/lit/ - Literature

>reading classic lit with modern burgeresque pop political meme lenses
cringe

>>20126423
tolstoy is a hack.

>>20126427
>everyone I dislike is le hack!
do redditors really?

Tolstoy was based.

>>20126432
must have been easy to not be horny back in the day. stinky women barely bathing, hairs everywhere... a little to raw for my liking i think i would very much be a woman hater in those days too like Tolstoy and Schoppy

>>20126423
filtered. stick to plebbit.

>>20126438
women are annoying and shallow. it's not about le looks, coomerfag.

>>20126441

>>20126423
>socialist
tolstoy was a georgist retard

>>20126430
tolstoy is literally a reddit author

>>20126447
that's true for hating anything

>>20126474
He's too canonical to be reddit.

>>20126478
Try reading the quote again you halfwit simp, then replace the word "women" with any noble pursuit
>no men who really think deeply about literature/sport/nature/fine art retain a high opinion of them
does this make any sense?

>>20126491
I should have said anyone instead of anything. As in any group of people

>>20126520
I'm never coming back to this board again.

>>20126520
I don't know anon I've thought pretty extensively about the ancient greeks and the japanese and I'm still a weeb graecophile

>>20126423
I'm never coming back to this board again.

>>20126533
Seriously. Posts are getting more and more retarded every day.

>>20126533
See you tomorrow.

>>20126530
i guarantee if someone passionately hates the greeks/japanese they think about them more than you do

>>20126549
See you're misunderstanding the quote. He isn't saying if somebody hates women, they've thought deeply about them - he's saying that if somebody thinks deeply about women, they will hate them.

>>20126426
hey if it works, it works

>>20126448
georgism is third position

>>20126923
>georgism is third position
Retard.

>>20127914
>Retard.
imbecile

>>20128151
You need to go back

>>20126533
goodbye tranny

I hated this book so much. There were very few parts on this bloated shit that I enjoyed. I liked the horse race, and I liked when Leo's self insert was mowing the meadows with the peasants. That's it.

>>20126423
Is that really what this book is about?

>>20126423
Wasn't he a christian?

>>20126447
That's true for people in general.

>>20126448
Did you miss the comma? Or is georgism retarded?

>>20126423
This board has been taken over by middle American teenagers who idealise their mothers and desperately want to breed with them.

>>20126438
underage

>>20126533
If you're filtered by Tolstoy then I really don't understand why you're on a fucking /lit/ board. OP should go back to discussing Ender's Game on Reddit.

>>20128336
He was a heretical Christian. A Christian socialist. He did not believe in “mere Christianity”. He rejected the divinity of christ, the resurrection, the virgin birth and the other miracles.

>>20128395
>NOOOOOO YOU CANT NOT LIKE TOLSOI YOU NEED TO EMBRACE JUDEO CHRISTIANITY AND KEKOLDRY

>>20128489
>Kekoldry

>Tolsoi

Wow, comedy genius.

>>20126478
>>20128343

reddit incarnate

>>20129246
Worse than that, they're borderline illiterates. They don't even understand what the quote means. Again, he isn't saying "anyone who hates women has thought deeply about them" but "anyone who thinks deeply about women will hate them", which is obviously not true of everything.

>>20129246
he's somewhat right. the more you explore something the more cynical and disillusioned you become with it, almost with no exception.

>>20129246
reddit response

>>20130002
Wrong. Only mediocre, shallow, and stupid things, like women.

>>20130009
>no u
You're retarded, should have said "/pol/ response" or something

>>20130027
It's not true. I've grown disillusioned with science, nature, art, and other things. You romanticize almost everything you like but the deeper you dig into it or the more you see its practical consequences the easier it is to despise it.

>>20130043
*tips fedora*

>>20126438
>stinky women
>hairs everywhere
>not horny
Anon, I...

>>20126426
>using all those words

>>20126474
Yes reddit adores rural radical Christian pacifists with 13 children.

The historical paradigm for a “shitlib” is Leo Tolstoy; it sounds excessively cruel to attach such a vulgar word to a noble man—or a man who looked noble, anyway—but it is true. The qualities that made Tolstoy famous are the same qualities that made him an unbearable prig and moraliser: he was a man of great intelligence and sensitivity; he was a man of novel and humane ideas—he was a pain in the ass.

It is true that Tolstoy undertook bold adventures in the service of the Tsar as a youth; but, for the most part, his career was spent in ill-advised attempts to reform Russia. Just as contemporary American progressives have an overly sensitive relationship to America’s black population, so Tolstoy had an overly sensitive relationship to Russia’s serfs—a group whom he romanticised.

Men like Tolstoy are dangerous for a society because they are very intelligent and enjoy high social status, but they present ideas that are ultimately suicidal for society as a whole. Tolstoy contributed to the eventual rise of Bolshevism—a movement he would have abhorred—by his persistent campaigns to undermine the Orthodox Church, the Tsar, and the military through pacifism and novel religious ideas; in other words, he undermined the moral legitimacy and practical functional capacity of Russia. He was a neurotic man who could not settle with Orthodoxy; he was always after novelty, a trait of the intelligent—and he desired a religious life that would make him look more holy. I have no doubt that if Tolstoy were alive today he would visit shamans in South America, take ayahuasca, and then appear on the Joe Rogan Experience to discuss his new 40-hour Netflix special. At the end he would say, “I am but a seeker.”

>>20131971
The counterpoint to Tolstoy is Dostoyevsky. The difference between these two men is that Dostoevsky was not neurotic—at least, not in Tolstoy’s way. As a gambler, he put everything on red. As a young revolutionary, he was a real revolutionary and was arrested; he was subject to a mock execution. When Dostoyevsky describes the walk to the place of execution in Crime and Punishment it is authentic because Dostoyevsky once walked the walk to a firing squad himself. This mock execution was a rebirth for Dostoyevsky; he went from all-in for revolution to all-in for Orthodoxy—he achieved a genuine mysticism inaccessible Tolstoy.

Men like Tolstoy are very dangerous, precisely because their own guilt at being born powerful and their sentimentalisation of the lower orders leads them to undo the structures that constrain society from collapse. They influence the smarter members of the middle class into fads that undermine the core of the nation. Dostoyevsky was, in many ways, an ugly man; yet he was always authentic. Tolstoy remained limp and uncommitted: at the end he tried to give away all his property to his movement, much to his wife’s chagrin—you should beware a man who would sacrifice his family for an attractive fashionable idea, the essence of the “shitlib”.

>>20131974
The real difference is that Tolstoy can write and Dostoevsky can't.

>>20126438
>stinky women barely bathing, hairs everywhere...

>>20126423
>writes a book endorsing cuckoldry
Anon, Karenin gets turbo-mad, kicks her out of his life, cuts off her allowance, and doesn't slap her with a divorce specifically to torment her back for being a bitch. And in the the end she KYS herself after her idealized Big Dick Bvll turns out to be a grade A asshole. Who later fucks off to die in a pointless war.

Why didn't you just read the book before talking shit about it? Are you a nigger or something?

>>20131971
>Tolstoy contributed to the eventual rise of Bolshevism—a movement he would have abhorred—by his persistent campaigns to undermine the Orthodox Church, the Tsar, and the military through pacifism and novel religious ideas; in other words, he undermined the moral legitimacy and practical functional capacity of Russia.
If the moral legitimacy and practical functional capacity of a state can be undermined by one unshaven old fart pacifist with a quill, then maybe said state is way overdue for getting it's shit pushed in by some Bolshies.

>>20131974
>he went from all-in for revolution to all-in for Orthodoxy
Except Dosto criticised the Orthodox Church and the state even more than Tolstoy did - he went all-in for Christian spirituality WITHOUT the Orthodox Church... just like Tolstoy. Faggot did you even read Brothers Karamazov?

>>20132171
>in a pointless war
werent they literally fighting to free the balkans from the ottomans?

>>20132181
Russia was fighting in the region to make Ottoman serfs into Russian serfs, and kept fucking it all up all the way until WWI where it keeled over and died.

>>20132171
>Having to be this reductive about a work of genius to make it palatable to the Oedipal troglodytes that peruse this board.

>>20131974
>>20131971
Just admit you're a JP bootlicker drone and spare us the pseud walls of text.

>>20132171
>after her idealized Big Dick Bvll turns out to be a grade A asshole
maybe im misremembering it but i recall anna being the shitty unreasonable one of the two, like she was doomed to never find peace and contentment and was taking out her emotions and frustrations brought on by the consequences of her own actions on him. i started the book disliking vronsky on principle for being a home wrecker but I honestly felt really bad for him by the end, the image of him boarding the train and the description of how he identified annas mangled corpse and how he outfitted a regiment and is leaving to fight and probably die definitely stuck with me

>>20126438
>stinky women barely bathing,

>>20126441
>>20126438
Why are there so many fags on /lit/.

>>20126423
It literally is a cuckold fanfiction lmao

>>20126423
>tfw you realize Tolstoy was just an oldschool cuckhold
at least Dostoevsky was based

anna karina got beheaded by a train in the book i dont think tolstoy was promoting promiscuity

>>20136383
Tolstoy couldn't stop himself from fucking his family servants. He even had a kid out of wedlock

the entire point of the book is to point out the clear superiority of scoring a pious loyal qt tradwife, pumping her full of babies, and living a humble life with family and friends, which contrasts with the dysfunctional lifestyle chosen by the roastie anna

>>20131971
Tolstoy was an oversexed rapist addict gambler in his youth, no doubt he became a moralist, thats what all sociopaths do

>>20131501
They love socialist cuckolds.

literally the worst thread in the history of /lit/

>>20131974
>This mock execution was a rebirth for Dostoyevsky; he went from all-in for revolution to all-in for Orthodoxy

>>20126447
Yes, yes traditional gender roles are toxic and should be abolished to liberate women.

>>20136408
alt righters popularizing cuck as an insult mindbroke redditors so that now they overreact anytime they see adultery in media

>>20126423
The book literally ends with the death of the female character, I’m not sure how that’s sending any positive message about cuckoldry…

>>20126423
So now any books with themes of adultery are classified as endorsing cuckoldry? So Iliad now endorses cuckoldry because there’s adultery?

>>20126438
You must be 18 years old to post here.

>>20126447
Quoting weininger. Kek this place has become plebbit.

>>20136696
it gets worse and worse every month and i'm not sure why. maybe because younger people use it now or because the actual effort posters aren't on here as much. or because, you know, most people on here don't even read books

>>20137065
I don’t know where the effortposters went. Makes me wonder if there is a new secret lit forum that I should have known.

so what did you guys think of vronsky? how about alexei kerenin and his decisions regarding anna?

>>20136696
this thread is hilarious though

>>20132500
That was Peterson's take on Tolstoy?

>>20137099
>his decisions regarding anna
He only saw Anna once and was charmed by her femme fatale energy. Kitty was figuratively cucked by Anna again. But that was it.

>>20128336
christianity endorses cuckoldry

>>20126438
lol

>>20131971
>or a man who looked noble, anyway
Belay that calumny, he was a literal nobleman.

>>20137065
I like to think is because people see this is obvious bait thread as an excuse to act like idiots. Most people on /lit/ do read, the thing is, they don't talk about what they read(or they don't have anything to say). At least thats what I believe

>>20138263
Yep thats me

>>20138221
It doesn't. It's just another deviancy

>>20138221
cuckoldry is adultury and is so frowned upon in christianity that even Jesus himself says adulterers dont have to be forgiven and can be divorced and should be then exiled and isolated from society in that anyone who has any relations with them is perpetuating the sin of adultery and is themselves guilty also

>>20126438
Tolstoy fucked everything that moved

>>20141141
Then he wrote Kreutzer Sonata where he advocates sexual abstinence and writes about how women are evil

>>20126447
SIMP

>>20126426
/thread

>>20141141
>>20141999
>be a 4chan incel
>shitpost on /lit/
>be horny
>masturbate to pornography 24/7 for years
>get tired as fuck of pornography and them fake tits bitches
>decide that porn and masturbation are actually LE BAD, start preaching nofap and pornography boycott on muh comfy /lit/, keep telling everyone to find Christ while not actually going to church or anything.
>normies hates you, but they keep coming back for more.

>be a Russian aristocrat incel
>shitpost in contemporary magazines
>be horny
>fuck hookers, actresses, peasant wenches and whore countesses 24/7 for years
>get tired as fuck of whoring and them feelings bitches
>decide that promiscuity is actually LE BAD, start preaching abstinence and chastity in muh comfy literature magazines, keep telling everyone to find Christ while not actually going to church or anything.
>normies hate him, but they keep coming back for more.

Tolstoi was truly the most /ourguy/ in the entire classical canon.

>>20136696
I would love to write some thoughtful, meaningful, effortful posts about Anna Karenina, but I'm still in the midst of reading it. So while I'm only in the middle of the third book, all I can offer this thread is
>Kitty? More like SHITTY ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

>>20126423
>endorsing cuckoldry
It was about the clash between modernity and traditionalism, between individualism and care others. Anna kills herself at the end precisely because she does not find fulfillment in living only for herself.

>>20126423
>anon thinks any story is endorsement

You can describe and de attach, a hundred years later literature estudents will re interpret your writings as they please using anything they can find including that time you dressed as a horse for a ballroom

>>20143002
KEEP MY WIFES NAME OUT OF YO MOUTH *slaps*

>>20132171
Vronksy said that the worst day of his life was when his horse got injured and put to death after the race; therefore I think he's based.

>>20143996
Vronsky really should have lived his own life without Anna.

Karenin posters in this thread

>>20143893
Konstantin? More like KONT STAND YA ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Why did he write a whole book for a character he doesn't even like?

>>20145973
if you have to ask you'll never get it anyway

>>20144076
The whole point of Vronsky's character is that people like him only gain joy out of life by making it worse for others. When he retreated into the countryside to focus on managing his estate and possibly build a family like Levin, he almost immediately found it insufferably boring - because he no longer had other peoples twisting their lives around his by hurting them.

>>20141999
Yeah he was a bitch who told people not to have kids.

>>20132510
The reason they were unhappy is because Anna's husband didn't play into their expectations of him. He was supposed to either divorce her or challenge Vronsky to a duel and get killed, instead he did neither. It made him a more pathetic figure in the public eye but it left Anna in an untenable position where she couldn't have a life with either of them thus she was miserable, in turn Vronsky was miserable.

>>20132510
>maybe im misremembering it but i recall anna being the shitty unreasonable one of the two
I didn't say that Vronsky was unreasonable - I said that he was an asshole. Anna does care for him a lot (and that makes her act unreasonable), while he most definitely doesn't care about her. She finds herself in a trap because she wrecked her conventional married life with Karenin for the sake of her feelings and living a life of true love with Vronsky, a life definitely unreasonable but actually lived and felt, at least as she imagined it. But then it turned out that living with Vronsky is not about true love, as he doesn't love her at all. He focuses on feelings, but only HIS feelings, and loses any interest in Anna the moment her feelings stop validating his.

>>20146737
>but it left Anna in an untenable position where she couldn't have a life with either of them
She could live her life with Vronsky in the countryside without them being legally married, but Vronsky didn't care for such life despite it allowing him to freely be together with Anna. Might have something to do with him not caring about being Anna - he cared about how being with Anna while in public made him the dashing badass seducer in the eyes of said public, but without this thrill she's just an old cunt for him. If Karenin himself was a major obstacle for him, he could always demand satisfaction himself - but he never did, because if he issued a challenge and killed Karenin, would make him unpopular and despised in the society, as opposed to him being challenged by Karenin and then coming out on top. Vronsky never does the manly thing to defend the honor of his women from the actions of another man who claims her, as that would ruin his image of a detached Don Juan who is never bothered by anything and makes fools of other men. Issuing a challenge would make him look like a disturbed fool, so he never does it - he never dares to be a fool for the sake of love, he just does what's most convenient and pleasant for him. Karenin himself doesn't follow the same principle of honor because after the affair he definitely doesn't love Anna either - he hates her, because he used to love her, and the affair turned this love into bitter hatred.

Compare with Levin, who never balks from being a fool for the sake of his love.

>>20146793
hmm, I got the impression that vronsky was doing what he could to make the best of the situation and anna was just being paranoid when she was accusing vronsky of failing out of love with her, and he himself was becoming frustrated with her because of it, but he still deeply cared for her. that the "honeymoon phase", which was already complicated by the nature of their relationship, was over, and and they were settling in to life together, but that natural cooling of passions exacerbated the already difficult situation anna found herself in; the initial passion of the relationship cooled, which is quite common, but at the same time she was also barred from a normal married life, so she was sort of stuck in limbo and driven insane by her position and began lashing out at vronsky because she felt that she was miserable because he was doing something wrong, even though he was just trying his best to live a normal life. one of the main things i think is near the end when she is accusing him of sleeping around, that really showed to me that she was being paranoid and wrong about her perception of vronsky

>>20146856
>hmm, I got the impression that vronsky was doing what he could to make the best of the situation
I already pointed out that he could:
A. Stay with Anna in the country. But he didn't like it, and took to partying in Petersburg without her. And when she eventually got to party with him it produced a scandal around her. He could not pull a Levin and leave the glamour and clamor behind, because that was what he actually loved, and he managed to eventually give it up only for even more clamor - fighting in a war.
B. Demand satisfaction from Karenin himself. He could not do it, because issuing a challenge meant that you are the offended party, the enraged cuck, and he could not allow himself to be seen as the enraged cuck.
In both options, the potential damage for his public persona and lifestyle completely outweighed the suffering of Anna for him. So she was entirely in the right to be angry at him - he bullshitted her into making a leap of faith after him into a new and wonderful life, only to discover that this wonderful life is designed to be wonderful for him, her condition is not really important there - he just assumes that she'll manage somehow, and if she can't, well, tough shit. Once again, compare with Levin, who STARTS considering every decision, every move from whether or not it will help maintain the harmony of his family, and he never assumes the best for himself - he worries constantly over what can go wrong and how it might hurt his wife or sour their relationship, and does everything he can to prevent such disasters.

>even though he was just trying his best to live a normal life
That's the whole issue - Vronsky's idea of living a normal life did not actually include Anna, she was just left around his life like a hanger on, and he did nothing about it.

>one of the main things i think is near the end when she is accusing him of sleeping around, that really showed to me that she was being paranoid and wrong about her perception of vronsky
Of course - she's a broken person driven to half madness by sorrow, of course she is not going to be very reasonable - she pretty much gave up on reason when she ABANDONED HER FAMILY. But the issue is not whether her perception of Vronsky is correct - it is our own perception of him. Just because his girlfriend is hysterical in his accusations doesn't mean that WE can't see his fuck ups in treating her.

>>20147218
*in her accusations

>>20146793
>as that would ruin his image of a detached Don Juan who is never bothered by anything and makes fools of other men
Instantly called to mind the scene on the train early on when he's fallen in love with Anna. He stares through the guy next to him like he doesn't exist, who imagines pestering him somehow just to make Vronsky acknowledge he's a person.

>>20131971
>>20131974
Good posts anon, I haven't seen proper posts in a longer time.
It's usually the case that the people of the upper classes are dominant in revolutions.
Look at Lenin in Russia, Souphanouvong in Laos, there similar people in Vietnam, China, the Americas.
'Counterelite' has been the new meme on twitter for a few weeks now, pic related.