/lit/ - Literature

>>12974256

>>12964912
His interpretations and idiosyncratic elucidations on Jung's work is particularly clear, as far as Jungian scholars go.

That doesn't mean he's the best, but it means that his particular branch of expertise is made all the more lurid and illuminating and articulate through his comprehension of Jung.

The fact of the matter is most people mistake his clarity for laziness or stupidity. When in reality it takes a great degree of genius to make clear and simple things so complex. But to know this, you need to understand the sophisticated abstractions. Which most people don't. Hence the large swarms of retards posting this shit
>>12964886
>>12964868

>>12915462
>I dont understand what scientific citations are and what they mean.
God help this poor deluded fucking retard.

>>12891816
>caring about originality.

>>12792876
Okay.

Post-Modernism is falsely conflated with Marxism and Feminism. Most Marxists and Feminists are not necessarily postmodernism. Many are in fact, existentialist and/or modernist. Postermodernism carries with it, in most instances (though not all), a rejection of philosophical metanarratives. What's at the heart of Marx's philosophy? The metanarrative of dialectical materialism, and of the inevitibility of communism through global revolution, stemming from the internal conflict of precommunist politics. What's at the heart of Christianity? The metanarrative of salvation. Postmodernism largely presents philosophical frameworks as tool-kits to be applied when needed, or borrowed from and expanded, like open-source software, as opposed to an end-all metanarrative about the inevitability of some outcome.

If you're interested in the fiscal/economic side of leftism, read Hegel as a foundation, move onto Marx, then read the frankfurt school.

If you're interested in the social side of things, that is, Anarchism/Socialism/Feminism/Social Justice/Anticolonialism/Anti-imperialism, all philosophies which are neither packaged together nor mutually exclusive, then read authors in those categories, for instance Bakunin, Chomsky, Parenti, Angela Davis, Simone De Beauvoir, Ursula Le Guin, Murray Bookchin etc.

Bumping with /lit/ related memes

>>12316669

I think it's because he came across as too /r9k/ for them, what he did is so out there it's Other. If he slit his wrists he would be a statistic about late capitalism, as it is he's filed with "all the frog people Angela Nagle told us about who hate 'normies'" and ignored.

>>12208018

This process will result in you reading lots of things you never cite (or only cite to show you read them/stuff a bibliography because the course demands 10 sources per paper or something). This is fine, do not panic, it’s normal. The process of intelligently throwing away the chaff is immensely useful and the effort you put in will shine through in the quality of the paper you eventually produce.

RE writing, your introduction should tell the grader where your argument is going and broadly how you will do it. “In this paper I will argue / we will see (depending on your grader’s preferences with first person essay writing) that Hope Mirlees was more significant to the development of fantasy as a true genre than Mary Shelley. This is because Frankenstein … whereas Lud-in-the-Mist …”. Then go on to give a clear definition of what you mean by your terms. “I will define literary fiction as X and fantasy, in its contemporary meaning, as Y. It is also helpful to consider old English faerie stories which I will define as Z…”

Clarity is king. Clarity is 90% of the battle. If you yourself, and a fresher off the boat, would find your paper useful for understanding the subject, you’re doing it right. Do not try to make something “academic” right off the bat. Your intended audience or an undergrad paper is the laziest member of the year below you which includes a sixthformer if you’re a fresher. For all you know, there’s a lecturer/TA grading this at 3 in the morning subsisting entirely on caffeine and red wine. Briefly summarise points before moving subject completely. Signpost what you are doing next; your conclusion should really be an abstract. “We saw that X is true through Y evidence, and that Z counterpoint is incorrect because 123”. If someone in a terrible mood because it’s 3am, their husband is pissed at them for not coming home at midnight, and they have just got through 120 papers with rambling bad arguments, you want to be the paper that makes them think “oh thank fuck, maybe I will sleep tonight if the rest are like this”.

Talk to your TAs/lecturers, finding out if there’s anything the particularly insist on in paper structure, but stick to substantive issues and asking for good literature recs in the main. They will likely tell you how they expect papers to be written or you will find out via the grapevine if you engage with your class. These days they should offer online essay writing advice for structure and there are lots of other resources on that online. Against what other posters said, I wouldn’t ask them about essay plans directly but instead about general lines of argument. Honestly, it is possible to write a fantastic looking plan or a broadly correct one and sill write a bad essay because you’ve put bad meat on a good skeleton.

Also see

>>12207201

>annoying and possibly moronic personal views on gender, philosophy, sociology, morality, religion, etc.

Don't do this.

I believe happiness/content comes from living and surviving among a group of tightly knit people, like tribalism with a primitive survival layer added to it. Any books exploring this?

>>12133984
How come I never seen this one before

>>12045765
There's nothing wrong with that.

Kicking this off with this meme; following up in a short moment...

>>11866003
Yeh im a tranny let me fuck you with my 8 inch cock you twink
>>11866011
>not just getting everything through dreams

>>11792197
>sources
Full pseud right here

>>11791449
Heraclitus.
Why are you against quotes?