/lit/ - Literature

Jorge Luis Borges
Emily Dickinson
Arthur Rimbaud
Louis-Ferdinand Céline
John Keats

Sam Harris
Richard Dawkins
Christopher Hitchens
Lawrence Krauss
Carl Sagan

I recommend "The Moral Landscape".

>>5311430
Zamyatin
Adorno
Camus
Lem
Lovecraft

I recommend everything written by all of them. Also, Rushdie's Satanic Verses.

>>5311444

Tom Kristensen
Jorge Luis Borges
Hermann Hesse
James Joyce
Bill Burroughs

have just gotten a copy of los siete locos, looking forward to it

William Burroughs
Virginia Woolf
Jane Austen
Leo Tolstoy
F. Scott Fitzgerald

>>5311443
I recommend getting rimmed in a bathhouse.

>>5311444
I recommend Bertie, Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyerabend.

>>5311448
Zola. Spinoza.

>>5311453
I recommend Sharknado II

>>5311460
I recommend 1936-1953 Soviet socialist realism. Followed by GuLag and Concentration camp literature.

>>5311465
I recommend Interwar British poetry.

>>5311430
Steinbeck
Freud
Mark Twain
Marin Preda
Camus

People should read Steinbeck, it's the most pleasant author to read.
Also, for people wondering why I choose Freud, I'm studying psychology and I find that Freuds books also have literary value.

>>5311430
Lovecraft
Mary Shelley
Poe
Huysmans
Lewis Caroll

Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Hermann Hesse
Albert Camus
Thomas Bernhard
Kafka
(sixth would be Mishima)

I am my favourite writer. I don't have any other favourites.

Terry Pratchett
Gilles Deleuze
William Burroughs
Philip K. Dick
Umberto Eco

>>5311573
Oh and if you haven't already, read Frankenstein, so fuken based. The rest by Mary Shelley is cool but a bit lenghthy. For Lovecraft, read everything you can get your hands on, everything is great, his stories, poetry and even letters.

>>5311563
> Freud
really?

Ursula Le Guin
Thomas Pynchon
David Graeber
David Foster Wallace
Vladimir Nabokov

David Foster Wallace, Anton Chekhov, Millan Kundera, Dostoevsky, E.E. Cummings.

>>5311465
Read Fizzy Scott's short stories. And Edith Wharton.

>>5311443
Try Federico Garcia Lorca's poetry.

>>5311573
House of Leaves.

Camus
Dostoevsky
Soseki
Wilde
Robbins

>>5311621
I've read The Word for World is forest, which I really liked, and the Wizard of Earthsea trilogy. What are Le Guins best books in your opinion? Her style really appeals to me and I'd like to read more of her.

>>5311586
>so fuken based

It's like you want people to disregard your opinions.

>>5311668
Orsinian tales
Left hand of darkness
Dispossessed

>>5311675
Nice, thanks for the fast reply.

>>5311675
>>5311695
ha, that wasn't me, but he's on point. Disposessed and Left Hand of Darkness are my favorites

Posting six because fuck the police

William Burroughs
Phillip K. Dick - especially the late output
Richard Flanagan
Flann O'Brien
Umberto Eco
Robert Anton Wilson

>>5311585
Read O'Brien's 'third policeman' and 'at swim two birds' if you haven't already.

>>5311460
Samuel Beckett- his early stuff. Also Conrad. And if you're Danish, get a hold of Rudolf Broby Johansen's 'BLOD'.

William S. Burroughs
Renata Adler
William Faulkner
Oscar Wilde
Terry Pratchett

Hamsun
Oe
Proust
Dostoyevsky
Kundera

stanislaw lem
italo calvino
alfred bester
isaac asimov
h p lovecraft

>>5311608
Yeah, his works are some goddamn good police novels

>>5311621
>Thomas Pynchon

Wow I feel bad for you.

>>5311510
⇒I recommend Bertie, Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyerabend.

Did you even read any of these or do you just repeat the usual name dropping list every opponent of "scientism" reposts on /lit/ without knowing any of their works?

Max Stirner
Max Stirner
Max Stirner
Max Stirner
Max Stirner

Joyce
Dosty
Shakespeare
Kafka

I don't have a fifth yet. I've read others, but no one I could pinpoint as a favorite.

>>5311763
Eschbach's The Carpet Makers is probably something you'd like.

>>5312015
>Popper
>Lakatos
>opponents of scientism
>implying anyone in their right mind would call them that

>>5312107
⇒>implying anyone in their right mind would call them that

The fedora'd self-proclaimed defenders of philosophy on /lit/ and /sci/ are not "in their right mind". They tell scientists to read Popper, Lakatos and Kuhn, even though the works of these philosophers contradicts every single platitude said fedoratards usually spout. Kuhn for example made very clear that there is a distinction between objective scientific thinking vs blind faith in religion/philosophy/ideology.

Dumas
Salinger (His short stories)
Toole
Dosto
Cervantes

James
Eliot
Homer
Shakespeare
Joyce

>>5312159
Tasso

>>5312178
George Eliot btw

>>5312129
>dude posts list of authors arrowfag likes
>other dude suggests more authors arrowfag likes
>arrowfag mad

>>5312195
I like none of these authors. Who are you to tell me what I like?

>>5312200
ok, then why do you even get mad when someone advises a reader of dawkins to check out popper?

>>5312207
I already explained that I criticized >>5311510 for the inappropriate knee-jerk reaction of countering a list of pop sci / atheism authors with a list of philosophers of science. Most likely he has less than a wikipedia understanding of said philosophers' works.

>>5312211
>for the inappropriate knee-jerk reaction of countering a list of pop sci / atheism authors with a list of philosophers of science.
>the inappropriate knee-jerk reaction
>of countering a list of pop sci / atheism authors with a list of philosophers of science
except that there is nothing inappropriate about that. people who are into pop sci / atheism should definitely read some philosophy of science.
what would you suggest to people who like dawkins?

>>5312218
The philosophy of science is not worth reading. At best it consists of trivialities like "hurr durr science presumes that reality exists", at worst it promotes anti-intellectualism with inane statemetns like "u cannot even prove you exist, therefore science is wrong".

>>5312224
Alright, now I believe that you're the one who should read some Popper, Kuhn, and Lakatos.
The epistemic value of the scientific method is highly non-trivial.
>At best it consists of trivialities like "hurr durr science presumes that reality exists"
>at worst it promotes anti-intellectualism with inane statemetns like "u cannot even prove you exist, therefore science is wrong".
Neither of which can be found in the writings of the philosphers you deride right here, screw you.

>>5312240
⇒The epistemic value of the scientific method is highly non-trivial.

It is extremely trivial. You should have learned the scientific method in 3rd grade. If you consider "herp derp science requires the existence of reality" to be a deep insight, then this doesn't mean philosophy of science is deep and insightful, it only means that you are lagging behind in your intellectual development.

>>5312224
wow you are really dumb

>>5312250
Actually I'm extremely intelligent. Please keep your projections to yourself.

>>5312243
>It is extremely trivial.
It isn't. Wether you consider science to be the only path to truth, or one among others, wether you consider its findings to be an accurate depiction of the world, or a mere approximation towards understanding an unknown, wether you view its progress as a linear, unified effort, or the emergent outcome of people and projects struggling against one another, is quite a big deal.
>If you consider "herp derp science requires the existence of reality" to be a deep insight
I don't, and no one who knows anything about the philosophy of science does, so stop strawmanning all over the place.

William S. Burroughs
Friedrich Nietzsche
Raymond Chandler
Arthur Rimbaud
Charles Bukowski

>>5311430
Flannery O'Connor
John Steinbeck
Vonnegut

Yeah, only three, but they're the only writers I've read enough of and enjoyed consistently to say they're favorites. Can't really give anyone recs but I'd appreciate some

>>5312254
⇒is quite a big deal
No, it really isn't. To any sufficiently educated person it is trivially obvious which position fits a given context best.

⇒no one who knows anything about the philosophy of science does
As you might have noticed, I was criticizing the kind of person who engages in name dropping without knowing anything about the actual philosophical contents.

⇒so stop strawmanning all over the place
;(

>>5312252
>thinking you're extremely intelligent
Are you sure you just don't know what you don't know?

>>5312306
>To any sufficiently educated person it is trivially obvious which position fits a given context best
Agreed, if 'sufficiently educated' entails knowledge of at least Popper and Kuhn. Which is why people should read them, to educate themselves.
>I was criticizing the kind of person who engages in name dropping without knowing anything about the actual philosophical contents
Which you can somehow extrapolate from a reading recommendation? Now, give you that, I sure don't need any knowledge of epistemology to see you're full of shit.

>>5312337
⇒if 'sufficiently educated' entails knowledge of at least Popper and Kuhn

To someone who knows the scientific method Popper and Kuhn have nothing new to offer. They wrote nothing which isn't trivially obvious.

Camus
Dostoevsky
Soseki
Wilde
Robbins
Ursula Le Guin
Thomas Pynchon
David Graeber
David Foster Wallace
Vladimir Nabokov
Terry Pratchett
Gilles Deleuze
William Burroughs
Philip K. Dick
Umberto Eco
Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Hermann Hesse
Albert Camus
Thomas Bernhard
Kafka
(sixth would be Mishima)
Lovecraft
Mary Shelley
Poe
Huysmans
Lewis Caroll
Tom Kristensen
Jorge Luis Borges
Hermann Hesse
James Joyce
Bill Burroughs
William Burroughs
Virginia Woolf
Jane Austen
Leo Tolstoy
F. Scott Fitzgerald
Sam Harris
Richard Dawkins
Christopher Hitchens
Lawrence Krauss
Carl SaganDumas
Salinger (His short stories)
Toole
Dosto
Cervantes
James
Eliot
Homer
Shakespeare
Joyce

>>5312354
>I can't count to 5

>>5312352
>says a guy who grew up in an environment where their insights have become common knowledge
At the time Popper wrote The Logic of Scientific Discovery, it was a big deal, because it introduced a new, viable way to distinguish good science from bad science.
From that perspective, Kuhn's achievement of showing that things are not quite as simple as Popper had thought is pretty damn important.

But yeah right, we can know all that from a thing called 'the scientific method' which exists outside of time, unchanging and independent of our feeble human reasoning.

Rilke
Goethe
Hölderlin
Benn
Schiller

I recommend being fluent in German

>>5311430
Rowling
Collins
Pratchett
Green
Dawkins

>>5312398
>Benn
topkek
I'm sure you're fond of namedropping these poets. However, you most likely don't know shit about them.

>>5312405
Why don't you take a nap, edgelord.

>>5312405
That is probably true.
Still my favourite poets though

>>5312252
>Actually I'm extremely intelligent
Your engagement in this discussion speaks volumes. I recommend Plato's Dialogues.

>>5312291
Dashiell Hammet is probably right up your alley

>>5312405
Not that guy, but
>implying Benn isn't on par with the german classics
Ficken Sie sich, werter Herr.

Bolaño
Cortázar
Joyce
Baudelaire
Lorca

>>5312417
He isn't. Benn is mediocre.
töten sich selbst, Schwuchtel

>>5312422
>töten sich selbst, Schwuchtel
Alright, if you don't know proper german, you probably can't appreciate him as much.

>>5312422
What are your favourite german poets?
(Ich will dir nicht ans Bein pissen, nur lesen.)

>>5312427
>>5312426
>Fucking untermensch
See guys? I can do german too. It's not that hard.

>>5312379
⇒their insights have become common knowledge
That's why there is no reason to read them anymore, unless you're studying the history of science. Just like there is no reason to read the original works of Einstein when you can learn his theory from a modern textbook instead. The scientific method is taught in public mandatory education. For any non-historian reading the works of philosophers of science would be unnecessary pseudo-intellectualism, comparable to that fedora'd outsider who has to put a copy of Darwin's "Origin of Species" or Plato's "Republic" in his shelf to appear more educated than he actually is, not knowing that all he achieves is looking extremely cringeworthy and clumsy.

>>5312417
⇒expressionism
⇒on par with the classics
u havin a giggle m8?

>>5312398

Brecht

>>5312420

Rimbaud

Nietzsche
Dostoyevsky
DFW
Kafka
Beckett

>>5312398
>no Heine

>>5312457
Hide ⇒ threads
Ignore ⇒ posts
Do not reply to ⇒ posters

>>5312457
>there is no difference between reading a primary source and a secondary source

F. Scott Fitzgerald
Ernest Hemingway
Cormac McCarthy
Charles Bukowski
Walt Whitman

>>5312491
Nathanael West

>>5312181
thanks mate!

>>5312499
Thank you! Is there a specific work you would recommend reading first?

>>5312515
Unfortunately, he didn't get to put out much before he died, but there's a twofer of "The Day of the Locust" and "Miss Lonelyhearts" that is pretty common in bookshops. His other books don't really compare to those two, honestly.

>>5311430

Calvino
Vonnegut
Whitman
Salinger
Jamaica Kincaid

>>5312622
Pynchon or Borges

>>5312080
Beckett

>>5312634

Any recommendations under those? As in, which works?

>>5312647
>recommends Borges
>Any recommendations under those?
Nevermind: do not read him.

>>5312647
Borges only does short stories, see if you like this it won't take you ten minutes:

http://www4.wittenberg.edu/academics/mathcomp/shelburne/Infinity/notes/BookOfSand.html

I started Pynchon with The Crying of Lot 49 but it seems like it's a toss-up between that and V. for the "suggested order", though you could probably start with Inherent Vice if you wanted (movie comes out in December, too).

>>5311443
Wallace Stevens

>>5311448
Strugatsky brothers

War with the Newts

Krzhizhanovsky

>>5311465
Turgenev. Try Home of the Gentry or some of his stories instead of Fathers and Sons.
I second the rec for Edith Wharton

>>5311430
Tao Lin
Sam Pink
Plato
Ellen Kennedy
TS Eliot

>>5311563
Schnitzler, just because Freud said, after reading his works, that "I have gained the impression that you have learned through intuition — though actually as a result of sensitive introspection — everything that I have had to unearth by laborious work on other persons"

>>5311762
If you like Ōe, check out Faulkner. They work with similar themes and I see Faulkner's influence in Ōe's work.

>>5311573
If you want something more challenging, try The Golem by Meyrink. It's like a Jewish Frankenstein's monster mixed with Jekyll and Hyde seen through the eyes of a nutjob.

>>5311430
Joyce
Early Irish Poets (Monks and Bards)
Homer
Sophocles
Seamus Heaney

>>5311578
Mann's short stories and novellas

Hunger by Hamsun

Mikhail Bulgakov
Graham Green
Cormac Mccarthy
George Orwell
HP Lovecraft

>>5314849
I was really feeling this one until the Lovecraft. Don't get how he fits with those others at all, but I suppose he doesn't have to. Kudos to you for having varied taste in literature. You've almost certainly already read Kafka's short fiction, so try some DeLillo.

>>5314576
Sebastian Barry

>>5311662
Ivan Bunin
Ivan Klima

>>5311663
Kundera
Mishima

>>5311621
try the Sirens of Titan by Kurt Vonnegut, his best book by a long shot

>>5311762
Hesse, Hedayat, Lermontov, Hrabal

Also, I really like your taste. Who else would you recommend based on your top five?

>>5311763
Strugatsky bros>>5312080

>>5314849
Zamyatin

>>5315502
I've already read pretty much everything he's written, and I agree about Sirens of Titan. But thanks!

Denis Johnson
Phillip K Dick
Thomas Pynchon
Don Delillo
William Gaddis

Cervantes
Joyce
DFW
Melville
Burroughs
Pynchon

>>5311444
ebik

>>5314514
>Strugatsky brothers
I know, but have only read The Inhabited Island, where to next?

>>5315285
Thanks, dude.

>>5316119
>>5316497
If on a winter's night a traveler?

Lovecraft
Poe
Vonnegut
Wilde
Kerouac

>>5316507
Noon, 2nd Century
Roadside Picnic
Definitely Maybe

>>5317513
>Lovecraft + Poe
Borges is the obvious answer

Pynchon
Joyce
Faulkner
Murakami
Kafka

Faulkner
Kafka
Hugo
Camus
Frost

Shakespeare
Hawthorne
Woolf
Joyce
Beckett

>>5318271
Calvino

Faulkner
Hemingway
Steinbeck
McCarthy
Bukowski

American lit kinda does it for me. I'd love for any help to find something new.

>>5318516
Stegner or Melville

Can we include poets? If so, mine will look like this

F. Scott Fitzgerald
John Keats
Cormac McCarthy
Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Raymond Chandler

>>5314576

>Seamus Heaney

Good choice. I always preferred Yeats when it came to Irish poets, though

>>5318531
anything specific with Stegner? I've actually never heard of him, but looking at his wiki page I feel like I should

>>5318533
I've only read The Big Rock Candy Mountain. It's one of those multi-generational American family sagas. I didn't love it, but it wasn't bad. I recommended him because of your fondness for Steinbeck.

Most critics list Angle of Repose and Crossing to Safety as his two best works, so you might start there to get a taste.

>>5314578
I love Hunger, haven't yet read Mann, but I will.

Herman Hesse
Jorge Luis Borges
Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Kafka
Murakami

Dostoyevsky
Tolstoy
Plato
Hesse
Tolkien

Wilde
Shakespeare
Dostoyevsky
Lewis Caroll
Lovecraft

>>5316119
Pale Fire, or if you've already read it, some of Barthelme's stories

>>5316497
DeLillo or Ishiguro

>>5317513
Ted Chiang

>>5318271
Gabriel Garcia Marquez or Salman Rushdie

>>5318304
Flannery O'Connor

>>5318480
Flann O'Brien

>>5318516
Flannery O'Connor again

>>5318532
Umberto Eco

>>5319020
Gunter Grass, or Gabriel Garcia Marquez again

>>5319028
Gabriel Garcia Marquez again again

somebody just rec me stuff like these authors & specifically stuff similar to these works: lyotard (the libidinal economy), baudrillard (screened out, america), bataille (the accursed share, erotism), deleuze (all the deleuze), klossowski (living currency) etc.... i haven't read any foucault but don't say foucault i'll read him soon

Terry Goodkind

Pratchett

Yahtzee Croshaw

(Since these two authors wrote basically a book trade in the same universe I'll include them as one because it was the book which introduced me to both. If wanting to read them, read The Alchemist first, makes a lot more sense as The Executioness references The Alchemist. Also made me think, hory sheet, because Tobias also wrote Halo: The Cole Protocol, which was pretty good) Paolo Bacigalupi/Tobias S. Buckell

Joseph Delaney

>>5319413

paolo coelho wrote the alchemist not the paolo you mentioned.

Right?

>>5311796
Why?

Nabokov
Borges
Gombrowicz
Pynchon
Junger

>>5319460
Nope, it was Baci. I had to get the books to even remember the authors. But now I'm going to check out Coelho

>>5319460
The Alchemist you're thinking of probably isn't the one I am.

>>5311430
William S. Burroughs
Dennis Cooper
Cormac McCarthy
Arthur Rimbaud
Philip K Dick

>>5318304
Thomas Bernhard

Pretty sure I've done this before, but let's see what comes up this time ...

Isaac Asimov
Gore Vidal
Thomas Pynchon
Hunter S. Thompson
Graham Greene

>>5318304
>>5318271
>>5316119
>>5316497
Breaking and Entering by Joy Williams

>>5312491
Pimp Story of my Life - Iceberg Slim

>>5319524
Do you have an ebook copy of this? seems really intriguing

>>5319075
Tom Stoppard

>>5319413
assuming you've already read Pullman, A Wizard of Earthsea

>>5319475
maybe Lacan? I haven't read much of him but seems up your alley

>>5319500
DeLillo

>>5319517
Matt Taibbi

>>5319126
Which Ishiguro should I start with?

>>5319678
The Remains of the Day was the one I was thinking you would like.

>>5318516
>>5318304
>>5318271
>>5312491
A Feast of Snakes by Harry Crews

>>5312354
Are you danish or have you read a translated version of Tom Kristensen? I'm wondering how the translations are, especially the german but would be nice to know if the english is proper or not?

> Dan Simmons (Hyperion; Song of Kali)
> Tim Dorsey (the Serge Storms series)
> Ken Follett (Pillars of the Earth and nothing else)
> Jeff Vandermeer (Annihilation)
> Tana French (the Dublin Murder Squad series)

I love contemporary lit with original ideas and a narrative style that hooks you right in. I recommend all of the above.

>Matt Taibbi

Hm ... checking out his bibliography and wiki write up ...

... and ...

... drooling in slavering anticipation.

Thanks.

>>5319475
Bruno Schulz

Steinbeck
Hemmingway
Carver
James Still
Bobbi Ann Mason

John Steinbeck
Anton Chekhov
Wallace Stevens
Sadegh Hedayat
Thomas Mann

>>5311583

You. You are me. I, you. We are one.

>>5319794
I'm surprised he's not /lit/core honestly. Lefty, angry, funny, and doesn't truck with identify politics. Heresy around some parts but I like his writing better than Hunter S.

>>5319288
Is there any way to contact you?

Kierkegaard
Murakami
Dostoevsky
Schopenhauer
Dante

>>5320602
Top shelf taste

>>5320602

>Murakami

subtlebait/10

>>5319770
The White Company-Doyle
based on Pillars of the Earth

Raymond Radiguet
Richard Brautigan
Knut Hamsun
Tommy Pynchon
Yukio Mishima

>>5321132

>Richard Brautigan
>Knut Hamsun

dopebro/10

King
Meyer
Rowling
Stine
Applegate

>>5311460
>Tom Kristensen
Top lel

>>5321521
Tom Kristensen was an awesome poet. Very visual, melodic and rythmic. James Joyce visited him at his respite in Thuro several times, picking up Danish phrases and idioms for his work in progress (guess which).

Anyone into early 20th century modernism should at least read 'Havoc' (Hærværk). The movie is great too.

>>5321132
Ishmael Reed -- The Free-Lance Pallbearers

>>5320537
hey if you're still there just give me your skype or email or whatever

or if you see this or whatever lmao

>>5325512
>>5325519
tumblr ass nigga on 4chan

>>5325512

Can't.

No moe email.

Check the block post ...

>>5325709
alright

>>5325512
Well actually before I bother contacting you, do you go to UT Austin?

>>5325746
no, i live very close though

Kurt Vonnegut
Desmond Morris
H.P Lovecraft
Howard Zinn
Franz Kafka

>>5325773
>block post

Blog post. Derp.

And, for the record, I ain't the droid yer lookin' for.

Now, back to me rum and coke and a night of ongoing /lit/ wit ...

H.P Lovecraft
Desmond Morris
Franz Kafka
Kurt Vonnegut
David Ikke
Albert Camus

>>5325773
Oh then nevermind
I thought I could find a /lit/ study buddy