/lit/ - Literature

was meursault a racist?

>>5356267
Are you implying sir?

Honestly, I thought Starship Troopers was more insightful.

>what I read out of it
"Thou Art God" seems to me to be little more than an elevated form of humanism; a valuation placed upon the internal and external universes without the need for an independent concept of God. A grim comment on our inability to reconcile with each other, as highlighted poignantly by Mike's ultimate martyrdom, but not a philosophy in itself, so much as an obvious but much-needed critique.

It was interesting to consider that our sexual bipolarity (i.e. two sexes) was basically responsible for everything about humanity, especially the perception of time - but I wonder about the implications such a view has on homosexuality, which is either tactfully avoided, or casually brushed aside throughout. It was difficult for me to discern whether Heinlein was saying that the two genders are capable or incapable of closing their gap and becoming closer - whether he advocated a "separate but very equal" policy, because it seemed as though the whole "growing-closer" was built on the separation of the genders.

In short, Heinlein comes off as a very liberal breed of conservative. Thoughtful and evocative, but nevertheless Mike's ideas did not feel as revolutionary as they might have so many years ago.

>thoughts on the style of writing
The overall ending was intense - but besides that, the lack of action was more or less insufferable. Not because it's bad to have long dialogues between characters; but to dump every character's opinions exclusively through monologuing for an entire chapter? Repeatedly? I can honestly see why so much of it was cut in the original editions.

Did I grok rightly?

>>5225139

Well done!

the faceless junky
cop among criminals
loses his mind

>>5137820

Fuck you, actually. But the adjectives lead me to:

Valentine Michael Smith, from Stranger in a Strange Land

>>5112993

This "continental thought" term is still apparently in flux in being defined by this community.

Totally right on the local terms. "manque" and "the dragon" and shit. Even loglo, kipple, and fucking grock.

Agreed >2nd paragraph.

>3rd paragraph
dogma/apocrypha. a body of work and tradition is always hard to summarize. I agree with your terms.

>4th paragraph
I just read a book with a similar theme. Sci-fi actually. 'Stranger in a Strange Land' - Heinlein

What was the last book you read?:
>Snow Crash
What are you currently reading?:
>Stranger in a Strange Land
What are you planning on reading next?:
>...
Suggestions? I have no idea what to pick next.

I'm reading Stranger in a Strange Land, the Heinlein novel.

In the text, Heinlein introduces a term, "grok", which means to fully comprehend and appreciate something, to fully know and embrace and understand an idea.

I like this word.

I'm interested in other words invented in novels to express ideas we've no words for, or at best a clumsy many words that simply approximate an idea. (power of naming things, blah blah)

I've started thinking of a few. There was "loglo" in Snow Crash - Neal Stephenson, a term for the light pollution, the glow of suburbs and cities as they shouted into the dark.

There's also "kipple" in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep - Philip K. Dick, which (if I remember correctly) is a vernacular for the waste byproduct of entropy.

Please, share your words. I'm all ears. Well, eyes.

Thoughts on pic related, /lit/? I'm about 80 pages in and I just can't get into it. It just comes across as being so dated and pulpy. Does it get better?

Thinking about purchasing some Heinlein after reading a bit about his relationship with Philip K Dick but I really don't know much about his works and I see Stranger In A Strange Land quite a bit but don't know much about it aside from the fact that the cover looks silly as fuck.

Good buy or what?

>>4135699
>she just gets character and puts them into situations where they can spill her philosophy
What you described reminds me slightly of Stranger in a Strange Land. Except Heinlein had the decency and skill to pull his pontification off in both story and speeches.

Also, you should try and read Mr. A. It's almost exactly what you described, only in a superhero-ish setting.

What does /lit/ think of Stranger in a Strange Land? I've had one person tell me it's long and tedious, but it is considered a helluva science-fiction novel.

>Stranger still is this book's appeal
I grok this book sucks.
After I read the first 100 pages of this book, I had to give it up.
This is one of the few books I haven't finished and I've read fucking Star Maker and Neuromancer.

It begins with 'the Man from Mars' who comes to earth. The military wants him, the press wants him, other governments want him. He is the heir to a enormous fortune, and by nature of his strange birth owns the rights to engines that allow space travel. He is the only human that can lay claim to the planet Mars, since he was born there.

This book is replete with problems:
>All the characters speak in the same tone, slightly cynical, slightly acerbic, all-knowing. I'd say they're cardboard cutouts but I don't like to insult good material.
>Martian boy is born on Mars. Therefore he owns Mars? What?
>Due to the low gravity on Mars, the boy has no wrinkles. Okay, good idea, but then the military finds an EXACT REPLICA of the boy to impose as him on TV
>The lady somehow is able to smuggle the boy out of the hospital past two marines
>The Martian, oh so whimsically, keeps referring to the girl as 'brother'
>They say the existence of the boy ‘proves extra-terrestrial life, when HE WAS ONLY BORN THERE
>Barely concealed political frustration

The characters are categorically flat and uninteresting, especially the "stranger" Michael Valentine Smith who has the personality of a taco.
The writing makes Jacqueline Susann look like Faulkner.

If this book can be considered one of the greatest sci fi books, that’s a sad statement on the genre

I'm reading this book for the first time at age 18. Not finished (I'm about 60% through with it), but I don't really care if you spoil it or not.

So far I've found the book preachy, pretty boring, pretentious, preachy, expands too much on useless knowledge and not enough on things that should be explained, oh and fucking preachy

This seems like fairly overrated garbage. Could some please explain why this book is regarded so highly? I get that it's a metaphor and all, but it just doesn't seem like a very good one.

I give you the water of life my water brothers.
May you never thirst. I grok that now we must grow closer.

Thou art god.

Ive just finish reading stranger in a strange land.(Have also read Moon is a Harsh Mistress and Starship Troopers).

Heinlein said in his will that his ideas were contianed in those 3 novels, almost i must say i enjoyed them(The moon, much much more than the others) there are a lot of things i dont grok, i mean i like the ideas about responsibility and free will but some of his shit is just political facism disguised with personal liberty.

I must say I dont grok at all
What do the other heinlein fags think?

You should grok at this, water brother.

About 1/3rd of the way through this right now. I love the bits about Martian culture but it's agonizingly spread in bits between this long totally uninvolving narrative with boring, one-dimensional characters

idk man.
Did /lit/ enjoy this novel?

Do you Grok this book?

Grok.

Taken from the book "Stranger in a Strange Land", literally meaning "to drink", but taken to mean "understanding". Often used by programmers and other assorted geeks.

It took me a long time to grok Perl, but now I can read it without going blind!

This fucking book man, holy shit.

I guess i'm too stepped in human prejudice but i wouldn't want to share my wife with a bunch of people and turn my bros into soup when they died.

So I tried this book out a while back. I found the characterization painfully two dimensional. It made all the heavy ideas he was trying to work with fall flat for me. Friends said it's something better read in high school or middle school. I can see that. I really couldn't find much merit in this book. What are your opinions /lit/?

reading this for second time now. even better than i remember