/lit/ - Literature

Achilles to me represents the flawed ideal of Greek martial culture. The Iliad is, sure, a story about the Trojan War, but I would argue it is moreso a study of the ambivalence inherent in war. Excellence in war is valued. As is rhetoric and skill in sport. Achilles delivers the best speeches in the Iliad, contrary to those who would say Odysseus. He is the greatest of the Achaean warriors, and fulfills the Greek ideal for the man of action/man of words.

But--what does this lead to? So much of Achilles' virtuous deeds are driven by that first word: Rage, Wrath, or Anger. This is what brings Achilles his long-waited aristeia; or, moment of supreme perfection and glory. Again--at what cost?

Achilles is both something to be revered as a perfection and revered as a horrible beast. He makes a similes in one of his best speeches in Book 22 before killing Hector and denying him his wish for his body to be returned to Troy; he promises to defile his dead corpse before it even dies.

>Achilles glared at him and answered, "Fool, prate not to me about covenants. There can be no covenants between men and lions, wolves and lambs can never be of one mind, but hate each other out and out an through. Therefore there can be no understanding between you and me, nor may there be any covenants between us, till one or other shall fall

Achilles is a beast, as he self-corresponds to lions and wolves, not men and lambs. Achilles denies humanity itself in grief. Recall how he blackens his face and tears his hair out in grief for Patroclus. He is the epitome of the PTSD-ridden soldier, torn by the terrors of war and its effects.

Most in this thread may be reading the Iliad as fitting into the dichotomy of pro-war or anti-war, but it is neither; its reluctance to fit into either label makes it, for me, one of the very, very great pieces of literature. It both glorifies and resents war, and since it manifests itself the most in Achilles, he is probably its greatest character.

Rambled a lot, much check out an essay called Between Lions and Men: Images of the Hero in the Iliad for more. Also, Simone Weil's Iliad; or, the Poem of Force.

>>8767125
Plato: Apology, Crito, Phaedo, Symposium, Republic
Aristotle: Ethics, Politics, Metaphysics
Stoics: Epictetus' Handbook, Aurelius' Meditations, Seneca's Letters from a Stoic.

read ABOUT all these guys. there's plenty i've missed and it would be wise also to check out yale's ancient greek history and some lectures/secondary material on figures and concepts not shown above.

philosophy is both a) knowledge and b) a way of life (from Marais' History of Philosophy, which I recommend). Maybe the most important part of studying philosophy is putting it into practice. I think it was David Hume who talked about how you can argue that the external world is just a facade, and that what we perceive and what is true cannot be proved to be one and the same(see Descartes and the Skeptics for this stuff). But, he acknowledged that when you're at the pub talking with your friends, and you leave the pub, you still check both ways so you won't be struck dead by a car.

So, think of philosophy not so much as epistemological wankery, and the ejaculations of theorems that do not really matter in the big picture of human existence. It's an ongoing guidebook on how to live the good life, whatever the fuck that is.

People that hate on Stoics for being proto-self-helpers are missing maybe that most important topic in philosophy: what is the good life? Whether it's isolated asceticism or vile hedonism, these are the questions discussed by philosophers. Socrates really was the first philosopher to discuss HUMAN affairs, i.e. how to best live one's life, instead of the explanations of nature and the heavens by Thales etc. It's also the reason we say pre-Socratic, as it implies a massive turning point in human thought.

so, start with the greeks. the Apology will give you:
>a justification of philosophy and free-thought
>a critique and celebration of democracy
>a masterful use of rhetoric and persuasion
>an ability to think for yourself despite biases and pre-conceptions
>an ability to stand for and argue for what you believe is right
>probably more confidence in expression and the formation of ideas

you'll get smart, and intellectually humble.

>>8741803
those are probably the most praised, criticized, analyzed, broken-down, and known works in their respective mediums, and rightly so.

what do you think surpasses the iliad? divine comedy? ulysses? shakespeare? or would you say nabokov/pynchon and the like to fulfill your deluded sense that obscurity implies quality? that the most obvious choices for highest artistic achievement could not be so? that those tweed-suit-wearing old bastards at yale/oxford/wherever could not be right because you're a free-thinking young man with nihilistic tendencies and a true objective sense of the sublime?

what did you pick?

>>8721651
disagree: shakespeare could push the limits of language beyond what an ordinary person would be capable of for the simple reason of acting. if you read shakespeare's works in comparison to say Bernard Shaw you'll quickly notice that the stage directions are minimal. e.g: [Hamlet and Polonius fight] We know that shakespeare himself was an actor, and no doubt oversaw the visual storytelling taking place on top of his written text for his plays. Theatre at the time is comparable to early film; there's more of a reliance on what is perceived by the eyes than what is appreciated by the ears.

Joyce? I see him as more of a modern, near-democratic author. his story concerns a jewish advertising canvasser; simultaneously an outcast, a hero, and an everyman. Contrast with Odysseus, one of the most revered and depicted heroes of antiquity. Joyce was writing sure, for the avant garde/experimental side of literature, but he was also in a sense a champion of the everyman. The first scene, which I recommend everyone read, regardless if you read the rest, is not hard at all.

Everyone should listen to frank delaney's re:joyce and at least glance over some secondary literature. it can be really illuminating.

>>8653399
>>8657179
MELVILLE IS THE FUCKIN GOAT

IT was a clear steel-blue day. The firmaments of air and sea were hardly separable in that all-pervading azure; only, the pensive air was transparently pure and soft, with a woman’s look, and the robust and man-like sea heaved with long, strong, lingering swells, as Samson’s chest in his sleep. 1
Hither, and thither, on high, glided the snow-white wings of small, unspeckled birds; these were the gentle thoughts of the feminine air; but to and fro in the deeps, far down in the bottomless blue, rushed mighty leviathans, sword-fish, and sharks; and these were the strong, troubled, murderous thinkings of the masculine sea.
But though thus contrasting within, the contrast was only in shades and shadows without; those two seemed one; it was only the sex, as it were, that distinguished them. 3
Aloft, like a royal czar and king, the sun seemed giving this gentle air to this bold and rolling sea; even as bride to groom. And at the girdling line of the horizon, a soft and tremulous motion—most seen here at the Equator—denoted the fond, throbbing trust, the loving alarms, with which the poor bride gave her bosom away. 4
Tied up and twisted; gnarled and knotted with wrinkles; haggardly firm and unyielding; his eyes glowing like coals, that still glow in the ashes of ruin; untottering Ahab stood forth in the clearness of the morn; lifting his splintered helmet of a brow to the fair girl’s forehead of heaven.

yeats
whitman
eilot

these are the 3 i like the most as i mostly read prose works. what should i read if i like them?

>>8094557
should i try less? settle for banal prose? am i 'trying to hard'? what would literature be if trying was subversive? instead of dismissing my work, why not try and guide me? are you so removed from the sincerity of others that you couldn't possibly regard someone's attempt as worthwhile? perhaps my works really is 'all over the fucking place.' so what? i don't claim to be a great writer, but it isn't a sin to try to be one.

>nothing makes sense

really? do you not have the slightest inkling of reading comprehension to look at my words and say: 'it's a kid painting.'? can you elaborate on what you don't like about it? tell me specifically what can be improved, what can be tossed. what shines and what is dull. your dismissive critique doesn't do anything to help me.

>cormac sat, surrounded by paints
>picking up a... paintbrush, he began working on the petals
>mother didnt't like [when i ate glue], but she would like this: a rose
> he...let a wayward petal flow and ascend into the ceiling

WHAT'S GOOD, and WHAT'S BAD

>understand basic narrative of the odyssey
>portrait and dubliners should be read as an intro to joyce. they're really good and portrait is a prequel of sorts to ulysses
>irish catholicism and the culture surrounding it
>greeks and romans etc.
>a chapter wherein stephen discusses hamlet and other shakespeare

you can go in dry, but at the very least, read portrait and follow a guide such as the new bloomsday or even sparknotes to get what's going on. any asshole that says their mom with no reading comprehension 'got it' is a lost cause. have fun.

>which opera is most like a train track?
>the rose of castille (cast steel, haha, get it??!)

What's your aesthetics, /lit/? What do you value in works of art? Have any authors affected the way you form aesthetic opinions?