[ 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: 262 KB, 938x962, 1552320464868.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15656238 No.15656238 [Reply] [Original]

He was right.

>> No.15656256

>>15656238
Replace 'niggers' with '/pol/tards' and it's spot on.

>> No.15656265

>>15656238
Replace niggers with neoliberals and he's right

>> No.15656277
File: 142 KB, 1200x1200, Marx vs Reagan.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15656277

>>15656265
Based.

>> No.15656303

>>15656238
is this fake, where is the original from?

>> No.15656373
File: 562 KB, 646x645, smiles for miles.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15656373

>When she asks you what's your cat's name.

>> No.15656508

>>15656238
>roam the stars
This is how you know its fake

>> No.15657029

>>15656238
Sorry, it's fake. Lovecraft never corresponded with Joyce. He mentioned him a few times, and wrote a fabulous send-up of Eliot's Waste Land, but that's it.
He wrote, in a 1928 letter,

I myself think that the extreme methods of Joyce, Eliot and their congeners (E. E. Cummings, Hart
Crane, . . . D. H. Lawrence, Virginia Woolf, Gertrude Stein . . . Marcel Proust, etc. etc.) do indeed
transcend the limits of real art; though I believe they are destined to exert a strong influence upon art
itself.'

Clearly, Lovecraft was an astute observer of literary trends and quite in line with the more recognized critics of his day. Given his opinions regarding Joyce and his belief that the work of the triad, Joyce, Woolf, and Lawrence, was beyond the definitions of traditional art, we might wonder what of value he found in their work, particularly in Joyce’s, especially when one considers that he did not digest Ulysses. To J. Vernon Shea, he wrote,

I have not read Ulysses, because such extracts as I have seen convince me that it would hardly be
worth the time & energy. Without doubt it forms an important landmark in the history of prose
expression, but so far as I can see it is of theoretical significance rather than actual aesthetic value. It
represents the intensive development. . . of a literary principle which will greatly effect future writing,
but which defeats its own ends. . . . And yet there is no more powerful or penetrant writer living than
Joyce when he is not pursuing his theory to these ultimate extremes. (5 February 1932; SL IV. 14-16).)