/lit/ - Literature

>>3884937
It sounds terribly pompous, naive, misinformed to say out loud "At least I think so, since I am an artist..." too, you cunt. OP, why do you need to walk into a room and ask for intellectuals? Just look at what they're wearing. Pic related is an intellectual archetype. Wittgenstein, Bernhard. Jeff Goldblum in the Fly as a scientist-philosopher, Gore Vidal or Harold Bloom as the patrician, Van Gogh as the starving artist. Corvinus as the philosopher-king. They're just stereotypes, mythic images to categorize personalities. There's no reason to hold people against them, and if you're going to try and develop yourself into one of them so self-consciously but with so little self-awareness, let me tell you, you'll probably never achieve it.

>>3806774

>I think Tolstoy was more concerned about real human behaviour

Tolstoy is undeniably brilliant, but this approach is a tad simplistic to be the basis of judgement, don't you think? Realism is not the be all and end all of humanist endeavor in lit.

>>3774468
but he translated his own works into English you idiot