/lit/ - Literature

I liked him in Terra Ignota.

Massively underrated Victorian writer, historian, and social critic.

>>11481813
He's great. But one has to know lots of shit before reading him, except perhaps Upon Heroes..

"Shooting Niagara - And After?" is the most prophetic thing I've ever read

>>11481813
My nigga Tom called it like it was 150 years before. Far more nuanced than the NRx fags who popularised him would have you believe. The guy was a raised a Calvinist (who are the origin of all evil according to Moldbug who also strangely venerates Carlyle). Recently read Sartor Resartus and expected it to be a dull slog but I finished it in about 2 days in 2 sittings. Previously read On Heroes, Latter-Day Pamphlets, Chartism and Past and Present. Been meaning to get around to his famous French Revolution too. His writing style is amazing I often describe it as rolling thunder it is just titanic, messianic even. He has the authority of an old testament prophet. Even though he was a massive figure in the 19th century he got memory holed sometime in the early 20th century. Deserves far more attention. Especially as the early English translator of Goethe and a bunch of German romantics and enlightenment thinkers.

>>11481813
He wrote some interesting things, but as time wore on it became increasingly clear that he was little more than an whiny pseud (a quality he shared with his friend John Stuart Mill)

If you want a real essayist, read Samuel Johnson or John Ruskin

>>11483312
I thought NRx was interesting for a time but I now find them nauseating to listen to.

>>11483312
Damn I never heard of this guy until now but he sounds interesting, might give him a go.

>>11483345
>recommending Ruskin above Carlyle
Even Ruskin wouldn't have the affront to do that.

>>11483312
The French Revolution is bloody brilliant.

>>11481813
Handsome fella

>>11483471
Whereas his rival JS Mill was ugly as sin

>>11483345
Anon, he pretty much lost his mind. This doesn't magically negate some really fine works, however.
Still he's no Johnson, no Ruskin. No Coleridge.

>>11483345
>don’t read him, read his disciple ruskin who would literally get on his knees and kiss carlyle’s hand
Good advice fella

>>11483486
Carlyle never lost his mind. He was a dyspeptic-melancholic of the classic scholarly type, but his mental faculties were never in danger.

Same can’t be said of Coleridge or Johnson

Henry James say: "The same old sausage, fizzing and sputtering in its own grease."

Murk'd

>>11483688
>henry james accusing anyone of sputtering

>>11483345

>>11483693
Henry James is incapable of sputter

>>11483375
NRx was only worthwhile for bringing to popular attention people who were far more worthwhile than they realised. Psueds to end all psueds but they brought Carlyle to the 21st so that is almost worth the "sonic 3" incident.
>>11483455
Very dense prose but you will enjoy it if you really take the time to internalise it. You might be tempted to skim but don't because you'll miss a lot.

>>11483531
Neither Coleridge nor Johnson were of the 'classic scholarly type' although the latter was certainly melancholic, and the former a drug addict. Nonetheless as much as I like Carlyle, especially Sartor and Revolution, his was a lower order of genius than both Coleridge and Johnson. /lit/ SHOULD actively study both The Lives of the Poets and the Biographia Literaria (but never will of course) while Carlyle must remain hopelessly niche despite his massive influence on American literature. Some of his later essays do read as if from the pen of mad man.

>>11481949
underrated by whom?

>>11484178
>Neither Coleridge nor Johnson were of the 'classic scholarly type'
Johnson was a Latin scholar and etymologist, Coleridge was almost the Platonic idea of the type, with his knowledge of Hebrew, Greek, Latin, history, etc, he was a priest-scholar
>although the latter was certainly melancholic
I suppose that's one way to describe a man who had to be bound during fits of uncontrollable frenzy