/lit/ - Literature

>reading complete works of minor writer
Sucks to be you

>>19632878
>Carlyle
>minor
u baiting

>>19633035
>>19632878
Guy is only notable for being cited by Marx & Engels, as well as Nietzsche.

>>19633044
Not really, he's a notable conservative writer and he's famous for writiting a history of French Revolution too. The guys you listed are only read by trannies, so perhaps you meant to express why he's notable in your tranny circles, but that's not really relevant to literature at large.

>>19632878
Canon, but minor, sure

That’s what you should read so that you don’t think the same thoughts as everyone else

>>19633065
Not Carlyle though. You're better off reading obscure works from someone like Gustave Le Bon who was more intelligent and had more to say, and he's even less read.

>>19633044
>Guy is only notable for being cited by Marx & Engels, as well as Nietzsche.
How can you be this uneducated on a literature board?

>>19633072
Where to start with him? I like the sound of his phrenological work and racial unconscious theory. Should I just start with Psychology of the Crowd?

>>19633092
>Should I just start with Psychology of the Crowd?
Yes. Then the ones on socialism and revolution are good too, and they're on b-ok.cc.

>>19633044
This can't not be bait.

>>19633100
>Then the ones on socialism and revolution are good too
What are those called? I don't open links like that because I'm paranoid.

>>19633137
The Psychology of Revolution and The Psychology of Socialism

>>19633150
Thank you

Unless you are an academic specializing in a specific author/period/movement there’s no reason to read the complete works of any author.
Just read his mayor works (Sartor Resartus, On Heroes and Hero Worship), maybe one or two of his minor works if they interest you.
If you’re forcing yourself to read for street cred on /lit/ lmaoing at your life.

He was a schizoid

>>19633197
His histories of the French Revolution and Frederick II are his major works and they're too big to 'just' read.

>>19633200
Schizoid with the best prose of the 19th century Anglosphere. Dickens and Melville wouldn't exist without him.

>>19632878
Reading complete works of anyone is a retarded idea. Even the greatest writers wrote tons of mediocrity with a few crowning masterpieces, reading everything of the writer religiously is just celebrity worship

>>19633201
Look man, the point is you shouldn’t be trying to read EVERYTHING an author wrote just for the sake of completion. As if literature was a videogame or a shopping list, trying to tick every box, trying to 100% before moving on to the next videogame.
If you’re trying to do that you’re doing reading wrong.

>>19633212
>Reading complete works of anyone is a reta-

>>19633065
Better yet, don't read at all. 100% original thought.

>>19633212
>reading everything of the writer religiously is just celebrity worship
No, it isn't, but I do agree it's a bit much. Where I disagree is that these writers and authors are much closer to us than celebrities; Harold Bloom said they were his deepest friends, lovers, and loyal companions. I love to learn more about my friends and lovers, so I understand the sentiment of reading complete works by a writer.

>>19633256
>ofcourse its not celebrity worship
>actually I consider Shakespeare my best friend and lover (no homo)
Come on now

>>19633265
What are you doing when you are reading a book? Before everything else, you are getting to know another person. What you find out about that person may make you fall in love with them. It's very sad that you don't get that; maybe it's because you are a bit young, or maybe you just don't actually care that deeply about literature. I think you can have wrong reasons for loving an author, but I don't think loving an author is wrong in itself.

>>19633265
>he doesn't have friendships with authors
How can you even call yourself /lit/?

>The Journey to Hades. I too have been in the underworld, even as Odysseus, and I shall often be there again. Not sheep alone have I sacrificed, that I might be able to converse with a few dead souls, but not even my own blood have I spared. There were four pairs who responded to me in my sacrifice: Epicurus and Montaigne, Goethe and Spinoza, Plato and Rousseau, Pascal and Schopenhauer. With them I have to come to terms. When I have long wandered alone, I will let them prove me right or wrong; to them will I listen, if they prove each other right or wrong. In all that I say, conclude, or think out for myself and others, I fasten my eyes on those eight and see their eyes fastened on mine. May the living forgive me if I look upon them at times as shadows, so pale and fretful, so restless and, alas, so eager for life. Those eight, on the other hand, seem to me so living that I feel as if even now, after their death, they could never become weary of life. But eternal vigour of life is the important point: what matters "eternal life” or indeed life at all?
- Nietzsche

>>19633197
>Unless you are an academic specializing in a specific author/period/movement there’s no reason to read the complete works of any author.
Pleb spotted. Please take your redditism back where they belong.

>>19633237
>download (10)

>>19633282
If you think the stuff writers put down is an honest portrayal of their characters, then I have a castle in Switzerland to sell you

>>19633352
Shakespeare, unlike Jonson, was not very theatrical outside of the theater. You wouldn't be able to understand the public behavior of a writer from their work, but you would know what seized them in their solitude. Friendship with them is not like other friendships; you, in being seized by what seized them, share in the anxiety of reflective solitude.

>>19633063
Marx, Engels, Nietzsche.
Marxism controlled huge parts of the world for a century, while Carlyle championed possibly the least popular political goal of the last 200 years, the reinstatement of slavery.
Nietzsche is the most well-known philosopher of the last few millennia.

Only read by trannies. What a clown you are.

>>19633423
You will never be a woman

>>19633423
>Nietzsche is the most well-known philosopher of the last few millennia.

>>19633423
>implying Carlyle's On the Nigger Question is anywhere near as important as his other works or was as famous in his lifetime

The Amazon webpage says 7700 pages probably a few thousand for letters. It's possible anon if your learning and it's fun.

>>19633197
I agree if you’re reading anyone’s complete bibliography in one go or short stretch. If you really like a writer though, and he has a reasonable amount of work, I don’t think it’s weird to read everything over a longer period of years

>>19633464
This, Joyce read everything by Ibsen.

>>19633464
>>19633517
I think the key is to not get too burnt out on one writer. I can usually only read ~1000 pages from the same person before I start getting fatigued of them. I don’t get it when I see some anons buy an author’s whole oeuvre before ever reading them. The key is to pace yourself. Every year I find a writer or two where I have to pull back on the reigns because I’m not savoring what I like but just trying to take in everything they wrote

>>19633589
Yeah but not everyone is as homosexual as you are.

Mad how he is the best English writer

>>19633744
He is Scottish

>>19634114
Scots are just lesser Englishmen

>>19634534
KEKD

>>19632878
Ngmi

>>19633044
How's your new dilator?