/lit/ - Literature

wtf this guy is right about literally everything. There's not a single argument you can disagree on. He's absolutely right.

>>13578100
It's probably due to games and movies fucking up your imagination. When you read fiction you're actually supposed to imagine somewhat vividly what is being described. It's not like a game that everything is presented to you. Itsote like having memories of a life you've never had. On the other hand if you're reading just for the sake of finishing books and acquiring knowledge stick to non-fiction.

Also, leaving the house and living life will improve the imagination.

>>13579978
No. Read based non-fiction instead lmao.

>>13571071
>tfw my brain completely turns off when watching porn
>tfw I literally tremble and shake in antecipation of coming home and wanking
How much of a cumbrain am I?

>>13575733
Did he use to snort cock lmao?

Have you walked for two hours straight like Schopenhauer recommends, anon?

>>13576158
>Dostoevsky > Tolstoy.
They both suck.

>>13576124
>Kill urself pussy.
You mean for real this time?

The perfect philosopher doesn't exis-

>>13576257
Isn't that supposed to be Nick Bostrom?

>>13576186
It's nice and fun, but it lacks something. It's bland, in a way, I can't explain it, but if the content is good I'd read it.Not that I have much ability myself either though.

>>13576165
Here it is in text because I'm on my phone right now and can't screenshot in Arial:

How to make the reader feel what I feel? In this question lies, I believe, the core of any and every literary problem, the one which all artists, since the beginning of time until the days of the present have been attempting to answer - be it through their works or through their responses to questions of literary theory - but have been unable to do beyond the mere meagre and phoney copies of what these same artists are able to feel in the core of their being, thus never doing justice to the original : there is something in this lived consciousness which cannot be communicated. The job of the artist, be it for the mediocre up to the most exalted one, consists merely in this - to make the other feel what he feels - but since he is unable to do it, that is, he isn’t capable of transmitting that intense vividness; that indescribable reality which incorporates all his being whilst simultaneously thrusts itself into his consciousness and existence, has to contend himself with creating stories, writing poems, along with all other types of imitation which attempt to express at least a tiny bit of his vividness and consciousness. The artist however, unconsciously comprehends that he will never be able to bring to the fore what he really feels and experiences, and so he sets out to - insatiably - to create artistic forms which are faded to represent only a fraction of his innermost reality, this one being only possible to be lived through the sensibility granted to him only. This is the reason why, I believe, every noteworthy artist feels that something is missing from him, regardless of the work that he has been able of completing, since he will always have this feeling that he will never have the capacity of creating a work which is able to show others what he feels (his World), the result always being a certain dissatisfaction generated by the dissonance between what he lives and what he creates. All of us, especially the artists (because we feel it), are granted through existence a certain solipsism which incapacitates that we properly express what we feel - this being the reason why all works of art cannot consist in what the artist in fact feels (if this were the case, then all works of art would merely be a reliving of the artist, which never is, and even in the works of a more auto-biographical nature what we have is merely something that attempts, as much as it can, to recreate a mere certain sensation) but only a variety of works which intend to incite something into the spectator. On the other hand, my work, which even though must fail in its undertaking (which has also happened to all of those before me) must deal directly with this same theme.

>>13576207
>implying anyone will ever read the shit I write

>>13576165
You find playfair a hard font to read? I find Arial and even Times New Roman so indescribably bland that I find it not only a bore, but even wonder how people stand seeing the same font over and over again.

>be me
>write in English and have wider vocabulary in it than my own native language, almost solely read in English
>originally planned to write in English, but decide to write some in Portuguese
>after I'm finished, I begin to translate my own text from my native language to english
>it takes one hour to translate 2 pages and it doesn't even turn out to give the meaning I intended.
How the fuck do translators do it? Even I couldn't give the correct translation to my OWN words and I WAS THE ONE WHO WROTE IT.

>>13576145
>AI common pulp novel words and Stephen King's The Dark Tower series and it spit this out at random.
Is the Dark Tower bad?

>>13572570
This sound good. I'd read it if I had nothing to do, I think. It's well-written, but at the same time it isn't as interesting enough for some reason. I don't know, maybe it reminds me too much of myself. You are still 18 though (from your story) and so I'm pretty sure you'll just get better as you grow.

>>13573964
I find this really strange to read. I've found out that when writing, you should always think about what the reader will be able to figure out, otherwise you're just writing for yourself, and writing for yourself just to make you remember what you have felt, seen or discovered and it's scribbles to everyone else.

>>13575940
Hey, that's nice.

>>13570357
I have something that I'd really, REALLY, want someone to say something about. Please tell me if it's interesting. It's in my native portuguese, but I'll translate it real quick into English for you.

>>13575751
I must say, based.

Although it is not very complex and a bit bland, but still based. You don't need much else if you want self-improvement. Seneca and Marcus Aurelius might be somewhat beginner-minded for philosophy students, but after delving deep, many times we want to return to the surface, and we might find the most value in precisely those works. Seneca is based, and I recommend reading Marcus Aurelius everyday unironically.

>>13575524
>>13575403
Don't. Just start reading Seneca and don't delve too deep into philosophy because you'll get too many questions you'll never have any answers too. Also, don't read fiction. It's just mere blatant pure escapism.

>>13575658
Buddhism is more based as a practice, as we can all see, but there is something about Hinduist metaphysics that people say is amazing, even more so than Buddhist's, to a point where even Schopenhauer loved the Upanishads to death.

>>13575614
What is on the list seems more than enough lmao. You should only go into hinduism after you've become somewhat aknowledge in Buddhism anyway lmao.

>>13575480
>Dostoevsky famously threw away his first draft of Crime and Punishment written in first person confession format (think Lolita) simply because writing the story this way was far more difficult and ultimately not very aesthetic.
Yeah, I know. When you write in the third- person you can actually say "He believes that, even though it wasn't true." but in the first person, it doesn't make any sense. Imagine saying "I believe this, even though it isn't true." or something like "I believe it rains outside, even though it does not." Makes no sense, right? But maybe it's precisely this that makes me more attracted to the first-person narration - because it shows the perspective and delves into the mind of the character in question and is the least similar to cinema, which just shows things in the third person.

also sauce.

>>13575493
>The first-person narrator is limited in knowledge.
I know, I'm just saying that it is better at describing sensations, the particular subjective mind of the character, etc.

>>13574509
>Nabokov mentions another writer again in Lolita
Does Joyce do that EVEN MORE than Nabokov on his masterpiece?