Balzac, Stendhal, Proust or Céline?..

[Anonymous No.16320372]

Hey guys, which author has the best prose? Been meaning to start with one of these but don't know where. Recently read the Myth of Sisyphus and Atomised, and really liked the last one. Thinking of maybe buy Platform by Houllebecq too.

[Anonymous No.16320381]

Reminder that tobacco smoking does not cause cancer.

[Anonymous No.16320457]

>>16320372
They're all amazing authors who are all fairly different from each other and trying to find who of them has the "best prose" is childish and absurd. Just read them

[Anonymous No.16320516]

>>16320457
Ok anon, but where do I particularly start with each one of them? Any reccs?

[Anonymous No.16320537]

>>16320381
ironic that all the authors OP mentioned were also big smokers and coffee drinkers. yet midwits will tell you tobacco bad.

[Anonymous No.16320566]

>>16320516
just read their most famous book. look it up on wikipedia.

[Anonymous No.16320633]

I miss smoking a lot; I quit for my girlfriend. I wish I could burn one down right now. But, it's for the best. It did a number on my lungs.

[Anonymous No.16320662]

>>16320516
If you plan on reading them all, start chronologically. That way you will have a nice overview of the development of the modern french novel. With Balzac, start with Le père Goriot, or Eugénie Grandet. Stendhal has only two "real" novels so the choice is simpler : either The Red and the Black, or the Charterhouse. Both are very similar in their themes and characters. With Proust and Céline, the choice is very obvious.

Also, why not include Flaubert while you're at it?

[Anonymous No.16320687]

>>16320372
Céline. Stendhal's novels always fall off in the second half. How are you planning to appreciate the prose if you can't read french though ?

[Anonymous No.16320704]

>>16320633
Fuck her. Embrace the smoke pill.

[Anonymous No.16320711]

>>16320662
Already read some Flaubert, like Madame Bovary and L´Education Sentimentale, and some Baudelaire. That's why I didn't include them. Thanks for the reccs and the advice anon.

[Anonymous No.16320720]

>>16320381
>>16320566
It's the classic case of something doing little or no harm in moderation, Hell, it may even be good for you, but that something in this case is still a product that's meant to be addictive so it's like playing with fire, and in tobacco's case it's benefits are dubious at best while it's harms are clear as day. Just not worth it no matter how you look at it.

[Anonymous No.16320727]

>>16320687
Currently learning French, part of my family also speaks it, so guess I could depend on that if I had any doubt.

[Anonymous No.16320750]

>>16320720
>Hell, it may even be good for you, but that something in this case is still a product that's meant to be addictive so it's like playing with fire
It's as addictive as coffee is.
>and in tobacco's case it's benefits are dubious at best while it's harms are clear as day.
The cognitive enhancing effects are plain as day. Search GWERN nicotine. Its harms are overstated and are entirely from biased sampling techniques of non randomized self selected populations which of course is going to bias sanctamionus retards in both groups and give whatever result the anti smoking organizations funding the studies were looking for. Fun fact, tobacco smoke has never been able to induce cancer in any healthy animal subjects at rates above control in any study to date. There is no hard proof establishing the carcinogenic effects of tobacco. Only speculative statistical evidence. Dr. Whitbys refutation is still true today.

[Anonymous No.16320771]

>>16320750
>It's as addictive as coffee is.
not him but no, it isn't, not even close, so just shut the fuck up

[Anonymous No.16320784]

>>16320704
>the smoke pill
I.e., cancer?

[Anonymous No.16320853]

>>16320727
are you a nigger ?

[Anonymous No.16320900]

>>16320784
Smoking does not cause cancer.

[Anonymous No.16320907]

>>16320771
You're right. It's less addictive than coffee and has a lesser half life meaning the withdrawals are shorter and more tolerable. I have a splitting headache for 5 days after serious caffeine withdrawal. I'll have a mild headache for a day after quitting nicotine and some cognitive slow down lasting a few more days.

[Anonymous No.16321035]

>>16320381
I don't know enough to argue about cancer specifically, but I don't see how inhaling smoke into your lungs over and over isn't go to be harmful.

[Anonymous No.16321079]

>>16321035
If you researched the constituency of tobacco smoke, you would see that it is chock full of polyphenols and coenzyme Q 10. It also raises glutathione and DHEA, profound antioxidants. Low dose CO also has beneficial effects. The mammalian lung evolved quite well to handle smokey environments, and indeed was one reason they flourished after the dinsaur extinction event. If you are worried, just vaporize the tobacco using a volcano type device. I have a friend that uses one exclusively for tobacco.

[Anonymous No.16321099]

Flaubert

[Anonymous No.16321131]

>>16321099
>Rising late, Flaubert would settle to his desk at 1pm, and remain there - engulfed in a dense nimbus of tobacco smoke

[Anonymous No.16321158]

>>16321079
I used to smoke actually, but I quit because I developed afib (I'm not claiming they were linked, that's just the reason I stopped).

[Anonymous No.16321198]

>>16321158
Sensible outlook. If it ever comes back, get a pace maker. Never get on blood thinners. You'll ruin your brain on them.

[Anonymous No.16321233]

>>16321158
I developed a fib from theobromine, sam-e and cooming 3x in a row while fasting when it was like 90 degrees inside. Fortunately it went away but I had a heart attack that day I think and had bad heart problems for about a year after.

[Anonymous No.16321276]

>>16321233
Pretty sure I got mine from being fat, drinking lots of soft drinks, being stressed out all the time, and not getting much sleep (also lots of fapping), so something bad was bound to happen eventually. I get it every so often and have to take medicine to convert back to normal. I lost a lot of weight recently and eat healthier now and I haven't had it in a while. My blood pressure is always really high though.

[Anonymous No.16322027]

>>16320372
I think Balzac and Stendhal

[Anonymous No.16322724]

>>16320750
Outside of heroin, its the most addictive shit you can try. Your brain will literally create specific receptors that will send craving signals to your body as soon as nicotins runs out in your system. Even more, these receptors never die, they just lie dormant if you quit smoking and will activate again at full force as soon as you start again.

As for it not being harmful, I invite you to visit a pulmonology or cancer unit for a few months, it should be an educating trip.

T. likes smoking but isn't an absolute fucking retard about it.

[Anonymous No.16323292]

>>16322724
>Outside of heroin, its the most addictive shit you can try.
Yet you offer not a shred of proof, just convoluted pop-sci and broscience conjecture.

[Anonymous No.16323780]

>>16320687
>t. hasn't read Charterhouse

[Anonymous No.16325058]

>>16322724
Ah yes, my medical studies qualify as pop-sci or broscience, whatever the hell that's supposed to mean.

Since I suppose you can use google, I don't think it should be above your capacities to look up "nicotinic receptors" and see that I'm right.

But you won't, so enjoy your COPD at 50.

[Anonymous No.16325148]

>>16325058
You cited no medical studies. You cited nothing and made bold claims without evidence. nAChRs exist independent of nicotine, brainlet and while tolerance is incurred through them, they are not responsible for craving nicotine or its reward in any direct way.

[Anonymous No.16325179]

>>16320381
Cigarette smoking is what causes cancer, it has much more shit than just tobacco. And most people who smoke smoke cigarettes.

[Anonymous No.16325204]

>>16320750
Amusing that this pro-cancer retard shows up on /lit/ every few months. It's on a level comparable with flat-earthers. And sorry, but the carcinogenic nature of regular smoking is maybe the most solidly established fact in the history of epidemiology, the fact that you are still clinging to the decades-old advocations of an tobacco industry shill won't change that.

[Anonymous No.16325220]

>>16320900
>no cancer on rats and dogs, but especially mention its unlike humans
>some unrelated effect on radiation-induced cancer on dogs (why include this?)
>"or does it?" as the new standard of scientific argument
>anecdote from a 40 years-old pensum by a notorious smoking advocate

Not only is this cope, this is transparent cope whose flaws are plainly showing. Probably bait, but I want to point to self-contradictory nature of your image so that younger anons aren't confused.

[Anonymous No.16325227]

>>16320907
>my made-up anecdote equals the thousand of observed cases of nicotine withdrawal
Nice one Ronald.

[Anonymous No.16325279]

>>16320372
Proust, obviously.

[Anonymous No.16325284]

>>16320381
What does tobacco have to do with cigarettes. They put some fucked up shit in cigarettes.

[Anonymous No.16325341]

>>16325204
> It's on a level comparable with flat-earthers.
Association fallacy. Midwit redditors have no argument so they bring up easily defeated strawmen like flat earthers and antivaxxers.
>epidemiology
Not solid science.
>decades-old advocations of an tobacco industry shill won't change that.
If you are referring to Whitby, 1. The date of his assertions matter little because his critique of relying solely on epidemiological evidence still stands and 2. You have no argument against him so you can only say muh shill.

[Anonymous No.16325381]

>>16325341
>Association fallacy.
That particular bit was not an argument mr memers, it was me making fun of you for being a retard (or a troll acting as a retard, that is to say, a retard).

>Not solid science.
It's the science you need to tell whether smoking causes cancer. When you claim smoking doesn't cause cancer or even mitigating you are effectively making an epidemiological claim (which can be true of false, but it belongs to epidemiology).

To reuse my former analogy (which turns out to be more useful than expected), this would be like a flat-earther claimingphysics is not solid science, while explaining why cosmogically the Earth must be flat. In the process such a person would be denigrating physics while making a physical claim.

>If you are referring to Whitby
No Einstein, I am referring to Jesus.

>The date of his assertions matter little because his critique of relying solely on epidemiological evidence
>epidemiological evidence
So you agree epidemiology is real after all.

>still stands
But they don't.

>You have no argument against him so you can only say muh shill.
My argument is that he is wrong because he's defending a thesis that goes against the most solidly established epidemiological fact in history, with (as far as this thread indicates), nothing more than the usual stastistically-deprived anecdotes (I know one heavy smoker who lived to age 100! I've also heard of WWII veteran who lived into their 90s, doesn't mean WWII is good for your health), and that besides he has suspicious ties with the tobacco industry, which certainly doesn't help his claim.

Have to give you that you are an entertaining troll but you're starting to run out of gas.

[Anonymous No.16325397]

>>16325341
>Midwit redditors have no argument so they bring up easily defeated strawmen like flat earthers and antivaxxers.
You're the midwit redditor for denying that the earth is flat. Keep swallowing "scientific" propaganda, bugman.

[Anonymous No.16325451]

>>16325381
Reddit rhetoric and snark, peak midwit.

Epidemogical evidence is alone is unreliable and contradicted by the experimental studies (which fail to exhibit carcinogenity in healthy animals relative to control). These studies rely on self selection so it biases the extremes in both groups so that smokers who did in fact get cancer are overreported and unhealthy controls (ie non smokers) are unreported. Even the epidemiological data is contradicted by other epidemiological data, such as the studies from Japan throughout the 1990s and early 2000s (now known in medical literature as the Japanese Smokers Paradox).

[Anonymous No.16325461]

>>16325451
>unreported
underreported*

[Anonymous No.16326056]

>>16325451
>Reddit rhetoric and snark, peak midwit.
Snark is what you deserve, but you could at least use real insults, you cockmongering faggot.

>*Epidemiogical evidence alone is unreliable
So the evidence used by dr Whitby is unreliable too?
>contradicted by the experimental studies
On healthy animals? Why should I care since we have plenty of reliable data on humans. The claim is not that smoking gives cancer to dogs.

>These studies rely on self selection
The studies on dog rely on self selection? Or are your talking about other studies? I'm sorry but you're not making yourself clear, one sentence you say epidemiology is not solid, the next you use epidemiological evidence as argument that you're right, then you mention studies on dogs support you point, then you say those studies are biased.

You need to state your case more clearly if you want not to be taken seriously.

>Even the epidemiological data is contradicted by other epidemiological data
>Japanese smoking paradox
Literally the second link on google, last sentence of the abstract:
>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12889681/
>Furthermore, low carcinogenic ingredients in Japanese cigarettes and a congenitally-related resistance to smoking-related lung carcinogenesis emerged as the main factors which have brought the 'Japanese smoking paradox'.

People in non-Western country can be less at risk of getting lung cancer while smoking more because of exogenous factor that differing between the countries. This is of course something that need explanation, but not in itself a contradiction. A real contradiction would be if that all countries showed less incidence of lung cancer in those who smoke more. But that two very different population have different fatality odd ratios is not in itself absurd, although again it demands explanation.

[Anonymous No.16327324]

>>16326056
Those explanations for why the rates differ are hypotheses, not proven, and offered in discussion. You've clearly never published. As for being more clear, its obvious self selection in the previous post applies to epidemiological sampling. Really proving yourself to be a midwit again. No real argument and nitpick irrelevant aspects like my use of the word evidence.