/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.2356647]

>I think we ought to read only the kind of books that wound and stab us. If the book we are reading doesn't wake us up with a blow on the head, what are we reading it for? ...we need the books that affect us like a disaster, that grieve us deeply, like the death of someone we loved more than ourselves, like being banished into forests far from everyone, like a suicide. A book must be the axe for the frozen sea inside us.
-Franz Kafka

So lit, why don't you do this?

[Anonymous No.2356653]

>>2356647
I love movies like that, books never really hit me in that way.
Interesting you posted that though, thats kinda the reason I'm reading 120 Days of Sodom.

[Anonymous No.2356655]

That feel when farewell to arms... that feel when the Road..

[Anonymous No.2356658]

>>2356647
Are you reading anything like that right now?

[mathfag No.2356667]

i always do that

[Anonymous No.2356668]

>I know that feel
So can we have a "How I acquired said feel" thread?

[Anonymous No.2356672]

>>2356668
By that I mean share books/film that had that effect on us.

I´m about to watch Ikiru for the first time.

[Anonymous No.2356687]

nice ideal but it isn't necessarily helpful for individuals still trying to discover what else is out there and how to appreciate it. i.e. in order to read only books that wound and stab you have to have already read the books before - so you know they meet the condition - or be willing to quit everything early on if it doesn't take a shiv to your soul in the first chapters. either way you restrict yourself and don't account for works that require effort and rereading to 'get' in a full sense or that hit you differently at different points in life. i'd rather read a number of personal stinkers to discover one new personal favorite than just sit and reread the handful i already know.

[mathfag No.2356692]

>>2356687
>in order to read only books that wound and stab you have to have already read the books before - so you know they meet the condition -

uh

no

[Anonymous No.2356694]

>>2356687
>you can't dictate a good book from the first few chapters

[Anonymous No.2356697]

>>2356687
I use to believe that, then I realized that every book I forced myself to read to the very end... never did become any better.

[Anonymous No.2356708]

>>2356647
I do. It's the best way to FEEL.

[Anonymous No.2356714]

>>2356708
Examples of books/film/other media that had that effect on you?

[Anonymous No.2356724]

>>2356708
The best way to feel is reading a book. Crazy cats lurkin

[Anonymous No.2356730]

Fantastic idea. Brb, making a pop up book with the pages cut from sheet metal

[Anonymous No.2356761]

>>2356692

uh yes. you wouldn't know it if a book is about to stab you. Just don't put something spiky around the book while you have your back turned

[Anonymous No.2356762]

>>2356692

Actually dude, you have to read the book before you even know it's going to touch you deeply. Kafka said something dumb here, you never know what's inside the book AND YOU FUCKING READ IT BECAUSE YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENS

if you don't like reading book without being spoiled, fuck you

[Anonymous No.2356766]

I do this but not consistently. Kafka may be my favorite author of all. Not that I'll ever understand all the evil in the world, but I think I've convinced myself of it enough to where I need to think about something else.

[Anonymous No.2356776]

I think he might have read a bit to much schopenhauer.

[Anonymous No.2356785]

He's posturing a bit there, for sure. Which is his prerogative as a writer. Surely a book which uplifts and amazes you has the same value as one that cuts you. But that's not as cool a thing to say. And Kafka was cool.

[Anonymous No.2356792]

>>2356776
Schopenhauer is hard to call rational but I think he was right about his ethics. People don't think the world is suffering because they are sheltered.

[Anonymous No.2356797]

>>2356785
I think people need to be reminded of the problems of the world. People presuppose that the world is good way too much.

[Anonymous No.2356822]

>>2356655

The moment that hits the hardest in A Farewell to Arms, the death of the love interest and child is horribly manipulative on the part of Hemmingway. It was an unnecessary development that in reality sought only to shock, adding little depth.

[Anonymous No.2356825]

>>2356822
lol

[Anonymous No.2356833]

ASOIF fits the describtion for me

[Anonymous No.2356835]

>notice Kafka's use of typically masculine violent and penetrative language
>connect it to his pornography addiction
>disregard another phallocrat

[Anonymous No.2356837]

It's not so important to read books that make you weep or feel a sense of loss. Instead you should be reading books that upset every idea you hold close. If you're left wing read right wing texts, if you're atheist reading religious texts, if you're liberal read conservative texts.

[Anonymous No.2356842]

>>2356837

Reading self-declared ideology of any bent is fucking stupid and counter-productive.
>>2356822
It's spelled with seven "m"s dude.

[Anonymous No.2356851]

>>2356842
not really you should be informed of your antithesis. it would be ignorant and niave to accept without consideration that it's just 'self-declared ideology of any bent'

[Anonymous No.2356853]

An axe would do nothing to a frozen sea. Get you shit together, Kafka.

[Anonymous No.2356858]

>>2356853
there's a textual variant - 'smote the sledded (pol)acks on the ice' that makes better sense.

[Anonymous No.2356865]

>>2356837

I'm a right winger, it's impossible to avoid leftist books.

[Anonymous No.2356866]

How will I know if that will happen without reading the book?

I thought Kafka was supposed to be a smart guy?

[Anonymous No.2356876]

>>2356851

I can only have an "antithesis" if I'm involved in politics on either side. I don't know how offended to be that you're implying I buy into partisan nonsense of any kind.

Some people read for the stories, y'know.

[Anonymous No.2356879]

>>2356876
politics and religion were only examples. do i really need to point that out? you can be as nonpartisan as you like, but you will have ideas that you hold dear. you should challenge these.

>>2356865
bet you don't read them.

[hakas !u/t2Vf0FFs No.2356880]

because i dont want to

[Anonymous No.2356886]

>>2356879

You're assuming that it's always possible to know which ideas are "challenged" by a book before reading it. Which is so crazy I think I'm being trolled here.

As I said, if a book's stance on any subject can be inferred from its title alone, it's more likely to be Ann Coulter than Shakespeare, neh?

And you know damn well which of the two I don't have time for.

[Anonymous No.2356899]

>>2356886
You can read more than the title without reading the actual book, by the way. You can read reviews and descriptions of the books.

why are you being so hostile ? what Im saying is reasonable. You're thinking of it in terms of fiction where it is less appropriate. Obviously if you don't like an author there's not much point in reading it. But it would help to be familiar with it, especially if you have a strong opinion against it or it might even be worthwhile reading it if you know it's got a a wide following and at the very least it diversifies your learning and solidifies your own perceptions.

Please leave accusations of troll out of this. it's juvenile.

[Anonymous No.2356902]

Because I read for fun, obviously.

[Anonymous No.2356906]

>>2356899

This is a misunderstanding. I read fiction - such as Kafka, the focal point of this thread - for entertainment, and to be stimulated imaginatively. I don't read it out of a sense of duty to legitimise or challenge my beliefs. The way you view literature - or the view you are advancing here, in any case - is incompatible with my own.

And the distinction between Coulter and Shakespeare is far more than merely "liking" one better, and you know it.

[Anonymous No.2356914]

>>2356858

[Anonymous No.2356917]

Infinite Jest wounded and stabbed me.