/lit/ - Literature

How old do you think Hamlet was?

Sometimes I see him as a teenager. Sometimes I see him in his thirties.

Hello /lit/,

Listen, you are all retarded, you can't speak, you can't listen, you don't know shit about books, you don't know shit about anything.

I'm very dissapointed on all of you and I want you all to go fuck yourselves in the ass.

Do yourselves a favour and get out of this hole before your brain turns to goo. The more you reply to retards, the dumber you get and you have passed the point of icecream on head.

Childish superficial views on everything, I advise you to abandon whatever you are thinking and leave this place immediately. I say this out of a genuine concern for your health, not only intellectual, but emotional, biological and all else. It kills the man.

I'm out of here,

Fuck you,

Nothing of value was lost,

Good bye.

The way I see it, cinema is essentially photography with the advent of time. It's a musical composition made from light engravings.

With photography you capture light and even though your eye is not like a camera, your camera is much like an eye. Not only a physical chamber, but an emotional chamber, for which you may choose many lenses.Photography is not an unchanging register of the past, it is a memory.

Capture of time is, in fact, cheating. It is about reproducing time on a film roll of proportionate space in its extension.But this illusion is nothing but the capture of movement, adding a dimension that is perhaps the most unstable to our eyes of the mind. The film rolls in its proper speed, but the photography and yourself, roll independently.Though they work together throughout that couple of hours window in our day, meeting or distantiating, rolling at different gears.

The director is able to manipulate all that. The light, the movement. He cuts film like one cuts time. And though we are used to the cinema of fiction, in which the director builds this world for him to shoot, I always see it as a look into what's real for these makers. A "documentary" on the writer, on the director, on the acting work (which is always real acting, regardless on who they are pretending to be).Their voice, sound, that comes later, as haunting as it is in real life, on each person (per+son, that from which sound goes through). Musical composition all again. Always real, always personal.

You guys know that Tintin and Milou (Snowy) are the same character, right?

Milou plays the role of Tintin's Id. Doesn't speak, has that intuitive agression or humour towards what he encounters, raw animalistic and childish play, often saves Tintin's ass...

I've got reading cramps on my eyelids.

I went to three doctors, but they were unable to tell how and why that happened and the tests gave us nothing but inconsistent results. Finally, I went to a forth doctor, specialized in this type of anti-intellectual contraction of the muscles. He tested me with a copy of Plato's Dialogues and I had the cramps right in front of him, I couldn't read anything for the next two days. He gave me a prescription for some pills, eyedrop and told me to rest. Then he explained that I had a case of RARC(Recurrent Aristotelic Reading Cramps), a rare psychosomatic condition in which the patient can't read anything Platonic without blocking it with rigid eyelids and, in extreme cases(not mine), convulsion. I returned to my cave instructed not to try Plato anymore without proper professional therapeutic aid.On my way home, I stopped to buy the eye drop recommended, but as I showed the prescription to the pharmacist, he laughed right there at my face. There is no such eye drop, he said to me. But how could that be? And then he explained that this eyedrop never existed and never will, that it was completely idealized and that there was no such thing as RARC, it was invented by the doctor and I was acting in a foolish way. I insisted, but he pressed on to the point of yelling me out of his store.

I don't know what to think anymore. I thought I had it right, but now I'm just confused. The Dialogues are still sitting there at the coffe table. Untouched.

Hello, /lit/tle monsters.

What does it mean to say something is Kafkaesque?

Thank you, brothers.

Welcome, OP.

Fun fact: if you go deep into anything, it becomes gibberish.

Any field. The more you know about it, the more you'll roll your eyes when talking to laymen and you'll realize no one knows shit about anything. You need the most advanced teachers to tell you how uncertain, relative and meaningless your field is. Highschool students think they actually learned anything but babby trivia.

You know, it's like saying a single word multiple times in a roll until you don't know what it means anymore and it sounds absolutely weird.

"Jehovah" goes for every vowel. Open, closed, all the sounds is there. Forget the consonants and realize J is more like I. "Ieouah" is more like it. It represents all the sounds, the rainbow of sounds that makes for the white light of God's name.

The "Om" is just that as well. It's in fact, "aounnnn" it starts open and then closes and the "m" is there usually to represent the closing into a nasal sound into what the Hindu consider as sound as well: silence (and that's why when saying "om" you have to be quiet for a while before saying it again). That reflects in their philosophy around the nothingness of sunyata and the use of 0 in their mathematics.

On the Jehovah thing I'm not sure as I just heard it from a priest years ago when I was a teenager and it made sense to me. The Om I read it a few times from different sources. Combining them sounds interesting enough to me.

Middle School.

>>3312836
>>3312830
Portuguese is my mother language and I must say I'm very comfortable with asking "Bob killed whom?" as it goes along with the structure we would have for these kinds of question. I'm not sure about how it sounds for others.

There are more English speakers out there that don't have English as native language, so deal with it.

I think the only thing one must be careful is not to push books onto children. To think they have to read at all is a mistake. When you don't want to read or learn something but you are pushed to do it, the whole endeavour just backfires. That would be indoctrination, stubborn adults pushing them around as if children were "adults in training".

That being said, I think children shouldn't be denied the opportunity to read any classic from any time. A book (or anything else) for a mature audience is not really about the shock children would have, but about interest. You cannot expect a 10 year old kid to read Don Quixote and be hooked in it (even though, if it happends, it happends).

I don't like simplified works at all. But not because they are not the original, but because they are made to fit the children's level of reading. Obviously, but my point is that they are made with that in mind, which ruins it. If one adapts an otherwise complicated book but has in mind that it is a retelling, then it's fine. And if it engages a child, that's cool, if not, then it just doesn't. They carry the myth around the story, but there is a big difference between writing for children and dumbing it down and sugar coat it.

Trust me, I'm 9 years old.

>>2891263
>Say that to my face fucker not online and see what happends
>Say that to my face fucker, not online, and see what happends
>Say that to my face, fucker, not online, and see what happends
>Say that: "to my face fucker" not online and see. What happends?
>Say "that to my face". Fucker not online... And see what happends.

I wish I was a dragon.