/lit/ - Literature

>>17315403
I think most of the sexually frustrated men on here read BAP. I agree though, I’m sure lots of anons can relate to Prufrock’s ennui and anxiety

>>17315403
Are incels actually a product of sexual frustration?

>>17315403
We despite Prufrock precisely because we identify with him.

>>17315498
A fair question that I never stopped to consider fully. To me it seemed so obvious that I needn't question it, but I dunno. Maybe.

>>17315501
Despise. Despise. Good lord.

>>17315403
>BAP
I'm not sure what this is.

>>17315498
>>17315505
I get the feeling that a lot of incels are self hating repressed homosexuals

>>17315524
I never felt that. I know that after I've suffered heart break or a rejection I really didn't want/expect, I catch myself at the start of the road that would eventually lead to inceldom. Feelings of inadequacy, insecurity, sexual frustration, the whole shebang. That said, I think its really easy to catch ones self and prevent further degeneration, but thats probably because I turn it on myself and ask what it is about me that's making me feel those ways. I think some men at the extreme continue pointing fingers until they find themselves there.

>>17315403
I love T.S Eliot and have at least half of The Wasteland memorized. I think the problem is just that poetry isn't as popular on /lit/ as fiction, precisely because it's harder to pretend like you've read a poem

>>17315582
>and have at least half of The Wasteland memorized
Holy based

>>17315524
You say that because you think they'd prefer the company of other men or because they show animosity to some women?

prufrock is great but its only a few pages long, what do you expect exactly, enthusiastic close readings?

>>17315507
tripfag thinks hes hot shit for pointing out an obvious typo, very impressive

>>17315498
I think they're a product of idpol. They see themselves as a sort of victimized class, whereas sexless men used to just be like 'well this sucks'.

>>17315608
>what do you expect exactly, enthusiastic close readings
Be honest, we never get those anyways, and it just seems strange to me that the place will latch onto Joyce and Bukowski, make them into trends, but ignore the guy who took the outlook of bukowski and painted a picture with (some of) the grace of Joyce.

Like, its elitist, well-read, self depreciating, self-pitying, and cynical. Its also ironic and clever. Its like the poster child for this place, and yet i only see Eliot brought up when its George or when they're ranking American lit for the nth time.

>>17315403
Eliot was p based

>>17315403
You need to read in order to understand Eliot, and /lit/ doesn't read.

>>17315613
They are a victimized class. Intimacy is a basic human need. If you never have sex your brain rots and you go slowly crazy. People understood this very early which is why marriage as an institution is so old and so sacred.

>>17315641
I've had at least a few discussions on T.S Eliot this week on /lit/, so I wouldn't say he's too unpopular. You are right that it's strange he isn't exalted more on this board since, at least in regards to talent, he's pretty close to the like of Joyce. They were even good friends

>>17315498
Hey /lit/,
Are bachelors actually just unmarried men?

>>17315807
>People understood this very early which is why marriage as an institution is so old and so sacred.
Pure speculation. If anything marriage was sacred because it is a biological and ecclesiastical imperative to be fruitful and multiply. Psychology is a modern invention. Insanity back then was just the devil working his tricks.

>>17315582
Or they just enjoy prose more or only enjoy prose. Try as I might, I can never get into poetry. I can enjoy some poems, but I never have the urge to read one.

>>17315641
>its elitist, well-read
Personally, I don't enjoy having obscure references dangled over my head. There is a point where defamiliarisation and obfuscation just gets in the way and comes across as literary masturbation.

>>17315608
>tripfag thinks hes hot shit for pointing out an obvious typo, very impressive
I was pointing out a typo in my own post.

>>17316047
Marriage was sacred because it determined the transfer of property among bloodlines. You all are so fucking clueless.

>>17316263
>There is always only one reason for everything. And everything is about soulless materialism.
Clueless, huh?

>>17315807
>>17316047
>>17316263
Marriage is sacred because it was basically a peace treaty between feuding clans.

These clans of fifty or so people functioned like extended families, so the young men were obliged to look for wives elsewhere to avoid incest or sexual rivalry between closely related men. Marriage by capture was probably the earliest form: the young hunting band of one tribe captures the women of another. Later, populations are large enough that tribes live in very close quarters and need to avoid constant warfare. This is where something like consensual marriage comes about, except arranged at the tribal level.

Source: my anterior

>>17315403
This board is full of reactionaries that would oppose Eliot's historical ideas about literature and his decent conservatism.

>>17315807
Tell that to Newton and Tesla

>>17317156
Yikes