[ 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: 7 KB, 259x194, 1542410718328.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13906784 No.13906784 [Reply] [Original]

What's your most controversial /lit/ related opinion?
>The Aeneid > The Odyssey

>> No.13906798

>>13906784
Nabokov was infinitely inferior to the authors he talked shit about.

>> No.13906801

>>13906784
black authors should be in canon

>> No.13906808

>>13906801
They are, though. The rare ones who are actually good.

>> No.13906821

>>13906784
i wouldn't mind reading repetetive, moralless stories if they tickle my guilty pleasures. if there exists plotless mesmerizing kino, so should the books

>> No.13906839

>>13906784
I prefer dickensian caricatures or shakesperean dramatic personages over realistic, boring and "nuanced" characters.

>> No.13906850

>>13906784
>>13906413

>> No.13906854

>>13906839
> realistic, boring and "nuanced" characters
sure thing, bro, it's so profound to describe a character's mental wellbeing through the amount of toilet paper he rips off the roll at once. these are te details that make a Human.

>> No.13906858

>>13906784
I think Salinger is in the top-10 of twentieth century English-language authors.

>> No.13906865

>>13906784
Burroughs > McCarthy

>> No.13906882

>>13906784
McCarthy is the only great living American author and he deserves a fucking statue at the very least and also a McCarthy Day.

>> No.13906910

I think I find ebooks easier to read than regular books.

>> No.13906915

I don't think that /lit/ is that bad.

>> No.13907251

>>13906784
I assume you just have a very low opinion of both, finding the Odyssey to be just a little bit worse. because the aenid is wack.

>> No.13907307

>>13906784
You don’t need to start with the greeks

>> No.13907351

>>13906915
Lit is great. Everywhere else puts classic books on an unreachable pedestal of praise or ignores them completely out of intimidation. Intellectual ideas are best discussed bluntly

>> No.13907352

>>13907307
WRONG. Here's what happens when you don't.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2YtqUrr3Jw

>> No.13907377

>>13906784

>Jerusalem Delivered > The Odyssey > The Aeneid

>> No.13907379

>>13906808
which ones are good? Looking for something to read

>> No.13907381

>>13906784
Japanese literature is top 3 ever.

>> No.13907390

>>13907379
Dumas

>> No.13907394

>>13907379
Dumas.

>> No.13907398

>>13907394
>>13907390
Thanks, which book by him?

>> No.13907399

>>13907390
He's mixed, though. I was thinking of Ishmael Reed and Ralph Ellison.

>> No.13907400

>>13907379
Dumbass

>> No.13907402

>>13907379
Pushkino

>> No.13907411

>>13907398
Are you retarded?

>> No.13907414

>>13907411
Not entirely

>> No.13907419

>>13907398
The Count of Monte Cristo is great.

>> No.13907434

>>13907419
Alright, thanks for the suggestion

>> No.13907465
File: 227 KB, 413x310, 1565876010848.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13907465

>>13907390
>>13907394
>>13907400
>Dumas
>black

>> No.13907891

>>13906784
kafka's themes are interesting but his actual stories and prose are mediocre

>> No.13907926

I would like to import Islam without all the immigrants.

>> No.13907928
File: 123 KB, 693x900, steinbeck sublime.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13907928

>>13906784
British literature sucks and American literature is both morally superior and more entertaining

>> No.13907942

>>13907419
>good.
pretty much the best of the art of storytelling.

>> No.13907948

>>13906784
Poe is vastly underrated on /lit/

>> No.13907960

>>13907891
He’s just not very flashy. Have you read The Castle? That’s a labyrinth of a book

>> No.13908002

>>13907928
>2019
>being a moralfag
top keks

>> No.13908684

bumpo

>> No.13908698

>>13907948
He always has been, newfag.

>> No.13908746

>>13906798
That's common knowledge.
>>13906821
You should read Lafforgue and Barbey d'Aurevilly.
>>13906839
First truly controversial take itt, and a pretty based one at that.
>>13906850
That one is pure bait but well executed.
>>13906858
Hot take.
>>13906865
Lukewarm take.
>>13906882
More debatable than really controversial except the part about a McCarthy Day which is good but only in theory.

>>13907377
Patrician take, not that I agree, but unquestionably patrician.

>>13906915
>>13907351
Accurate.

>>13907307
Most controversial and accurate take itt.
>>13907381
Debatable but not that controversial imo. It's a matter of preference, just like >>13906910

>>13907891
I personally find the Metamorphosis to be extremely self-contained and well-executed. Haven't read anything else by him.

>>13907926
Pilled and redbased.

>>13907928
Eh. One way or the other you have to spit on the Anglo at some point.

>>13907948
Absolutely based and utterly crimsonpilled.

>>13906784
Here my lukewarm take:
>almost all contemporary fashionable ideas about fiction are horseshit
>they're actually consequences of a fundamental misunderstanding of writing
>that include "show don't tell" and "write what you know" but also the idea that a good novel must have "flawed characters"
>there's nothing wrong with a book having a strong obvious moral

Also my somewhat hot take:
>fascists have good writers, mostly the dandies
>but the reactionary antifascists are much better
>the nazis on the other hand are mostly shit
>the commies are a mixed bag but mostly shit
>religious writers are in general excellent
>their only competition are highly free-spirited ones like Stendhal or atheistic ones like Flaubert
>in modern times the best strand of writer is the isolated philosophical, religious or political radical (think respectively Jünger, Bernanos and Nizan)
>compassionate and tender writers are based
>edgy and hateful writers are not always unbased
>most books can be read without preparation, stop overthinking it
>experience, emotion, fascination and rumination are more important than analysis
>esthetic experience is a thing unto itself, but morals, realism, entertainment and psychology are also important

>> No.13908766

British literature between 1901 and 1950 is better than Victorian literature

>> No.13908768

>>13908746
Also forgot
>a solid proportion of good authors in the past 200 years were either antisemitic, or Jewish, or both
>any language can give birth to great literature, but someone has to put in the work
>the idea of the canon is cute but in the end just narrows the potential horizon of reading

>> No.13908796

>>13907379
aristotel

>> No.13908830

>>13908746
>that include "show don't tell" and "write what you know" but also the idea that a good novel must have "flawed characters"
care to elaborate?

>> No.13908834

Hitler was surrounded by obsequious idiots and was on too much methamphetamines

>> No.13908847

God is real and atheists are damaged faggots.

>> No.13908856

>>13907928
British literature sucks, American literature is worse.
Irish literature is top tier.

>> No.13908858

>>13908856
this is the right opinion

>> No.13909015

>>13908830
>"show don't tell"
It makes sense - "Steve was a skilled ninja" is less efficient than page of Steve doing insane ninja-stuff. But, as in my example, the idea mostly work for describing action,and it applies mostly to authors focused on action.

It is fair enough in a MFA for beginner, but it forgets the essential thing about writing- that it is all telling. It should be "tell by describing, not by stating'.
This is no mere autistic nitpicking. A student who remembers that telling = lazy = bad will be impaired in his ability to use telling to various effects. What if the teller is unreliable? What if the thing told is impossible to show? What if it is not observation but speculation? What if it is humor, exaggeration, or cockiness on the author's part?
While it avoids the main pitfall of middle school-tier writing it foregoes the subtleties that make the salt of most adult writing. You can make an entire novel with ironic, tongue-in-cheek and inaccurate statements. Such a thing was common already in the 18th century, but it shouldn't exist under the rule of "show don't tell'.

Same with "write what you know". It should really be "don't make random shit up unless you actually want to be found out". It's all fine to make shit up, that's what writing fiction is all about. You must know how to draw the line between verisimilitude and controlled excess, and between controlled excess and ecstatic rule-breaking. But you needn't restrict yourself to verisimilitude. Baudelaire for one would have laughed profusely at such an idea.

> "flawed characters"
The most controversial claim here, but again it's advice that's only legit on the face of it. It avoids the cliché perfect characters, but if you're any good you should be past the cliché perfection phase by age 16. As with the other two, what is unwittingly swept aside is an entire layer of discourse, the all-important layer that rests between the story and the reader, that is, the layer of the storyteller himself.
When modern clueless readers say "flawed characters" they say "characters than I can judge flawed, as 'real' humans are". In the process they completely forget that the judgement of the characters on himself, the judgement of other characters, the judgement of the narrator, that of the author and that of the reader are no less than five different things.
A good author can masterfully play on the difference between those five. Is Emma Bovary flawed? She's not perfect, but Flaubert himself passes no judgement on her, and that'swhy he was tried, not for showing immoral things, but for not condemning them. Someone should write a novel where the judgement of the narrator is a character in itself just to show them.

It's also forgetting that a character is not a person you must judge but a construct of fiction than can serve various purposes. A complete psychopath can also be a perfect character if he's in perfect accordance with himself and perfectly fulfills his role in the story.

>> No.13909033

>>13908856
People claiming they like Irish literature just mean they like Joyce and Beckett

>> No.13909130

>>13906784
Joy is the greatest virtue

>> No.13909149

>>13906784
Calvino>Borges

>> No.13909154

>>13909130
Joy is not a virtue. :3

>> No.13909412

>>13906784
Australian literature is super-underated

>> No.13909417
File: 79 KB, 850x1200, C0904279-5129-470D-A659-61CBA2AFD254.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13909417

>>13909154
It is now

>> No.13909428

>>13907390
>>13907394
The only decent black writer ever was an octaroon, what a joke. You're kidding yourself if believe non-whites are capable of literary accomplishments even remotely comparable to those of whites.

>> No.13909446

>>13909412
There are some great works but I don't think there is enough to put it above most other similarly sized non shithole countries (and even a few shitholes, to be honest)

>> No.13909515

Don Quixote is not funny, nor entertaining

>> No.13910216

>Romeo and Juliet is one of the worst books Shakespeare has... "written". Yet it is popular for some reason.

>Japanese Literature is incredibly overhyped for some reason. Dazai's No Longer Human protag that is extremely detestable. Haruki Murakami's works are "edgy" for the sake of being edgy and alot of potential is lost. He is a good world builder but a shit storyteller.

>CS Lewis's Screwtape letters is a national treasure and should be remember in likes with Ulysses. I recommend everyone should read it once before you die and even if you are not Christian. Also CS Lewis > Tolkein. I remember crying reading "The Magician's Nephew". Not saying that LOTR was bad, it is really good. Maybe I have been just overloaded on similar fantasies over the years and I got what I expected.

>Bible has alot of smut... I remember getting my first boner from reading was the bible.

>Lewis Carroll is like 100 percent a pedo and also produces the most trippy nonsensical books I have ever read. Great if you just want your expectations blasted

>Alot of British fiction goes unnoticed and are heavily underated, but I never picked up one that was blatently bad. The Haunting of Alaizabel Cray I think is better than some harry potter books.

>> No.13910252
File: 380 KB, 1052x789, 5CA75732-1F0E-4DCA-BB74-C682FBA8C0C5.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13910252

>>13906784
>don’t start with the greeks

>> No.13910341

>>13909033
And Yeats

>> No.13910542

>>13907948
His poems are so rhythmic and melodic that just reading one verse you can get the impression of a concrete pace to follow for the entire duration of the poem. I've never encountered another author who could hook a reader so easily and keep them engaged; I never have to do a double take to enjoy one of his poems.

>> No.13910565

>>13906801
>let’s water down the canon for diversity’s sake
No. There are black authors in the canon like Ralph Ellison. There are just fewer black authors in general

>> No.13910567

>>13909149
HOLD THE FUCK UP BUDDY

>> No.13910571

Don DeLillo is Plebeian trash

>> No.13910573

Borges is a fucking meme writer

>> No.13910579

>>13906784
Byron > shakespeare

>> No.13910762

>>13908746
>knows who Nizan is
There are two of us on the board

>> No.13910765

>>13908834
He was actually replaced by a Jewish double

>> No.13910800

>>13906784
sneed

>> No.13910802

>>13906858
Me too

>> No.13910827

>>13907379
Ochebe

>> No.13910832

Any writer from the Beat generation is irredeemable.

>> No.13910836

>>13910573
Complete garbage opinion
Name a better Magical Fiction writer

>> No.13910838

Anglo literature sucks in general and the only reason Shakespeare is seen as the epitome of the western Canon is because anglos can't be bothered to learn another language

>> No.13910965

I like purple prose

>> No.13910978

>>13907379
ann petry

>> No.13911003

>>13906801
Dumas is in the canon

>> No.13911006

>>13911003
Gonna aim my cannon at you, dumbasd

>> No.13911009

>>13906784
Didn’t care for Notes from Underground

>> No.13911026

In general, ancient writers were not that sophisticated. The Odyssey and the Iliad are nice stories, but they have no deep, emotional meaning. Plato and Aristotle don't hold a candle to writers like Wittgenstein and Heidegger. Plutarch and Herodotus wrote semi-fictionalized narratives, not objective history.

>> No.13911040

>>13906858
top 5

>> No.13911050

>>13911003
he was mostly french, though.

>> No.13911064

>>13908746
>experience, emotion, fascination and rumination are more important than analysis
assuming you mean fiction, much more. analysis is mostly detrimental

>> No.13911067

>>13910573
>>13909149
how dare you

>> No.13911069

>>13911026
Illiad and Odyssey were meant for mass consumption. Every Greek knew the story and each city had its own variation to highlight local heroes. It’s the equivalent of a big war movie, like Band of Brothers. Same with Romance of the Three Kingdoms. Doesn’t make them bad.

>> No.13911234
File: 227 KB, 250x166, source.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13911234

>>13908847

>> No.13911270

>>13910838
what's better then

>> No.13911708

>>13911026
>The Odyssey and the Iliad are nice stories, but they have no deep, emotional meaning

What the fuck, those stories are filled with deeply emotional moments. How could you possibly miss them?

>> No.13911926

>>13906798
Anon, it's okay to like Dostoevsky.

>> No.13911949

>>13908847
based

>> No.13911961

>>13906784
Shakespeare wrote pretentious and unrealistic dialogue. Technically impressive writing does not make for good prose.

>> No.13911971
File: 92 KB, 800x600, dr.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13911971

>>13911026
>The Odyssey and the Iliad are nice stories, but they have no deep, emotional meaning
Anon, I'm afraid you have Autism.

>> No.13911977

>>13906784
Kierkegaard is annoying and stupid, and so are the people who like him. He can't write a paragraph without six parenthetical asides and at least four bullshit assertions he made up on the spot to back up a "point". Also the fact that he thought he understood Hegel is laughable

>> No.13911978

>>13911961
>muh realism
fuck off and read the news instead

>> No.13911985

>>13911977
>Also the fact that he thought he understood Hegel is laughable
Do you?

>> No.13911992

>>13906784
Sneed.

>> No.13912009

>>13906784
I believe the Odyssey to be a more enioable read compared to the Iliad. The Iliad is more epic though.

>> No.13912024

>>13912009
Absolutely agree with this opinion. Everyone "should" read the Iliad first though.

>> No.13912033

>>13908847
B & R

>> No.13912040

>>13906784
Bacon wrote the plays...

>> No.13912082

>>13910762
I just looked him up and he sounds interesting, which of his works to start with?
I can read French but very poorly (Camus makes sense but more complex prose like Proust I can't parse), is his French difficult?

>> No.13912150

>>13911026
>This is your brain on logical positivism.

>> No.13912172

>>13911961
Thank God he wrote in verse.

>> No.13912224

Not very controversial these days since the internet has exposed the nose, but there has never been a good jewish writer and all of the jewish writers that have been propped up (salinger, kafka, bellow, roth, etc) should be stricken from the record of western literature.

>> No.13912234

>>13912224
Proust is kino, /pol/tard.

>> No.13912257

>>13912224
Proust
Perec
Kafka
Schnitzler

>> No.13912274

>>13912234
Proust was a jewish subversive with nothing to say. Boring, mediocre.

>>13912257
All shit unless you're 17 and haven't read anything else in your life.

>> No.13912276

>>13912274
Proust might be degenerate but there is no denying his genius.

>> No.13912280

When it comes to classic writers I think of Dante or Cervantes. I can't understand the hype for Shakespeare.

>> No.13912317

>>13912276
I'm denying it now, but I can see why you'd think he's a genius if you're very new to reading. No shortage of entry-level readers on /lit/.

>> No.13912333

>>13912317
What do you read then?

>> No.13912796

I find memoirs and biographies are the most interesting books in general.

>> No.13912981

>>13912082
I don’t read French but I doubt it’s complex. Aden Arabie, The Conspiracy, and Antoine Bloye are all good

>> No.13913254

>>13906784
Catcher in the Rye is objectively terrible

>> No.13913646

>>13906784
The more “difficult” books you read the more retarded you become

>> No.13914081

>>13907379
Aime Cesaire
Senghor
The good black lit is generally from Africa. These two are the big names, I am sure there is a lot more African lit now.
In4b. Muh we wuz, whitee bad
Commenting on politics is not necessarily anti-art and decolonization is a major event which might interest writers

>> No.13914105

I haven’t read a book written by a woman that I enjoyed

>> No.13914109

>>13914105
the lottery is quite enjoyable

>> No.13914529

>>13911026
Every book from ancient Greece has fucking disgusting prose. Is this God's way of punishing me for being monolingual? Or is the original Greek just as lacking in meter and compelling ethos?

>> No.13914648

>>13907379
Shakespeare

>> No.13914775

I got into literature through love of words but now I don't love words.

My literary friends and family members love to speak in complicated, self-consciously over-educated language and it's like this big parlor game for them.

I don't give a fuck anymore. Love of words seems like eating snails or some shit I just don't need.

I feel like "linguistic playfulness" in general is kind of a stupid goal to strive for.

I still love poetry though. Like my old professor I think of poetry as being almost a raw projection of some mysterious life-force. Poetry stands naked and muscular while word-love twists its own fat nipples.

>>13914105
Everyone loves Little Women and the Diary of Anne Frank.

>> No.13914806

>>13910216
If you say so. Personally, I've been in love with Juliet for 9 years, ever since I read Hazlitt's essay on R&J

>> No.13914812

>>13914775
I think word-love and poetry make a good fit together. Puns and anastrophe are always enjoyable.

>> No.13914815

>Not liking the Aeneid

>> No.13914873

>>13914806
By no means is the work bad, but I just feel it is one of his weakest works compared to Othello Julius Caesar, Hamlet. I think it honestly it is his weakest tragedy. I just don't understand why it is his most popular work.

>> No.13914888

>>13906784
Aeschylus > Sophocles

>> No.13914894

>>13914888
Artistophanes>Aeschylus

>> No.13914901

Everyone here is a dumbfuck like every other board yet think they are smarter than every other board
In essence, most posters like the site, are 20 somethings. Aka those that think they have the world figured out but are just wrong. It’s even worse because you all grew up in a world dominated by the internet, so you never will know what it was like before.

You’re all gaywads.

>> No.13914907

>>13914894
Aeschylus > Sophocles > Euripides > Aristophanes

>> No.13914915

>>13914901
That's not controversial. People make that same point all the time. It would be more controversial to argue that /lit/ is smarter.

>> No.13915062

>>13909015
Have you read Booth?

>> No.13915161

>>13906801
Pushkin is in the canon

>> No.13915424

>>13907377
OP said controversial.

>> No.13915443

>>13912234
Mischlings whose yid ancestors had stopped yidding already two generations before, and raised in christfaggotry, aren't jews.

>> No.13915447

>>13906784
>What's your most controversial /lit/ related opinion?

You're all circlejerking pseuds with shit taste

>> No.13915624

Robert Musil was the greatest writer of the 20th century, closely followed by Hermann Broch.

Dostoyevsky was a good writer but not important for the novel's history, being just another 19th century writer who couldn't revolutionize the novel. Tolstoy is far superior in that regard.

The Good Soldier Svejk is one of the greatest novels of the 20th century and certainly the funniest.

>> No.13915662

>>13906798
Yeah, Hemingway really shines in comparison to Nabokov.

>> No.13916232

>>13907379
Ishmael Reed

>> No.13916269
File: 79 KB, 1280x720, maxresdefault1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13916269

Postmodernism is the best thing to happen to literature.

>> No.13916296

It may not be super controversial, but, based on my reading of "The Time Machine", i find H.G Wells' insights about industrialization to be far more profound, than those of say Dickens, in "Great Expectations".

>> No.13916322

>>13908746
Based Bernanos posted

>> No.13916442

>>13908847
Truth isn't controversial.

>> No.13916454

>>13916269
Wrong

>> No.13916457

>>13916269
Why?

>> No.13916496

>>13915624
whats Brochs best work to read first? Im a german speaker if that matters at all

>> No.13916533

>>13911270
Not him, but Italian literature is p good.

>> No.13916538

>>13912333
He's just baiting, Proust is favorite among some of the most well-read people in history.

>> No.13916547

>>13914081
This post and those writers need appreciation. It's sad that people resort to "Dumas was black" to defend black literature when literally the first black president of Senegal was a more sophisticated and deeper writer.

>> No.13916550

I actually liked ares in the Iliad.

>> No.13916552

>>13915062
Never heard of him, what's his deal? Is he a good writer?

>> No.13916560

>>13915624
>Dostoyevsky was a good writer but not important for the novel's history, being just another 19th century writer who couldn't revolutionize the novel. Tolstoy is far superior in that regard.
I'd argue that Dosto is much more modern than Tolstoy. Tolstoy is the crowning achievement of a tradition of realism started with Balzac and Stendhal, while Dosto heralds the modernist novel.
I'd tend to somewhat agree with you on Musil and Broch. Single greatests are always hard to pin down, but they're certainly near the very top.

>> No.13916601

>>13916457
The new literary vocabulary it has introduced allows better critique of the modern word and a closer approach to gnosis.

>> No.13916691

>>13906784
>just because something is written in an old book doesn't mean it's true
>just because something is defended by modern bugmen doesn't mean it's false
>the ancients were legitimately as retarded as we are, they just had less means to exercise their retardation, and their most retarded outputs have mercifully waned out of records

>> No.13917681

>>13916552
He was a great literary critic. You should read his Rhetoric of Fiction; I think you would be sympathetic to many of his ideas.

>> No.13917781

>>13916538
Proust was a hack and a two-bit wannabe Joyce who paid for his own positive reviews. He's one of the most overrated writers in history and his reputation has been astroturfed by fellow members of the Tribe.

>> No.13917797

>>13916601
Your original statement was agreeable, but certainly not for these reasons. Postmodernism allowed creative writers to expand the range of style, but it in no way shape or form allows for a "better critique of the modern world." The exact opposite is true.

>> No.13918002

>>13906784
Harry Pottery was so bad it turned me off reading, use to read everything then realized how repetitive and predictable books got and lost interest in early high school.

Can't say that because one group calls Harry Pottery good. Which leads to an incoherent debate that only ends when I recant my stance and say like Harry Potter.

Other group doesn't believe I have read enough to make such a bold claim. Yet when they start rambling off famous books I should try and I casually remark I read it. They then call me a liar because it is inconceivable I have already read that book at that age.

Which doesn't make sense, I mean people always talk about those master pieces, so why wouldn't I have read them given their reputation for being good? I found it fun as a kid deciphering them with a thesaurus and dictionary, more of a puzzle game to pass the summers. Now that I say this maybe part of the reason I liked them was less the story and more the challenge of reading. But I kept reading for years after I mastered vocabulary, so that doesn't make sense either.

What was the fire the pushed me to read everything all those years ago?

>> No.13918122

Infinite Jest is genuinely a masterpiece.

>> No.13918334

>>13908746
>experience, emotion, fascination and rumination are more important than analysis
I agree but analysis also has its place, and it's very important too depending on what you are doing. Just as analysis can only get you so far, so it is with the four experiences you first mentioned. Trying to understand the workings of a work is not detrimental to the experience of that book or to the value of the book itself, but such analysis shouldn't be done for its own sake. Moreover, the best books of literary analisys are the ones that have sprung from experience, emotion, fascination and rumination.

>> No.13918343
File: 9 KB, 225x225, This+calls+for+devilish+baby+pepe+_91df2f1ef8d6b13574f05c4f38c5eadc.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13918343

>>13906784
The Bible is not a good piece of literature

>> No.13918408

>>13918343
...but it's a solid piece of history.

>> No.13918412

>>13911026
>Herodotus wrote semi-fictionalized narratives, not objective history.
>implying substantive history is not as objective as modern POV history

>> No.13918417

Finnegan's Wake is underrated and should be read at midnight under the effects of drugs since the book is an allegory to the dreamy state of mind.

>> No.13918444
File: 8 KB, 198x255, download (3).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13918444

>>13918408
>solid piece

hmmm

>> No.13919047

>>13914815
Who are you quoting?

>> No.13919669

>>13916269
based and looking forward to the opinion armageddon

>>13917781
All I know is, on the best night of my life, when I was so happy I didn't want to go to sleep, the only book that seemed worth reading was <Swann's Way>. So much literature including Joyce is literature for literature's sake. <In Search of Lost Time> is literature for the sake of the entire human universe.

I think that those who object to Proust are generally disdainful of the writer's engagement with history and Time. They are radical formalists. But Proust's work fits into reality itself, like a building in a city. Proust has a use.

>> No.13920249

>>13906798
This is just true, though. He was good, but he wasn't great

>> No.13920404

>>13914775
I'm sorry, but reading taught me that word play is one of the few things worth living for.

>> No.13920448

>>13914529
The former, dumbass

>> No.13921221

>>13916496

The Sleepwalkers.

>>13916560

How is Dostoyevsky in any way modern? He writes in the traditional way of doing "scenes" that are not reminiscent of real life. His novels read like plays, where every important character gets on the stage together for a dramatic scene. The novels are good, but not modern in any way.

With Tolstoy, it's entirely different. The lives of the characters flow on their own course and are not bounded by these scenes. The characters change organically through these random moments of life (Andrei seeing the sky in Austerlitz, Andrei seeing the large tree at his garden, Pierre watching the comet in Moscow and realizing his love etc.). These simply feel much more real than the character progression in Dostoyevsky's books. Moreover, the overall psychology is more real and subtle. Take Anna Karenina, for instance, and her death by suicide. The psychology is believable, her not even thinking about the act before, but then singular seemingly random signs put her over the edge. That, to me, was the first sign of the subconscious, decades before Freud discovered it. That is the modernism of Tolstoy's thinking, his genius. Dostoyevsky wrote great books with great stories, but Tolstoy discovered more about the human condition through his modern novels.

Moreover, I wouldn't put Tolstoy together with Balzac and Stendhal, even if he did deal with history in their tradition. I would group Tolstoy together with Flaubert instead, with Dostoyevsky much more in line with Balzac.

>> No.13921397

Heller is a fraud imitator of Hasek

>> No.13921403

>>13906784
>Western Canon exists and is superior to the communist tranny chicano studies that is taught today
>very few French and Jewish philosophers are worth reading
>the Anglo is actually the pinnacle of philosophy, and not the German
>that being said, Heidegger is the single most important thinker of the 20th century
>Mishima and Murakami are actually kinda lame, compared to Oe and Kobo Abe
>a classical studies education is not useless, but that no current schools exist which provide such an education anymore
>irl book clubs can be good things

>> No.13921442

>>13907891
His prose is fantastic. It is a constant barrage of a unique vision wonderfully phrased, like an infinite fall.

>> No.13921468

>>13921403
>>Western Canon exists and is superior to the communist tranny chicano studies that is taught today
>>very few French and Jewish philosophers are worth reading
He said controversial, anon.

>> No.13921657

>>13921221
>Take Anna Karenina, for instance, and her death by suicide. The psychology is believable, her not even thinking about the act before, but then singular seemingly random signs put her over the
edge. That, to me, was the first sign of the subconscious, decades before Freud discovered it.

Doing something unexpected without knowing why is not specific to Freud or Tolstoy, it's already there in Greek myths, and Dostoevsky's book are choke-full of it.
See the Eternal Husband. Two male heterosexual characters who at night, in a moment of tension, end up kissing each other. It's not even that they were closet homo, it's about how in that moment slipping beyond the normal regimen of their lives a precedently impossible act suddenly has become plausible. The act wasn't thought about before, it's not brought up after. See the interaction between Svidrigailov and Dounia and the lethal act that ensues, which isn't so different from the exapmple of Anna Karenina you mentioned. See Rogojine's final act in the Idiot.

I'm not sure I understand your argument about scenes. Tolstoy is still writing in scenes, even though characters can changes scenery during a single scene that's no different from, say, a 18th century adventure novel.

You're right about Dostoevsky's novel being like plays, but that's precisely why he's so modern imo. The interactions of the character seems often forced, artificial, theatrical, but at the same time propelled by a tremendous inner drive. And in real life humans interactions are often excessive, forced, theatrical and ridiculous. I mean Tolstoy is great, but if you look for instance at Anna Karenina, that he considered his best work, it's for the most part reasonable conversations between reasonable people. He's a genius at portraying the blend of sincerity, formality and awkwardness of a level-headed conversation or the discrepancy between two people of different classes talking together. But he doesn't get the theatrical and inscrutable aspect of movements, gestures, reactions like Dostoievsky does.

One reason why I would claim Dosto is more modern than Tolstoy is that why apparently unpredictable actions do sprung up in both their narratives, Dosto is less often explicit in describing the character's inner lives in those moment of actions. He's a great psychologist, but he sometimes refrains from engaging in explicit psychology. This is a very modern trait, all the course of the 19th century novel is about the unfolding of character psychology, while modernism is partly about the inscrutability of motives (see how Maeterlinck criticism classical drama on that count).

>> No.13921675

>>13921403
>Western Canon exists but almost nobody completely agrees on it besides a couple handful incontrovertible greats
>people who rave about the importance of the Western canon are often cultureless, unimaginative bores that simply need appreciation to be shoved down their throat by a certified authority
>Anglo phil is underrated, but the main culprit is the Anglo himself
>German phil is overrated
>medieval philosophy is underrated
>medieval muslim philosophy is very underrated
>heidegger is overrated and worse than husserl
>French phil is good, but the so-called postmodernists are the worst part of it
>the postmodernists are only still relevant because clueless americans shill them
>the last distinctly jewish philosophical movement was the jewish enlightenment in the 18th century
>every jewish philosopher since then is just a part of a larger non-jewish school
>don't say the frankfurt school, they're just the logical conclusion of post-WWII Hegelianism

>> No.13922645

>>13921675
Notice how this person trashes the western canon then fits a bunch of shit in at the end that indicates he's a kike.

Lmao.

>> No.13922669

>>13922645
>The jews are out to get me
>When I say this, people call me a retard
>This is proof that I am right, because only jews would do such a thing

>> No.13922685

Monotheism is a gigantic fucking failure and everything /lit/ related to it is and always has been pure dogshit, and no amount of cope can change this

>> No.13922691

>>13922669
>only jews would do such a thing
Yeah, and a jew just did such a thing.

>> No.13922727

>>13922645
I didn't even trash it. Still kinda proves my point
>naive defender of the Western Canon can't understand a simple post

The sad thing is I'd read the complete works of Dante three times before turning 16 and the most canonical book you've read is probably The Great Gatsby or some shit by DFW (I'm being generous in not saying the Turner Diaries) and yet you feel qualified to even mention the Western Canon here. The fact that you didn't even pick up my comment about medieval philosophy is a pretty clear giveaway.

TL;DR: Do your highschool homework before playing the defender of any literary tradition

>> No.13922745

>>13922727
You outed yourself, Nosestein. Game over. This is why everyone hates your people.

Nearly every time you see someone subversively trying to undermine white western culture, you'll find a jew.

Dumb ones like this out themselves off the bat and make it easy lol.

>> No.13922787

>>13922745
There is nothing to out. Everyone already knows I run the world's pornography and that your mom is working for me. So what? You're going to make another muh joos thread? Nobody cares.

The point is that you don't even know the culture that you're supposedly defending. Al Baghdadi is unironically a better exponent of Western culture than you are (I should know, having met the man myself).

Do you have anything to say about medieval philosophy? Have you read Dante? Who is your favorite poet? I'm pretty sure you have no coherent and sincere answer toany of those questions because for you Western culture is a meme.

> make it easy
That's the problem, that you think the purpose of the "game" is to "out" me when you couldn't quote a memorable verse from memory to save your life. There's no need for us to do any work, people like you are already doing it for us on their own.

>> No.13922793

>>13922787
Look at this jew squirming after getting found out lmfao.

>> No.13922794

>>13922793
Still nothing to contribute I see. Enjoy you useless life I guess.

>> No.13922799

>>13921221
thanks for the suggestion

>> No.13922803

>>13910573
Are you reading in spanish?
Do you have good experience in reading?

>> No.13922811

>>13913646
This is canon

>> No.13922816

>>13913254
Maybe. Enjoyed it anyway.

>> No.13922820

>>13921221
>Moreover, I wouldn't put Tolstoy together with Balzac and Stendhal
Tolstoy explicitly said he wouldn't have written a word if it weren't for Stendhal and that he was trying to emulate Stendhal by trying to tell things as truthfully as possible and with as little literary polishment and exaggeration as possible. He's very far from Flaubert and his close attention the the details and sonority of style. As for Balzac he's a very pictural writer with descriptions that are attempts at making literary paintings. I feel like that focus is more in line with Tolstoy's very precise and balanced descriptions (not to mention the explicit inclusion of a painter as an example of an inspired artist in Anna Karenina, which is a typically balzacian trope) than with Dostoevsky's theatrical outlines.
Flaubert and Tolstoy are both heirs of Balzac and Stendhal (though Tolstoy draws more from Stendhal and Flaubert more from Balzac) but Flaubert is more modernist and much more focused on aesthetics.

>> No.13922827

>>13922794
Sorry jew, you're not wiggling out of this one. Thanks for outing yourself and giving others a chance to see your tricks in action. Try to be a little more sly next time though lol.

>> No.13922840

>>13922827
Whatever Mr Hero.

>>13910573
Borges is excellent, although he can get tiring after a while. I find his friend Bioy Casares to have a similar experimental bent while also being much better at rendering social situations.

>> No.13922846

>>13922691
Which you know because you've decided it is so?

>> No.13922875

>>13921675
>"people who care about the western canon are losers"
>"btw I'm a jew"
Yep, busted.

>> No.13922885

>>13906784
Reading Schopenhauer and Hesse will get you a better understanding of Hegel than reading Hegel.
Also, don't read Hegel, read Kant.
Also, don't read Kant, read anything else.

>> No.13923080

>>13914775
That's an interesting outlook. Do you read novels at all anymore? If so, what are your favorites?

>> No.13923523

>>13918002
Your libido

>> No.13923546
File: 150 KB, 700x700, 1569889347128[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13923546

we should have a second /lit/ board (/lit2/) for actual discussion of literature. It should have vigilante mods that ban thinly veiled /pol/ threads.

>> No.13923552

>>13923546
There better not be any religion threads either