/lit/ - Literature

>>5704744
this book accurately depicts 4chan
we're all Des Esseintes
>NEET, middlebrow dilettantes

>>5704896
>dilettante
Thanks for the new word. It describes me well.

>>5704911
I think it's a label that perfectly describes Des Esseintes, but not used by others when talking about him, instead opting for generic terms like "aesthete" and "decadent"...

I think it describes me well, too, as well as most of us on 4chan. I don't mean to be negative or critical. Just think of how much we read, jump around various boards, post about what we know, yet aren't published professionals or tenured academics.

This book is one of my favorites. I find interesting that most of the criticism in it apply until this day, and the behaviour of Des Esseintes should be seen even more inmoral today that constant comunication with everyone is no longer a nice possibility but seen as a moral duty.

Also, according to Wile's notes, it seems that this is the book that Lord Henry gave to Dorian.

This book is one of my favorites. I find interesting that most of the criticism in it apply until this day, and the behaviour of Des Esseintes should be seen even more inmoral today that constant comunication with everyone is no longer a nice possibility but seen as a moral duty.

Also, according to Wild's notes, it seems that this is the book that Lord Henry gave to Dorian.

>>5704896
But I'm not rich and have to work.

>>5705446
No, you don't.

>as I hadn't read any of the things he was talking about, so I just skipped those paragraphs.

The twist is that Huysmans himself didn't read all of them. He read a sizeable portion, then relied on stylistic bravado to fake the rest. His point was never to give a scholarly account of Middle Age Latin literature, but to expose the mindset of his character in a funny and mind-provoking fashion.

The whole book is a delicious collection of style exercises, you're supposed to be enjoying yourself. Of course it isn't always easy (it can be weird even in the original) but you shouldn't be afraid to dwelve into the chapters when you don't know what he references. Sit back, relax, enjoy the flow, and take it as an occasion to learn a few names.

>How does one become able to critique things like Des Esseintes?

Well, Des Esseintes is half literary-/r9k-faggot whiner (basically /lit at its most edgy), half insigthtful critic and refined aesthete (basically /lit at its most sophisticated).

So, not liking popular things, having a taste for the obscure, the weird, the carefully disbalanced, being very attuned to your own senses and tastes, and despising your contemporaries will do. You can achieve all that by reading a lot of unknown old books that demand effort and are rewarding but nobody cares about and by investing your whole emotional life into them.

It's worth noting that some of Des Esseintes' tastes were made up for the sake of contrariness, while other were borrowed from Huysmans himself. The character should be approached with caution, because in all likelihood you don't want to become like him.

If you're just aiming for critical acumen, read a lot, from many genres, eras, authors, read closely, with much attention to the peculiarities of each work, and read secondary literature (criticism/commentary, literary theories, letters and controversies among writers).
Taking time to look at paintings, sculpture, buildings, and seeking for the aesthic side of daily situations (which color is this, how it is different from the susual, which shape is the shadow in this courtyard at dusk, do you like it, and why ?) might help.

>>5706261
>>5706293
>you will never make posts this impressive

Frasier and Niles Crane: The Book.


One of my favs.

>>5707642
Honestly this just comes from reading the book closely (in the original, but a good translation would be a good book in itself), with some annotations, and from liking it.

I didn't come myself to the conclusion that Huysmans hadn't read all the works he references, for instance, it was in the editor's introduction (that I read after for fear of spoiling). If you pick a good edition with notes/good translation you could do the same.

The bit on painting comes from reading guys who would like to write about why paintings are good. E H Gombrich's history of art is good if you don't have any knowledge about art history (which is my case). Valéry has some essays (in General Theory of Art for instance, the work is less daunting than the title) on how painting changes your worldview, reading it on the train, with the moving lines and light, was a very comfy experience. Goethe wrote interesting stuff on art and on the perception of colors from what I heard, you might dig it. Some of Goethe's works are an answer to Diderot, and Wittgenstein himself answered to Goethe.

All your really need is putting your love of reading to application.

And the trick is I haven't read all the works I mentioned here eiter :^)

>tfw youve read most of the works he mentions

Not even kidding, feels good man.

>>5705207
wasn't it les fleurs du mal?