/lit/ - Literature

>>18997581
google ''book explained''

>>18997585
that usually gives high-school level sparknotes interpretations. are those any good?

>>18997581
here's my understanding of voltaire's candide


First, I’d like to assert that any “best possible world” requires life, as only life – complex, abstract-thinking life, that is – can give judgements such as “best possible,” “worst possible,” better,” and so on. Secondly, I’d like to posit that life is a zero-sum game; that is, in order for one animal to live, another living entity must die to provide sustenance. Even trees compete with one another: the tallest tree soaks up all the sunlight while the smaller ones starve in its shade – and, by this process of painful competition, our planet has evolved such tall plants. We can say, then, that Voltaire dismissing Earth’s label as “best possible” on the grounds of pain existing is silly. Of course, there’s a difference between the bare minimum of pain existing and superfluous pain existing; and, perhaps, Voltaire meant to make the point that too much pain is present, rather than pain itself is present, thereby making “best possible” a shaky title for this planet. But what would we say if a complex-life-sustaining planet existed with a bare minimum of pain? Would we still not find room to complain? Would the citizens of El Dorado really not whine about their lot? Indeed, the “best possible” luxury of El Dorado really only exists when placed in contrast with the privation Westphalia. So, because we must think, and because we must feel at least some pain in order for concepts like “best possible” to exist, we will always have the mental tools necessary to complain. That is, we, of course, don’t live in the best possible world; however, no one ever will. There is no best possible world, only a most possible world, which seems, naturally, to be the one we inhabit.

girl? sex

>>18997581
if you recognise other people's opinions on it as wrong then you understood it

>>18997581
If you don't know, you misunderstood. Misunderstanding can be valuable and often interpretation has much greater personal meaning than intent. Personally I do not think one understands a novel until they understand both their own interpretation and the authors intent, intent is generally easier to understand, it rarely requires facing difficult personal truths.

>>18997585

>>18997585
This except don't read the book and just Google "book explained" and pretend you've read the book

Easy. If are an angloprotestantranny, you can say anything about the book and your interpretation means the same as someone who actually undestood what the writer meant. Since books are meant to be felt not actually read and understood.

>>18997581
You don't. The original intentions of the author are forever lost, even if the author is still alive. Reading is a creative activity as much as writing.

>>18998243
Talking about books you haven't read is a art explained in this book.

>>18998261
pas interessée. bonjour. baguette. casse toi. comment l'on cheat sur le minecraft ? pas de deux. mademoiselle juliette n'a pas vraiment la tête. parcour.

>>18997596
im making out with the enlarged image on my tv while youre rereading your post. there is absolutely nothing (0) you can do about this

>>18999122
Nice dubs, provide pics

>>18997581
there should be contextual evidence that supports your understanding.

>>18997581
You can't

'pends on the book, bromine

a worthwhile book is worth re-reading, and you'll see more depth in it every time, and you'll realize the work as-is already is its own most condensed form, that it can't be reduced to a codified interpretation. yadda yadda yadda

>>18997581
I make a thread about it here and tty to explain it.

>>18999136
Pic is me caressing her back through the thin sweater while trying to take a still photo

>>18999743
A step in the right direction. I hope all of /lit/ can transcend from “what was the message” posting to full on aestheticism one day. But I’ll settle for any discussion that focuses on the work itself instead of reducing it to irrelevant externalities

>>18999972
>hand
I'll accept it