/lit/ - Literature

>>9756156
Nice.
I give myself Stendhal syndrome all the time.

I'm liking the Moomin books.

>>6487849

>>3042569
Do you see this "preserving of the subject" as a reaction to the tradition of using natural phenomena as imagery to describe the addressee of the love poem (which Shakespeare is commenting on here as well, as you say)?
What about the sun as "eye", then, which is clearly anthropomorphic? Are you certain the addressee is human, and not sth more abstract, as opposed to nature, or even, robbed of nature? How can it not die, for isntance? Is it not the poem or poetry in general - as a distinctly anthropocentric recording of what has been observed - he's talking about at the end?

I don't understand the inference of symbiosis between the 'muse' and the poem (2). I'd agree there's a relationship between art and humanity as a whole, but it's not on an equal footing (see above).


pic related, had to search for it too

>>3042724
you're a special snowflake ;) It's alright tho, taking another sonnet by Shakespeare wouldn't change the fact that someone's commented on it before. It's only... homework, isn't it?

>>2814507
It's fantasy in general that is not highly regarded, it's a fossilized genre that is as shallow as it is popular (or viceversa).
Tolkien is not an epigone but a founder of the genre, however, so his works are not as obnoxious as those of his followers. He has shown what is possible with the form, and in that sense he is indeed a literary figure (not that he'd care, he was an academic in the first place).
Have you noticed what goal the detail in fantasy serves? It's often purely world-building stuff, and a meager story is placed over it. this makes for good escapist entertainment, but not for literature.

Are you some sort of parrot that has learned to mimic speech? Books are collections of words. They are typically stored on a wad of paper. You may not shit on them. Those are newspapers.

If a book feels didactic, 'preaching' in any way, than it has failed as a work of art, no matter what it is trying to profess. You decide that one. Secondly, CS Lewis is a Christian writer, not a rabid priest. What are you, afraid you'll catch a Christian disease? A good religious book is still a good book you know :). So precisely because it doesn't reaffirm your beliefs, this should be interesting.

To conclude, yes, you should read it: you're interested enough already to make a thread of it here. Not doing so will also make you go to hell, but you will understand only after you've read the book (i'm joking here).