/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4019149]

Why did Nabokov love Kafka so much when he was the most freudian writer since Dostoevsky and Shakespeare?

[Anonymous No.4019156]

Nabokov's opinions on literature are dogshit-tier, so who cares?

[Anonymous No.4019177]

>Man I fucking suck at being an intellectual. What am I even doing? I hate Homer! God, this is so boring! I can't read Latin but I have to constantly pretend I do. Fuck, my life is a lie.
>Ugh, what's this, another stupid intellectual book. Probably has a thousand references to dead poets I won't get. I just want to do morphine. "Kafka". What a stupid name.
DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR I'M A BUG ISN'T THAT CRAZY XDDDDDDD
>I don't think this book references anything. I can't find anything. It's just weird. Why is it so weird?
>It's short too.
>Hey, maybe if I pretend it's really good, and full of hidden things that only I get, I won't have to pretend to like all those ACTUAL things in stuffy aristocratic literature.
>HEY GUYS! DID YOU KNOW THE TRIAL IS AN ALLEGORY FOR THE EXISTENTIAL ENNUI OF BUZZWORDS? I GET IT! STOP READING THAT PLUTARCH, THIS IS MUCH MORE IMPORTANT, AND MUCH DEEPER! IT'S SO DEEP YOU CAN'T EVEN GET IT! BUT I GET IT.

that feel when literature is dead

[Anonymous No.4019656]

>>4019177
>everyone is secretly me

[Anonymous No.4019672]

>>4019177
You are a special breed of faggot.

[Anonymous No.4019674]

Is it 'Kafkaesque' that the literary cult of Kafka has imposed its own brand of 'Kafkaesque' critical consensus on the world?

[Anonymous No.4019681]

>>4019149
define 'freudian' you dunce;

and how exactly were shakespeare and dusty freudian writers? these writers predate freud, so to call them freudian would be anachronistic;
the correct thing to do would be to call sigismund schlomo a dostoevskyan or shakespearean writer;

kafka was still an artist, the influence of flaubert's detached, precise art overshadowing the influence of any other writer, and this endeared him to nabokov;

i wish freudians would stop trying to take the whole literary world hostage

>>4019177
>>4019156

le die

[Anonymous No.4019682]

>>4019681
Freudian critics have been falling out of favor since they reached critical mass in the '70s; one can only hope the same happens to anyone proclaiming Kafka to be a writer of any merit beyond accidental influence.

[Anonymous No.4019684]

>>4019681
nabokov's opinions on literature and his descent into academic politics, and then using his works to bolster his own petty campus lit crit disputes, which spoil his autobiographical writings for me, are what make him dog-shit tier in some respects.

i respect him as an artist, but fuck his terrible opinions.

[Anonymous No.4019696]

>>4019674

[Anonymous No.4019701]

>>4019696
Just the response I was looking for, thanks.

[Anonymous No.4019704]

>>4019682
Kafka is the best writer of the 20th century. A league of Joyce and Proust.

[Anonymous No.4019705]

>>4019704
above*

[Anonymous No.4019841]

>>4019156
I wouldn't say 'dogshit' since he had his reasons, but his view of literature is very idiosyncratic and should be taken with a hefty pinch of salt. I wish e/lit/ists would stop parroting his opinions word-for-word, it just makes you look like you're too cowardly and thick to think for yourself. Above all else, Nabokov just wanted you to read critically.

[Anonymous No.4019851]

>>4019704
But Proust was just a fag who was gay bcause women weren't like his mother. Kafka relies on nothing but absurd elements. He's shit.

[Anonymous No.4019856]

>>4019851

An absurdist relies on absurd elements?

Stop the fucking presses this is unbelievable.

[Anonymous No.4019860]

>>4019149
As far as I can glean from his few scattered remarks on him, Nabokov admired Kafka for his rigorous honesty and precision as a writer. Nabokov, for example - an entomologist of some renown - was convinced that the "giant beetle" in "The Metamorphosis" was precisely classifiable in terms of species and genus. I.e, it wasn't just some edgy bullshit Kafka thought he'd slap down to get some props.

I don't think there's any such inconsistency here as you appear to suggest. We know from Kafka's diaries that he had read Freud - whom, as you rightly suppose, Nabokov despised - but he was by no means a "Freudian". Take a look at his rather baffling next-day dissection of his breakthrough story "The Judgment" if you want to see how large Freud loomed in Kafka's understanding of his own writing. This famous, dream-like story of the actual verbal execution of a son by a father - which, twenty years later, the Oedipalists were swarming all over like maggots over a dead dog - suggests nothing more concrete or elaborate to Kafka than some vague "thoughts of Freud".

[Anonymous No.4019861]

>>4019149
>>4019177
>>4019682

I will never tire of watching you plebs bash Kafka because you think yourself superior.

Enjoy being wrong all your life.

[Anonymous No.4019866]

>>4019856
You're both idiots, and I doubt if you've read 10 pages of Kafka between you.
He wasn't an "Absurdist" - either in terms of his place in literary history, or substantially.
His writing comprises many passages which need fear no comparison with the very greatest achievements of Naturalism or Realism, such as the description of the death of Karl Rossman's young girlfriend's mother in "America".
The poster above is correct. There are three monumental geniuses in twentieth-century literature: Joyce, Proust, and Kafka.
But Kafka is far and away the greatest of these three. He practiced literature at such a sublime level of achievement that he is hardly to be mentioned in the same breath as even these two other consummate craftsmen.

[Anonymous No.4019874]

>>4019866
>There are three monumental geniuses in twentieth-century literature: Joyce, Proust, and Kafka.

Ahem.

[Anonymous No.4019887]

>>4019874
Borges is marvellously entertaining, and almost boundlessly skilful. But he is essentially an author of self-conscious, artificial pastiches - as, perhaps, every author born after about 1900 is condemned to be, given the almost superhumanly great achievement of the "generation of 1880" (so: Proust, Joyce and Kafka again).

This is particularly glaringly obvious as Borges appreciated the power and uniqueness of Kafka's work with a clarity few others have been able to muster and comes admirably close to successfully imitating this inimitable uniqueness in several of his stories.

Something like "The Library at Babel" or the other, similar "Lottery" story are, I think we can say with confidence, the closest that ANYONE is ever going to get to recapturing "that Kafka feel".
But I think we can say with the same degree of certainty that these marvellous stories of Borges's are recognizable, in the last analysis, as careful, conscious CONSTRUCTIONS, "games with mirrors", as he himself would surely freely have admitted.
That wasn't the case with Kafka. There is an astonishing authenticity to what Kafka did - something of the nature of genuine VISION such as not been seen in Western literature since antiquity - that sets him off even from the great modernist craftsmen and "constructionists" Joyce and Proust, and a LONG way off from even the very greatest of the fathers of post-modernism, among whom Borges holds the first and highest place

[Anonymous No.4019890]

>>4019887
Oh shit, inb4 I was five months out with "born out after 1900".
Sure, B. was born in August 1899, but YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN

[Anonymous No.4019901]

>>4019887
You seem like a cool guy, but the notion of the "big three" precluding any further literary development is a bit much, isn't it? Unless you believe literature is dead or something.

[Anonymous No.4019912]

>>4019887
>But I think we can say with the same degree of certainty that these marvellous stories of Borges's are recognizable, in the last analysis, as careful, conscious CONSTRUCTIONS, "games with mirrors", as he himself would surely freely have admitted.
>That wasn't the case with Kafka.

But I think that's just a difference in style and intent rather than in talent or merit. I'd say Borges's influence on subsequent literature is just as pervasive as Kafka's, or possibly even more so if you include the fields of continental philosophy.

[Anonymous No.4019913]

>>4019866

[Anonymous No.4019916]

>>4019913
Everything she did, Joyce already did better.

[Anonymous No.4019927]

>>4019916
Joyce didn't do anything like Jacob's Room though I take your point

[Anonymous No.4019939]

>>4019901
see
>>4019177

I've only read The Metamorphosis, but how exactly is it superior to Joyce or Proust's, well, ANYTHING?

Joyce's SOC style in Portrait's sort-of-autobiographical kunstlerroman was very psychologically revealing and on-point; his unorthodox style-shifting in Ulysses made for an enjoyable novel, despite the painful amount of obscure references into his life; and Dubliners is pretty much the greatest anthology ever. Seriously, The Dead and The Metamorphosis are similar in length, and I'd actually consider The Dead to be superior.

I also think that Woolf, on the merit of To the Lighthouse alone, is superior to Kafka. Sure, he captures the cruelty in life without being preachy or beating you over the head, but her style and ideas are more topical and less-done - the role of women in the arts, and the purpose of art in general.

[Anonymous No.4019941]

>>4019939

>I've only read The Metamorphosis

And into the trash goes the post.

[Anonymous No.4019945]

>>4019939
>Seriously, The Dead and The Metamorphosis are similar in length, and I'd actually consider The Dead to be superior.

i'd agree with that, even as a fan of kafka. the dead is more nuanced and subtle and pertinent to real life

[Anonymous No.4019948]

>>4019941
so is The Trial better? Or is it just more "life is brutish, short, and miserable and I write in an evenhanded empty tone that makes empathizing with my characters difficult" type stuff.

I don't see what Kafka did as being so revolutionary that you'd consider him to be EASILY better than Joyce. Can you explain what it is about him that is so incredible? I'm pretty curious: I don't want to have overlooked a major part of canon.

>>4019945
yeah man, although really every story in Dubliners has that same incredible subtlety commingled with ridiculously real pathos.

[Anonymous No.4020022]

>>4019860
Everything you said suggests he was a Freudian.

[Anonymous No.4020033]

Holy fuck this is the worst post I've ever seen on /lit/, why are you all replying?

[Anonymous No.4020036]

>>4020033
Have you read a biography of Kafka?

The man had serious daddy issues.

[Anonymous No.4020039]

>>4020036
I don't know much about Kafka, but calling Dostoevsky and Shakespeare "Freudian" makes me wanna puke.

[Anonymous No.4020054]

>>4020039
Tell that to Hamlet hesitating to kill Polonius.

[Anonymous No.4020078]

>>4020054
hamlet didn't hesitate killing polonius (and even if he did, what are you implying, that hesitation in the face of murder is somehow a freudian phenomenon?), in point of fact, hamlet assumed that it was claudius behind the arras;

this is an interesting point to note because hamlet has then killed claudius twice, the first murder having been committed under the assumption that it was claudius.

>>4020039
yea, verily

[Anonymous No.4020080]

>>4020078
Ah, yeah, I meant Claudius.

He hesitates to kill him and then what happens? He goes to see his mother.

[Anonymous No.4020083]

>>4020080
You're legitimately dumb.

[Anonymous No.4020088]

>>4020083
No. He hesitates because he's thinking about his mother and then he goes to see her and has an almost violent and dare I say sexual confrontation with her.

[Anonymous No.4020092]

>>4020054
Shakespeare is only Freudian because Freud developed his system of psychoanalysis in part by reading Shakespeare. The behaviors and structures of the human psyche Freud *perceived* in the work of Shakespeare and in the cultures which grew out of the milieu Shakespeare, among others, observed and participated in--these structures *informed* Freud as he developed his theses.

Ergo, Shakespeare seems Freudian, but asserting Shakespeare *is* "Freudian" puts the cart before the horse.

[Anonymous No.4020103]

>>4020092
Sure.

But will we ever be able to read Hamlet without thinking of the Oedipal complex? I doubt it's possible.

[Anonymous No.4020115]

>>4020092
freud is shakespearean

>>4020080
wait, hesitates? the moment he realizes that someone is behind the arras (and wrongly assumes that it's claudius) he strikes with his bodkin and that's it.

and considering that hamlet's mother was in the room when the murder happened, i'd say it's not very odd that hamlet would say something to his mother.

[Anonymous No.4020116]

>>4019149
Because Nabokov, as a critic, was full of shit and his own autobiography goes against all of his critical principles.

[Anonymous No.4020120]

>>4020115
Before when he hesitates to kill Claudius because he's praying. Then he visits his mother, then he kills Polonius.

[Anonymous No.4020126]

>>4020103
No, but there are countless other readings of Hamlet which are perfectly valid as well. We should not classify an author by someone's preferred method of analysis, no matter how prominent. After all, Freudian analysis is something you can apply to pretty much any work; does that mean all authors are Freudian?

I've never dived deeply into criticism of Shakespeare, and I don't know the current discussions going on in Academia, but I can assure you Freudian interpretations of his work will be on the wane someday, if they aren't long gone already.

[Anonymous No.4020138]

>>4020126
>but I can assure you Freudian interpretations of his work will be on the wane someday, if they aren't long gone already.

They aren't.

There's a reason why Freud considered Hamlet, Brothers Karamazov and Oedipus Rex to be the pinnacles of western literature.

If he had read Kafka he would have praised him to the skies.

[Anonymous No.4020155]

ITT:
>OH JOYCE, LET ME SUCK THAT COCK OF YOURS, PLEASE! IT'S SO IRISH!
>KAFKA CAN GO FUCK HIMSELF, HE WROTE BOOKS THAT WEREN'T FULL OF REFERENCES AND HAD STUFF THAT COULDN'T HAPPEN

[Anonymous No.4020457]

I've only read his shorts, but in those what I liked about him was he takes an idea and shows why it's depressing/hilarious through an extended metaphor of sorts (examples: Penal Colony = sunk-cost/bureaucracy, Metamorphosis = crushing weight of having others depend on you, that letter story = lying to impress people/never writing.)

As far as high-lighting things about the world goes he's no real different from any other acclaimed writer, but what really separates him is that, through the use of the extended metaphor, he does this in ways that are novel and interesting (he especially had a good knack for knowing what unnerves people). In this sense, in the thing I would argue separates him from most writers of his age, I don't think he's similar to Dostoevsky or Joyce at all, since both of those writers went the opposite end and showed the themes-of-life through extreme realism. So that someone would even sit the two next to each other and compare, when they truly are apples and oranges, is kind of absurd.

[Anonymous No.4020486]

>>4020457
just to clarify I wasn't saying that Dosty and Joyce and Kafka were in the same time period; the fragment before that was a completely independent clause.

[Anonymous No.4020542]

I'm german and it's pretty rare for people to read Kafka in a non-freudian manner.

[Anonymous No.4020548]

>>4020120
because he wants to punish Claudius. I'm sure you know that to kill Claudius then would be, to Hamlet, to send him to heaven. Hamlet wants hom to SUFFER in hellfire.

[Anonymous No.4020563]

>>4019939
>Joyce's SOC style in Portrait's sort-of-autobiographical kunstlerroman was very psychologically revealing and on-point

Portrait is an artistic failure. It's not surprising however, as artists themselves are rarely a good subject for art. You can imagine severely uninspired wannabe poets in coffeehouses struggling to find a subject and ending up writing some shit poem which is about how deeply and profound they struggle to "express themselves", i.e. a poem about writing poems.

> his unorthodox style-shifting in Ulysses made for an enjoyable novel, despite the painful amount of obscure references into his life

Ulysses is ambitious and coherent. It's a defining moment of modernist literature. It's probably his best work. As a statement and summary of modernism it probably deserves to be named a classic.

>Seriously, The Dead and The Metamorphosis are similar in length, and I'd actually consider The Dead to be superior.

The Dead is amateurish, The Metamorphosis is a literary classic. There's a great distance between the two.

Kafka is greater than Joyce. Nobody has written the feelings of depersonalization, existential angst and dread, etc., better than he. His work is so relevant to modern life, it captures it so perfectly down to the very way he arranges the words in a sentence.

[Anonymous No.4020570]

Ulysses is a shit novel, very third rate.

[Anonymous No.4020578]

>>4020457
yeah, Kafka was a break from realism and one of the central reasons why he is so great and such a large step forward.
he managed to write in such a way that kept the kind of language and rhythm of a realist novel but put in absurd metaphors and allegories and surreal experiences so as to undermine the realist ideal of "presenting reality as it is". By using typical realist language to present reality as it evidently wasn't (but in a metaphorical way, to present it as it most certainly is) he criticizes the realists for thinking that their language was somehow inherently more close to reality than the language of their predecessors.
In this sense I think Kafka is more important than Joyce and Proust and any other 20th century author, because realism has been such a dominating force since the decline of romanticism and Kafka presages the end of the realist conception of art.

[No. 1 No.4020806]

>>4020563
>Portrait is an artistic failure
>poem about writing poems

How is Portrait a failure? It's less an author writing about writing/expressing himself and more about how the author realized HOW he could express himself. I don't think it was metafictional at all. It's just overtly about Joyce's life, which I think is kind of lame, because authors do their best work when they divorce their own lives from the limelight of their fiction.

Kafka was a paranoid schizophrenic, and the pain and suffering which that caused him certainly influenced his themes of depersonalization and dread, as well as the bizarre motifs of his work (turning into a bug, a man who starves himself to death for attention, a man who is charged with a crime he knows he did not commit and yet never questions ths charges, etc).

>Ulysses is ambitious and coherent
i never said it wasn't, haha.

>The Dead is amateurish
how so? You're not really giving me the meat and potatoes of your argument, but just stating your (as of now) unsupported opinion.
I think The Dead is an incredibly deep piece of literature, focusing on the pretensions of man and the hemiplagia of not just Dublin, but all of western society.

The works are very different, but personally I enjoyed The Dead more, and certainly not weak in any way.

>Nobody has written the feelings of depersonalization ... better than he.
Have you read the MacAndrew Notes From Underground? He actually does this, better than (I felt) Kafka did.

[Celebes !!NWFwVGUkpTc No.4020947]

>>4019149
>Implying Kafka belongs to the Shakespeare founded Freudian analysis crowd and not the Cervantes founded existentialist crowd

Freud obviously rubbed off on Kafka but not more than Dostoevsky (one of his 'blood brothers')

[Celebes !!NWFwVGUkpTc No.4020964]

>>4019874
>>4019866
>There are three monumental geniuses in twentieth-century literature: Joyce, Proust, and Kafka.

He's right, but then again Beckett may deserve a spot on that list

[Celebes !!NWFwVGUkpTc No.4020968]

>>4019939
>>4019941
>thinks he understands Kafka's aesthetics
>hasn't read The Trial

Christ.

>>4020039
why?

>>4020155
Yes to the first, no to the second.

[Anonymous No.4021204]

>>4020548
> muh surface analysis
> i just wanna ignore muh unconscious drives

Face it, deep within Hamlet's psyche is an Oedipal complex and his hesitation to kill Claudius is symptomatic this.

[Anonymous No.4021322]

>>4020563
How is The Dead amateurish? The prose is so beautiful, the themes are just as relevant too.

[Celebes !!NWFwVGUkpTc No.4021332]

>>4020563
>Kafka is greater than Joyce.
lek

[Anonymous No.4021336]

>>4021332
>>Kafka is greater than Joyce.
Agreed.

[Celebes !!NWFwVGUkpTc No.4021342]

>>4021336
How could you be this shortsighted?

Kafka had an absurdly powerful creative mind, but so did Joyce + everything else.

[Anonymous No.4021347]

>>4021342

[No. 1 No.4021352]

>>4021204
uhm Claudius isn't his father figure... are you saying that he refuses to kill the killer of his father because he agrees with what he did?

that's interesting, if so.

[Anonymous No.4021364]

>>4021342
Joyce is severely overrated.

[Celebes !!NWFwVGUkpTc No.4021365]

>>4021347
Don't worry. We were all there once.

[Celebes !!NWFwVGUkpTc No.4021431]

>>4021364
top shekel

[Anonymous No.4021758]

>>4020563
Totally agree with you on all points.

Apart from Ulysses, everything Joyce wrote was not great at all.

[Anonymous No.4022710]

Kafka and Freud would have loved each other.

top goy indeed

[Anonymous No.4022798]

meh why did you guys stop for?

[Anonymous No.4022833]

>>4021364
what about his work, specifically, is not artistically successful, and why?

[Anonymous No.4022857]

>>4020968
>why?

Because Freud was a hack, and absolutely nothing he wrote about is taken seriously anymore. He was the spark for the psychology movement, but all his concepts are complete pseudo-science. He wanted to fuck his mom--therefore he concluded that all men wanted to fuck their mothers.

>the mind is split into ego, id, and super ego!
>where is your proof, fraud--I mean, Mr. Freud?
>proof? I AM A PSYCHO ANALYST, WHAT ARE YOU? THE MIND IS SPLIT INTO THOSE THINGS. DISAGREE AND ILL SHOVE THE BURNING END OF THIS CIGAR INTO YOUR FOREHEAD. BY THE WAY, THIS CIGAR REPRESENTS MY SUBCONSCIOUS DESIRE TO SUCK ON A NIPPLE. IF YOU EVER SEE A WOMAN SMOKING OR HOLDING ANY LONG CYLINDRICAL OBJECT, SHE HAS PENIS ENVY AND WISHES SHE WAS A MAN.

These are things that Freud really believes. Here is Freud's dream analysis:

>ALL CREVICES ARE VAGINAS
>ALL LONG SHAFTS ARE DICKS

He'd be a A+ 4chan poster if he was alive today.

[Anonymous No.4022894]

>>4022857
>>4022857
you seem super butthurt for some reason

[Anonymous No.4022901]

>>4022894
Disappointed that people still acknowledge Freud for being anything more than a stepping stone.

[Anonymous No.4022949]

>>4022857
>b-but I took psych 101 and the prof said Freud was a cokehead, it's not like I need to actually read his works to say that he's a cis-previlaged misogynist scumbag, r-right?

[Anonymous No.4022995]

>>the mind is split into ego, id, and super ego!

more like you merely have a superficial understanding of Freud and since you've read that some of his theories are outdated you decided to have the opinion that he's a hack

that's about as stupid as dismissing Descartes' philosophy and its importance because later philosophers showed that his doubt wasn't truly absolute

[mrthrills !aAnvD.FqpM No.4023009]

>>4022949
For the most part, Psychoanalysis really is just an antique paradigm, anon -- like the bust of an old, dead professor that sits in a university dean's office.

While I do think its integral in understanding the western culture of the early-to-mid 20th century, it really has no practical applications in the field of psychology anymore.

[Anonymous No.4023159]

>>4023009
But looking at Freud as a psychologist is fundamentally retarded, he was first and foremost always a philosopher

[Anonymous No.4023186]

>>4022995
> he stole all his ideas from Plato tripartite soul
> his theories aren't outdated

[Anonymous No.4023190]

>>4023159
Do you realize how butthurt he would have gotten had you told him he was primarily a philosopher?

Freud always considered himself a scientist.

[Anonymous No.4024264]

>>4019149
nabokov is a shithead

[Celebes !!NWFwVGUkpTc No.4024739]

>>4022857
>BY THE WAY, THIS CIGAR REPRESENTS MY SUBCONSCIOUS DESIRE TO SUCK ON A NIPPLE.

/dead

[Anonymous No.4024748]

>>4023009
Psychoanalytic therapy is still in practice today, with plenty of success[1]. The problem is that people like you (don't take this personally) espouse this conventional wisdom without ever having put in the research or looked into it much at all. The types of things people accuse Freud of (essentially, not adhering to empiricism) is what many people ITT are doing by just saying bold things without actual criticism or studies.

[1]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19205963

[Anonymous No.4025486]

>>4024748
I bet you think Lacanian therapy is effective too

[Anonymous No.4025490]

>>4025486
Not if you can afford it.

[Anonymous No.4027417]

freud ruined literature

[Anonymous No.4027423]

>>4022857
we've heard this time and time again but the way in which you present it is no more insightful or persuasive than any of the others.

[Anonymous No.4027427]

>>4025486
i bet you haven't read much lacan either

[Anonymous No.4027430]

>>4027417
doesn't seem like your problem is really w. freud or even w. the

[Anonymous No.4027445]

>>4019912
>>4019887

Why are we privileging authenticity over self conscious construction?

[Anonymous No.4028476]

>>4027445
> why are we privileging authenticity over artificiality

hmmm

[Anonymous No.4028485]

>>4019177
wow, described all of literary studies in one post

/lit/ is pretty crazy sometimes

[Anonymous No.4028616]

>>4028476

I don't buy it. I don't think originality is clearly superior to artificiality.

[Anonymous No.4028641]

>not reading the best Kafkaesque writer
cum on /lit/ step it up

[Anonymous No.4029314]

just out of curiosity how many of you have read kafka in the original language

[Anonymous No.4029324]

>>4028641
>kafkaesque
>settling for anything but the real thing
why?

[Anonymous No.4029348]

So did Nabokov rip off The Trial or was he just trolling everyone?

[Anonymous No.4029358]

>>4029314
I'm German so meeee

[Anonymous No.4029363]

>>4029358
your people make fantastic biscuits.

[Anonymous No.4029386]

>>4029363
You should try our bread too

BROT IST LECKER

[Anonymous No.4029395]

>>4029348
yeah that is the funniest thing ever,and he thinks so great of his rip off book.

[Anonymous No.4029402]

>>4029386
Unless we're talking brotchen, no way.

[Anonymous No.4029412]

>>4029386
it goes a bit stale when you try to import it

[Anonymous No.4029427]

>>4029314
see
>>4020542

[Anonymous No.4029429]

>>4029363
Germany makes the best everything barring names and benevolent dictators

[Anonymous No.4029439]

>>4029363
>>4029386
You shouldn't eat gluten.

Eat rice instead, or quinoa.

For your health.

[Anonymous No.4029441]

>>4029412
>it goes a bit stale
>German bread
It doesn't even do that.

[Anonymous No.4029445]

>>4029439
>You shouldn't eat gluten.

Not even on /lit/ are you safe from pseudo-scientific health assholes.

[Anonymous No.4029451]

>>4029441
it does after being kicked about for two weeks on a freight ship

[Anonymous No.4029454]

>>4029445
You must eat a rainbow of foods, because colours are like vitamins or something. And don't eat anything after 6 or Gremlins will explode out of your ears.

[Anonymous No.4029461]

>>4029451
It goes aboard as a brick, it comes ashore as a brick. Even if you get it freshly fired from the kiln, it is just as brick like as any other time.

[Anonymous No.4029474]

>>4029461
Eat your bread! Because life is suffering.

[Anonymous No.4029483]

>>4029474
Lacan strikes again...

[Anonymous No.4029488]

>>4029474
im a big fan of bread

[Anonymous No.4029495]

>>4029488
Would you read a story about the Earl of Sandwich travelling France and going on Scarlet Pimpernel style adventures under the nom de plume Croque Monsieur?

[Anonymous No.4029505]

>>4029495
yeah fuck it why not

you've gotta live some time right?

[Anonymous No.4029506]

>>4029495
I'm the German from earlier and FUCK YEAH I WOULD

[Anonymous No.4029591]

>>4029324
Because Kafka isn't alive anymore to make new content, dummkopf!

[Anonymous No.4029592]

>>4029591
TOLDENEYE.

[Anonymous No.4030030]

>>4029445
It's not really pseudo-science. Anyone will tell you it's easier to digest rice.

Why don't asians get fat?

[Anonymous No.4031215]

>>4030030
because they eat like 2 bites and call it a day
they're PUSSIES

[Anonymous No.4031535]

>>4031215
That's simply not true.

Everyone knows starches are harder to digest.

[Anonymous No.4031554]

>>4021322
>The themes are just as relevant too
Nobody who has any real understanding of lit talks about it like this. Why don't you say Joyce has great similes too while you're at it.

[Anonymous No.4031558]

>>4028641
>murakami
>not just best seller trash with a veil of quirky randumness to pander to undergrad mumford fans
omg i lurrrvv cats too haha!

[Anonymous No.4031567]

>>4031558
Heheh, mysterious phone call when I'm making pasta. Oh no, it's turning into an obscene call! Hehehehe.

Wish that would happen to me. Heheh. I'm colleged educated.

[Anonymous No.4031573]

>>4031554
>no true scotsman

please go.