/lit/ - Literature

Technology is nature.

>>14419074
No, he said it because I was reading Shakespeare. You see, the innately lower-class are flooded with feelings of abhorrence when they see a person like me, a patrician, reading good literature—it fills them with jealousy, jadedness: all the gross feelings that dampen a true artist’s sensibilities, and true artist I am.

The Apology
On the Heights of Despair
The Bible
Divine Comedy
Paradise Lost
The Flowers of Evil
Arthur Rimbaud Selected Poems and Letters
Á Rebours
Hamlet
Les Misérables
A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man
The Waves
The Elements of Style
The Great God Pan
Lolita
Crime and Punishment
The Brothers of Karamazov

Use your envy as a tool to continue bettering yourself.

>>14378543
>he's literally a seething vindictive /r9k/ sociopath
You could’ve just said irrefutably based, cuckold.

To take a modern example, let us say that Othello, Iago, Hamlet, Lear, Richard III, existed merely in the mind of Shakespeare, at the time of their conception or creation. And yet, Shakespeare also existed within each of these characters, giving them their vitality, spirit, and action. Whose is the "spirit" of the characters that we know as Micawber, Oliver Twist, Uriah Heep--is it Dickens, or have each of these characters a personal spirit, independent of their creator? Have the Venus of Medici, the Sistine Madonna, the Apollo Belvidere, spirits and reality of their own, or do they represent the spiritual and mental power of their creators? The Law of Paradox explains that both propositions are true, viewed from the proper viewpoints. Micawber is both Micawber, and yet Dickens. And, again, while Micawber may be said to be Dickens, yet Dickens is not identical with Micawber. Man, like Micawber, may exclaim: "The Spirit of my Creator is inherent within me-- and yet I am not HE!" How different this from the shocking half-truth so vociferously announced by certain of the half-wise, who fill the air with their raucous cries of: "I am God!" Imagine poor Micawber, or the sneaky Uriah Heep, crying: "I Am Dickens"; or some of the lowly clods in one of Shakespeare's plays, eloquently announcing that: "I Am Shakespeare!" THE ALL is in the earthworm, and yet the earth-worm is far from being THE ALL. And still the wonder remains, that though the earth-worm exists merely as a lowly thing, created and having its being solely within the Mind of THE ALL--yet THE ALL is immanent in the earthworm, and in the particles that go to make up the earth-worm. Can there be any greater mystery than this of "All in THE ALL; and THE ALL in All?"

>>14377302
>Things both exist and don’t exist
No.

>>14363562
Yes.