/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13494780]

Worth reading? Is it some sort of incel cope? Really don't know what I'm for.

[Anonymous No.13494921]

>>13494780
Every activity that isn't having sex is an incel cope

[Anonymous No.13494945]

>>13494780
Right wing ideology is either corporate cock-sucking or incel coping. This one is the latter.

[Anonymous No.13494960]

>>13494780
It desperately needs an editor.

[Anonymous No.13495309]

>>13494945
Imagine being this fucking stupid.

[Anonymous No.13495327]

>>13495309
> y-you're dumb!
Seething jew-loving incel.

[Anonymous No.13495339]

>>13494945
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA

[Anonymous No.13495359]

>>13495339
> some tabloids and an article citing one bit of research say that rightoids are better
holy mother of C.O.P.E

[Anonymous No.13495367]

>>13494780
E Michael "The Catholic church did nothing wrong " Jones.

[Anonymous No.13495385]

>>13495327
>critical of the right wing
>accuses others of kikery
You're sending mixed signals, sweaty. Figure out who you're angry at and what you actually believe, then we can talk.

[Anonymous No.13495391]

>>13494780
Inferior to science discovers the physiological value of continence.

[Anonymous No.13495409]

>>13494780
>Libido Dominandi is the first draft of a great work. As it is, it is a failure, suffering from shoddy writing, poor research, and a wandering and inconsistent thesis. What should be an erudite and compelling polemic against the the sexual revolution—Western culture’s death knell—is an inconsistent and often unreadable mess.
[...]
>First and foremost, his writing is very, very poor. The overall structure of the book—jumping from year to year, place to place, vignette to vignette—makes it hard to follow intellectual rather than a thematic elements. Given the fact that the book’s thesis is nebulous and has a tendency to change as Jones goes along (more on that below), reading the book is a major slog.
>A inquiring reader can jump to any given page to witness Jones’s lame writing. More shocking is his plain sloppiness and failure to edit himself. Just one of many many examples: On page 88, the author quotes Abbe Barruel, ending with “for men may be turned into any thing by him who knows how to take advantage of their ruling passion.” ONE PARAGRAPH LATER Jones uses the SAME EXACT QUOTE, except he finishes with the word “passions”—not “passion.” In other words, Jones repeats the exact same argument by using the same quote in succeeding paragraphs—and cannot even get the quoted material right! To call this a first draft is too kind—it is a first draft seemingly written the night before it was due! This is simply unforgivable.
[...]
>Let’s start here: Jones has habit of noting tacit connections between his characters rather than connecting the intellectual undercurrents which united them. This method moves along more like a conspiracy theory or a six-degrees-of-Kevin-Bacon game than scholarship. For example, in the early chapters, Jones repeatedly tries to unite the Marquis de Sade, William Godwin, Abbe Barruel. It really does not work; Jones is forced to use lame narrative devices such as speculating what Mary Wollstonecraft must have been thinking while she trudged through the blood-drenched Paris streets; speculations over how affected Percy and Mary Shelley were by Sade; huge leaps of faith over the effect the good priest Barruel had on later sex perverts. With regards to the English liberals, it is clear that Jones simply does not respect their work enough to learn it and refute it—Paglia's work would serve him well here. More than this, the idea that later sex-mongers were inspired by the Jesuit reactionary Barruel’s is largely speculation; even if it were true, who cares? There are countless secret societies; the question is why the secret societies promoting sexual perversion ended up so popular. Instead of adequately defining the relevant intellectual undercurrents, Jones is reliant on his vignettes and weak editorializing.
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1906990944

[Anonymous No.13496091]

It's not

[Anonymous No.13496125]

>right about everything
>catholic

What?

[Anonymous No.13496300]

>>13494780
unironically one of my favorite books ever. yes it is worth reading.

not even right wing catholic, just that being exposed to an authentic alternative narrative makes one think more than anything narrative friendly

[Anonymous No.13496344]

>>13495385
you can just hate everyone. Inb4 some insufferably fucking stupid person calls this centrism

[Anonymous No.13496389]

>>13496125
>I am the way, and the truth, and the life.
Christ is truth itself. The truth is always right. Your preference for darkness and hardened heart keeps you blinded.

[Anonymous No.13496394]

This is the one time where listening to the audiobook is superior to reading

[Anonymous No.13496396]

>>13495367
>E Michael "The Catholic church did nothing wrong " Jones.
She didn't.