/lit/ - Literature

>>17302844
The thing is, you may be tempted to pirate my books, and if you do, that's fine, because you will enjoy, the ride, and after you finish the roller coaster that is just ONE book from my series, Call of the Horror, you will be simply itching to read another, and to support ME and buy them.

However, there IS another option.

My books are free on Kindle Unlimited! You can pirate and support, me, Frank E. Gardner, in my literary endeavors.

And don't forget, my fellow erudites, Call of the Horror, can be read, in any, order.

>>17302293
You would do well to start her out on something simple. Plunging her into dense texts when she's not much of a reader will only dissuade her from it, and piling on reading material for her to check out, likely puts added stress on her, since you fervently want her to read them, and she doesn't have a natural inclination towards it.

Yet.

That's why you should have her read the Call of Horror series. It's my very own work that has been met with great reception and has excellent reviews on all major outlets. You've probably heard about it. It's a horror series that breaks the boundaries of what horror can really be, often my prose, unnatural and unkempt, can feel like a fever dream of sorts. Everyone has said that once they started, they couldn't put it down.

And the best part?

My series can be read, in any, order.

That's right. No matter where you start, you'll come out with a different meaning, depending on the order you read it. It's essentially fiction-within-fiction, layer-within-layer of meanings and symbolism. Reading my series is like a chess match where I, Frank E. Gardner, am your opponent, and the order you read my books, is your move on the Chess board.

So have her give my benighted series a try. It's only .99 cents on Amazon :)

>>17302055
Well, I've self-published, as traditional publishing wasn't ready for my work. I've had much success from it though, my books have garnered much attention, and been met with great reception. Make sure to check out my Call of Horror series.
To give a brief idea, it's essentially a series of primordial terror. Truly benighted. My pose is unnatural and unkempt, aiding the horrific tapestry I've woven into my tales, and there's a layer of depth and complexity that you'll find on par with even the best literature.

And the best thing?

It can be read, in any, order.

So give my series a try. It's only .99 cents. You won't be disappointed ;)

>>17300893
Hey, glad to know you enjoy our little, slice of paradise, here. If you're looking to step your /lit/ game up, have one over your peers, then make sure to check out my Call of Horror series.
To give a brief idea, it's essentually a series of primordial terror. Truly benighted. My pose is unnatural and unkempt, aiding the horrific tapestry I've woven into my tales, and there's a layer of depth and complexity that you'll find on par with even the best literature.

And the best thing?

It can be read, in any, order.

So give my series a try. It's only .99 cents. You won't be disappointed ;)

>>17293216
Theres something about my books that cant be said about others... That is
They can be read in any order!
You will come out with a conclusions ulterior to one you may have in another reading
Maybe this isn't original to my own creation, yet my rendition of this idea is supreme to all competition
These plots have been greeted by triumphant praise. The thrill struck in each line salutes the oddity of the structure , leaving the reader pleasurably off kilter. So in my hast to respond it is your obligation to pick up my mantle by diving into "CALL OF THE ARCADE"

>>17290325
That's some of the best advertising I've seen, DESU. Which one should I read after Call of the Arcade? I know the whole "you can read them in any order" thing, but which one's the next best?

You may not have known this, but you can actually read his acclaimed Horror's Call series in any order!

>>17259530
You should check out the Horror's Call series. They are metaficitional horror novels you can read in any order!

>>17242177
Well, anon, I heard you can read them in ANY order. If you can't take the responsibility to choose your own order, when F. Gardner has so brilliantly provided you that option, you're not even worthy to read any of these books, let alone to know the secret twist of Call of the Crocodile

>>17238606
I’ve heard nothing but good things about Call of the Crocodile by F. Gardner, a new but promising writer, breaking conventional literary norms with his wonderful new series of horror novels that can be read in any order!

>>17233481
>According to Ernest Becker [a philosopher who wrote The Denial of Death], as we grow up, at some point we become aware of death, then the fact that people we know and love die, then the fact that someday we, too, will die. Most of us do what we can to avoid it. Meanwhile, we embrace identities and the illusion of self-sufficiency. We pursue activities, both positive and negative, that we hope will lift us beyond the chains of ordinary existence and perhaps endure after we are gone. Whether we succeed or fail ,we are still going to die. The only solace, of course, is to believe that since we are created, there must be a Creator, one to whom we matter and will in some way return. Becker seemed to have met Immanuel Kant’s test of life : ‘How to occupy properly that place in creation that is assigned to man, and how to learn from it what one must be in order to be a man.’ I’ve spent a life time trying to do that. Becker’s book helped convince me it was an effort worth making.

Bill Clinton quote from his autobiography (My Life)

Clinton also read the Anglo-American Establishment by Carroll Quigley, who was a mentor for him at Georgetown - Clinton received the best grade in Quigley's class out of the entire student body. He cites Quigley in his DNC acceptance speech too:

>When Bill Clinton delivered his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention on July 16, 1992, it didn't contain any surprises, nor were any expected. There were the usual feel-good platitudes: he wanted to talk with us "about my hope for the future, my faith in the American people, and my vision of the kind of country we can build.... This election is about putting power back in your hands and putting the government back on your side.... It is time to heal America." Any speech writer could have pulled boiler-plate from the files and pasted together something similar. Speeches for occasions like this one aren't meant to be long on specifics.

>Toward the end of the speech Clinton mentioned that "as a teenager I heard John Kennedy's summons to citizenship. And then, as a student at Georgetown, I heard that call clarified by a professor named Carroll Quigley, who said to us that America was the greatest country in the history of the world because our people have always believed in two things: that tomorrow can be better than today and that every one of us has a personal, moral responsibility to make it so."

I hear call of the arcade is supposed to be good. The word is that it’s part of a series of spooky books you can read in any order!

>Call of the Kappa
Almost feels like a totally different book series. It doesn't have any kids in the story, unlike the rest. It's also about martial arts. Interestingly enough it's more about the history of martial arts than action sequences. There's very little action scenes even in the book which is bizarre since it's about martial arts and Asian mythology. It was relaxing to read in the way I find reading history to be interesting. I would probably rank this book somewhere in the middle of his stuff.

>Call of the Cherokee
My second favorite of his books. If I were to suggest one of these other than Arcade it would be this one. The whole “Read these books in any order” gimmick Gardener's has been running surprisingly works well here. If you want to read all of these books this one would probably be most enjoyable if you read it last. I realized all of the connections Gardener's was trying to make with his other books in this one the most. Has the most references to his other books. It does the mystery or whodunit type thing that Arcade does halfway though the book in this. He also re-uses plot devices again. I looked up when Gardener's had published these books and this appears to be the 4th one. I don't know if that's because he already wrote them. The publishing dates could be out of order. It makes sense because this book and Cradle re-use a lot of ideas from the other books.

>>17219432
Hey, author of the series here! The books can be read in any order. Call of the Crocodile is the most accessible so many people choose to start there. All of the books deal with themes of mental illness, paranoia, horror, and of course the dangers of multiculturalism and zionism. While ghosts are ghouls are of course scary, there is nothing more horrifying than the damage blacks and Jews have done to white society, and this is something I portray in my novels. I'll stop myself there as I don't want to spoil anything! Enjoy the books and thanks for the support.

>>17151805
There are two main definitions of the word reactionary.
The first, which is always that deployed by the friends, fellow travelers, and relatives of progressivism, refers to any political tendency that seeks to or create any state of affairs that is not in line with the progressive view of history. For instance, any attempt to turn America into a universal marriage society would be called reactionary, regardless of the intellectual underpinnings of or mode of execution of that attempt.
The second, which is that favored by those who call themselves reactionaries and those who have read their work, refers to political tendencies that seek to eliminate ideas of progress and popular sovereignty and revive something approximating the Western political order either prior to the French Revolution (or the Glorious Revolution, or the English Civil Wars), or, what is more accurate, seek to revive the pre-Enlightenment view of man and his place in the world. In this sense are Curtis Yarvin, Alasdair MacIntyre, and Joseph de Maistre reactionaries.
It goes without saying that Carl Schmitt was not a reactionary, and that fascism is in fact an ultra-modern form of politics.

I want to start a discussion about /litizens who actually became successful writers. People from this board who have books and what our thoughts are regarding them and their work.
The two biggest examples I know of are two authors who seem to write for very different genres.

>F. Gardner

Advertises on /lit regularly. Has written several horror/mystery books. The only one I've read so far is Call of the Arcade. It was very weird but quite good. It was probably more scifi than horror but I still enjoyed the ride. I've heard good things about Call of the Crocodile and downloaded that one. I'm not sure if I'm reading these in the "right" order. I know it's advertised as there not being any true order but is that really true? Another anon told me that Crocodile should be read last and I would like to know if that's really the case.

>R.C. Waldun

Author of "The Learned Disguised." I've heard he's a bit eccentric but a skilled an up and coming writer. Definitely going to read his book, as well. I've heard some people on lit dismiss him. I would like to hear why. I'm wondering if this is just an instance of people on here being jealous of his success .Which doesn't really make much sense to me. I think we should support our fellow anon's especially if they've managed to succeed finishing their books. There are many aspiring authors on here and being supportive of them seems to be the right thing to do. If we don't like their work let's tell them how to improve their craft.

What other /lit posters have published their books? This can be by self publishing or by traditional means.

If you're also an aspiring writer please feel free to share your story and maybe we can all learn from one another.

>Trying to introduce the series with Call of the Crocodile
I understand the books can technically be read in any order, but "Crocodile" should be read near the end of the canon, ideally.

>>16948656
Not American, but do law postgrad. I have a degree in philosophy

>The Human Situation

>by nature exploitative creatures, meaning ... required to kill, consume...in order to survive, grow, and reproduce

We can get very picky and say that because you denied super-sensible substances (especially, that there are no laws and rules), that the use of the word required is baseless. Required implies that we /ought/ to survive, grow and reproduce. If there are no laws and rules, why /should/ I do those? I'll allow this to be an assumption for the rest of the section though.


>humans are beings who must engage in necessary evil

So you implicitly define the killing of animals, aggression to humans (even in defence) as evil? I know you don't really think that, so this sentence is pointless (don't forget that there being no laws and rules also means this is baseless)

>mental qualities are more important for survival and reproduction than physical qualities are

I'd disagree. People write endless essays about the way that people instantly judge and evalue people based on physical appearance. There are legal studies that show handsome people get lower sentences. Chad the brainlet can fuck until his peepee falls off, Quentin the manlet with a chemistry PHD and Ubermensch mindset certainly isn't shooting coom as much (except into a tissue).

> if someone does not do something that he ought to do

We can safely discard the rest of this paragraph because of the ought. It sucks, but you've run yourself into a circle with this one.

I get where you're going with this paragraph. Historically we've had to do all sorts of brutal stuff (by modern standards) to survive. Denying this intuitively feels like we're denying a powerful win-at-all-costs mentality in ourselves. Taking responsibility for ourselves is an act of the will, the will seems to be the most important thing for survival in the modern world. Sure, I can see where that is coming from.

You wrote it poorly though.

Please read more before trying again. Please do not write essays based off of fashwave images and short youtube videos that only preach to the choir on your views.

I can't be bothered marking any more. Everyone else, don't bother reading it. If I did something retarded please call me out, I won't be listening to comments from Heinrich though.

>>16892653
>This is obviously such an ignorant point, made by someone who clearly hasn't read Frege. A sizable part of Frege's contribution to philosophy emerges precisely from trying to reply to Kant, and his reorientation of logic as first philosophy, rather than epistemology (as had been thought since Descartes, pretty much) is a more radical Copernican turn than even Kant's.
jo kid. may i remind you that Frege is absolutely irrelevant today (unless you are a historically intrigued fan of philosophy of language) and Kant is still BTFOing pathetic anglos trying to come up with a new witty way out of their failure to understand jsut one of his works.
logic didn't even last for half a century before refuting itself.
Your lot is more useful in IT study these days than in a philosophy departement (unless you consider teaching first semester undergrads an essential aspect of the philosophical side of its departement).
>>16892665
>Do you not understand what a gigantic leap it was to finally solve the problem of multiple generality which had eluded us since Aristotle?
i can tell you are new to this whole reading philosophy (wannabes) thing, but be patient and get to Wittgensteins second book before pretending like logic solves anything let alone your pathetic problems or "paradoxa".
plus any interpretation of Gödel that does not result in skepticism is not to be taken seriously as such would not be considered consequential in its own thinking.
>>16892693
>Why do you refuse to take logic seriously? You clearly adore Kan
unironically? because I fell for the first order logic meme myself for a while. I never became so deranged in stockholm syndrome though and was able to see how all these mathematicians are as far removed from philosophy as any biochemist or experimental phycisist is. Kant made the dare in the Prolegomena to anyone who criticized him to see how their criticism does not actually destroy more of the philosophical system of Erkenntnis (knowledge?) than if you stuck to what Kant said or remained vague on. Not calling you people retards but it is an affront for your lot to call yourself philosophers.
>But Aristotelian logic was not very good. Not nearly as good as the modern logic
both is shit. only good insofar as we got Kant.
>Those parts of Kant that depended on an Aristotelian conception of logic are prima facie in at least some trouble
i am sorry but you are too anglo for me to continue to pretend to want to reply to you in future. you clearly miss the point if you regard Kant as nothing but a Logik bot. Jsut because he was so incredible at staying within his bounds in regards to what relates to possible knowledge does not mean that superstitious kant was as myopic as you are.
>This isn't how philosophy is done in the academy.
academia is trash kek (even the Kantian side)

>>16774030
Ok, i will ask you to be open to my explanation first because, while I will account for some nuances I understand that certain theological leanings are less appealing to some.

First I will say that I’m Muslim, and that I’ve read from several religious texts as well as philosophical. The truth of Islam is the same truth of Taoism, Hinduism, Christianity, Hegel, Heidegger, Neoplatonism, etc. This truth is articulated very differently by each but the Islamic rendering is simply: there is one God, you must worship It to be fulfilled in life, when you worship It you will understand the purpose of life. But don’t take that religiously if you don’t want to, I think the best way to understand this is algebraically. What does this mean? Well, what I call Allah a Taoist calls the Tao whereas others simply allude to an Absolute or a Onenness underlying all. The name is pointless, like a variable such as “x”, let “x” be “the truth of life you will understand upon connecting to This in your heart with rough prayer and contemplation, that thing which is the author of the universe” it does not need a name. Other variables are worship, let the modes of worship be “y + z”, in Islam let “y” be prayer and “z” be good deeds. So let’s say, y + z = x, in the Islamic case, prayer and good reads will equal a connection with the author of the universe, and this connection will give you faith, or the condition in which one understanding the truth of life (this is faith in its fundamental sense). Y and Z can be anything prescribed by a given religion through any terms, so long as you arrive at X, that is what is important. So the nuances of theological contradictions should not be worried about, as they are all different and sufficient variables for plugging into y and z, so long as they arrive at X. However, not EVERY religious practice will bring you to X, such as worshiping a fairy or some other spirit. You must direct your heart towards that which is the Author, the Highest Reality, etc. In order to arrive at X. Prayer is the easiest means of doing so, it is like an electric chord between yourself in the Truth. If you are uncomfortable naming It God that’s fine, but understand that you will need to communicate to this Thing with your heart. And when you do, it will make Its reality clear to you. Then you will understand the truth of existence, you will have the experience of faith, that experience which clarifies that world and gives you a certainty of it. And faith is not the same thing as belief in God or any ideology, remember, faith is a mode of being, a type of attunement (in the Heideggerian sense, but it’s permanent) to the way reality is. This is why philosophy isn’t sufficient, you must engage God, X, the Author, etc. with your heart in prayer and you will understand.

>>16566891
> They have grown so accustomed to society way of living that they couldn't survive without a grocery store nearby.
Wrong. They would learn to adapt to a primitive environment, if so needed, or a rural one, because they would need to in order to survive, unless they decide to perish, but that is another discussion.
> Just because you're a loser doesn't give you any deep *insight*
It does give you a deep insight, yes. You have the unique perspective of the outsider, of the one who was left out or didn't fit in for whatever reason. Although an arguably entry-tier author, Kafka is a good example of this, as is the case of Osamu Dazai and Yukio Mishima, who weren't exactly losers, but still outsiders; they could see and think clearly about what normal people/winners would only get glimpses of, in rare occasions, and that is why to this day we still read them.
> - it just means you're a loser and you're rationalizing your hate for society because you're bitter about it.
No. There are good reasons why a loser would hate society, mainly being left out of it in some way. What you call "rationalizing your hate" is merely expanding on those reasons. I don't believe anyone would hate society just for the sake of it, even edgy teenagers, from their flawed and unexperienced point of view, have good reasons to do so. And not only losers, too.

>>16528932
Sounds like a cool idea. I actually tried to incorporate some Kaiju aspects into one of my books (Call of the Arcade.)
>>16528984
They're a few horror novels, which can be read in any order but have some connections throughout them all.
>>16529393
Not much, so far. I'm trying to work on exposure, first.

>>16427889
Just read shit on asstr

also read
>doujins
>visual novels
>web stories on syosetu
In that order from most translated to least translated. It's a big drop off from doujins to eroge though, while you can find a sizeable amount of translated doujins in this category, there's barely any for eroge, and practically 0 for web stories. Google translate works wonders though. I suppose if you're reading for advanced prose you won't get anything out of these options however.
The Japanese stuff doesn't have much in the way of killing, unlike asstr stories. English writers really seem to love their snuff.

Honestly if you haven't read it you could be fine with asstr stories for a good while before it gets boring.

about the image...
that was a pretty fucked up story
but, call me crazy, isn't October (when the posts on /b/ were written) after May (when the guy in the image killed himself)? Did he rise from the grave almost 6 months later to post on /b/? About an event from 8 years earlier when he was 18... when he says in the posts that they took place a year before?

>>16428249
in that case just read real life shit then
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Bittaker_and_Roy_Norris

>>16420087
I haven't read Revolt yet but afaik Men Amongst the Ruins is just a more complete and mature version of it so you can just read that.
>>16420094
>To say that modern science is not a source of truth is a stretch. Its a model of the underlying causal order of reality such that mankind can more efficiently realize his ends. There are different forms of truth, such as moral truth, and science does not advance that particular truth. But to say that isn't truth in any sense is to split hairs on the definition of truth. What would you call this power science has? Would you deny the existence of a consistent underlying causal order? Would you deny that mastery of this order is in any sense truth? Genuinely I'm curious what you'd define that as.
Science is "truthful" insofar as it is useful for actualising a certain type of (technologically induced) change in the material world. It does not provide a truthful description of what "is" - this is impossible without metaphysics. Does that answer your question?
>Materialists don't use my definition because they are ignorant and don't even know the nature of the concept they are defending. This is more politics. Politics is an important question, and if you're trying to manipulate people through their ignorance I suppose more power to you. But here I am not concerned with politics but Truth. And the truth is that 'matter' as a concept is inherently flawed. Is this desk matter? No its my mind- its qualia in my mind. Matter then is a hypothetical underlying order which I can myself sense or interact with. Matter is more akin to Kantian noumena. The fact that most materialists don't understand this does not change the truth of it
I think our differences here might boil down to a simple difference in vocabulary. I agree with the example of the desk that you have provided, but I would describe the situation differently. Obviously, material objects are just different forms of projected spirit, but in my perspective matter is the phenomena in all cases. Spirit is the noumenon which structures phenomena (matter). Any seeming autonomy of matter beyond it just occurs on a level of spirit deeper than what can commonly be perceived.
>>16420115
No, this is an observation I drew only much after I got acquainted with data about the classical and the modern world. I come from an aggressively Christian background and my skepticism towards it developed alongside with my skepticism towards materialism, completely unlike the typical case. To reach my conclusions I have used reliable data presented to me by good and trustworthy friends, though I won't blame you for not believing me as I can not provide you with any sources on it right now.