/lit/ - Literature

>magic ratcatcher does not get paid, so he snatches all all the town's children and sells them to a pedophile ring
What the fuck is wrong with German fairytales?

>and but so

>>16004419
>Ted is far better than Nietzsche. At least he lived by his philosophy

Jesus Christ you guys are cancer.

What a load of pretentious kids, calm down and go read some goosebumps or something. This isn't the place for you.

>Protagonist is good looking but poor
>Falls in love with a woman/girl, she rejects him because he isn't a rich guy
>Protagonist then works his ass off to earn money
>He still goes after the same materialistic woman
>Book ends with either them getting together, or the woman rejecting him yet again for a richer guy.
Explain this trope to me? Is it because it was different time? Why are older romance novels so weird?

Post your top three favorite novels, then explain why the anon above you is an idiot for liking them. I'll start:
1. House of Leaves by Mark Z. Danielewski
2. The Rules of Attraction by Bret Easton Ellis
3. The Cipher by Kathe Koja

>>14283504
>trying to compare two poets who wrote in two different languages
Bet you read translations too

>reading faustus
>marlowe starts inserting random latin phrases into the play
Wtf bros I thougt you said he was good

>try to have a thoughtful decent conversation with friend who's a self prescribed "intellectual"
>get dismissed with "you're thinking too much"
fucking pseuds and their fucking muh rock in space nothing matters

This goes to books in their original language and books that are translated to your own language. I am currently reading a book by Albert Hourani about the Arabs. In it Hourani gives many birth/death dates and in some of them I notice some weird things, because some people were living 120 years. I did some research and it is kind funny: In one specific date in his original english book, Hourani says: (968–1110), in my translated version I have (985-1110) which are both wrong. It is funny because the guy is British and even encyclopedia Britannica says the "correct" date (969-1007).

In this day and age where translators have it easy, how can this even happen? And worse, imagine reading this book in 1991 and not have the internet or an encyclopedia to crosscheck the information.

>bivouacked

>>11832657
>I don't know
Despite all my posts you don't know what I understand of Spinoza at all to comment besides saying I don't understand him?

>>11389409
>If whites evolved from blacks, and blacks killed all the whites, would whites once more evolve from blacks?

>>11181172
>two snakes intertwined. That must be DNA, not just a representation of two things being connected.

>>11144061
>genetic character

>>11064098
>racial instincts

>>10818546
What do you think I'm shilling?

>read a philosophy book
>immediately agree with everything the author says, overriding my previous opinions
how do i stop doing this

>art isn't about pleasure

>>7978712
>Dickens is the greatest Victorian novelist.

>>6652632
>>6652632
Anything that can be described with the following buzzwords:

>This play/book is risky and fresh, it shows the moral vacuum and hypocrisy of the western society all while presenting a counterpoint of progressive values that clash against the vices of capitalism and neoliberalism. It embraces post-marxist ideology as well as a new form of sexual exploration that uncovers how gender indeterminacy is present in our patriarchal structure full of misogyny and prejudice. Moreover, it shows how cultural alienation has become one of the aftereffects of colonization and how the deconstruction of language and culture seems to play a great part on the reassertion of identity and assimilation of the other as part of the self.
It is very modern and daring, but ultimately offers no solution to the issues the dehumanization of insertethnicityhere/female main characters face.