Archived threads in /lit/ - Literature - 932. page
- Home
- Board: /lit/ - Literature
- Reading: Archived threads in /lit/ - Literature - 932. page
Why the fuck is academia such an inbred circlejerk? How can people flock around this spic and actually consider his works unironically good?
>>7730525
not academia, mass lit*
>>7730526
Bitch I know what I said.
>>7730525
Listen, papi, being a good writer is mucho mas than just having a knowledge of historia. Sometimes, you need to spice it up with some literary jalapeño. Even if your story don't make no sense or it's based off of bad informacion, you can steel be successfool.
Any thoughts on pic related? Is it a worthwhile read?
Great book. It lends a compelling narrative on the most important philosopher of the last century. One of my personal favorites.
>>7730508
Yes. Great book.
I enjoyed it a lot, when it was over I felt lonely without Wittgenstein.
nym it
beta
sub
metadata <> subdata
>>7729723
mundane
Hey /lit/
I was wondering about some similarities between Sartre and Kierkegaard. Is Sartre basically an atheist Kierkegaard? Or are there other differences I'm missing?
I'm specifically referring to Sartre's statement "existence before essence" and the different types of people and their development in Kierkegaard's philosophy.
Thought /lit/ was crazy about Kierkegaard?
I thought Absurdism is Atheist version of Kierkigard.
>>7729352
Sartre was a phenomenologist and existence philosopher.
Kierkegaard was more in what people called the existentialist movement.
Sartre writes from Husserl (but also from Kant and Hegel, like Kierkegaard), which is the big difference.
Existentialism transcends "athiest/theist" divide as we normally use these words.
How many of you have read ''Á la recherche du temps perdu'', the whole thing?
>>7727086
>4.2k pages
What would this book give me that W&P, AK and The Brothers Karamazov doesn't?
>>7727086
Yes. Twice. Once on my own, then once for school.
>This summer esteemed literary critic Harold Bloom will celebrate his 86th birthday.
He'll be fine right... right?
>>7726953
Don't do this to us!!!
>>7726975
Get the fuck out
What did /lit/ think of this book?
anal rape hehe
>>7744363
Besides the 300+ pages of misery, what else?
>>7744366
The last chapter and the first chapter were very good. The middle of the book that isnt about vaginal and anal rape drags very badly. The vaginal and anal rape part is unique in any contemporary fiction I have read. In the year since I have read it I have not felt the desire to read it ever again, and it is definitely not the best book I have ever read.
Odyssey or Iliad? which one is better? why?
>>7751427
Aenid
>>7751430
Read it. wasn't impressed. seriously though. which one is better? which do you prefer at least? why? why did you read it? I thought you /lit/ guys were smart. /his/ jumped right on it. i guess /his/ is more /lit/ and patrician than /lit/ is.
Odyssey because things happen
>Illiad
>So anyway, A killed B and C, D killed E, F killed G and H, etc
There was a long time where I thought that images in books detracted from the experience, but now I wonder why I ever felt that way. In addition, I don't get why people don't like, or at least see books that use images as inferior to works that use nothing but words. Here are some points against language in general:
- Most (if not all), languages are ad hoc messes that have little to no organization. They are hard to learn (because they don't have any sort of design to them), which means words are hard to share. Languages get outdated and lost, which means works using them can very well have the same fate.
- Language is often tainted by embellishments which most times add nothing to the idea they are trying to convey, which makes most languages extremely cluttered, and muddy and for some reason people seem to like and endorse that (and so do I, I guess). I love the word "superfluous", don't you?
- Language is slow to describe or define non abstract concepts, and often fails really hard at it no matter how good the writer is, simply because it has to hang on a readers knowledge. It's not very hard to realize how many problems can arise from the differences between what the writer is thinking, and what the reader is thinking. Language is not good at painting a complete picture, simply put.
- Language is an obstacle to creativity. Once again, it has to lean on a readers knowledge. This is not only applicable to content but to style as well, since, as language is, of course, a product of customs, you'll have to learn it by reading, which gives you very little space for personal experimentation in general, and, perhaps even more important, it conditions you into an idea of what is "ideal" in writing. With painting, for instance, you have you own view of the world before seeing a painting, but with writing this does not happen, at least not nearly with as much impact.
Of course, I'm not saying language is useless or the devil or anything like that, nor am I saying that you can't use words only to get a point across completely, but I find it really weird that comic books, of all things (keeping in mind I've never read many comic books at all), are considered inferior to word only novels, when they can get their message across more clearly (or at least have that potential). It's just bizarre how much importance language gets. What I'm saying is that it is completely ridiculous to limit yourself to words to tell a story. Words are symbols, and symbols are good to make connections.
(cont.)
>>7750484
Lets say I wanted to describe a town. What would you prefer: a five paragraph explanation of how the walls of the town were built, and how the people behave in general, and the various architectural details found around it, or a simple black and white sketch accompanied by the one paragraph that described the people in the town and maybe another paragraph mentioning key buildings around town and such?
So what are the ramifications of this choice? With the second method, not only did I spare like 10 or so minutes of your time (giving way to more interesting things), but I also gave you a much more definitive view of everything, using text only for the things that would be hard to put into images. If a battle was to happen there, you would know how tall the walls were, you would know how heavily fortified the gate really looked, the amount of guards and soldiers that often stood watch atop of the walls, and we would be talking about the same town, and not two different towns, one made up in your mind, and one made up in mine. Also, the town becomes instantly less volatile and variable, which means I'll be able to use it more often without presenting inconsistencies (even if they only happen in your mind), and you'll have a better experience with the story. And yes, all this is pretty obvious.
To me, books nowadays have spiraled into a bunch of insecurities almost. It's almost as if people are afraid of drawing and painting, no matter how simple it can be. We use groups of symbols to represent everything, even if we could use that thing to represent itself, it's just fucking dumb.
(cont.)
>>7750491
So why does this happen? Why do writers have such a fear of images other than letters? Why do people give so much importance to words? Words should be meant to complement, not base. You want to know a fun thing? The sketch of the town I mentioned earlier would probably take less time to draw for an amateur, than writing and editing the three paragraphs describing it, and it sure would save the reader time. This way, the reader can pace through the book as they want, if they want they can spend some more time looking at the town, and if they don't want to do that, they can just skip to the next page or whatever. And perhaps even more important than all of this, you as the creator would be able to create more. Life is short, or at least not long enough, after all.
I get why most people don't seem to be too fond of books, they are a big, BIG waste of time. And people who read like to call those other people dumb, but I don't see how thinking that way is dumb in any way. It's perfectly reasonable to bash something that takes 1 hour when it could take 30 minutes and be done better. In the case of a story, a better story that was told faster (and possibly with more detail, which I find funny), gives you plenty of opportunities to read other stories, or even to think about the whole story you've just experienced. It's almost as if people that read books and call others out on hatting books really have no concept of time management. I guess this is sort of a fad recently, people just seem to give too much credit to the medium instead of what is trying to be given to them through that medium.
Giving all this importance to words would almost be like giving more importance to the little pins that hold legos together rather than the pieces as a whole. It's just dumb.
Anyway, that's the end of my obsessive compulsive ramblings, and I would really love to hear your opinions on this.
I don't disagree with you.
Good morning/afternoon /lit/. How is your Saturday so far? What are you reading?
>>7750165
ACOK nice choice mate.
>>7750173
Newest issue of Tin House came in. That and GR
>>7750165
Little over halfway through mythology. Good for a nice overview.
>he doesn't primarily read the literature of his own country
You're not a cultural cuck, are you?
Name me some good Swedish literature then
I'm peruvian there's not much to read besides Llosa and he's shit anyways
>>7745707
I love everything about this. It's a conflation of so many different things that I can just hide and be done with, in a sweet tight little package. It even implies the >translations inanity I dare say. High five OP!
Hello /lit/, I am Slavoj Zizek, yess, THAT Slavoj Zizek, the Eashtern Eauropean Lacanian Marxish philoshopher.
I am working on my noo book, and have *sniff* created a power-tier chart ranking varioush ideologiess to accompanies it.
Pleash post where you place on shaid chart, as you say: ITT
Pershonally? I am *sniff* at level 5
Can I sniff your hairy salt and pepper yet very musky asshole? :3
>>7731233
6 and 7 are garbage tier. Complete delusions from pseudo-intellectuals.
5 is where it ends.
i think most of us are at tier 5
Have any of you successfully overcome an existential crisis?
In a way you find genuinely satisfied with in response to the concerns/troubles that an existential crisis brings up. Rather than what, from what I can tell, perhaps cynically, the majority of those who talk about overcoming it recommend and do which is essentially just decide to do something else to take their mind off it rather than find a constructive way to confront the issues and 'live the condition' as it were.
If so, which books helped and how?
Die Geburt der Tragödie aus dem Geiste der Musik
>>7751517
>just decide to do something else to take their mind off it
what makes you think this is not constructive? i took this road btw. pic related is one starting point.
Ignoring to some extent is the only way for me. I can barely solve the more mundane issues of everyday life, let alone satisfactorily come to a concrete conclusion on existential matters.
was he the peak of western poetry?
no
/thread
>>7746414
>threading your own post in the post itself
jesus...
>>7746415
I SAID /THREAD FAGGOT
DON'T YOU EVER REPLY TO ME AGAIN
Is Tony the most /lit/ character on television?
>>7745154
Perhaps, but season 1 Effy inspires the most erotic short stories.
I saw like two episodes of this shit show but I remember seeing this kid and his taste in music/movies/books summed with the fact he's the cool hot one and you could just visualize the sad, balding, 45 year old screenwriter trying to validate his lifestyle and tastes through that character
>>7745154
by /lit/ you mean completely devoid of personality other than what he thinks he should emulate to be perceived as sophisticated/intelligent/well read/wise etc? if so then yeah.
