Woolf Woolf (I'm an esoteric cat)

[Anonymous No.17644401]

I was only 18 when I borrowed both Mrs Dalloway and To the Lighthouse from my local public library and they were the best two novels ever that I'd read at that time.

The purpose of this thread is Virginia Woolf awareness.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Virginia-Woolf

Did you read any Woolf, do you want to?

[Anonymous No.17644413]

>>17644401
>Virginia Woolf awareness.

She's one of the most talked about authors of the 20th Century and probably the most talked about female writer here on /lit/. But, yeah, we better bring some awareness of her.

[Anonymous No.17644423]

>>17644413
Yes anon, thanks for replying. Have you read some Woolf?

[Anonymous No.17644498]

>>17644413
There was a thread the other day where many anons outright dismissed her because she is a woman. Literally no different than universities ideologically dismissing works on the basis that the authors are "dead white men." Obviously, women can transcend the limitations of their gender (i.e different personality traits and or lower intelligence, honestly not sure how much of a factor this is or whether the lower intelligence is true) you only have to look at all the lives and dispositions of all the great female writers to realize that they were all incredibly autistic, which is to say that essentially had the mind of a male. For instance, Emily Bronte was beyond autistic, she basically didn't even engage with reality and she created Wuthering Heights. Woolf as well has incredible prose that I would say comes close to rivaling Joyce, Nabokov, Melville and her psychological insight is comparable to Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, or Proust. Of course, she isn't as good as them. And she was insanely jealous of Joyce for obvious reasons. She is worth reading for her prose alone.

[Anonymous No.17644553]

>>17644401
Overrated hack

[Anonymous No.17644559]

>>17644498
I read and don't consider whether the author is a man or a woman only if their work is good or enjoyable. It's quite liberating to be able to seperate the art from the artist.

[Anonymous No.17644562]

>>17644401
My sister has a lot of her books and I look forward to reading them at some point, especially looking forward to The Waves.

[Anonymous No.17644718]

>>17644498
Those are just incel spergs bro. Not all of /lit/ is like that. Well not yet...
Woolf well known and I for one think she's based. I love her dearly and I'm going to order her dairy desu.

[Anonymous No.17644745]

>>17644718
>Not all of /lit/ is like that. Well not yet . . .
It's getting worse bro. It seems like everyday for the past couple weeks traffic has been increasing and for the worse. This board is almost exclusively posts about
A) Philsophy (specifically reactionary philosophers)
B) Religion
C) How the Jews and Women are to blame for everything

[Anonymous No.17644767]

>>17644745
why can't they make a religion/philosophy board for the spergs where they can one-up each other until they pass out? there are fresh vidya and sport boards popping up every other week

[Anonymous No.17644784]

>>17644745
>It's getting worse bro. It seems like everyday for the past couple weeks traffic has been increasing and for the worse.
I've noticed it too

[Anonymous No.17644799]

>>17644718
>bro
>Well not yet...
>and I for one think she's based
kys "bro"

I enjoyed To the Lighthouse.

[Anonymous No.17644801]

>>17644401
To the lighthouse was great
Orlando was very fun
Mrs Dalloway was boring
Wanna read Waves at dome point but kinda afraid of it

[Anonymous No.17644805]

>>17644799
here is one of the spergs we're talking about

[Anonymous No.17644854]

>>17644401
I've only read To the Lighthouse, it was good. Some of the interactions of the Ramsays reminded me of some of the interactions that occur in my family, the last two chapters of the first part were my favourites. I liked it.

[Anonymous No.17644901]

>>17644801
Read it anon we will have a good thread about it once you're finished and ready it's not a long book.

[Anonymous No.17644929]

>>17644901
Ok fren gonna give it a shot

[Anonymous No.17644943]

>>17644929
Best of luck and well wishes. I really think you will enjoy it, arguably Woolf's finest work.

[Anonymous No.17644979]

>>17644745
And then fucking political posts that don't even pretend to be about political/philosophical literature

[Anonymous No.17646850]

>>17644801
I think Mrs Dalloway suffers from the whole school curriculum business, because it's the easiest modernist text to give people. Result: Woolf's name gets heavily tied to it, even though it's pretty minor work, really laying the ground for the transition she made from pure impressionism (Jacob's Room) to inter-character work (the Waves)

[Anonymous No.17646934]

>>17644718
Her 'dairy'?

[Anonymous No.17648010]

>>17644401
>Did you read any Woolf, do you want to?
I want to do both her and Joyce, but I'm currently more interested in pursuing Thomas Mann.

[Anonymous No.17648021]

>>17644498
You should read the works of Alan Moore, besides his rich and brilliant comic-book career (out of which From Hell and his Swamp Thing run are by far the best), you should definitely give a shot to his novels, Voice of the Fire and Jerusalem.

[Anonymous No.17648659]

>>17646934
her journals were released in their entirety. its a 5 volume set.

[Anonymous No.17648734]

>>17648659
That's not what I meant.

[Anonymous No.17648743]

>>17648021
For real?

[Anonymous No.17648828]

>>17644401
Based, to the Lighthouse is one of my favourite books of all time. I occasionally reread the part about the abandoned house and the passing of seasons, some of the finest passages about nature that I've ever read.

Also the main character dying in a pharenteses is such a clever gut punch IMO.

[Anonymous No.17648839]

>>17644401
I am beyond excite i read waves! Dall of way and tooth a light house quite were fantastic!

[Anonymous No.17648844]

>>17648659
but how many litres?

[Anonymous No.17648864]

>>17648844
i dont know mate the milk meme still pops up from the "desu" posters.

[Anonymous No.17649194]

>>17644401
To the Lighthouse is great but I was filtered hard by The Waves.
I can't finish it, is so fucking boring.

[Anonymous No.17649231]

>>17649194
Same desu. It's not even boring, I just found it hard to keep track of all the characters and their archetypes. Plus the plot didn't to go anywhere (not a bad thing per se) and I don't see the technical brilliance of the prose which is what I truly loved in To the Lighthouse.

Guess I'm a pleb, huh

[Anonymous No.17649251]

>>17648839
Are you all right anon?

[Anonymous No.17649319]

I always thought she was a Proust wanna-be.

[Anonymous No.17649981]

>>17649319
That's Nabokov

[Anonymous No.17650084]

>>17648844
0. She was flat

[Anonymous No.17650098]

The waves is a meme. Based Frater destroyed it.

[Anonymous No.17650762]

>>17648743
Deadly serious.

[Anonymous No.17650775]

>>17650762
Post something then. His prose sections behind watchmen weren't very convincing.

[Anonymous No.17650946]

>>17650775
>“Spring Lane burned with a mythology of chipped slates, pale wash-water blue and flaking at the seam. The summer yellow glow of an impending dawn diffused, diluted in the million-gallon sky above the tannery that occupied this low end of the ancient gradient, across the narrow street from where Phyllis and Michael stood outside the alley-mouth. The tannery’s high walls of browning brick with rusted wire mess over its high windows didn’t have the brutal aura that the building had down in the domain of the living. Rather it was softly iridescent with a sheen of fond remembrance – the cloisters of some mediaeval craft since disappeared – and had the homely perfume of manure and boiled sweets. Past the peeling wooden gates that lolled skew-whiff were yards where puddles stained a vivid tangerine harboured reflected chimney stacks, lamp black and wavering. Heaped leather shavings tinted with corrosive sapphire stood between the fire-opal pools, an azure down mounded into fantastic nests by thunderbirds to hatch their legendary fledglings. Rainspouts eaten through by time had diamond dribble beading on their chapped tin lips, and every splinter and subsided cobble sang with endless being.

>Michael Warren stood entranced and Phyllis Painter stood beside him, sharing his enchantment, looking at the heart-caressing vista through his eyes. The district’s summer sounds were, in her ears, reduced to a rich stock. The lengthy intervals between the bumbling drones of distant motorcars, the twittering filigree of birdsong strung along the guttered eaves, the silver gurgle of a buried torrent echoing deep in the night-throat of a drain, all these were boiled down to a single susurrus, the hissing tingling reverberation of a cymbal struck by a soft brush. The instant jingled in the breeze.”

Also, what do you mean his prose sections in Watchmen weren't very convincing?

[Anonymous No.17651020]

>>17650946
Those minutemen sections weren't very well written. I started skipping them after a few.

[Anonymous No.17651036]

she's good but pleb prose retards will overrate the waves, when she's written more stylish prose in her essays. orlando is probably her best, something like proust except without the weight of his baggage.

[Anonymous No.17651138]

>>17650946
This is way better than that phony brian caitling but still a little too overwritten. Reads a wee bit like a Cormac McCarthy impression though I might be stretching it; Moore did namedrop him and Blood Meridian a few times in the past.

[Anonymous No.17651179]

>>17649251
Negro, fuck off away. Be read well as i and no self embarrassment

[Anonymous No.17651189]

>>17650098
Frater Asemlen Frater Asemlen Frater Asemlen Frater Asemlen Frater Asemlen!
If i say his name five times will he appear in the thread and give me his opinion on it?

[Anonymous No.17651247]

>>17644498
She's dismissed because she's not a good artist. History will forget her. She wasn't able to craft literature and her prose comes up short. And good GOD her characterization methods were alarmingly bad.

Go ahead, post counter examples from her works. You won't.

The Waves was terrible. To The Lighthouse was bearable and Mrs Dalloway was a joke. And I've read all three more than once so I could intelligently discuss them.

>>17644553
This.

>>17648828
Moron.

>>17650098
Link?

[Anonymous No.17651251]

>>17651247
This but ironically

[Anonymous No.17651401]

>>17651247
>>17557648
>>17557655
>>17557672
>>17557693
>>17560533
>>17560803

[Anonymous No.17651408]

>>17651020
Okay, but why? In what way were they not very well written, what's the problem you have with the writing in those sections?

>>17651138
Eh, it's more Dostoevsky, William Blake and Joyce, if anything.

[Anonymous No.17651418]

>>17651247
>And I've read all three more than once so I could intelligently discuss them.

And yet you don't do that, here. Puzzling.

[Anonymous No.17651427]

>>17651247
>The Waves was terrible. To The Lighthouse was bearable and Mrs Dalloway was a joke. And I've read all three more than once so I could intelligently discuss them.
A) doubtful
B) you were filtered
C) fuck off

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17651445]

>>17650098
To be fair, I get she’s trying to be experimental and I’m sure her other works aren’t as flawed as I felt that work was.

>>17651247
Would you disagree much with what I’ve said concerning the waves as this anon has linked?

>>17651401

[Anonymous No.17651452]

>>17651408
None of them read like that in cadence, especially not Dosto. A review also mentioned that he switches styles frequently and mentioned a McCarthy/Burroughs pastiche section. That might be it.

They were not very interesting and I don't blame the content. Providence and Loeg also had a similar problem, but in providence it is justified through the Nabokovian device of inappropriate narrator (robert black that is).

[Anonymous No.17651492]

>>17651401
The idea that your supposed to forget your experiencing the art just isnt it to me, that criticism seems just really 1800s like everything else he says and does, and i also suspect he doesnt listen to much music, but much of what he says i can't really argue with. I just don't react to the elements in the same ways.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17651526]

>>17651492
>The idea that your supposed to forget your experiencing the art just isnt it to me,

You’re free to have your own tastes and opinions of course. What do you consider the mark of a good piece of art? I agree with Schiller that the body/parts of the work have to be annihilated into the form of the beauty that the artist produces but I can understand why someone would disagree.

>that criticism seems just really 1800s like everything else he says and does

Hey thanks! That’s a pretty respectable spirit and air to hold in my eyes.

>and i also suspect he doesnt listen to much music,

Nah. There isn’t a moment that goes by where I do not listen to some kind of music. I like everything from classical and baroque pieces to disco to apocalyptic folk to our traditional Gypsy folk music to Semitic music ancient and modern and a lot of other stuff. If I had to condense what my music taste is, it’s mellow, usually ritualistic or repetitive and never very loud/noisy.

>but much of what he says i can't really argue with.

Eh, you don’t have to argue, tell me what you enjoy and what you see in it, anon.

>I just don't react to the elements in the same ways.

Completely fair but I’d still like to hear why if possible.

[Anonymous No.17651559]

>>17651526
No

[Anonymous No.17651566]

>>17651452
>They were not very interesting and I don't blame the content
Ok, but how does that equate to "not very well written"? I loved them, I just don't get your whole "they weren't interesting because they weren't interesting" angle.

[Anonymous No.17651589]

>>17651401
Thanks

>>17651418
BTFO. You probably get this often, but you're witty!

>>17651427
What would filter someone? If you want a laugh, look at annotations for The Waves. Almost all the knowledge you need to comprehend the book fully is an understanding of English.

>>17651445
>Would you disagree much with what I’ve said concerning the waves as this anon has linked?
Tripfags are the worst and you've said some stupid shit, but your analysis of The Waves is great.

[Anonymous No.17651590]

>>17651566
I don't even remember them properly right now, but if a relatively interesting section is boring to read it's on the writing. That's how I demarcate them anyway.

[Anonymous No.17651600]

>>17651559
Wew

[Anonymous No.17651603]

>>17651526
>I agree with Schiller
DROPPED

[Anonymous No.17651624]

I read To the Lighthouse and found it quite disappointing, dull, and uninspired. I love Joyce and other high modernist authors, and the techniques and themes they used. Woolf it seems to me is regarded as a bit of a sacred cow and I figure it has a lot to do with her personal connections during her career, and her gender and paragon status as a female modernist.

[Anonymous No.17651639]

Guys.
Faulkner or Woolf?

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17651644]

>>17651589
Sorry for the lower quality posts anon! Glad we agree on that analysis. I also agree there’s nothing really there to filter someone, I think it would only impress someone who doesn’t have a lot of exposure to the more experimental/ecstatic older works.

>>17651603
What’s wrong with Schiller anon? I’ve found his letters on aesthetics to be highly enjoyable and they agree much with the aesthetic conceptions I’ve contemplated and also absorbed from Nicholai Hartmann among others. If you don’t have anything in specific got any sources which argue greatly against his views? I’ll read those also.

[Anonymous No.17651650]

>>17651639
Absolutely faulkner but both are great.

[Anonymous No.17651664]

>>17651644
Lets just say, for the sake of argument, that i loved the waves.
What experimental/ecstatic older works u thinking of?

[Anonymous No.17651678]

>>17651624
I think the Woolf fans haven't crawled inside the works of other modernists. She is the low ebb not the high watermark.

>>17651639
Faulkner. But not by too too much, let's not get crazy.

>>17651644
>What’s wrong with Schiller anon?
>his letters on aesthetics
%^)

Can you delineate his aesthetics? I'm getting massive irl deja vu at the moment so your answer better be meaningful OR ELSE

[Anonymous No.17651722]

>>17651644
>>17651526
Faggot frater cope

[Anonymous No.17651745]

>>17651678
Besides Joyce and Proust, which modernists are better than Faulkner? Your remark suggests he is barely above the low ebb.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17651751]

>>17651664
For the formless assault of imagery? Most traditional invocations like the thunder perfect mind. How about the poetry of li-he which has even more imagery and symbolic density but actually is far more coherent and strange at once. Much of mallarme, dream of the Rood in some regards, but realistically any longer invocation like the Chu Ci or much of Li shangyin. There’s an excess of this. Here’s a translation of one of Li-he’s poems.

A moon's old rabbit and cold toad weeping colors of sky,
lucent walls slant across through half-open cloud towers.
A jade-pure wheel squeezes dew into bulbs of wet light.
Phoenix waist jewels meet on cinnamon-scented paths.
Transformations of a thousand years gallop by like horses,
yellow dust soon seawater below changeless island peaks,
and all China seen so far off: it's just nine wisps of mist,
and the ocean's vast clarity a mere cup of spilled water.


None of this is random mind you, these are mostly kennings and titles, what seems like a impressionist image is always a clear logical narrative filled to the brim with logic and development.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17651768]

>>17651678
Here’s from my notes concerning his aesthetics.

According to Schiller beauty is perception of freedom in the object world

Seems there is no spiritual depth to him above the rational/formal/ideal, as he places a tripartite schema, in which first is the physical, which is transcended by the aesthetic and the aesthetic is transcended into the rational. Meaning the rational which is identifies as the moral is the height of his thought.

He sees in nature and the physical the purely sensual, phenomena, multiplicity and feeling, within the rational he sees the noumena, unity and the forms. He seems to believe that the aesthetic level is the harmony/midway point between these two.

Further he holds a tripartite view of history, in which man is harmonized with nature due to his lack of interior and subjectivity, then a kind of tearing collapse occurs when man through culture develops his interior life and this causes a disintegration of his being and reformation, he speaks of it as if now we are balanced in between two evils, the brutal coldness of human bureaucracy and state, and the barbaric and senseless nature of human animalistic urges. This naturally will devour each other resulting in the next step of cultural society in which man is reunited with nature but now with a true interior.

The physical-material man and level of being is driven by a will and force in man which seeks pure objectivity, in contrast he sees an identification with the absolute with the absolute I(which he calls person) and he cites Fichte. Logically the harmony of objectivity and subjectivity would be the aesthetic level in this model.

Pervading Schiller is a thought I find somewhat antithetical to his friend Goethe(as explained in his confession of the beautiful soul) Schiller argues that there is a kind of natural rhythm and harmony in nature and that good taste is found by learning this pattern, that the aesthetic leads to/synthesizes with the rational through taste. Man’s primary education being the learning of this pattern which he inherently finds beautiful. This is very much in line with schelling’s conceptions of nature as poetry and the internal rhythm of creation.

In Goethe’s work he finds that beauty and advancement of the soul is attained through harmonization of the interior virtues and ideals with the identity and daily life, a union of the soul and the daily self. This is what it means to beautify the soul, to live in accordance with its deepest impulses and Its own rhythm. I imagine the conflict arises because to Schiller, the rational perception of certain patterns in objects is the beautiful which is understood as a kind of embodied freedom, while to Goethe Freedom is more aptly the will (no longer arbitrary) willing a certain thing in accordance with the soul which has that Will, and striving with its full force towards that Will.

Cont

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17651781]

>>17651768
Both men see beauty=harmony but the question of where arises the rhythm, the nature of the beautiful differs significantly between them. This is because to Schiller nature begins by giving you certain virtues and qualities but reason allows you to refine and modify these, he seems to be of the belief that genuine understanding requires a kind of three fold method of absorption though he does not explicitly call it such. Briefly it works in this way.


First: Intuitive-feeling grasp
Second: dissolution of intellectualization
Third phase:coagulation in the aesthetic

Which is to say, we first gain a material and sensual intuitive understanding of these by basic phenomena, which we must break down into pieces, categories, abstractions, genus, atomic particles in all regards, and by this intellectual dissolution of sense data, we can recombine and reconstitute the body of whatever the thing being analyzed is, thus we are given access to intellectual knowledge of it. However doing this strips it of all emotional impact and all relevance to sense-material life at least in terms of Qualia.

In this regard the synthesis point is the aesthetic, because you can re-clothe and fully recombine the intellectual/rational understanding and then re-concentrate it into a burst of Art which once more rekindles the feelings and innocent experience of pure sense/material perception, but now with the depth and understanding of intellectual and rational grasp added to it.


Another fascinating aspect of Schiller is he sees the state in a fundamentally semi-fascist manner, he argues the state is the ideal man to which the subject must unite, that the state must act like an artist upon stone, doing violence when necessary to the parts of the stone for the good of the whole image, that man’s feelings mustn’t however be lifelessly bound to reason/unity as this will cause civil disruption and so forth, thus the aesthetic must be used to manipulate his feelings towards obedience under reason.

“The state serves as a representation of pure and objective humanity”


He argues that in order to embrace the whole/sum of nature one must fuse youthful fantasy and feeling with Elder reason, that modern man if compared to the form of the Ancient Greek man is certainly less human, as the culture we have has only developed his intellectual character and has crushed his youthful vigor. This abstraction infused man is the lifeblood of the state but is hardly a human in of himself.

Another fascinating aspect rooted clearly in his kantianism is the impulses within man.

Schiller believes there is a sensual-material impulse within man which constitutes his being in the world and the more he gives himself over to this, the more the world and man are mixed with each other, he says this impulse arises from the conditioning/accidental nature within man which occurs because of potential manifesting in time, that it is a question of change and becoming in time,

Cont

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17651807]

>>17651781
and that this sensual value of diversity and change allows for man to unveil his potential, his hidden aspects, but he argues this has an equal opposite impulse.

The formal impulse deriving from the reason, if the sense impulse derives from the subject in time, from the world, then the formal impulse arises out of the transcendental ego, out of the necessary, the unchanging, that which is infinite and perpetual.

He argues that the sensual drive is what makes man a particular man in the world, whereas the formal drive is what constitutes that he is a man, of the order of humanity.

The sensual is the event in time, the formal is all time. Thus the formal seeks the annihilation of the event within the totality, and the sensual seeks the annihilation of the totality for the particular moment.

To Schiller, these are not actually opposite impulses but two aspects of a broader drive called the play drive, which if cultivated maximize the range of both. As the infinite and finite when brought into greater tension and force against each other, reveal each other even more so.

It is like an event in time that tries to annihilate all time, a man who is both all men and most himself. This is the play-drive and the ultimate goal to Schiller, because only in this can you manifest all of the potential you store within time, and as you are now all humanity in general, you manifest all human intellect and genius as your own. This to Schiller is no less than divinity, manifesting the absolute Being through the fusion of the concept of Man with your own instance of man for a perfect event in time (which is, ideally) crystallized within the art work as a work of perfect beauty.

“I AM drawing ever nearer the goal to which I am leading you, along a not very exhilarating path. If you will consent to follow me a few steps further, a much wider field of view will be displayed, and a cheerful prospect will perhaps reward the exertions of the road.
The object of the sense impulse, expressed in a general concept, may be called life in the widest sense of the word; a concept which expresses all material being and all that is immediately present in the senses. The object of the form impulse, expressed generally, may be called shape, both in the figurative and in the literal sense; a concept which includes all formal qualities of things and all their relations to the intellectual faculties. The object of the play impulse, conceived in a general notion, can therefore be called living shape, a concept which serves to denote all aesthetic qualities of phenomena and—in a word—what we call Beauty in the widest sense of the term.”

Note, he calls it the play drive/impulse because of what amounts to Hindu Lila, as such Beauty to him is necessarily a harmonization between the particular and universal where both are perfectly married into an absolute existence and all art pieces of beauty embody the absolute spirit.

Cont

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17651817]

>>17651807
(To summarize in Hegelian terms, a will towards Begrif opposed to the particular rationalization force, which when brushed up against each other produce the Idea which is the beautiful.)

However the most fascinating concept Schiller has put forth is the “pure appearance” he says that the ideal/moral realm is in stark contrast to the actual/material world and our current art works oscillate in-between both worlds in attempts at reconciling them, he says that artists fail in one regard.

1=all art must necessarily be Candid, and by this he means, truthful insofar as that all appearances must admit they are utterly illusionary and have no relation to the real.

And in my eyes the more difficult

2=all art must necessarily be self-dependent, which is to say, requiring no part of reality and no basis in the real.

These conjoint he argues would allow us to produce a “pure appearance” which neither has relation to the actual material world thus maximizing its harmonious beauty (elevating it closer to the ideal realm.)

But we also deny it any claim in terms of truth, morality or ideals, thus it doesn’t get absorbed into the numinous region of the pure intellect.

He says there are two kinds of appearances, those which claim to be truth (simulacrum) and those which hold no truth claim and thus paradoxically, are truthful about their own nature as illusion.

Thus the pure appearance is perfect and requires nothing. In this is the attainment of superfluity, of which he says is shown by the lion when he has not prey, shouts with energy in full and he gives various other examples of the expression of energy for reasons that are neither material/actual need nor ideal/moral in nature, he further expresses a belief that in eternity man shall enjoy an infinity of superfluity.


(And that’s where my current essay ends, that’s a pretty decent summary of his major aesthetic conceptions. Sorry for the topic lads.)

[Anonymous No.17651846]

>>17651817
>>17651807
>>17651781
>>17651768
>>17651751
Gay argument

[Anonymous No.17651896]

>>17651817
>>17651807
>>17651781
>>17651768

[Anonymous No.17651910]

>>17651817
>to summarize in Hegelian terms...

[Anonymous No.17651919]

>>17651768
>>17651781
>>17651807
>>17651817
huh?

[Anonymous No.17651925]

>>17651817
>that’s a pretty decent summary of his major aesthetic conceptions.
So it is just a heap of garbage nonsense. Thanks, anon.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17651938]

>>17651925
Eh, it’s pretty par for the course if you’re into German idealism, if not then it’s 100% not gonna be something you enjoy.

[Anonymous No.17651956]

>>17651938
I sort of see the appeal to doing the Petri dish thing of growing idea-tissue around their nonsense ramblings, but life is too short to mess around with people that don't have ideas.

[Anonymous No.17651959]

>>17651751
>>17651768
>>17651781
>>17651807
>>17651817
It's obvious that you think this is impressive, but it's actually just meaningless blather that relies on a bunch of disparate comments from others which have been shoehorned in disjointedly. Your drivel lacks the cohesion necessary for it to be meaningful.

[Anonymous No.17651970]

>>17651959
Just like the waves

[Anonymous No.17651979]

>>17651959
It's not his fault.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17651986]

>>17651956
Eh, it’s pretty coherent in my eyes, I personally enjoyed it.

>>17651959
Eh, impressive no, more just the major aspects important to Schiller without his arguments on why this is the case or the repetition he would use. There’s nothing impressive about giving a summary anon.

While you lads might disagree, I think it’s an interesting angle to contemplate aesthetics under.

[Anonymous No.17652000]

>>17651986
Frater asemlen? More like gay anal entrance

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17652012]

>>17651959
Oh didn’t see the reply to Li-he’ a poetry and the others I cited. I mean you’re free to think their poetry and works aren’t impressive and if you can complain as to why, that’s fine. I personally think it’s great and the historical impact of the things listed speaks for itself.

Example a cold toad is a kenning for moss, weeping colors of sky would mean it is covered in dew, some moss covered in dew being metamorphosed into his line is pretty extreme in terms of modification and I think it’s a pretty lovely image, not something easily replicated or found elsewhere, but every poem of his will have extreme imaginative power and modification of imagery and ideas. I think if you gave his poetry a shot you’d find much to appreciate in it.

[Anonymous No.17652020]

>>17651959
Why do people always reply to frater's effortposts with these petty insults that don't actually say anything

[Anonymous No.17652131]

>>17652020
Tbh im not your boy but i been trolling pretty heavy even tho im all here for the recs.

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17652196]

>>17652131
Oh dude, let me show another bit of Chinese poetry then. And don’t worry about it, we all troll dude, this is 4chan.

Jin se or The Inlaid Harp by Li shangyin

I wonder why my inlaid harp has fifty strings,
Each with its flower-like fret an interval of youth.
The sage Chuangzi is day-dreaming, bewitched by butterflies, The spring-heart of Emperor Wang is crying in a cuckoo, Mermen weep their pearly tears down a moon-green sea,
Blue fields are breathing their jade to the sun.
And a moment that ought to have lasted for ever
Has come and gone before I knew.

[Anonymous No.17652369]

>>17652196
Thats pretty good. I want to buy a book of some crazy poetry tomorrow - something experimental. I'm thinking about whatever i can find that includes the last li he you shared

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17652407]

>>17652369
Dude, I’ll just post some PDFs. Don’t buy without reading a good chunk first.

https://b-ok.cc/book/6111721/7ba81e Collected LI-He

https://b-ok.cc/book/5622487/aa0fff - collected Li shangyin

And here’s an example of some mallarme.

Apparition


The moon grew sad. Weeping seraphim,
dreaming, bows in hand, in the calm of hazy
flowers, drew from dying viols
white sobs that glided over the corollas’ blue.
—It was the blessed day of your first kiss.
My dreaming, glad to torment me,
grew skilfully drunk on the perfumed sadness
that—without regret or bitter after-taste—
the harvest of a Dream leaves in the reaper’s heart.
And so I wandered, my eyes fixed on the old paving stones,
when with sun-flecked hair, in the street
and in the evening, you appeared laughing before me
and I thought I glimpsed the fairy with her cap of light
who long ago crossed my lovely spoilt child’s slumbers,
always allowing from her half-closed hands
white bouquets of scented flowers to snow.

(Here’s the French if you know or are interested.)

Apparition

La lune s’attristait. Des séraphins en pleurs
Rêvant, l’archet aux doigts, dans le calme des fleurs
Vaporeuses, tiraient de mourantes violes
De blancs sanglots glissant sur l’azur des corolles.
—C’était le jour béni de ton premier baiser.
Ma songerie aimant à me martyriser
S’enivrait savamment du parfum de tristesse
Que même sans regret et sans déboire laisse
La cueillaison d’un Rêve au cœur qui l’a cueilli.
J’errais donc, l’œil rivé sur le pavé vieilli,
Quand avec du soleil aux cheveux, dans la rue
Et dans le soir, tu m’es en riant apparue
Et j’ai cru voir la fée au chapeau de clarté
Qui jadis sur mes beaux sommeils d’enfant gâté
Passait, laissant toujours de ses mains mal fermées
Neiger de blancs bouquets d’étoiles parfumées.

[Anonymous No.17653280]

>>17651768
interesting. dunno if you are familiar with it, but jung wrote something akin to what you are describing about schiller in his book about personality types

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17653314]

>>17653280
I’m not surprised considering both men owe a depth to western literature, mythology, philosophy and so forth. I’ve read a decent amount of jung and I don’t believe however I see a parallel to Schiller’s pure appearance which is to me the most intoxicating conception, as I’ve had similar ideas when contemplating the work of Baudrillard. I definitely recommend checking out his philosophical writings due to his fascinating his conception is though, his prose style is also particularly lovely due to him being a poet. There’s a few moments of repetition but nothing too bad. They mostly exist because as he was writing his letters he slowly integrated kantianism which shaped his views further.

[Anonymous No.17653316]

>>17644745
>How the Jews and Women are to blame for everything
Who else are we suppose to blame?

[Anonymous No.17654170]

>>17653316
Since this is a Woolf thread and she wasn't Jewish, I'll ask you to state your case of blame against her.

[Anonymous No.17654516]

>>17644401
Fuck off Frater no one wants to read your elaborate efforts post detailing how you were filtered by the Waves. You didn't even fucking read the book just the first 10 pages and you think you can give a meaningful critique of her work. And how narcissistic do you have to be to think you can shit up the thread about Woolf with a recycled post about Schiller. Also, your constant reaffirmation on the lower intelligence of women belies a mind that is susceptible to a society that constantly gaslights males into thinking women are as intelligent as them. Essentially you shouldn't have to constantly reaffirm that women are stupid at your point in life, it should be so intrinsically the case that talking about it would be as self-evident as saying that the ocean is blue. In other words, any man who says hur dur women are dumb, and you do it fucking often, are fucking stupid cunts.

[Anonymous No.17654527]

I hope you get raped by a pack of niggers

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17654725]

>>17654516
>>>17644401 (OP) #
>Fuck off Frater no one wants to read your elaborate efforts post detailing how you were filtered by the Waves.

There’s nothing to be filtered by, anon.

>You didn't even fucking read the book just the first 10 pages

Would anything have changed in the style if I read more than 10 ?

> and you think you can give a meaningful critique of her work.

Eh, another anon mentioned my impressions on her, apologies if that offended you but I think 10 pages is Certainly enough to get an impression of the taste of a thing, no? How many pages do you think I should have used until I could have said “I dislike this style?

>And how narcissistic do you have to be to think you can shit up the thread about Woolf with a recycled post about Schiller.

Anon asked about it.

> Also, your constant reaffirmation on the lower intelligence of women

I wouldn’t say it’s a constant affirmation, I bring it up when the topic comes up, no reason not to.

>belies a mind that is susceptible to a society that constantly gaslights males into thinking women are as intelligent as them.

Eh I don’t see what you mean here at all, saying I disagree with some topic doesn’t mean such is the case.


>Essentially you shouldn't have to constantly reaffirm that women are stupid at your point in life,

Eh, why not, i genuinely don’t see the great harm in saying that I’ve found the average female inferior to the average male in terms of writers, philosophers and mystics. Why does this offend you? If it’s obvious as the sky being blue there’s especially no reason to be mad at it.

>it should be so intrinsically the case that talking about it would be as self-evident as saying that the ocean is blue. In other words, any man who says hur dur women are dumb, and you do it fucking often, are fucking stupid cunts.


You’re free to believe that, there’s nothing wrong with speaking those basic facts you seem to hold to be self evident, nor do I see an actual argument against anything I’ve said. But if you see me as inferior, that’s fair anon. I still don’t see the reason for such a charged reaction.

[Anonymous No.17654789]

>>17652369
Get some Louise Gluck. Oh wait, muh wahmens r dumb, her Pulitzer and National Book Award are probably fake.

[OP No.17654792]

>>17654516
>>17654725
Both of you shut the fuck up and do not derail this otherwise rather nice thread with your bullshit petty squabbling.

[Anonymous No.17654804]

I made the first "Frater trashing waves" post. I am glad on how this thread turned out. Cya

[Frater Asemlen !XS8vrClKs2 No.17654806]

>>17654792
Apologies, I’ll stop messing up the thread

[Anonymous No.17654845]

thanks for this thread anons. it's nice to know that not everyone here hates women. I'm gonna go read some Woolf thanks to you all.

[Anonymous No.17654966]

Okay sorry, I don't know why I got so angry (to be honest it was a combination of your post formatting, the spacing is obnoxious and makes it annoying to scroll past). But I still think you should stop saying women are dumb it's such a milquetoast take on lit and It is so easy to say, you don't stand anything to lose from saying it. If you are so sure that women aren't as intelligent (which I'm not faulting you for, it's basically impossible for any intelligent man to not think they are less intelligent) you should view them as a way in which to see the world in a radically different way. They are still half of the population and half of the world any book that can lead to a better understanding of the way they think is worth reading. Yes, Woolf does not compare to Joyce or Proust but dismissing her on the basis of her being a woman is just retarded, which I know you weren't doing but others constantly do on lit, the same people that were probably filtered by Joyce and even Woolf.
And I don't see you as inferior you are obviously a lot more intelligent than me which Is why I don't understand why you still feel the need to reaffirm that women are dumb, which you obviously don't think is that much of a big deal, which I agree on it isn't. I've just seen you say it so many times it's just rather tiresome. Like yes, women are dumb, thank you.

[Anonymous No.17654971]

>>17654966
Meant for you Frater >>17654725

[Anonymous No.17655005]

>>17654966
on average, women are just as intelligent as men. there's just fewer cases of extreme female intelligence but it certainly happens. men also engage in intellectual posturing more so it can seem like they're smarter but when you test people the posturing doesn't work anymore. the truth is you don't have to be a one is 100,000 genius to write an amazing book. you've gotta have some intelligence, sure, but you also need to be creative & understand people deeply.

[Anonymous No.17655008]

>>17655005
I think a lot of people on this board fail as writers because they don't understand humanity- they barely understand themselves.

[Anonymous No.17655037]

>>17652196
Translating Chinese poetry into any European language is fucking retarded. It's like trying to have a conversation with a person who's been dissected and placed in jars ordered by size.

[Anonymous No.17655181]

>>17652407
Hmm I've just been lurking in this thread but that's a pretty good belter of a poem in both French and English, thanks for the share

[Anonymous No.17655656]

>>17653316
>Who else are we suppose to blame?
White men