/lit/ - Literature

>>18894147
>It's on a higher level.
Where's the evidence for this?

>>18850892
>to The Happy Fren

my sources say yes

Let’s say you are reading a novel.
You notice that in this novel the only punctuation marks used are periods, commas, and quotation marks.
Now add to this the fact that the novel is by an unknown author and an unknown publisher, has a noticeable number of typos as well as misused words and overly simplistic metaphors, similes, and references—simple to the point of making you cringe. The book is also 1200 pages.

Knowing all this,
Would you question the seriousness of the author?
Assuming there is no clear stylistic intent to the aforementioned criticisms of the writing, could you go so far as to say that the novel that has no literary merit whatsoever?

In addition:
You also found out about this book through a “booktuber” who usually reads really good books that line up with a lot of /lit/‘s favorites, and recommended this book with high praise.
You go to the goodreads page of this novel and see that there are only about a dozen reviews, most of them very good.
One of the reviews is a 5-Star review from the booktuber. It’s not a very long review, it just says it is good and he recommends it.
You see his review has a few “likes”
You notice that one of the “likes” shares the same first name as the author.
You click on this man’s profile and come to realize that this is the author of said novel.
There is also a second profile on the Goodreads review page that comments on negative reviews with very impassioned defenses of the book. In one comment admits to being the publisher.

With this added context, might it be reasonable to believe that you were scammed into buying a shitty book by a seemingly honest person who was shilling a shitty book as part of some incestuous kickback deal that he agreed to upon being contacted by the author and/or publisher?

>>18655906
According to Lacan, no, the subject has to possess a certain structure to be a subject, in fact the subject doesn't even possess a specific content, it's simply the site of the "knotting" of the Real, Imaginary, and Symbolic

The gnostics were fixated on the problem of life being parasited by a World. I think Lacan is indispensable in understanding a gnosticism where the trap is TRANSCENDENTAL and not substantial (as with Manichaeism)

What you guys been reading? What do you think about it? I'm genuinely curious.

What are some books to have lying around so that I look smarter than I am and women would be more likely to touch my nono zone after seeing that I own them?

Why is reading cheap paperbacks so much more soulful than reading gaudy hard covers?

>Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo

How do we break out of the closed circle of representationalism?

>>18447445
They're arguments against a certain kind of spiritualized complacency I see in undeveloped trad/esoteric circles

>>18447426
Cunningham is good if you want someone to walk you through why a shitposter on 4chan is calling Plotinus a proto-nihilist (chapter 3 or 4 I think).

If you want schizo stuff, check out Voyage to Arcturus (visionary gnostic sci-fi) or Jung's 7 Sermons to the Dead (One = Pleroma, Abraxas = Nous, etc. in this scheme)

If you want something a bit more rigorous but still exotic, check out the Light and the Darkness: Studies on Manichaeism and its World

Chapter 1, "Metabolism of Salvation", is
excellent.

If you want more logic chopping, I've found this helpful

https://www.jstor.org/stable/25676936?seq=1

>>18271502
Romans suck, don't do Romans. They have nothing with real philosophy. Except Plotinus and Boethius. Marcus Aurelius etc are for Rennesaince pussies, who were rather practising their eloquence on Latin, than philosophy. Stoicism is for pussies too. After Plotinus and Boethius go directly to the medievals: St. Augustine, Aquinas, Ockham, Eckhart, Grosseteste, Abelard and the Bible for sure. Then proceed with Rennesaince since like Bruno and so on. Then come back and I will give you another advice on Rennesaince.

Does anyone else read the last 10% of a book way faster than the first 90%?
I took several months to read through The Magic Mountain because I was just chipping away at it a few pages per day. Then when I got to the last 80 pages I just sat down and plowed through it in one morning. 3 months to read the first ~800 pages, 1 day to read the last 80.
How do I keep this energy throughout an entire book? I could read so much more

>>18112300
>sneed means to grin in hebrew

Did you learn how to do it in school, were you self-taught or did your parents teach you? Did you have a hard time or did it come natural to you? What was the first thing you read on your own? What was your favorite book as a kid?

How do I get into Buddhism?

>We may sum up our results as follows: To say "X inherently entails/ includes Y" means ''X is inescapably readable. if properly recontextualized, as consisting of Y-ness, as instantiating Y, and ultimately as Y itself. Moreover, this process of recontextualization is not something alien added to the original X, but is rather implicit in its original (readability as) X-ness, and indeed is as much its own deed as the original contextualization which allowed it to be read as X."

What the FUCK did he mean by this?

What is your favorite genre, /lit/?

i draw pitchers and then i write the pitchers i drew

>>17915196
Oof, that's that good shit. It's passages like this where Heidegger really made a name for himself.

>>17910852
Hopefully you will be required to serve out a ban due to the fact that you are a frog poster

>>17833147
This
and novels

disproportionately so to the point men become a minority in some online only fiction communities

their fixiation for dramas and some plays borders in autism

Can we compare 4chan today to Alexandria in the 2nd-3rd centuries AD? Will we write the new gnosticism, /lit/?

>>17762075
>birthday soon
which of the "for prose" books do you like the best, /wg/? my mom asked me what i want and i need to give her a few books