/lit/ - Literature

>>14736669
So what? Stalin is still not an actual philosopher. Zizek writes about movies as well, but that doesn't mean movies are the same as philosophy essays. Stalin's writings were political writings, and the same could be said about Mao. Lenin could actually be considered a philosopher because he didn't limit himself to political writings around themes like dialectics. He wrote Materialism and Empirio-criticism, for instance, and that's an actual philosophy essay. I doubt Mao or Stalin ever wrote something similar to that.

>>11381767
>descartes

How can someone read so many books and still be socially inept and stupid? do they not take in anything they read?

What is this boards weird preoccupation with Schizoid Personality Disorder

Is Portnoys Complaint any good?

Has anyone actually read all of Darger's stuff?

I do sort of wonder how certain readers remain so shallow or elitist

How can you read as much as people on this board claim and still be an elitist edgelord with little understanding of how people work? Did you not absorb anything you read?

> Fischer argues that “until the late 19th century when the French and Russians came in and made the novel the premier vehicle for the expression of the soul, the novel always had something of light entertainment about it. It wasn’t seen as serious literature till you got to Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy and Flaubert.” And to each action, a reaction. Perhaps until the novel started being serious there wasn’t any need for the Comic Novel as a distinct entity.

>Novels weren't taken seriously as an artform until Tolstoy

this can't be correct, maybe I'm just being a brainlet but weren't there plenty of deep novelists before then?

Is it a good idea to try writing more than one book at once?

I have multiple ideas floating around my head and want to write them down before I forget about them