[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 86 KB, 473x282, ShakespearesPub_AF.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4193276 No.4193276[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

1/2

Let’s say you had the number of a lot of famous writers in you cell phone.

You want to go out, relax, have a beer and talk in a pub. What writer would you invite to go with you? Let me first speak about my opinion.

I would invite Shakespeare. Not just because he is one of my favorite writers (Tolstoy, for example, is also one of my favorites and I would never invite him), but also because he really seems to be a cool and chill dude. Just look to his face (in the Chandos Portrait): those sleepy eyes, dat earring, dat hairstyle, dat sensual lips. He was probably very good with the ladies and enjoyed some quiet and light conversation. It is clear that he had a very strong sense of humor, since he wrote lots of comedies, several of them in different comic styles. He also had a very palpable knowledge about brothels – that means that, after some beers, we could go to some cabaret and enjoy the company of the ladies. On top of that: he was the greatest master of language in English and probably in all human languages.

Like I said before: I love the writing of Tolstoy, but he, for example, I would never invite to drink and chill out. The man was an enormous egocentric; he constantly fought with anyone that expressed an opinion different from his one. As he grew old, not satisfied with being famous as a writer, he also wanted to become famous as a prophet, some kind of new apostle. When he drank and whored in his youth he never did it in a calm and festive vein, but nervously and ferociously, and in the next hour we as already regretful and self-immolating himself. When he got old, he simply condemned everything that he enjoyed in his youth. Furthermore, he was not good with women: he had many, but usually poor peasant girls of whom he was the master and mostly prostitutes. Definitely I would not like to hang out with this brother.

>> No.4193277

>>4193276

2/2


Another writer that I love is Rimbaud, but I would also not invite him. He was always in a bad mood and prepared to offend others; he was very quiet most of the time, like an autist. He also did not drink in a calm and joyful way; no: he needed to get comatose drunk and crazy with drugs. Not my sort of thing.

Other famous writer that I am sure that a lot of people would like to invite to drink is Hemingway. I would not do so. He was, like Tolstoy, greatly egotistical and prone to speak several lies about himself, trying to appear more bold and adventurous that he usually was (he even lied about his sexual life with one of his wife – he said to one mutual friend that he had fucked her 3 times in the last night, and when the mutual friend spoke with the woman, she said something like “Alas, if only that was true”). I also would not like to hear him bragging about his hunting in Africa. I would have to say something like: “Look Earn, you are a fucking faggot, yeah, that’s what you are. Do you think that is manly and courageous to shot on a lion that didn’t even saw you; to shot on a creature from a lot of fucking meters away? If you were a real man you would kill the lion with your hands. Actually, if you were a real good person you would not kill animals for no reason.”. Also, Hemingway was a kind of alcoholic, and liked to drink strong stuff, lots of strong stuff. I like beer, and not whisky.

>> No.4193289

A British quiet country pub with ancient wooden furnishings, an open fire and a variety of microbrew ales on tap. George MacDonald, Neil Gaiman, Russell Hoban, China Mieville, Richard Chambers, Ambrose Bierce, PKD, Italo Calvino, Roald Dahl, Angela Carter, Octavia Butler, Arthur Machen, Borges ... all authors I'd like to emulate in some way but who would almost certainly make better drinking companions than all those "great minds" like Shakespeare or Tolstoy. I'd invite Laurie Penny too but mostly because I want to sleep with her. I'd not invite Ligotti but mainly because I can't see him being anything but a drag. PKD might be a bit of a wild card too, depending on how deep into his psychosis he is at the time.

>> No.4193304

>>4193289
>I'd invite Laurie Penny too but mostly because I want to sleep with her

lel. I would do this with Clarice Lispector.

>> No.4193315

>>4193289
>mostly because I want to sleep with her
I want to fuck her.

>> No.4193334

>>4193277

>he was very quiet most of the time, like an autist

your ignorance astounds me

Beckett probably, he seems interesting. but I would consider Pynchon and Salinger, just to know more about them.

>> No.4193344

Definitely Pynchon. I am not a huge fan I am curious about what the guy looks like. I have heard he has a funny personality. I would invite Heidegger, Lacan, Derrida and Kant just so they can clarigy their ideas to me. I would have Hemingway and Mishima I think they would be interesting to talk too. I would invite Karl Marx and Ayn Rand and tell them that both of their philosophies are shit.

>> No.4193350

>>4193344
>and Mishima

He would say after meeting you: Do you even lift, brah? U mirin? U jelly?

>> No.4193372

I'd call my main man Orwell. We'd go for a few pints at a local pub, then eat some pie and just chill.He'd probably be all gloomy and sad in a British way, and I could try and cheer him up. I bet we'd both enjoy that.

>> No.4193390

Definitely Rimbaud but only so I could sleep with him after getting drunk together.

Plato, assuming there's some sort of magical barrier where we understand each other and so on. I'd mostly ask him questions, esp. about his intentions with most of his dialogues like Republic.

Lacan, get him really drunk and have him admit that his 5 min psychoanalysis trials were just him being a greedy person. Then psychoanalyze him and have him tell me his shit.

Freud, but I wouldn't be too intellectual with him.

Maybe Foucault. It would depend on my mood. I'd have to be in a very horny mood because his philosophy always turns me on.

Maybe Zizek for entertainment value. I can't even imagine what he's like when he's drunk. Probably really quiet. Maybe even funnier?

Maybe Kierkegaard and ask him what he thinks of contemporary Christianity in the west.

>> No.4193395

Pushkin, Byron and his posse, also possibly Wilde.

>> No.4193398

>>4193395
Oh yes, definitely Wilde. Forgot good Willy.

>> No.4193402

>>4193344
double dubs. nice.

I bet hanging around with Pynchon is way more fun than reading his books, and I think his books are pretty dang fun.

>> No.4193405

>>4193276
I'm laughing at everyone in this thread. As if a world renowned writer would spend their free time with a bunch of asocial losers like you.

>> No.4193407

>>4193350
He would probably kill after he finds out that not only am I an American I am also a quarter Korean.

>> No.4193411

>>4193405
>implying.

>> No.4193419
File: 100 KB, 780x538, 1380070485353.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4193419

I would invite Hemingway
but after reading OP's rant, I guess I wouldn't invite him twice. Yeah I have acquaintances like that and I can't really stand them

I would also invite Bukowsky, he seems like a more honest man really

Who else? probably chejov, he was raised as a farmer n shit, Horaco Quiroga is another guess, he even looks like my father. Yeah Gabriel García Marquez is a must, I'd listen to his stories all day long.
Kerouac, but just once I guess. Borges would be fun to listen to as well. And I wonder if Steinbeck would have anything nice to say besides hurr durr the peoplez the injustice. Oh fitzgerald maybe

>> No.4193434

>>4193419
That comic is painfully unfunny.

>> No.4193470

>>4193276
You're a terrible writer

>> No.4193484

Everyone in this thread is fucking up. Don't bother these writers with your undergrad level questions, you won't learn anything you couldn't already. Just try to have fun.

As for me, I'd just want the New York School, Frank O'Hara, John Asbery etc. to take me out drinking with the Abstract Expressionists. I have it on good authority that the two groups acted like they influenced each other strictly because they enjoyed drinking with each other. I'd let them choose the bar. Wouldn't ask too much, would probably learn way more about their writing just by seeing what they were like in person.

>> No.4193481

>>4193470

Actually I am not. English is not my first language and I wrote this post very fast, without any review, because I'm at work.

If you want to read something I wrote in my play (translated, of course), here's one of the lines:

"I was sincere: I do not know exactly what is love, but although I do not know him, I must say that it seems a primordial error of our philosophers to recognize only the soul as its mother; only the spirit as his father, denying to the body and any slice and piece of his paternity, as if he was at best a distant uncle, shy and sterile. It’s our body just a mountain range of muscles, with occasional showers of sweat, with a loud echo cave called stomach, swamps of tubular fungi called intestines and burning boilers in the private parts below? Is the brain a simple spongy cloud of tempests, the skin a blanket of grass, the heart a nucleus of bubbling lava? Is our body a mere mountain of meat in which lies hidden the immaculate and bright jewel of the soul? After all, what is the soul? Does she have smell? No. Does she have taste? No. Maybe she has texture? Why, in the same way that the fog has texture. What about the voice: is thought the voice of the soul? Is she a kind of small crystal gnat trapped in the colossus of mud and dust of our gross human body, within which it lies, whispering its will? Unlikely... So, gentlemen , why this ghost, this specter, gets all the credit for all that is beautiful in us humans, whereas our bodies, that are always with us (yes , our bodies abandon us only once) are called servants of addiction, unclean dolls, meat cooked in dirt, pigs sinners? Must the glory of nature be called a muddy rag marionette, a sewage incarnated? That would be an injustice: if we celebrate the cold mosque of the soul, why not also celebrate the carnival of body heat? When something is good for us, and we wish this something to be seen with the paints of superiority, we say we love it, but never use the name of pleasure, being this name something, something bodily, something dirty. And yet, it’s not love the child of pleasure? When, still newborns, we suck the motherly breast, do we not so because it’s good, because it’s pleasurable? And, on the deathbed, when we cover our dying bodies that feel cold with blankets, do we not so because heat is good and pleasurable? Why we live with the people we love? Why, because it’s good. Pleasure, gentlemen, is the one who pulls us through our nose with his sugary finger through the road of life. But how do we feel that something is pleasurable? Well, thorough this walking radar: our body. How then can we know that we really love something? Why, by reading the language of our bodies. So, gentlemen, long life to our bodies, because we can only love while still having them."

U mad ;)

>> No.4193514

>>4193481
It's pretty cringey that you responded by posting what you probably think is your best prose. First two lines were alright but you're stuggling too much trying to force a serious voice that seems out of place. Everything following is pretty awful.

>After all, what is the soul?
This reads like a parody of bad literature
>Cold mosque of the soul, carnival of body heat
Yeesh
>The motherly breast
Stop!
>Why we live with the people we love? Why, because it's good
Oh see I get it because you were going on and on before but now you just gave a simple answer of "it's good" thats real clever huh wow
>So, gentlemen
I tip my fedora to you good sir you are a gentleman and a scholar

Do you show people you know this crap?

>> No.4193523

>>4193289
>Chine Mieville
>JG Borges
>in the same room

You dun goofd

>> No.4193526

>>4193405

many writers are a-social or at least have some empathy for those tendencies. I don't know why you're imagining them as fratdouches.

>> No.4193538

>>4193526
drinking typically negates this. I don't think he's implying that they're fratdouches but you definitley need a certain level of social skill and gravitas even to be able to hock your work and have people think it's good.

>> No.4193546

>>4193514

Not my best prose: only an excerpt chosen at random from a play in verse and prose which has about 400 pages.

Also: this discourse belongs to a character and does not represent my own opinion. My opinion about what is love is much more dry and scientific; actually, I do not have an opinion about it - in general have no opinion about anything.

At the end of the play I did a sort of parody of Plato's Symposium, and several characters make speeches about love, all very different from each other, some in verse, some in prose. This is just one of them. I love creating different characters with different visions of life and different philosophies, for indeed I myself do not like to take a particular view on the world - the chanses on you being wrong are immense.

I have translated a few excerpts from the play. If you want I can post the little I have left.

>> No.4193552

>>4193514
>Do you show people you know this crap?

Also: I doubt you have something better to show.

>> No.4193558

>>4193546
Everything you have said outside of that excerpt makes it seem like you're as smug and enlightened in your euphoria as the speaker

>> No.4193569

>>4193558

It matters little what I am or what is my personality. What matters is that I write better than you (not that this is very hard to do).

>> No.4193570

>>4193276
Kafka. I could tell him my interpretation of A Hunger Artist, and see if I'm right.

>> No.4193573

>>4193558
The thing is you are both smug cunts.

>> No.4193579

>>4193569
You writing better or worse than me doesn't change the fact that you write terrible and it does matter what your personality is because that affects your writing on the most fundamental level.

>> No.4193584

>>4193573

Most likely…lel

But to tell the truth most of the writers were so also. It is natural. And none of us is completely fair with one another. We measure ourselves based on some small pieces of prose and excerpts, in a few posts that fall far short of all that we have done or all that we have in mind. We are unjust with one another.

People appear to be much less than they really are here in 4chan.

>> No.4193593

>>4193579

Well, OK. I do not want to fight anymore.

Forget my rudeness. We all do what we can: the important thing is to keep trying and going straight ahead. I will try harder to be worty of your praise.

>> No.4193648

Foucault, so I could rip apart his sweet, sweet, obscurantist ass.

>> No.4193687

Shakespeare didn't have a cell phone, OP. Just so you know.

>> No.4193749

Nietzsche. I guess he would discriminate me because i'm a woman (?) but i still think it would be interesting to make him a few questions.

also Baudelaire
Poe
Lord Byron

Lovecraft would be pretty interesting too even though i'm not a fan of his writing.

>>4193405

> what's an hypothetical question

>> No.4193808

>>4193481

There is no use in posting anything here on /lit/. There are only 3 options of rate you will get from this guys:

1 - Your stuff is really bad and /lit/ posters will take pleasure in shitting all over what you wrote.

2 - Your stuff is indeed good or even very good and /lit/ poster will become extremely jelly and offend you, looking for imaginary flaws that, if they were within books Pynchon or Joyce, would be lauded instead of criticized. Nobody wants you to succeed and to continue writing: they all want to kill any talent while still in the shell.

3 - If you post something satirical, aiming only to troll, you will receive criticism like "10/10" or "great" or "very good m8", for the simple reason that you do not show any intention to do something serious, and so no /lit/zers will feel threatened by your talent or a willingness to mock your lack of talent.

This place is a shithole. I don’t know why I am here. 4chan it’s like crack or some shitty drug like that.

>> No.4193837

Asimov.

If I could I'd also invite Gore Vidal.

Let's see if I could get them talking about the army as an ice breaker.

>> No.4193908

>>4193648
>topping Foucault
Too obvious.

Power bottom him. It'll give him the shits. Especially when you shout "Inflicted epistemes are deflected by radical subjectivities: IT IS I WHO AM FUCKING YOU."