/lit/ - Literature

Extremely ugly and extremely autistic recluse.
She didn't write because it was her calling, she only did it because there was nothing else to do.

>>20395750
>Extremely ugly and extremely autistic recluse.
Wow, she's just like 90% of 4chan users

>>20395750
Shallow, non-reader. Obvious misogynist for not understanding what makes an artist.

Get off our board, turkey neck.

>>20395680
About who?

>>20395766
You're the odd one out here if you're not a misogynist.

>>20396123
I actually read, unlike you.

>>20396123
Lovers of literature know who the great women writers are. You out yourself as either a non-reader or member of the one book club of religio-tards infesting the board. Lurk.

Women

>>20395755
>>20395766
>>20396129
Seething trannies

>>20396135
>religio-tards

>>20395680
she's literally me

>>20395680
she got that fluoride stare

>>20395750
poast prose

>>20396232
"Chapter 3

Lucille wasn't sure if she wanted to go to the bar with Brent that night. He had kind of made a bit of a fool of himself last night when he kept trying to set up a game of beer pong on the pool table, and placed ice cubes down the front of her shirt as a "just a prank bro". But then again, she did write in her journal 2 weeks prior that she must make an effort to be more social, to make friends, and who knows, maybe even get a boyfriend and lose her virginity."

>>20395750
>She didn't write because it was her calling, she only did it because there was nothing else to do.
So, she's /lit/?

>>20395680
Rubbing Emily Dickinson's feet.
Smelling between Emily Dickinson's toes.
Sucking the sweat out of Emily Dickinson's pantyhose.
Opening Emily Dickinson's anus with a speculum.
Watching Emily Dickinson's grey shit dribble onto the wool sheets.
Avoiding eye contact with Emily Dickinson while removing her colon.
Liquifying Emily Dickinson's torso in a 100 litre drum of acid.
Goodbye, Emily Dickinson.

>>20396492
u r an artist bro

She would post on here if she was alive today, mostly in WWOYM threads and poetry threads.

>>20398025

I figure she'd also post on /u/

>>20395750
I want a gf like her :(

>>20396719
Her feet would sweat - beneath her socks -
Her shit would drop - divine -
Into the throats of lesbians -
Into the depths - of mine -

Her kidney would be succulent -
Her colon - and her heart -
I'd suck her virgin clit - and be
Her virgin counterpart.

>>20395680
black and white

>>20395680
luv me dick. simple as.

>>20399376
She looks like my autistic ex, some of the crazy stuff she would do.

1. Every thursday she would eat only pineapple.
2. Without a reason or provocation she would start smacking me.
3. Watch porn constantly, every variety.
4. When I got her to stop watching porn, she would want to have constant sex, this is actually anoying.
5. She would obsessively collect stuff from old 90s boybands.
6. Heavy addiction to milk for some reason. Drank atleast 3 karton per day. Never gained weight.
7. When we showered together she would always pee on me. Couldnt do it back because that was gross.
8. Sometimes she spends several minutes opening and closing doors.
9. Hysterical fear of spiders.
10. Once shot a black delivery boy with my airrifle, because she said he looked like he wanted to rape her.
11. When in a car or on abicycle she always wanted to drive over small animals.
12. All her socks, underpants and nail polish had to be a certain shade of orange.
13. Would disappear in the middle of the night and hide in the attic, this relaxed her.

I didn’t care for her. I’ve read every poem she’s written and I’ve read a few books analyzing her hoping they’d open my appreciation up for her. I find her musicality lacking, her religious sentiment to be miloquetoast and not of the fiery zeal I desire, and I don’t think she had an impressive or strange intellect or imagination really.

I’d still rather read her than Virginia woolf, but that’s not saying much. Not one line of hers has ever intoxicated my mind with a unique aesthetic experience.

>>20395750
>She didn't write because it was her calling, she only did it because there was nothing else to do
Based and NEETpilled.

>>20399507
Actual retard

>>20399507
who are your favorite poets?

>>20399507
Frater somehow your posts still have the power to shock me with their stupidity

>>20399507
>intoxicated my mind with a unique aesthetic experience.
well, this sentence is certainly a unique aesthetic experience

>>20400000
checked. frater cosmically btfo

>>20400000
Lol based quints. Straight up btfo out of that brainlet.

>>20399494
She sounds like a stupid bitch. Hope she does a slow painful death from an accident.

>>20400000
Actually argue for why you like her. use your own reason and explain why you enjoy her poetry and give an example.

>>20399983
AE Russell, Swinburne, William Blake, Al-hallaj, li-he, Hopkins, Baudelaire, Spenser, Mallarme, Christopher smart, Angelus Silesius, Ovid, Dante, Petrarch (his latter poetry.), Milton, you get the idea.

>>20400241
pretty cool list desu

>>20400000
lollllllll checked

>>20399494
>Once shot a black delivery boy with my airrifle, because she said he looked like he wanted to rape her.
Based ex

not even the best Emily

>>20400000
absolute annihilation

>>20400000
Based AF

>>20399428
An anon of talent, I see.

One of the best American poets , her influence on literature is huge. The Beat generation, Pynchon, Nabokov and many more. Her power to evoke unique imagery is singular.

I read this poem when I was 13 and it sparked my lifelong interest in poetry. I really don't understand how someone could not like her. This poem can appeal to an intelligent child, but also now decades later after having delved into numberless philosophical treatments of the subject of this poem, I am still astounded by the way she poses the mystery, seems to answer it, but leaves you guessing as to what the answer actually is.

>>20402941
It’s simply an appeal to the faculty which generates perception as vaster than the perceived, and some basic monism at the end in the style of as above so below.

This isn’t remarkable or new, such poetry with identical concepts and similar wordings has existed for literally thousands of years, and with more ornate wording and conceptions. See the emerald tablet for example or the corpus hermeticum. Or if you want this style but even stronger and even shorter and more refined check out the poet Angelus Silesius.

Perhaps it would have been different for me if I read her before reading into esotericism, mysticism, other older poets and what have you, she just doesn’t have any unique strangeness nor exceptional lyricism to me.

>>20395750
If she was born in our age she would have been a tumblrite.

>>20395755
4chan users are fake recluses, she had the actual autist drive.

>>20399494
Ok this one was an actual autist woman.

>>20399679
>>20400000
He's right, you know.

>>20402961
retard

>>20402961
this is just such an embarrassingly sophomoric take

>>20395680
one of the greatest

>>20395680
She looks like a less cute version of anya taylor-joy

>>20404608
How is it not, how is this not the same as above so below argument we see for thousands of years in poetry, how is this not speaking of the subjective supremacy of the perception as being more vast than the perceived, explain yourself, actually try to argue. You probably can’t.

>>20403299
Seethe, you know I’m right.

>>20404641
Your argument about conceptual novelty could literally be made for any poem in the English language. Everything has been said. That you suggest we judge a poem based on whether it has some vague conceptual affinity with some nebulous concept that has come before means you have no idea what a poem even is and that you, sir, are an ass.
>Unique strangeness
>Exceptional lyricism
Your posts are like a baby that shat its diaper. You are proud while all of us onlookers (and onsmellers) are embarrassed for you

I would dick her down so hard.

>>20404699
>Your argument about conceptual novelty could literally be made for any poem in the English language.

Bullshit something like Spenser’s ruins of time or Blake’s epics have unique and strange aesthetics, having a unique aesthetic and conception doesn’t mean you exist in a vacuum, it means through creative power you’ve mixed and synthesized strands of previous conceptions with your own spirit in a new, strange and pleasurable manner.

>That you suggest we judge a poem based on whether it has some vague conceptual affinity with some nebulous concept that has come before means you have no idea what a poem even is and that you, sir, are an ass.


It’s not nebulous you nigger, it’s about the aesthetic experience being one that’s actually unique and enjoyable and refined. If art is not about an aesthetic experience and not about production of beauty then what is it about?

> Your posts are like a baby that shat its diaper. You are proud while all of us onlookers (and onsmellers) are embarrassed for you

“Noooo you want the poem to sound nice and not be forgettable how dare you! You’re a child”

You don’t have an argument. That style is neither new, nor well executed, the conception is neither a fascinating new look or wording of it nor a new conception. What exactly do you think were supposed to praise and enjoy about it if it’s not about how the poem sounds, nor what the poem’s about nor about the aesthetic produced by the poem?

Instead of seething actually try to argue why the poem is exceptional.

>>20404641
>>20404729
Not them, but the reason I like a lot of Emily Dickinson's poems is because the way she touches on themes like Immortality, the poet as God, nonduality of nature, and so on are dealt in profoundly cosmic ways while using references to what is 'mundane'. You can approach many of her poems from different angles, and the ambiguity leads to multiple interpretations. Emily Dickinson was intensely passionate in a 'mono no aware' way while seeing the 'suchness' in the cycles of life.
I can understand why some people may not like her poetry given how condensed many of it can be. A lot of them feel like diamonds or gems that's hard to pinpoint the meaning of. I agree the poems themselves do not have a strange aesthetic as many others, given they are heavily rooted in Emily's 'umwelt', but they do have a subtle magical realist touch to them.
I agree with this review from Amazon user Tepi:

>Just as a prism breaks up light into a band of colors - red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo and violet - and their infinite gradations, so do Emily Dickinson's poems become, as it were, a prism which captures the white light of reality, a reality which as it flows through the prism of her poem explodes into a multiplicity of meanings.
>It is the rich suggestiveness of her poems, a suggestiveness which generates an incredible range of meanings, that prevents us from ever being able to say (to continue the metaphor) that a given poem is 'about red' or 'about blue,' because her poems, as US critic Robert Weisbuch has observed, are in fact about _everything_. This is what makes her so unique, and this is why she appeals to every kind of reader (or certainly to open-minded ones) and even to children.
Emily Dickinson's poetry is one of the wonders of the world.

>>20404782
>Emily Dickinson's poems is because the way she touches on themes like Immortality, the poet as God, nonduality of nature, and so on are dealt in profoundly cosmic ways

I’m a big fan of such also, it’s why I’ve read her and I’ve tried reading books on her to try to grasp what aesthetic I may be missing, but I just am not impressed with her treatment.

>while using references to what is 'mundane'.

Now my complaint here is purely one of taste, I despise the mundane, hate it, would prefer the strange and exotic always. Now this isn’t a fault of hers this is a taste question, but still.


>You can approach many of her poems from different angles, and the ambiguity leads to multiple interpretations.

Problem is, I can point to poets who out do her excessively in every category, like you want a multitude of interpretations and conceptual oddities? Mallarme has her beaten by a ton while being a lot more musical and actually producing a strange unique aesthetic.

>Emily Dickinson was intensely passionate in a 'mono no aware' way while seeing the 'suchness' in the cycles of life.

The thing is, I’ve studied my Chinese and Japanese and Hindu and Buddhist poets, There are much superior expressions of both throughout Asia and Europe, a personal favorite of mine is the Chinese poet li-he, who also is incredibly dense with allusions; metaphors and religious-magical aspects. Have a poem of his.

A moon's old rabbit and cold toad weeping colors of sky,
lucent walls slant across through half-open cloud towers.
A jade-pure wheel squeezes dew into bulbs of wet light.
Phoenix waist jewels meet on cinnamon-scented paths.
Transformations of a thousand years gallop by like horses,
yellow dust soon seawater below changeless island peaks,
and all China seen so far off: it's just nine wisps of mist,
and the ocean's vast clarity a mere cup of spilled water.

>I can understand why some people may not like her poetry given how condensed many of it can be. A lot of them feel like diamonds or gems that's hard to pinpoint the meaning of.

I can again point to much more condensed poets with deeper theology and smaller lines, look to Angelus Silesius. Here’s a poem of his.


A Loaf holds many grains of corn
And many myriad drops the Sea:
So is God's Oneness Multitude
And that great Multitude are we.

Here have another.


God is so dear unto Himself,
Folded in self so utterly,
That He can never cherish love
For anything that is not He.

As to her prismatic aspect, certainly i am not effected! Someone like Blake more deserves that prismatic praise.

>>20404844
It's just preference then. I agree other people who were attacking you were being moronic since they didn't attempt to explain why they like Emily Dickinson.
Let me just give one addition: Describing and analyzing why one likes certain poetry may be enriching and good for one's analytical capacities, but I writing one's own, based on one's own experience rather than ratiocination, is superior. What I'm arguing is that liking a poem has non-rational aspects to it; it speaks to one's soul in a manner that is elusive to terse logic. Emily Dickinson does not speak to your soul, which is fine. Granted, I am impressed by your other taste. That poem from Li-He was nice.

What's your opinion on this poem from Osip Mandelshtam? I tend to come back to it often.

"The sea-shell"

It may be, night, you do not need me;
Out of the world's abyss,
Like a shell without pearls,
I am cast on your shores.

Indifferent, you stir the waves
And immitigably sing;
But you shall love and cherish
This equivocal, unnecessary shell.

You shall lie down on the sand close by,
Apparelled in your raiment,
And bind to the shell
The colossal bell of the billows.

And our whispering spray shall fill,
With wind and rain and mist,
The walls of the brittle shell —

A heart where nobody dwells...

>>20404865
>What I'm arguing
What I'm suggesting*

>>20404865
> What I'm arguing is that liking a poem has non-rational aspects to it; it speaks to one's soul in a manner that is elusive to terse logic.

Yes and no, I think the non-rational aspects are more accurately called emotional, sympathetic, they’re still logical to be enjoyed they’re just based on the nuances of the individuals psychology, emotions and circumstance and not their rational ideals and their solidified conceptions of what art is and is not, personally I am not a emotional or very sentimental/sympathetic person for anything but hardcore religion so these things don’t really have much weight with me, I also think it’s bad form for art to rely on this and not on harder colder ideals of what form and aesthetic should be, because those artists which do fixate on form have, when actually read, the ability to pierce far more people no matter their beliefs, emotions or personality quirks, an example I like using is Milton’s satan being loved by Christians to the point he even produced multiple satanists. That’s the kind of aesthetic and rhetorical effect when you’re going based on hard skills and not on sympathy.

As for the poem you posted, eh I’m not a fan of smallness nor the theme of human love. Bell of the billows is a nice expression and the spray filling the shell is a good image. Otherwise it doesn’t give me much. Here have a poem by AE russell.

KRISHNA

THE EAST was crowned with snow-cold bloom
And hung with veils of pearly fleece:
They died away into the gloom,
Vistas of peace—and deeper peace.

And earth and air and wave and fire
In awe and breathless silence stood;
For One who passed into their choir
Linked them in mystic brotherhood.

Twilight of amethyst, amid
Thy few strange stars that lit the heights,
Where was the secret spirit hid?
Where was Thy place, O Light of Lights?

The flame of Beauty far in space—
Where rose the fire: in Thee? in Me?
Which bowed the elemental race
To adoration silently?

>>20395680
>yet ANOTHER thread down the drain because of frater anselmo's shitposting

Color me fucking surprised. Worse than butterfly? I think so...

>>20405101
eh all he did was criticize Emily Dickinson, in response to OP literally asking for thoughts on Emily Dickinson, there was no shitposting

Frater is right. She is only liked because she is a woman. Otherwise, mediocre.

>>20403285
>4chan users are fake recluses
Idk what you mean.