>>7861897
Yes. Third rate bastardisation of The Prince. This book is to Machiavelli what Otto West is to Nietzsche

>>7861897
>my friend.

>>7861897
No. It's a metaphor engine for attaining and holding onto the ability to help & hurt other people.

/lit/ ain't read it. /lit/ ain't read much, really. Mostly just Corncob McCarthy & one or two things from Bloom's canon.

This book is great. You won't be a politician for reading it but you will gain a lot of information about people and ideas throughout history. Not lit tho.

>>7861897
Kek

It's entertaining although I feel I should be wearing a fedora while reading it.

Delete this.

It's an overly wordy memed up pleb version of the glorious Jesuit Jew Baltasar Gracián's The Art of Worldly Wisdom.

It's funny that he makes a whole book that references nothing other than Shakespeare / Greeks / famous kings in order to get his cherry picked examples I.e. stuff that pseudo intellectuals always do every fucking day - and he gets criticised harshly for it. People hate to see the worst of themselves, especially the pseuds

>>7862022

>a (presumably) book-length work of prose which seriously treats of a basic aspect of the human condition is "not lit tho"

What you really mean to say, is not that this book that you dislike is not lit, but instead that it is poor lit. Because the presumptive content of the thing is very obviously literature. Of course, /lit/ has always had a rather limited sense of what is properly "literature", which has been helped along by the mod conception and framing of such, which reinforces same. Both are in the wrong, however.