Archived threads in /lit/ - Literature - 125. page
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
How do you feel about WW1 poetry /lit/?
Personally, i think it is beautiful. The small good that came from such a vicious and destructive event.
>>8237093
Most of it is simple and quite forgettable, but poignant at the same time. I have thePenguinAnthology of First World War Poetry and I have probably read through it two or three times.
>>8237093
Love it
Sassoon; the general, counter attack, syicide in the trenches and his prose works memoirs of a fox hunting man and diary of an infantry officer
Owen: a terre, the last laugh
Frankau: voices of the guns
Graves; goodbye to all that
What innovative features would you like a website about sharing and reading books to have?
>>8237072
A review system so I can see the opinions of plebs and YA readers in their 30s.
A filtering system where patricians don't notice pleb activity.
Are you trying to make Goodreads 2 or what?
I have an idea for a website but I wanted to hear other suggestions to improve it!
Alright /lit/ I need your help, ever since I watched My dinner with Andre some months ago I've wanted to read a book that was similar to it, the movie is basically 2 hours of conversation, there's no real plot it's just two guys talking about many different topics ranging from life experiences, mundane stuff and philosophical shit.
So, does anyone know of any book that fits this description and is worth it?
>>8237066
I'm hurrying
Asimov does this, two characters talking in a sterile setting, but those ideas explored might not interest you.
Cormac McCarthy's Sunset Limited
I think Beckett does these. Waiting for Goddard, no?
Other playwrights...
I really do recommend Walter Pater's Marius the Epicurean for a passive stroll through ancient Rome discussing philosophy.
>>8237086
>Cormac McCarthy's Sunset Limited
bit more dramatic but a good suggestion
>>8237086
That Beckett play is generally referred to as "Waiting for Godot," not Goddard.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFTvESIIzEo
>VICE
Nope. Vice, Vox, Fox News, Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, Stephen Colbert and all the meme tier American media needs to go.
>>8237058
Does this man live for anything else other that having his picture taken?
>>8237121
And what are the alternatives?
writers of lit, what is your major motivation to write? also, do you have your readers in mind as you write, even if the reader is just yourself, or you just let your mind come through your pen/keyboard?
i think i do it to one day read the book ive never found and that would answer all my questions.
where are you all? writing?
>>8237048
>Motivation to write? Self-expression and posterity.
>Readers in mind? Not much. I just craft my writing as I see best. If you keep readers in mind too much you run the risk of losing your individuality.
>>8237048
Suck a dick, t b h. If this is a question you have to ask then just shouldn't be here.
Why must a protagonist be likable?
I feel most comfortable writing entitled characters who get laid low by dangerous situations.
>>8236962
nobody said they had to be
lots of canon literature has unlikeable protagonists. hamlet, catcher in the rye, the list could go on
>>8236962
This is where an engaging story comes in handy.
I hated the Talented Mr Ripley, but I kept watching to see him get caught. Disappointment he didn't, but it was still well written enough.
>>8237008
>I hated the Talented Mr Ripley, but I kept watching to see him get caught. Disappointment he didn't, but it was still well written enough.
of course the fake butterfly watches the movies of highsmith.
stop half assing the bookish dyke part if you want to pretend to be our dead gf.
books about gluttony?
Bump, I read some texts about it when I was in highschool, I believe one of them was a extract from "Les caractères" from La Bruyère. We actually did a while chapter on this topic, but I don't seem to remember very well.
>>8238080
strong kek
Are there any other historians as incredibly good at writing as Will Durant?
Also: thoughts on pic related? In love with it atm.
>>8236933 (OP)
Gibbons.
Hobsbawm
And you might also like Fernand Braudel
>>8236933
Trotsky
He's okay but it's pretty obvious that this is an older book. He has the same wrong opinions that were common in the earlier parts of the last century. Reading his entry of Nietzsche is every bit as wrong and misleading as Russel's.
What is better: To fully and whole-heartedly embrace our animalistic/humanistic instincts, or to attempt to transcend them?
Or is it possible to do both at the same time?
>>8236871
Yes Doing both is transcendence and balance.
>>8236871
transcend by embracing them
embrace them by transcending them
Where's the best place to start with Henry James? How much of his work is worth reading?
>>8236822
Try reading the one that interests you the most and see if you like it.
>>8236822
Portrait of a Lady.
Stay away from his early stuff.
His later novels (Golden Bowl, Ambassadors, Wings of the Dove) are only worth reading if you can stand them, you'd have to be a college-level reader, I'd say. If you can't stand them, it'd probably be good to come back to them eventually when you're a more "advanced reader", so to speak.
Daisy Miller is a great short read you can read in a day and worth reading any time you like.
His short stories I guess can be...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>8236867
>you'd have to be a college-level reader, I'd say
I'm 25 and have been reading literature seriously for 10 years now, I just haven't gotten to Henry James.
Why should I avoid his early stuff?
Why does /lit/ care more about the quality of the prose, than the actual content itself?
Prose is content you red rocket addict
>>8236801
For the same reason that I know you read Brandon Sanderson and Patrick Rothfus.
>>8236810
I mean why more about the prose than the plot, character development etc.
Why isn't Asimov even mentioned around here?
Isn't he a meme here too?
"Good ideas, bad prose"
-/lit/ on Asimov
we mostly talk literary fiction
the sci-fi people stick to their own threads
>>8236797
>I've been here for hours, and there's still no mention of Asimov
Isn't there a sf general up? Ask them what you should think
Who are his influences?
Borges
>>8236766
http://www.pynchon.pomona.edu/bio/influences.html
>>8236766
weed, shrooms, alcohol, the list goes on
The usage "based off the book" (instead of the older and, to me at least, clearer usage "based on the book") has made its way from casual speech to appear in an online NPR article. I've come to you, /lit/, to get your opinion on this. This usage, which I had always associated with less intelligent, less well-read people, has now become mainstream and acceptable; indeed there are people who look at me funny when I say "based on." Is this just part of the natural, inevitable evolution of language? Am I a foolish elitist for fighting it? It might not bother me except that it makes English less clear--"based on" produces a mental image of one thing being supported by another, while "based off" does not. I know language is not a logical thing, but shouldn't we keep in mind Wittgenstein: "Everything that can be said can be said clearly."
>>8236719
what is descriptive usage?
Does anyone here even like reading? I just do it to not look like a pleb.
>>8236681
kys
You don't have to look or pretend to be anything. If you don't like reading, stop reading.
>>8236681
I lov it!
Reading is just so scrumptious.
