/lit/ - Literature

>>23304645
The 'occult' is an enormous enduring influence on Western art and thought, Stratfordists simply cant into.

>>23261790
>"There are no great novelists under 40."

Mostly right. 30 is still neonate territory in terms of high culture. What you offer has to be the best, a cut above the rest. Post-WW2 literature conventions were tired and stale and dead on arrival, spare the trees and do something artful or viciously satirical and on target.

>>23261806
>You cannot (and will not) write some general book embraced by all sorts of audiences and read widely - only niche specialization genres and studies from now on. Not some generalist novel that hits the Zeitgeist and some youth culture (that does not even exist) embraces

As the actually literate public is eclipsed by the functionally illiterate mass market (that increasingly doesn't read at all) the potential for influencing and finding peers and kindred aesthetic spirits should in theory allow for more rapid propagation in the right ideal reader circles thanks to technology and ease of publishing. Instead of making a 'career' of it and developing and gaining steam novel by novel, it needs to be the best possible effort in the first go to make a claim on people's time-- those juvenalia works should stay in the bank until after one prospectively secures a proper publisher & publishing deal.

>>23261834
For crowd funding campaigns (graphic novels in this case) about 10% of one's subscriber count can be reliably monetized that way, more if there's higher than average comment engagement:views/likes ratios going on. Having that (and other social media like Twitter, Instagram, whatever) are built in marketing in their eyes and desirable in an age where no one reads and even fewer show up at the old timey meet & greet brick & mortar signing tours.

>>23104793
Hmm you kind of think like me so therefore you are based.

>>23092020
Tea also has caffeine, or you can straight up have some hot choccy with a spoonful of instant coffee in it

>>23037052
Thanks :)

>>22966523
seems pretty based, especially to practice both, even if it takes time away from reading practice alone

>>22877171

>>22815244
>What if Tolkien was functionally illiterate

>>22786390
>Glenn Gould is one of the worst Bach interpreters and everyone hates you on /classical/.

fpbp

>>22707137
There's some guy on twitter with a Cuttlefish avatar with a long thread on Pynchon's war time SIGINT service. It's anomalous how much and specifically what wonder weapons he's referring to in detail that wouldn't become remotely common until late 90s. As in he glows in the dark.

>>22708441
Pynchon is for neophytes and even his Cornell chum's Slaughterhouse 5 will hold a more secure place in the canon over anything in his corpus or else he would've hung up his hat decades ago; the McCarthy send off proper rustled his jimmies

>>22687289
>>22687315
Yes. More to the point -- sympathetic artistic spirits of comparable merit are required for verisimilitude. Not everyone can enjoy so many great titans of literature in the original language; it's a worthy task and test of skill to render respectfully the verse of another into the target language. The exercise itself ought to elevate the canon of the new tongue.

>>22392766

>>22194783
>Im not talking about the phaedo because its an incomplete hackjob of censorship upon a monument of western assumptious shit and asian propaganda
what?
>his letters is where it's at, preserved on clay tablets were his last will
This is the first I'm hearing of any surviving written text by Socrates. I googled "Socrates clay tablets" and couldn't find anything. Can you give me a source?
>Zeno was a hack, Horatio was the real deal
Who the fuck is Horatio?
>atheist holy grail
I have my own problems with stoicism, but I'm not a terminally online retard who dismisses entire branches of philosophy based off memes. Also your comment doesn't make any sense. Stoicism was explicitly theistic. That's partly why it was received so well by Christians.
>PLATO WAS A FUCKING WRESTLER AND HE APPRECIATED HUMAN BODY YOU COOMER
In the Phaedrus Plato writes that two male lovers joined together are superior to generals, kings, priests, etc. The first best are those who don't have sex, the next best are those who give in occasionally. His ancient biographers attribute male love poetry to him. It's worth noting that he never married and never had children. I should note that I am not claiming emphatically that Plato was homosexual, just that it seems probable, on the weight of the evidence, because of the intensity of his attention on the subject, and the general absence of heterosexual love in his works.
>homosexuality is a direct reference to sexuality and in opposition to heterosexuality because it focuses on same gender sex, you goddamn imbecile.
Yes, but sexuality influences more than just our reproductive behaviour. It determines who we fall in love with in a romantic (erotic) sense. When you feel butterflies in your stomach because you see a pretty girl, that is because you are heterosexual.

I would encourage you to do some self-reflection. You seem to have a troubled relationship with truth, and argue (and think) primarily with your passions. It is clear you haven't read very much of the classics. Plato's Socratic dialogues would be a good start. Remember not to dismiss them because Plato says something that seems "retarded" by modern standards. They are demonstrative, not dogmatic. They are meant to encourage you to think for yourself. In time, you should be able to develop the classical virtues of patience, temperance, reason, and equanimity. I believe in you. If you ever begin to doubt yourself, just look at the pic I've attached.

>>21955129

>>21940287

>>21817001

>>21776742

>book Γ of Iliad
Priamos....cool it with the physiognomy-checking....

>>21419713

>>21359084
yes

>>21257731
>haha yeah i've only ever cum in my wife

>>20976119
>Tom Torero

based. Just listen to his podcast and you'll learn everything you need to know. He was also a very well read king and had a lot of interesting things to say about life.

>>20881434
based singular they user.

I'm the original anon that suggested the topic, and I have to say your argument is really well done. You're entirely right that a character has to be comprehensible to the reader, and if the character simply embodies an abstract archetype or thematic element then it can be hard for a reader to understand. However, I don't think a character has to be "relatable", at least depending on a some definitions of relatable. Although I'm sure that what you meant by relatable is more akin to understandable than the state of being similar to oneself - correct me if I'm wrong.
It's ironic that I never considered the communicability aspect of a written character since I hold the belief that everything regarding language, and thus by extension literature, has to be communicable, unless the specific intent is not to be communicable. A more "fleshed out", or at least "concrete" or "human" character is much more likely to be understandable by the reader, and by neglecting that aspect of a story I am betraying my own philosophy of prose.

>>20853774
based Miles Mathis enjoyer