/lit/ - Literature

>>21766213
I learned German completely from scratch a couple years ago (I had already turned 20, so fuck the naysayers who say it's not possible to learn a language once you've reached a certain age). It was the first language I ever sat down to really learn so I made a lot of mistakes that more than likely retarded my learning.

But as other anons have said, read, read, and read some more. Go on YouTube and listen to interviews and newscasts in German. DON'T put subtitles on: you need to acclimatize your ear to the sound of the language and conflating reading with listening will slow your progress down considerably. Don't worry about capturing everything that's said because you absolutely won't: if you beat yourself up over not being able to understand anything in the beginning you will demoralize yourself and not want to continue studying it. Plod along, keep listening, keep reading: you will study for weeks and still feel like you're an idiot who doesn't know anything and then one day things will click and it will feel so good.

Perseverance is key. Absolutely drive on.

>>21764350
It wasn't shit to me, quite frankly. I enjoyed it. It exuded a lovely romanticism, though paling in comparison to mine. Also, I don't recall bringing up either of those. Your memory seems to be failing, la?

>>21764608
The arrogance you have to speak for the rest of the board. Are you its spokesperson?
>Because you have shit taste and you’re soulless. You prefer French degenerates like Proust over a transcendental poetic masterpiece like the Comedy.
I have more soul in my left pinky toe than you do permeating your entire body. If Proust is a French degenerate, then Shakespeare is a pimp. There is nothing degenerate in Proust: he engages with matters of the soul and nothing more, transcends our mortal coil. Yet he is indeed very situated in the corporeal, though not in a perverted way. It's curious. More on that later.

>>21765140
>The effete sprinklings of Duolingo-imparted European languages are becoming tiresome and making me appreciate even more the beating you're taking.
I'm surprised you even knew what "effete" meant. Did you conjure that one out of a nearby scholastic implement, perhaps a thesaurus? Pshaw: what I know about languages I learned from pure effort, will, and immersion.
>You can't write better a better argument than a rando on /lit/. If only you were 'put to the test', am I right? A shame that we will never know.
I've already shown one of my poems, and I intend to display another at the end of this post once I've finished replying to all these "randos."

>>21766413
The only good post in this thread. Thanks much. I'll follow your advice: it's just that it's too much fun to do battle with these dilettantes. Keats indeed was quite good, wasn't he? I hope the other anon reads your post, if only to gain some insight.

>>21766480
Yeats was another good one. I appreciate the analysis. I could've worked more on the ending of my poem to be sure. But I also am happy that it's spawned a well-thought-out interpretation that differs from the direction I intended to go with it. I suppose I'll toss this one aside and try to write another one. Good phrase, also, "attendant furor," up above.

>>21766496
If I recall, "starless mystery" was born out of a desire for melodic prosody. It does seem intriguing though, nicht wahr? I'll think on it.

>>21766530
I deal with idiots all day: his response was so commonplace that I can only imagine what he'll have to say about this next one:

Surging dominion of eternity
Over the ghosts of marigolds and birch
Crowns newly king intangibility
And kisses senseless silence in a church;
Possessed of absence, seizing what it sees
And starving color of all nourishment;
Cold conqueror of mountain-tops and trees;
Sole poisoner of sight, and sound, and scent.
It even takes her, but she dares to pass
Through portals wide, untried, invisible;
To be suspended, in a jar of glass,
Abandoning designs impossible;
Unclasping flesh, resolving to descend,
She fades against the coming of the end.