/lit/ - Literature

Marcel Proust's account really got me

>>6572620
Would you share it please?

>>6572626
can't really. it's very spread throughout the book but the best parts are in the second volume imo.

>>6572615
beckett

a pathetic, almost futile version of love between abjects

i identify with that mixture of passion, desperation, and humor

>>6572620

>mfw came into this thread to post the same thing

>>6572626

AFAIK it's pretty harsh and unromantic, but written by a true romantic. "You have to love before you can be relentless," and all that and Proust loves. It's beautiful and pathetic at the same time. You fall in love for stupid reason with people you really don't get along with at all in the first place or have much in common with, it's all-engulfing, intense and obsessive until one day you just don't give a fuck. Except if the person becomes unavailable again. Then you may be back in hell again.

>>6572620
>>6572710
Spoiler alert: It's Lacan.

>>6572615
werther

>>6572937
This guy is correct. It wasn't HEALTHY love, but it certainly was a romance. (from one side, at least)

lolita

sort of

whitman

I wish I knew, but I've never felt romantic love

Have to go with werther as well.

You see the heartbreak, the desperation, and you don't understand why. Why is he so obsessed with this girl? And even though werther himself acknowledges it, he can't help but embrace it

I'm not sure. I've never really been in love before.

>>6573023
>>6573077
Oh ffs this is what I get for being cocky and not reading the thread first.

>>6573023
>>6573077
now kiss

William Shakespeare, in Romeo and Juliet.

>>6572615

>>6573118
romeo and juliet is brilliant but no

seeing as all the relationships I've had were of the 21st century, it'd be weird to choose a non-contemporary writer

im gonna go with Junot Diaz, if only for his collection "This Is How You Lose Her"

>>6572615
“Love weaves its own tapestry, spins its own golden thread, with its own sweet breath breathes into being its mysteries-bucolic, lusty, gentle as the eyes of daises or thick with pain. And out of its own music creates the flesh of our lives. If the birds sing, the nudes are not far off. Even the dialogue of the frogs is rapturous.”

pic related

Why does nobody ever mention Elizabeth Smart? By Grand Central Station I Sat Down And Wept is too intense to read, at some points, it's the most cutting depiction of a passion that is requited for a time, fails, and continues alone, vacillating between hope and despair. More people need to read it, /lit/

>>6573023
>>6573077
I only recently fell in love for the first time. It's strange. I thought I loved girls before her, but she showed me otherwise.

i really enjoy thomas hardy's depiction of love in tess of the d'urbervilles. the relationship between tess and angel is so well done.

>>6573143
oh shut it

Stendhal.

I was in love for several years when I was a teenager. Then I had some sort of emotional crisis related to my gender and stopped talking to her. I haven't seen or heard from her in like five years. I think about her periodicly, and have not felt anything like that since. These days I identify as asexual and don't talk to people.

>>6572973
I think that was more selfish, idealistic obsession than real love.

>>6573118
Nah, Ophelia moreso

>>6572615
D.H. Lawrence, duh.

Ah, sadly.

John Donne. I like that he gives equal credit to the fleshly quotidian side of it as well as the transcendent. Granted, his more Christian/Neoplatonic side can be sometimes a little sterile.

>>6572615
Kafka, The Castle.

Frieda didn't put up with any of K's shit.

Shakespeare but in some of the lighter comedies and sonnets rather than R&J

>>6572937
>>6572958
That kind of overly dramatic youngish romantic love is closer to narcissistic infatuation. It's more self-absorption than anything else.

>>6573371
Isn't it what true love is?

>>6572615
americans are really flurishing in this thread

>>6574280
No, fetishism and infatuation is not the same thing as love. Read >>6573122, that's an interesting take on true love. Read The Guepad, di Lampedusa says as some point that failing in love is not the same thing as experiencing capital L love (the former is essentially desire, the latter implies the possibility of sacrifice or renouncing, for instance letting the loved one go with someone else for the sake of her happiness).

>>6574286
That map seems dubious. How do you measure "emotionality" ? Plus slavs and in particular russians are emotional as fuck behind their tough exterior.

Love loves to love love.

-fart guy

Kierkegaard

>>6574302
only the americasn talk about true love/unconditional love

>>6574322
Dude...do you even read? Love is one of the main topics of the western canon.

De Sade

>>6574286
get these hotheats outta here

>>6572615
Heathcliff

>>6574341
I like this anon.

The Collector.

Musil.

bump

>>6572710
that sounds more like infatuation than love

Are there any accurate and concise definitions of romantic love?

>>6576203
/lit/ only knows obsessive unrequited infatuation

>>6576218
heightened sensitivity to another

>>6576235
That's overly broad. I was hoping for something narrow and exclusionary.

>>6573122
Goddamn I genuinely love Stirner. If I'm ever in Berlin I must remember to visit his grave.

>>6576235
are you saying mums are pedos?

dante

or joyce

>>6576300
is that byakuya in the... what the fuck.

>>6576300

>>6574300
Love is for

CUCKS
U
C
K
S

>>6574341
>If the objects who serve us feel ecstasy, they are then much more often concerned with themselves than with us, and our own enjoyment is consequently impaired. The idea of seeing another person experience the same pleasure reduces one to a kind of equality which spoils the unutterable charms that come from despotism
>Any enjoyment is weakened when shared
I agree

>>6576384
People like you will never understand love because they are too busy with the details of hatred.

>>6573136
Also morrissey's favourite book

Romantic love is for ugly girls and intellectual guys going for hot girls.

Truth.

Prometheus, for the whole of mankind, and there is nothing "the Gods" can do against it.

Love is the strongest force in the whole Universe.

>>6577222
Promo didn't love humans, he JUST wanted to fuck shit up.

>>6577222
>>6577284
You're both wrong. Prometheus was just a fuckup. Benny Prometheus the Schlemiel, more like.

>>6577222
No, I'm pretty sure it's actually strong nuclear force.

>>6574265
That's such a cool opinion to have that's totally incorrect.

>>6577222
You mean fear

>it's not love, it's infatuation
Oh fuck off infatuation is a kind of love and it's a damn interesting kind of love. Why would anyone want to read about love that's reasonable?

>>6577439
Limerance is way more interesting.

Tolstoy. Levin and Kitty's love is the love that I want

>>6577439
>>6577453

going through puberty is hard, but we all make it

let's leave love to the adults, shall we

>>6577453
They go hand in hand

>>6577463
>shitposts on /lit/
>prides self on maturity
Actually no I take it back. Shakespeare and Goethe's love wasn't a good representation at all. You know better, you're an adult.

>>6577472
you've got a lot to learn, kid

"It's not love- it's just infatuation!"

-Shit douchebags say to invalidate your existence.

Gothe

>>6577492
If you're a teenager 9/10 times it's completely true though.

>>6577508

I've got news for you. It's always real. Teenage love is real. Because you want to shit on teenagers doesn't change that.

I'm not even a teenager but I feel the need to stick up for them.

>>6577408
You could have just said "I disagree" instead of trying to frame yourself as the guy who knows why people are holding a different opinion.

What did Werther actualy knew of the girl he "loved" ? What did he do for her (beware, killing yourself when the girl actually doesn't want or need you dead isn't doing it for her). What was his actual relationship for her, besides one-sided idealized desire ?

>>6577439
You could argue that extreme infatuation is actually antagonistic to love if it doesn't translate in a regular exchange or communication with the other (it needn't be verbal communication). There's a limit to how far you can love someone by simply being attracted to them and having romantic/sexual/spiritual fantaisies about them.
>Why would anyone want to read about love that's reasonable?

How the fuck is infatuation the only unreasonable love ? Also, reasonable love is probably something you can write books about, I mean if people can read Baby Jesus Butt Plug by Bizarro Writer why not On Reasonable Love by Eccentric Swedish Formalist ?

>>6577519
>I'm not even a teenager

that makes it even worse, john green

>>6577461
It's rather interesting to read Tolstoy's wife diary after having read Anna Karenina.

>>6577472
Goethe later disavowed Werther, which is indeed an early work, and there's no certainty that Shakespeare considered what happens between R&J as "true love", or "accurate depiction of love" or anything of the sort.

>>6577519
>It's always real.

Only if your definition of it is extremely loose.

>Teenage love is real.

It can be. It usually isn't though.

>>6577530
Sad, really

>>6577427
No. I mean Love.

>>6577284
I think you are mistaking Prometheus with someone else.

>>6577320
I am pretty sure you are not taking all the variables in consideration.
Maybe we live in different universes, after all.

>>6579205
Well, philosophy, means the love for knowledge... So what can knowledge, and Love, do for mankind? And what, can possibly be beyond it's reach?

Romantic love is a fiction in itself so all of them did it equally well.

>>6577645
Anon, im sorry you had a bad relationship a few years ago, but love is a feeling and feelings are chemical reactions. You experienced those emotions. Them fading earlier than it happens in romcoms doesnt make them imaginary.

>>6572615
Mark Twain, Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc

During the trial, at least. Louis de Conte is finally able to make sense of his adolescent feelings and realize he's in love with Joan right before she's burnt to a crisp.

∴ love ≠ Love

>>6579256

∵ ∞

I've been trying to define love in some way, and the most "concrete" definition I have is: Love is that which remains after infatuation. It's still beyond my grasp and intellectual control, it's beyond reason. There is a great parallel between what the religious describe as faith and what the love-struck describe as love, it is wholly personal, subjective and non-empirical, yet I cannot deny it is there. One of the best refutations of materialism is this phenomenon, which even hardened atheists use without problem, yet it is beyond any verification.

>>6572937
G O E T H E
O
E
T
H
E