/lit/ - Literature

The Brothers Karamazov starts in such a weird way lmao. I would never recommend it for starters, because people who get into it too quickly will get a wrong idea of what literature is about, especially in the beginning, where it describes things instead of showing, and then doesn't focus itself too much on conjuring images, sensations etc. on the mind but rather dialogue and information. Great philosophical work though.

>>13575313
You're right, I don't think it would have been possible to write a book like say, The Brothers Karamazov in the first person (although there are some "scenes" of the book where the "I" is mentioned, and the narrator is a part of the story for brief moments, but in the first person you just get so much more connection to the character and you also feel what he feels so much more. One thing is to read (and as we all know reading is the same as thinking with another man's mind, as Schopenhauer so wisely explained) "I did this and that.", "I felt this, as if I were in this or that, with such vividness that it made me remember my days, I ate and saw this or that etc." rather than when the book just says "He did this and she said that or this to him." You just distance yourself from the character in question and see yourself in third person, like a movie, which is not what literature should be about.

Does anyone also feel that books in the first person are better than in the third because it's not only easier, but have a greater range of describing sensations, sensory experience, sounds, images etc? It's much easier to conjure up in the mind something that is happening in the first person rather than say "HE did this or that."

>>13574985
This book is extremely good, better than Anna Karenina by a long shot.

>>13575020
>It absolutely ruined the life of the main actress (I'm not kidding when I tell you her life is as tragic as Lolita's)
Yeah, I know. Anons on r9k told me that she married like 4? times and dated black dudes, even though she was like, from the 60s lmao.

>>13575149
>Anna Karenin
long, drawn-out, boring novella about women and their bullshit, along with all that crap over the "feelings" of women and that gay shit

>Lolita
Based intellectual and extremely well-read cunnyposter Chad who fucks little girls and does whatever he wants lmao. Extremely interesting, new and different.

>>13574148
Painting is the art of colors of the brush, writing novels is the art of words. Just the same that you wouldn't say someone who has seen many paintings in museums necessarily knows how to draw or paint, or sculpt because he admires Michelangelo's sculptures, just the same one cannot say anyone who reads much can write necessarily well, although he may better be able to discern the good from the bad. The problem is that like any art we tend to become enamored by what we create out of sheer narcissism, like that child who thinks his drawing that his mom puts on the fridge is a work of art.

wtf this book is boring as fuck.

>>13563099
Isn't this novel really weird though? I mean, who is the narrator here? If it's a 3rd person omniscient one, then how come he refers to himself as a person who lives in a monastery? And if that's really the case, he's just a monk in a monastery, then how come he's so able to describe every dialogue in the story like he knows everything? It makes little sense.

What the fuck, this is the greatest written novel of all time. Nabokov was right on his "On a book titled Lolita", literary works aren't meant to be informative or increase your knowledge but simply be aesthetic perfections that will conjure something in your mind that nothing else can do, and Lolita does the greatest job in it.

>>13571686
What is wrong with me? I don't have any sexual attraction towards children in any way whatsoever, I don't get turned on by it at all, but there is just something that makes me so attracted and so compelled to pubescent girls, especially when they're blonde, blue-eyed ones, but in a sort of romantic sort of way but not a sexual one. It's really weird, I can't explain it. I want to grab her and smooch her and fill her with "love" and make her my wife but not defile her with sexuality. It's not a fatherly thing but a romantic thing, maybe I'm just like Humbert who, because he never fully realized his childhood love, kept that complex for the rest of his life, but I don't want to have any sex whatever or defile with things like that, but only love her and be with her. I'm weird. Someone psychoanalyze me.

>>13573921
>Does language metaphysicalize reality?
I believe that it is not we who have dominion over language, but language has dominion over US. We do not put limits over it, but it puts on us. Our World is dominated by our thoughts, which cannot be expressed but with our language.

>>13573726
>Is it the communication of a line of thoughts meant to personally effect the reader?
No. It's not about learning, it's not about any accumulation of knowledge, insight or any of that. It's not about bringing people together, although this last one is a big factor in it, but the main thing is the conjuring up of sensations into the mind. It's not simply to feel what the character feels or has felt, that's easy, movies can do that in one tenth of the time, but to actually conjure in the mind that same sensation that the narrator describes, sometimes with few words, if he's really capable.

>>13573703
>Faulkner is better.
What are his best works?

>>13570547
Annotate everything you've read.

>tfw you finally start using your mind's eye when reading Lolita and it beats everything out of the water
wtf this is awesome

>>13570547
Annotate everything you've written.

>>13572807
I didn't finish Crime and Punishment because I found it boring.

>>13573596
>The question remains, however: are you based?
Lolita is my favorite novel.

Also, I mix Vyvanse, Zolpidem, Diazepam and alcohol in tiny amounts to get the ultimate high.

>tfw you finally get the "it" of Literature and how it relates to the imagination and the mind's eye
I finally understand

The perfect writer doesn't exis-

>>12866489
*Why?
I don't like using much punctuation but when I do I'm sure to get right it in every instance like this one where the right thing for you to have done is ended the sentence with '?' since it's proper to use a question mark when asking or recording a question and if that wasn't a question but instead some sort of strange monosylabbic statement then I'm afraid I'd need you to elaborate on it as I can't be definitely sure enough of it's meaning to compose a confident response so for the time being I'll just assume it was a question anyways and respond based on this presumption: I'm working on a new book frens I consider myself a bit of a modern day Homer and don't care much for anything outside of writing much less anything to do with the modern world but with that I do like lumber-jacking a whole lot though and my property is pretty vast just like the settings of my books as reflected in my prose.

>>12864486
why the long face anon

>>12866402
My diary desu, I haven't left my room in 4 days(counting today,) my house in 7 1/2 months or my property in 12 years.

Homer