[ 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: 859 KB, 477x768, image.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8999658 No.8999658[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

>read excellent book
>look up author
>he is right wing
Why are all great books produced by right wingers?

>> No.8999661
File: 55 KB, 500x500, bigone.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8999661

>> No.8999668

>>8999661
How is this bait? You know it's true, otherwise you would have posted counterexamples instead of a meme image

>> No.8999670

>>8999658
Were simply more intellectual than leftists. Because right-wingers are concerned with facts, rationality, logic, science, and we understand spirituality, existentiality, loyalty, and ethics.

Meanwhile inferior retarded leftist cucks think with their feelings and deny objective reality. This, in turn, makes their literature full of lies, falsehoods, and clichees, and is not filled with the passion, emotion, insight, depth, and complexity of the white conservative male

>> No.8999674

>>8999658
>Why are all great books produced by right wingers?
Because atheists cannot write great books.

>> No.8999684

>>8999658
>political partisanship
You live in an intellectual prison.

>>8999674
>believing in fairies
And you're just a retard.

>> No.8999696

>>8999670
>trying this hard

>> No.8999698
File: 36 KB, 840x650, image.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8999698

>>8999684

>> No.8999704

What right-wing authors are you talking about, OP?

>> No.8999705

>>8999658
I'll play Devil’s Advocate here. Can you give us some examples?

>> No.8999706

>>8999698
>talking to bait
There's a difference between supporting a candidate and observing everything in life through the lens of political affinity.

>> No.8999719

>>8999698

>Lol you fucking idiot, what do you mean you don't want to either have your asshole ripped apart by a syphilitic hobo with an elephant dick OR eat the rancid hepatitis shit out of a sweaty truckers asshole?! You have to choose you stupid fag lolol. There are exactly these two options and choosing neither just means you're an indecisive idiot with a superiority complex

WEW
LAD
ENOUGH

>> No.8999722

>>8999705
Celine senpai

>> No.8999732

>>8999698
Fuck your ms paint drawings
Faggots like you who view politics as a team sport are the worst type of people

>> No.8999743

>>8999722
Are you referring to a book or an author?

>> No.8999750

>>8999743
Louis Ferdinand Celine. Great author but quite the anti semite. It doesn't really make it into his fiction, although a lot of misanthropy does. The pamplets he wrote though... I believe some Nazi official said they were too extreme.

>> No.8999771

>>8999704
>>8999705
Shakespeare for one.

>> No.8999787

>>8999658
Probably because your definition of what is "great" fits your own preconceived political notions, mate.

>paying any sort of serious mind to an authors minor political spiels
You should probably just stop reading. I mean, yeah, I'll concede that E.M. Forester has some pretty hard-cut views on urbanization, but Howards End has not been perserved becaue of that. Isolating an author's political views is a trite observation at best that is critically more adolescent than pointing out an author's sexual orientation and trying to tie all the events of a book back ti that fact (at least then you can have some fun with psychoanalysis and queer theory that requires you to attune some critical eye).

>> No.8999791

>>8999705
T.S. Eliot
Borges
Evelyn Waugh
Solzhenitsyn
Dostoyevsky
Nabokov

>> No.8999793

>>8999787
>hello I am an undergrad, my TA taught me to separate the work from the author even though the author necessarily injects his worldview into the work

>> No.8999805

>>8999791
>Solzhenitsyn
>Dostoyevsky
>Nabokov

>"I have no idea what I'm talking about" the Post

>> No.8999815

>>8999793
Where did I advocate seperating the author from the work?

I'm not that naive. But I'm also not naive enough to think that any Art survived because of its "political context", unless you conflate politics in that Orwellian way to include literally everything and in that case I say
>idealistic aesthetics
And run away into the heaven of the forms

Though, I agree, that would be the implicit argument in 1000% of other posters because the academy is still gagging on Barthes

>> No.8999844

Who is Sartre
Who is Gorky
Who is Camus
Who is Bertrand Russel
Who is Tolstoi
???????????

>> No.8999862

>>8999791
>T.S. Eliot
pleb as fuck

>> No.8999878

>>8999674
>implying all left-wingers are atheists

>> No.8999883

>>8999791
Nabokov was a liberal mate, though I suppose that counts as right-wing given the context...

>> No.8999906

>>8999805
they're russian so they're all commies am i rite
>>8999883
classical liberalism is right-wing these days

>> No.8999911

>>8999906
They're not all commies, but none of them were right wing, you retard.

>> No.8999917

>>8999911
Dostoyevsky and Solzhenitsyn were both deeply conservative, Nabokov was a classical liberal. You're the retard here, right-wing doesn't mean "crazy Fox News/Tea Party nutjob".

>> No.8999943

THE

FUCKING

REDPILL

>> No.8999950

>>8999917
>they opposed left ideas at the time, so they were deeply conservative
One was a religious nut, the other a reactionary dissident - the views they held didn't really overlap much with the right wing as defined today. Trust me, they're covered fairly well in Russian schools.

>> No.8999956

>>8999950
they would both have browsed /pol/ today, though.

>> No.8999970

>>8999950
Both left-wing and right-wing are very broad spectrums, and if you're going to put either of them in one these "sides", they'd fit more in the Right than in the Left. They weren't free-market supporters and wouldn't fit with the "neoliberal" right that is prevalent in Anglo countries, but neither does the French Nouvelle Droite, which is still a right-wing movement.

>> No.9000232

>>8999658
Because it's a more pure form of ideology. You hold your ground on a stance instead of changing it everytime a single person gets offended by your stance.

>> No.9000239

>>8999743
>posts on /lit/ hasn't heard of Celine
Come on

>> No.9000247

>>8999719
Other parties exist. I bet there's one special enough for you.

>> No.9000276

>>8999970
neo-liberalism would not have been considered right-wing in those days anyway. Traditional conservatives are rightly opposed to free market liberalism.

>> No.9000279
File: 120 KB, 600x600, 34685086_p0.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9000279

>>8999658
>read excellent book
>look up author
>he is a strong Aryan oral tradition
Why are all great books produced by strong Aryan oral traditions?

>> No.9000286

S T R O N G
A R Y A N
O R A L
T R A D I T I O N

>> No.9000293

>>9000286
>so shit that they cant write down
lmao

>> No.9000296
File: 18 KB, 480x360, beebat.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9000296

YHBT
YHL
HAND

>> No.9000298

>>9000286
TRRR

>> No.9000299

>>9000293
SO STRONG WORDS FAIL TO FIND INK SO PERMANENT THAT IT COULD STAY ON THE PAPEEEEEEEEER

FUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARK

ACTIVATED SLAVIC SPACE MAGICK CONSPIRACY 2K17

JUST WEAR SHOES THEORY

>> No.9000302

>>9000293
>so mentally degenerated he needs to write it down in Semitic letters

>> No.9000324

GONIAL ANGLE TO THE MAXXX IF YOU KEEP THAT ARYAN ORAL TRADITION TO THE BOOT STRONG AS BYRON WHEN HE WASBOXING

>> No.9000342

>>8999719
>>>plebbit

>> No.9000352
File: 3.62 MB, 400x400, lel red hat awwoooo.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9000352

>> No.9000373

>>8999771
>right wingers
>Shakespeare

Are you sure about that?

>> No.9000540

>>9000293
>he can't remember things

>> No.9000566

Subordinating your readership to a contemporary political ideology means you're doing it all wrong.

The vast majority of things that occur have nothing to do with politics: sun, moon, ocean, forest, town, home, cold etc.

These entities, far more basic and elementary than the EXTREMELY ideological realm of politics (which deals in an incomprehensible mess of idea transactions) are the stuff which great literature is concerned with.

I can't stress this enough, especially on this board. Your are not an essentially political being, and your thoughts (and readings) should reflect that.

>> No.9000575

>>8999658
>Why are all great books produced by right wingers?

How about the fact that they aren't just right wingers. They're typically classic conservatives. Don't lump them in with the rest of the right-wing. There is a difference because the entirety of the right-wing is full of different ideologies that have completely bastardized what it means to be conservative. Do not use these authors to promote ideologies or philosophies which they did not solely because they might happen to lean more to your side of the political spectrum.

>> No.9000577

>>8999771

Shakespeare thought about everything, so he thought about politics, and political situations occur in his plays, sure.

Anyone who thinks they can extrapolate an exact political ideology out of that is over-reaching: you can't know more about Shakespeare than he wishes to tell you. As a matter of fact you can only know less, since he outwits and outwrites all of us.

Shakespeare is interested in themes which ultimately transcend the particulars of any given historical moment: ie, the non-political.

>> No.9000578

>>9000566
"Home" certainly can be political, and almost all literature is about human relationships, which -are- politics.
The trick isn't to avoid things the matter of politics, but to view it through the poetic/scientific lens rather than the political one.

>> No.9000583
File: 857 KB, 851x850, 1482797339122.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9000583

>>9000566
this desu

politics is pleb garbage

>>9000578
Human relatonships are not politics. The "everything is political" plebeian mantra is an a postieri for being compulsively politics.

Politics refers to things related to the preferred ordering of society, not the organic way people personally behave.

>> No.9000585
File: 11 KB, 259x194, Bird_sanctuary.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9000585

>>8999658
>implying that authors of yesteryear have the same sentiments of conservashits of this year


chances are any author whom you're referring to (other than Spengler or Evola) would be absolutely appalled by the state of conservatism these days.

>> No.9000586

>implying politics exist
you are just a brainlet which cares about some ideology.
Any piece of work can be understood as radically Marxist, or complete fascist, or anything in between. As ideology just sets the way we interpret things.
Dostoevsky was one of the favorite writers of Joseph Stalin.

>> No.9000590

>>9000578

We could go on and on about this but we'd both be kidding ourselves (we're not qualified to carry on a discussion like this even if we can pretend to).

Someone could say something about Aristotle's political animal, about the primacy of political questions to Plato's philosophical thought, about the essentially political nature of man, about politics being essentially social etc.

But I'll just try to re-state my position here. It would embarassing if someone read Emily Dickinson to see whether or not her views conform to the 2016 DNC Platform, wouldn't it?

Politics should be inspired by literature, but reading (*criticism*) should never be a primarily or essentially political activity.

You can try and squeeze giants like Shakespeare or Aristotle into our little pill containers ("conservative", "Libertarian", "left wing" etc.) if you really want to, but it's a waste of time and you'll be distorting their ideas beyond familiarity when you try and build isomorphism between them and contemporary political ideologies.

>> No.9000591

>>9000583
>Human relatonships are not politics. The "everything is political" plebeian mantra is an a postieri for being compulsively politics.
>Politics refers to things related to the preferred ordering of society, not the organic way people personally behave.
Agreed in intention. I should have said that human relationships are the -matter- of politics, sorry, but that the -form- of politics is the judgment of them. Or something like that.

>> No.9001029

>>8999805
Solzhenitsyn was literally a putinfag by the end of his life. Dosto hated bulgarians for being too modern. You are right. They aren't right-wing, they are reactionary.

>> No.9001049
File: 93 KB, 638x800, 1482253165807.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9001049

>>9000585

How would they feel about the state of liberalism these days?

>> No.9001062

>>9001029
dosto basically rejected politics as a pathetic attempt to relieve unending suffering

>> No.9001190

>>9000000
>>8999999

>> No.9001191

>>8999805
How is Solzhenitsyn not right-wing? Did you ever read anything he wrote?

>> No.9001200

>>8999844
Apart from Tolstoi, those are all pretty bad desu.
Also,
>Gorky

>> No.9001218

>>9000566
Great post. Guess there's still hope for /lit/ after all.

>> No.9001389

>>9000577
He is absolutely in line with conservative thinking

>> No.9001684

>>8999674
>he hasnt read david g mcafee

>> No.9001801
File: 12 KB, 320x240, fdsf.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9001801

>>9001049
>cherry picking the image

yea the radicals are horrible, and neoliberalism is a sham, but for the greater cause of social and individual liberty, they would be pleased to see.

>> No.9001854
File: 115 KB, 644x598, 1484555530253.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9001854

>>9001801

>> No.9001868

>>9001854
If youre implying Stalin was a liberal you're a moron.

I answered the question regarding real classical liberals such as Locke, Mill etc.