying that would make me emotional so I wouldnt even care to die or some philosophical gymnastics that are not even possible to work out. Just annoy yourself to the point that you dont want to care about living anymore and you will be on the right path. The good news is you dont have to do anything, just take a walk and socialize with people for some time. They will annoy you sooner or later. If I was immortal and I would probably be insane overly manic and happy jumping in front of everyones face because I would be bored and mad of all the shit that is going on and all the pain suffered of losing everything and everyone I cared about vanishing, the eternal pointlessness or I would be shut in somewhere withering away dark souls style.
I wouldnt probably read a book or maybe some stoicism if I felt like it. I would probably go full on Diogenes.
I would read the radical leftist ramblings on my facebook wall.
>>7670343
thank you for complex response
I never been onto stoicism, that thoughtless attitude of a cow standing in the rain.
I'm goinf to read 'tibetan book of the living and dying' because I want to consider and to sort out my thoughts on this topic and from what I want buddism is about nothing more but death and pain.
Does DIogenes wasn't cynic?
What's the best edition of individual Shakespeare works? Which editions do you own? Do you prefer complete compilations or having a separate copy for each play?
>>7670152
>Do you prefer complete compilations or having a separate copy for each play?
I don't care
Don't know about best editions but complete edition vs. individual comes down to what you're doing with it. It's a pain in the ass to carry a complete Shakespeare everywhere and if you're big on annotation it can get annoying trying to write on non-facing pages in the beginning or facing pages near the end.
This was my Shakespeare for a long time. Don't know anything about the quality of the contents but it had pretty engravings in it. Weighed 7 lbs and was impossible to fit in any bag though.
>>7670152
I preferencia Arden over other edition, but The Oxford Shakespeare is cheaper and smaller, and the scholarly work is top notch too.
I preferencia individual works over complete works, mainly because the former are more focused and thorough, though they are more expensive in the long run.
This is what I have at hand
I also have the King Lear edition, but it's back home.
![Brandon-Sanderson-author-photo-776x1024[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/CnltsJ4.jpg "Brandon-Sanderson-author-photo-776x1024[1]")
Writes like clockwork
>>/reddit/Not horrible as far as genre fiction goes, but not good - certainly not like how some people seem to pedestal him. I've never been able to stomach him, but I might just be having a kneejerk reaction because Reddit and Goodreads seem to fucking love him.
>>7669998
His books are entertaining. Not life changing classics, but I don't think anyone except reddit claims them to be. They're enjoyable to read, I enjoyed the way of kings.
>>7669998
Incredibly entertaining books. Not that high quality and the prose is functional at best. I'd love to see what he could do if he took like 5 years for a single book, but oh well. No other author right now can really match his output. And considering the sheer amount of words this guy produces the enjoyment I get from them is outstanding.
He's like Stephen King during his most productive period and producing stuff that's actually good. Not great, certainly flawed in several ways, but solidly good across the board.
I utterly love the Youtube videos of his writing lectures though. A lot of really good and interesting stuff in those.
![cvr9781416599708_9781416599708_hr[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/swF9DM4.jpg "cvr9781416599708 9781416599708 hr[1]")
I have a problem with the Republic here, how exactly can one use hypothesis as hypothesis to "ascend" to the first principle?
"And of this kind I spoke as the intelligible, although in the search after it the
soul is compelled to use hypotheses; not ascending to a first principle, because
she is unable to rise above the region of hypothesis, but employing the objects
of which the shadows below are resemblances in their turn as images, they
having in relation to the shadows and reflections of them a greater distinctness,
and therefore a higher value.
I understand, he said, that you are speaking of the province of geometry and
the sister arts.
And when I speak of the other division of the intelligible, you will understand
me to speak of that other sort of knowledge which reason herself attains by
the power of dialectic, using the hypotheses not as first principles, but only as
hypotheses–that is to say, as steps and points of departure into a world which is above hypotheses, in order that she may soar beyond them to the first principle
of the whole; and clinging to this and then to that which depends on this, by
successive steps she descends again without the aid of any sensible object, from
ideas, through ideas, and in ideas she ends."
Is there any example that could illustrate how hypothesis and intellectual objects lead to principles?
Also when he speaks of clinging to this then that, is he speaking on clingings done to the principle or the ones done to the hypoethsis or intellectual objects so as to reach principles and "end" in ideas.
>principles
Woops, not sure if I ought to be using the plural there.
>>7669953
>and clinging to this and then to that which depends on this, by
>successive steps she descends again without the aid of any sensible object, from
>ideas, through ideas, and in ideas she ends."
Assuming he's speaking of clingings to hypothesis here, could he be summarizing the Socratic method?
That is, you ask what the hypothesis depends on, what that depends on, etcetera, etcetera to "descend"?
So, "if I drop this ball it will fall" could be my hypothesis, I would then ask "what is a ball?", "what is a fall?" etc, to descend into principles?
I find making sense of this paragraph very difficult, it came out of nowhere really.
http://www.idph.net/conteudos/ebooks/republic.pdf
Full-text, if anyone wants to read.
Page 371-372 Is the bit that's got me.
What are some good feminists books /lit/?
read the wiki first before asking for recs
American Psycho.
On Women - Schopenhauer
Which book should I read next from my backlog, /lit/?
Go on and get Lolita out of the way
Crime and Punishment
What do you think of him? Have you read him? Are there any translations of his works out there? All of his works on the Archive are in french.
>>7669754
One of the greatest French writer if you like mysticism and pamphlets.
Some of his major works, yet still have to read his articles.
Learn French because I guess it can't be translated. Several english translations exist though.
woah first time i see this photo of nietzsche
Post an interesting picture and/or respond to a picture with some short prose/poetry inspired by it.
bumping with a few to start off
ITT: your favourite chapter/scene from your favourite book
>the part where Tobin tells the kid about their previous encounters with the judge.
>>7669472
Probably my favorite part of The Tunnel is when Kohler explains his attempt to get a dog as a child.
From Suttree, Gene Harrogate describing why he is known as the Midnight Melon Mounter.
>>7669714
Or MOONLIGHT Melon Mounter, it's been so long I can't remember.
Proposition: From now on, the word "meme" will be used as a term referring to "templates" and "vaguely defined memetic structures". Examples: Pepe, Bane, DFW...
A new term "mememe" however, will be used to refer to definite subunits of memes, which are not only structures, but can be objectively expressed visually, linguistically, aurally etc. The term's designed to resemble words like "morpheme" and "semanteme", but have a meme-like twist, consisting of a three-fold reiteration of a silly syllable. Examples for mememes: Pic related, "You're a big guy"...
>threefold repetition
Bait
>>7669306
Bait? What do you mean? It's not even a provocative post. I'm seriously suggesting that we take this stand, and make our contribution to the growing field of memetics and semantics with our wicked sense of humour included.
Well, I knew academia wouldn't seriously consider my metamodernist approach, but I wasn't expecting this nonchalant and pretentious demeanor from you. I am deeply disappointed.
I attach a picture of Zizek to beguile you into thinking.
Some interesting facts that we learn in this book:
James Bond smokes 70 cigarettes per day.
James Bond loves his car.
James Bond likes to sleep naked.
This is the first Bond novel (1953) and it's a doozy. We have SMERSH, gambling, kidnapping, torture, intrigue, double-crossing, and cackling villains.
Bond is set up with millions of British pounds and told to go to France and out-gamble the evil Le Chiffre, a holocaust survivor with no "Christian name" and, supposedly, no memory of his life before age 37. His main problem is that he's a criminal in debt to some dangerous people, and needs to gamble at Casino Royale or he'll be murdered.
The long descriptions of gambling and cards in this book are boring. One chapter is basically Bond explaining how to gamble.
Bond is told that he's going to be paired with another agent and he's shocked and appalled to find out that his partner is female. Of course the woman, Vesper Lynd, is amazingly good-looking and Bond alternates throughout the book with his warring feelings of contempt for her and wanting to f*ck her.
No matter how charming Bond comes off in the films, the written Bond is a whole different animal. Hearing his inner monologue is enough to make you want to tear your eyes out. He doesn't consider women to be human, or people. He also makes horrible stereotypes about everyone in the book who is not a white British man. He also gets really turned on at the thought of rape, although he never rapes anyone in this book. It's very disturbing to read about.
Also, to all the women who think James Bond is really hot - you may think that about the movie character but I seriously doubt you would feel the same about the book character. Constantly described as cold, harsh, brutal, cruel, ruthless, and hard (over and over and over) by Fleming, Bond is hardly someone you'd want to have a relationship with - or even a one-night-stand. He describes women in this book as: beasts, wretches, fools, idiots, and bitches. A LOT. He tends to go off on long, sexist/racist rants in his head. Also, his idea of sex is always described as: ravishment, ravaging, 'bending her to his will,' or a way to 'coldly...put his body to the test.'
When Vesper gets kidnapped at one point, he is furious with her and curses her out. He makes the cold, logical decision that her life doesn't matter (since she is an agent) and plans accordingly - her death is acceptable. When both she and Bond are kidnapped and in the back of a car being driven to god-knows-where to be raped or tortured, Bond is TURNED ON by how sexy she looks with bound and with her legs exposed. ON HIS WAY TO BE TORTURED, this is what he's thinking - about a woman who is helpless and probably about to be gang-raped. I mean, this is a sick, sick man here.
Bond is told that he's going to be paired with another agent and he's shocked and appalled to find out that his partner is female. Of course the woman, Vesper Lynd, is amazingly good-looking and Bond alternates throughout the book with his warring feelings of contempt for her and wanting to f*ck her.
No matter how charming Bond comes off in the films, the written Bond is a whole different animal. Hearing his inner monologue is enough to make you want to tear your eyes out. He doesn't consider women to be human, or people. He also makes horrible stereotypes about everyone in the book who is not a white British man. He also gets really turned on at the thought of rape, although he never rapes anyone in this book. It's very disturbing to read about.
Also, to all the women who think James Bond is really hot - you may think that about the movie character but I seriously doubt you would feel the same about the book character. Constantly described as cold, harsh, brutal, cruel, ruthless, and hard (over and over and over) by Fleming, Bond is hardly someone you'd want to have a relationship with - or even a one-night-stand. He describes women in this book as: beasts, wretches, fools, idiots, and bitches. A LOT. He tends to go off on long, sexist/racist rants in his head. Also, his idea of sex is always described as: ravishment, ravaging, 'bending her to his will,' or a way to 'coldly...put his body to the test.'
When Vesper gets kidnapped at one point, he is furious with her and curses her out. He makes the cold, logical decision that her life doesn't matter (since she is an agent) and plans accordingly - her death is acceptable. When both she and Bond are kidnapped and in the back of a car being driven to god-knows-where to be raped or tortured, Bond is TURNED ON by how sexy she looks with bound and with her legs exposed. ON HIS WAY TO BE TORTURED, this is what he's thinking - about a woman who is helpless and probably about to be gang-raped. I mean, this is a sick, sick man here.
I think it's fair to mention that Bond's genitals are brutally tortured for an hour by Le Chiffre. After this ordeal, Bond spends a lot of time in the hospital recovering. I liked that Fleming wasn't trying to make him some super-human who recovers immediately. Of course, Bond eventually decides that taking Vesper to bed will be the perfect test to make sure his make sure his equipment is still functioning properly.
I understand that these books are classics and that James Bond is an icon. I really do. And I understand why people love the books - adventure, torture, being a spy who is rich, beds tons of women, and travels to exotic places. It's not that I don't understand the appeal of this pulp fiction. Wholly unrealistic, it's a fantasy. Real, actual spywork (I'd imagine) is NOTHING like the government giving you millions of pounds to gamble away, pairing you up with a sexy female agent that they are fine with you having sex with, and setting you up in a resort-like location where your every whim is catered to. Because that's your 'cover.' *rolls eyes
don't blame anyone for loving, enjoying, and gobbling up these books. However, as a woman in 2014 I just can't ignore the screaming, in-your-face racism and sexism that permeates every page of this novel.
Fleming is a good author - there are some gems in here, some great lines and some deep philosophical pondering on Bond's part (this surprised me, he's usually very shallow). Also, no one can write a long villain speech like Fleming can. Le Chiffre's long speech to Bond about how he's going to torture him and there's no hope is wonderful and can be perfectly imagined playing out on the big screen. Classic.
Tl;dr - Exciting spy novel drenched in misogyny and racism
>tfw you didn't grow up in Boston and/or have never been to Boston
>you will never appreciate Infinite Jest as much as someone who has lived there
It must make the book so much better to know all the references to the city
its more able the people I find and you can find relate able people anywhere
I live in Arizona, so that's something.
>ywn be american
Dearest /lit/,
I have an interesting question for you. Is there any such thing as an insult which is unanswerable?
Surely any insult on earth can be reproached with a simple Ad Hominum or "tu quoque" response. AKA "Well you're fat" or "No U".
I claim that no insult is impossible to respond to.
Whoever has the last word is a faggot, faggot.
I mean, in good faith, it would be unfair of you to return an insult directed toward you that
was true.
Obviously nothing is physically or logically preventing you from returning fire.
Human
