/lit/ - Literature

What are some of the most depressing MISERABLE books of all time?

>>22167263
Russian crazy is a whole new level of crazy.
There's a running archetype in fantasy anime of a snowbound kingdom of devil worshippers, and I'm half convinced Russia is the reason for it.

>>21907813
What are some good books on tsarist russia?

>>21593769
Stop being autistic and just read the Pevear and Volokhonsky translation,

>>20362897
Robinson crusoe

>>19406257

There's something I can't quite understand and I need /lit/'s help.
I've noticed a specific thing people do when reading (it applies to consuming most forms of media, but let's focus on reading as an example): contemporary readers seem to atomize everything into these little categories and form their opinions of a work based on that. Even when it doesn't seem possible they try to cram a work into one of numerous pre-established boxes of ideas, ideologies, forms, themes, etc.
It almost feels like people have this pathological need to understand books they read through the lens of the categories they're used to thinking in.
I'm not only talking about race, politics, gender and the other culprits discussed on /lit/, it seems people have started focusing too much on ideas such as character progresssion, plot elements, plot types, believability of dialogue, and generally the technical execution of ideas.
When, how, and did we actually lose the ability to experience stories, to allow them to "show" themselves to us without having to break them down and analyze them?
It feels like a story should be more than the sum of its parts yet I see every piece of writing from the last couple of centuries being broken down to its components and being examined in this anemic state.
Curiously I haven't seen it done so much for older works, I haven't seen anyone say "Oh, this character arc in the Iliad is so bad" or "That was a shitty ending, there was practically no buildup" for Gilgamesh.
Is this a recent thing? How can it be avoided, because I think the real power of stories can be found exactly when we allow ourselves to experience them instead of approaching them like essays to be dissected and analyzed.

There's something I quite understand it and I need /lit/'s help.
I've noticed a specific thing people do when reading (it applies to consuming most forms of media, but let's focus on reading as an example): contemporary readers seem to atomize everything into these little categories and form their opinions of a work based on that. Even when it doesn't seem possible they try to cram a work into one of numerous pre-established boxes of ideas, ideologies, forms, themes, etc.
It almost feels like people have this pathological need to understand books they read through the lens of the categories they're used to thinking in.
I'm not only talking about race, politics, gender and the other culprits discussed on /lit/, I mean it seems people have started focusing so much on ideas such as character progresssion, plot elements, plot types, believability of dialogue, and generally the technical execution of ideas.
When, how, and did we actually lose the ability to experience stories, to allow them to "show" themselves to us without having to break them down and analyze them?
It feels like a story should be more than the sum of its parts yet I see every piece of writing from the last couple of centuries being broken down to its components and those being examined in this separated, anemic state.
Curiously I haven't seen it done for much older works, like I haven't seen anyone go "Oh, this character arc in the Iliad is so bad" or "That was a shitty ending, there was practically no buildup" for Gilgamesh.
Is this a recent thing? How can it be avoided, because I think the real power of stories can be found exactly when we allow ourselves to experience them instead of approaching them like essay on given subjects to be dissected and analyzed.

>>18713227
I wanna read pure desperation and madness.

Any good books about tsarist Russia?

Myshkin said “Compassion is the chief law of human existence.”

You think he is right or wrong? If right, then why didn’t his “plan” come to life? Does altruism have no effect on egoism or does altruism turn to egoism at some point? Where do you think the conflict here lies?

Clearly Myshkin’s compassion attracted Nastasya, but why she went back to Rogozhin. Is it all about trusting/having faith to other people or simply the ineffectiveness of (ideal) compassion filled life?

A book, story(fiction or real), scene, chapter, illustration, film or whatever, where a father disowns his son.

It may be physical (like beating or even murdering) or verbal (screaming, humiliating, mind-fuck etc.)

Bonus points for son losing trust for his father and therefore losing his faith to god.

>>17092815
What is this cropped version??

>>17090319
>>17091553
Forget Tolstoy, read Dostoyevsky

It's four in the morning, the end of December
I'm writing you now just to see if you're better
New York is cold, but I like where I'm living
There's music on Clinton Street all through the evening

I hear that you're building your little house deep in the desert
You're living for nothing now, I hope you're keeping some kind of record

Yes, and Jane came by with a lock of your hair
She said that you gave it to her
That night that you planned to go clear
Did you ever go clear?

Ah, the last time we saw you you looked so much older
Your famous blue raincoat was torn at the shoulder
You'd been to the station to meet every train, and
You came home without Lili Marlene

And you treated my woman to a flake of your life
And when she came back she was nobody's wife

Well I see you there with the rose in your teeth
One more thin gypsy thief
Well, I see Jane's awake
She sends her regards

And what can I tell you my brother, my killer
What can I possibly say?
I guess that I miss you, I guess I forgive you
I'm glad you stood in my way

If you ever come by here, for Jane or for me
Well, your enemy is sleeping, and his woman is free

Yes, and thanks, for the trouble you took from her eyes
I thought it was there for good so I never tried

And Jane came by with a lock of your hair
She said that you gave it to her
That night that you planned to go clear

Sincerely, L Cohen


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ohk3DP5fMCg

>>16564770

>>16477292
Autokrator Tsar Ivan the Terrible killed his son the Tsarevitch Ivan Ivanovich. They got into an argument because the wife of the Tsarevitch was dressing slutty and was imprudent in the palace. The Tsar Ivan went to correct her with his sceptre. He wanted to beat up his son's wife for being a thot. The Tsarevitch went and protected his slutty wife and Ivan striked him on the temple. The Tsar killed the Tsarevitch.

What are the greatest tragedies in /lit/?

Artist

Hello /lit/.
Are there any books or resources you would recommend for learning to fully confront and understand deep seated mental trauma?

Ambient music I can listen to while reading ?

>>14784064
that's a terrible choice, OP
no pun intended