/lit/ - Literature

>>19288488
I haven't read either, but I was a big fan of lewis' space trilogy and a canticle for liebowitz. Which one should I read first/is there an alternative series/science fiction-fantasy novel that I would prefer?
Also, is gene wolfe worth it?
t. not a big science fiction buff

>>19137735
guenon more like gay non?

>>17659071
>average canticle for leibowitz appreciator
what could have been

only somewhat related to the question of man in heaven but it reminds me of a few quotes from A Canticle for Leibowitz about men botching their second attempts at paradise

>The closer men came to perfecting for themselves a paradise, the more impatient they became with it, and with themselves as well. They made a garden of pleasure, and became progressively more miserable with it as it grew in richness and power and beauty; for then, perhaps, it was easier to see something was missing in the garden, some tree or shrub that would not grow. When the world was in darkness and wretchedness, it could believe in perfection and yearn for it. But when the world became bright with reason and riches, it began to sense the narrowness of the needle's eye, and that rankled for a world no longer willing to believe or yearn.

>“We are the centuries... We have your eoliths and your mesoliths and your neoliths. We have your Babylons and your Pompeiis, your Caesars and your chromium-plated (vital-ingredient impregnated) artifacts. We have your bloody hatchets and your Hiroshimas. We march in spite of Hell, we do – Atrophy, Entropy, and Proteus vulgaris, telling bawdy jokes about a farm girl name of Eve and a traveling salesman called Lucifer. We bury your dead and their reputations. We bury you. We are the centuries. Be born then, gasp wind, screech at the surgeon’s slap, seek manhood, taste a little godhood, feel pain, give birth, struggle a little while, succumb: (Dying, leave quietly by the rear exit, please.) Generation, regeneration, again, again, as in a ritual, with blood-stained vestments and nail-torn hands, children of Merlin, chasing a gleam. Children, too, of Eve, forever building Edens – and kicking them apart in berserk fury because somehow it isn’t the same. (AGH! AGH! AGH! – an idiot screams his mindless anguish amid the rubble. But quickly! let it be inundated by the choir, chanting Alleluias at ninety decibels.)”

Remember to donate to Wikipedia. Its their 20th birthday today

>>16379793
>le science solves yet again!

>>16322418
Not terribly obscure, but I'm reading A Canticle for Leibowitz right now and it's probably my new all time favorite.

Eliminate pornography from it.

>>15586379
I can't wait for cosmism to come back in a big way

Greetings /lit/. I am a somewhat successful fiction writer working on my third book due out sometime next year and I have a couple questions that pertain to time-travel.

Considering that time-travel is a complex theme to write logically, what do you look for as far as plot holes when it comes to the subject? How would they be "fixed" for the sake of the story?

For example: X character was born in 1982, currently resides in year 2002, "travels" to year 1990 and somehow dies in a battle or accident. Plot hole suggests that other characters can just jump to a time slightly before X character dies to "save" him from his own death.

How would you solve a problem like this when the main theme of the story is time travel? Thanks.

There are three possibilities for the the existence of the universe:

1. It is Uncaused
2. Self-caused
3. Caused

The universe cannot be uncaused since it exists.

It cannot be self-caused since it would have to first "not exist" in order to need causing.

Yet, it would have to exist in order to have the ability to cause.

It's absurd to conclude that the universe was in a state of existence and non-existence in order to cause it's own existence.

Therefore, the universe must have had a cause by another source.

I once heard a scientist say that he believed the universe was uncaused, and has always existed. My question is that is if it's acceptable to have an uncaused universe, why would it not be acceptable to have a creator that is uncaused? When a member of the scientific community argues for the eternal existence of the universe, do they not commit the same fallacy as the theologian who argues for the eternal existence of God?

>some haven't realized yet that every position imagineable has an intelligent voice

>>5389368
Yes.

>>4781012
>the last 1000 years
>1000 years
>one thousand years
>double ellipsis

>>3572477
read these subjects

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Classics