/lit/ - Literature

Stoner is the obvious answer

anything by alice munro or bukowski

Hello, it's your dad. You've been out there for a long time now...

>>4214930
it may be none of my business, but you've been out there for a long time now...

>>4214933
but don't you think it would be a good idea if you to a break?

>>4214936
No? Okay, well, I put $5,293,203 in your bank account. Subtracting what you've already taken out you should have $38,203,203.

No wonder fat kids want to live through video games. It's sweet.

>>4214920

Harvey Pekar's "American Splendor"

>>4214920
It pleases me to finally say completely on topic: Tao Lin.

>>4214920
just watch local tv, overhear conversations in diners, listen to am radio and read local papers. also record things that are not special.

also very much this:

http://www.bearparade.com/eatwhenyoufeelsad/

>>4214957
that was actually intriguing and pretty good, I liked it

>>4214975
Yes, Tao Lin is actually good in a sort of strange monotone way.

>>4214975
Sagestein

>>4214987
Lel, sage doesn't exist any more silly.

>>4214991
Sage still exists and works, it just doesn't inform other people if and when it happens.

You'd know this if you actually experimented rather than blathering dumbly about stuff you don't know/understand.

>>4214996
Informing people of your sage sort of defeats the purpose then.

>>4214975
Well... you wrote it

>>4214999
it defeats the purpose of those who changed it to be invisible though, not the purpose of the anon that announced his sage

>>4215011
forgot to say: you still can't sage with an image, so he didn't really sage. that does defeat his purpose

>>4215016
the more you know. but these fucks gotta lay off the tao lin holy shit. resage

>>4215026
>sage is le downvote

do you even know what sage does

>>4215016
>>4215026
What the fuck? I thought this board was smart. Why are you all passing around faulty information and then just accepting it like you can't even test it?

You most certainly can sage with an image. I'm not even STEM, but I'm totally embarrassed to associate with you people, due to this issue.

Look, here's an experiment you can do for yourself and see:

1. Go to page 10.
2. Post an image on any one of the threads there and sage the post.
3. Submit and check to see if said thread got bumped to page 0.
4. See that it wasn't and feel like a goddamn retard.

No idea why I come here to speak to you guys. Jesus, this is depressing.

>>4215031
cuz we lazy drunkards and it doesnt matter u spoon. Can you jump buildings in a single bound with your superiority?

>>4214996
Kek

>>4214920

>read as "absolutely pederastian"
>lolita
>death in venice

>>4214957
That's pretty good, in a kind of totally shitty way.

>>4214957
>"which made him feel empathy"
Otherwise I liked it. I guess.

Has anyone else noticed a dramatic shift in how /lit/ thinks of Lin? We used to bash the hell out of him, but ever since his book deal with Vintage he seems to be way more respected.

>>4215124
>he seems to be way more respected.

?

>>4215124
It's like a young chimpanzee proving himself to the group and slowly becoming more respected, in this case with Taipei. It's a very touching coming of age story

>>4215128
Haven't you noticed? Even the negative comments aren't so vituperative as they once we're. Now they even have a kernel of admiration.

>>4215139
I suppose that's it. But honestly from what admittedly little I've read of it, Tai Pei seems as horribly boring as the rest of his work. He said he put everything he had into it, so I'm surprised this was all that came out

>>4215124
>>4215142

>tao lin trying to subtly shift /lit/s opinion of him

go to bed

Burrough's Junky, perhaps?

>>4215124
Tao Lin has gone through the Stirner process. Meaning that opinions change for the better once people actually take the trouble to read him.

>>4215494
it was just that tao was actually existing on the internet, annoying people, when he needed to draw attention to himself, and that was of course irritating
now the people posting about him aren't participating in an annoying clusterfuck meymey, they are actually discussing his work

>>4214920
The Pigeon by Patrick Süskind

>>4214927
seconded

It's called cowardice. Happiness to a man is boldness, and sadness is cowardice. When a man becomes a coward he loses his sense of purpose, feeling that life is meaningless, and so loses himself in pleasures that any coward can enjoy --- food, drink, music, sex, entertainment, etc.
Brave men get happiness from things that take dedication, effort and risk. The difference between the two sort of pleasures is that while the former becomes more and more painful the more you get of them (you can only take so much of the sensual pleasures before they becomes numb or even painful), the latter pleasures are more and more fulfilling the more you get of them, they are "edifying", they don't just taste good in the moment but leave a satisfying aftertaste as well (whereas the sensual pleasures just leave you hungrier, more wretched, and often ashamed), they never lose their vitality.

How do you stop being a coward? By having the boldness to make a resolution, a choice, and having the humility to bear that choice with patience and not abandon it when the least difficult or inconvenience begins to appear.
How do you have the boldness to make a resolution? By obedience to authority. You have to obey some authority, and fear that authority. Now, even the egoists, though they don't like to admit it, have some authority. If I say, in the manner of an egoist, "I am the ruler of my life and of my self, and I am going to shape myself into a great athlete" --- even this person has an authority to obey. Imagine, 30 days down the line, the egoist who is training to be an athlete despairs and starts having thoughts like, "how am I benefiting from this? what's the point? I'll never be as great as the greatest athletes, so there isn't much point in trying only to become a mediocrity." Now, at this point the egoist will have to look back and remember the command that his ego gave to him 30 days ago --- "I am the ruler of my life and of my self . . ." --- and unless he OBEYS this command then he will never achieve anything. If your today refutes your yesterday then you are setting yourself up to live in craven despondency all the days of your life. You have to obey, AT LEAST, the man who came yesterday and set down a law for the man who is today. Without fear of the judgement of that man who came before the egoist will never have any power. The ultimate in authority is to obey not the man that came yesterday, or last month, or last year, last decade or even last century. The ultimate in authority is to obey the God that layed the foundations of the earth at the beginning of time.

go for some Wallace, the act of reading a doorstop reproduces the trivialities of routine existence. If you are feeling brave try reading M&D. When you turn the last page you will be struck with just how plain the narrative is for the Characters.

>>4215526
Sounds pretty good. But how?

Ecclesiastes

>>4215567
The fear of God is the beginning of Wisdom.

The problem with the egoists idea of structure is that the ego is such a weak, and pathetic thing. Go back to my anecdote. The egoist who is 30 days down the line no longer wants to fulfill the thing that he committed himself to do. Now, this is where the strife begins. He either listens to the shuffling, seductive, serpent voice of his tired despair that says "there's no point in all of this, why not just relax? nothing going to come of it in the end", or he listens to the voice of authority that came 30 days again said, "THOU WILT DO THIS". The problem with the egoist is that voice is his own voice, and unless he has an immense amount of respect for himself and fears his own judgement he was just brush it off. This is why Godliness, the fear of God, is the real, immediate path to obedience.
"Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me."
-King David.

King David feared God. He was a young farm lad when he challenged the giant Goliath to single combat -- something that none of the other Israelites had the courage for. They couln't find a suit of armour small enough to fit David. Where did he get this courage from? From listening to God. He feared God's judgement more than he feared even death ---- and that is what is really liberating. Once you don't fear the opinion of others (because others are wretched compared to God) or physical pain (because it is temporary, whereas God can punish for eternity) or fear death, you are really fear. You will hear the voice that says, "do this!" and you will do it, fearing no evil.
The pagans had the same practice. They feared the judgement of their ancient ancestors, their own fathers, and of their pagan gods. The difference is that these authorities aren't nearly as absolute as the authority of God. Still, they are much better than no authority, and a liberal society like ours encourages men to be "their own man", which basically means, "recognize no authority other than your own", and it's hard for most men to take themselves seriously enough to give orders to themselves, unless the orders require very little from you.

>>4215581
>or fear death, you are really fear.
free*

>>4215581
>it's hard for most men to take themselves seriously enough to give orders to themselves, unless the orders require very little from you.

This explains a lot. Damn. I'm following you less on the God stuff, but I definitely see your point as him being an ultimate, unquestionable compelling force.

>>4215526
Listening to your former self is ascribing authority to a recollection, to an idea, a concept. It makes the actual you subservient to something intangible, something fictional. A spook.

This is not bravery, this is a cowardice where one places responsibility outside of oneself. To be brave is to be true to oneself, and oneself exists only here and now and is not the concept of the self, nor the concept of a former or future self. Every choice is made in this moment. This is even better than freedom, it is owning oneself. It is the only real form of power there is.

>>4215624
> It is the only real form of power there is.

On the contrary, it absolutely cripples you. To be honest, it does more than that, it destroys you, because "you", "I", etc., are all "spooks" --- all forms of identity are destroyed. "Choice", "this moment", "true to oneself", "responsibility", these are all "spooks".
This is really just the Daoist "thoughts are evil".
Well, actually, the real Daoist statement is, " ". A non-statement, because Daoist don't state think or non-think, they don't speak or non-speak, they don't choose or non-choose, they just " ".

>>4214920
The Stranger? Sounds like your looking for something on the edges of Nihilism (not caring for one thing any more than another)

>>4215642
>On the contrary, it absolutely cripples you.
It only seems that way. It only cripples the concept you have of yourself, freeing yourself from that burden. Only when you don't obey the conceptual you can you be true to the actual you. When you ascribe authority to the you of yesterday, you are not even dealing with a you that points towards the non-conceptual you. It's a you that points towards something no longer and therefore non-existent. It's fidelity to an empty shell stemming from a misunderstanding of conceptual thought.

>To be honest, it does more than that, it destroys you, because "you", "I", etc., are all "spooks" --- all forms of identity are destroyed. "Choice", "this moment", "true to oneself", "responsibility", these are all "spooks".
Yes, but the Stirnerian Einzige is not the conceptual you. But I agree, these are all spooks the moment you start ascribing authority to them and serving them. Obedience to a former self is superstition.

>This is really just the Daoist "thoughts are evil".
>Well, actually, the real Daoist statement is, " ". A non-statement, because Daoist don't state think or non-think, they don't speak or non-speak, they don't choose or non-choose, they just " ".
I've also found Stirner and certain Daoist/Zen things to be eerily alike. Compare your statement to the following for example:

>What Stirner says is a word, a thought, a concept; what he means is no word, no thought, no concept. What he says is not what is meant, and what he means is unsayable.

>Stirner speaks of the Unique and says immediately: Names name you not. He articulates the word, so long as he calls it the Unique, but adds nonetheless that the Unique is only a name. He thus means something different from what he says, as perhaps someone who calls you Ludwig does not mean a Ludwig in general, but means You, for which he has no word. (...) It is the end point of our phrase world, of this world in whose "beginning was the Word."

There is no you that is destroyed, it's just that the conceptual you that is ascribed existence and authority never existed in the first place. The you considered you never was you, and only by dismissing it can you act as the real you, which is neither the concept of you nor anything else, for " 'being' is abstraction, as is even 'the I'. Only I am not abstraction alone: I am all in all, consequently, even abstraction or nothing: I am all and nothing; I am not a mere thought, but at the same time I am full of thoughts, a thought-world. ...."

>>4215650
Yes, and this is why this philosophy cannot be a source of power, because it destroys the very notion of "power", and it cannot be a source of freedom, because it destroys the very notion of "freedom", this philosophy cannot even be a philosophy, because it destroys the very notion of "philosophy". This philosophy cannot be, because it destroys the very notion of "being".
It's not a philosophy. It's " ".

>>4215650
>>4215672
Also, this is how I separate Western and Eastern though most generally. Western thought is thought. Eastern thought is not thought. Western philosophy is the philosophy of being, Eastern philosophy is the philosophy of non-being or nothingness. Western philosophy begins definitively with Plato, but it's best expression is in that which you have quoted, "In the beginning was the Word", or, in the Old Testament, "I AM THAT I AM", which is how God, The Being, names himself.
In the East there is no being that says I AM. There is no initial voice.

>>4215672
It is a source of power because it destroys the notion of power which distracts from power. It is a source of freedom because it destroys the notion of freedom. Only free from freedom is one really free to be. It's the ultimately philosophy precisely because it does not hang on to self-deception of the sake of remaining a philosophy. It is the only philosophy that can really be, because it destroys the notion of being. It's indeed " ", but that's the only thing anything can ever be, and realising this it solves everything by dissolving everything. Stirner goes bowling every Friday with Pyrrho, Bodhidharma and Wittgenstein.

>>4215680
That makes sense, although I would say that the traditional Eastern approach is therapeutic while the Western approach is creative. Both generalisations are too broad to please though, as far as I'm concerned.