[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 132 KB, 1074x716, 1453768638083.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12798316 No.12798316 [Reply] [Original]

>ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL
>BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS

Damn

>> No.12798323
File: 510 KB, 1384x586, Deliverance.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12798323

>>12798316
>SQUEAL PIGGY SQUEAL

>> No.12798326

>>12798316
There is not a bigger sign of a pseud than someone who attempts to draw allusions to this book, as a means to sound "profound". Anyone who even likes Animal Farm, or its author, I count as a considerable brainlet.

>> No.12798381
File: 431 KB, 688x933, get nabbed on nigger.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12798381

>There exist few things more tedious than a discussion of general ideas inflicted by author or reader upon a work of fiction. The purpose of this foreword is not to show that "Bend Sinister" belongs or does not belong to "serious literature" (which is a euphemism for the hollow profundity and the ever-welcome commonplace). I have never been interested in what is called the literature of social comment (in journalistic and commercial parlance: "great books"). I am not "sincere," I am not "provocative," I am not "satirical." I am neither a didacticist nor an allegorizer. Politics and economics, atomic bombs, primitive and abstract art forms, the entire Orient, symptoms of "thaw" in Soviet Russia, the Future of Mankind, and so on, leave me supremely indifferent. As in the case of my "Invitation to a Beheading" - with which this book has obvious affinities - automatic comparisons between "Bend Sinister" and Kafka's creations or Orwell's cliches would go merely to prove that the automaton could not have read either the great German writer or the mediocre English one. ---- Nabokov
Orwell blown the fuck out and nabbed on. How can one man be so based? Why do nab's books not match the same caliber of baseness in his general comments?