/lit/ - Literature

>>5022504
I'm not new I just haven't been around in about a year, but that's a shame about REI

Quick question unrelated to this thread completely: is REI still around? I liked that guy

>>5022322
Nabokov is great but he has better books than Lolita
>>5022255
>>5022198
yoo keep reading, The Dead is probably the best one in Dubliners, along with Araby and A Little Cloud

I wouldn't say less intelligent, just more prone to shitposting. My last time on /lit/ was around March of last year and it wasn't good by any means, plenty of shitposting then, of course, but it's really increased from what I can tell

>>5022389
I think it may be because, when kids read them in high school, they just read through it to finish it and miss the quality that the books have to offer. As somebody trying to get into a literary lifestyle (which, I assume, involves analyzing and what not) it would be good to re-read those entry-level-ish books at a slower pace and for themselves instead of being forced to for school.

It's been about a year since I've been on /lit/
What the hell happened?

I liked them when I was younger but I tried re-reading them after having grown up a bit and didn't like them at all, really.

I've just finished Paradise Lost and am about to pick up and begin East of Eden

No Longer Human
Book of Disquiet
On the Heights of Despair

Those are the ones I would recommend out of what I've read on that wiki.

>>3467454
FOR YOU

Major in literature, minor in education.
Get job at high school for few years for experience.
Move up to community college for little bit.
Get a class or two at a university, keep going at community college.
Eventually transition to full schedule at university. Can still teach at CC if want to, some professors do that.

>>3440356
That's pretty nice of him but also quite strange.
My store's philosophy section was literally a small shelf. Very small store.

>>3440331
Yea usually pretty evenly mixed genders, maybe a few more male than female.
And pretty rare, maybe 1/60 customers or so.
To be fair the area was primarily rednecky I guess, it was a small mall too, not many people would come.
It is however the closest barnes and noble to UCF, so you'd think more people.
I don't know.
My specific store was the 3rd smallest in the entire country so we also didn't carry a lot of unpopular, kind of obscure "literature" so they didn't have much opportunity.
The people who bought the books though were usually pretty young, rarely old people buying nice books. Also generally unattractive, for the most part. Alone, as well, never with friends or maybe with family, like parents buying them the book.

>>3440316
I don't want to generalize but most often it was young adult fiction or summer reading-tier literature.
To be fair they were usually younger girls, not many older girls, like college age, came in (at least not to my store).
A lot of best sellers. Same things that guys buy, really. Except guys do buy more sports/fantasy books than girls.
You do get the occasional literature enthusiast buying something nice, but mostly just pleb stuff, bestsellers and the like.

>>3440306
>>3440159
>>3440220
Where's he been, I've missed him

>>3440247
False statement man
I worked at barnes & noble (big bookstore if you're non-USA)
Sold so many of those books to college girls and high school girls. Don't get me wrong moms loved that shit the most probably but followed closely by young bitches

>>3440181
>>3440190
I don't get it

>>3440161
lol that's actually p cute i hope they work out

>>3440074
>reading nietzsche while on transportation
>not traveling by horse
You're doing it wrong

20
United States (Florida)
Often
3-4 years
I work at a mortgage firm

>>3439731
See his whole dick too

>>3416299
That's not what he was saying he was answering your question "who buys a house" with the correct answer that most everybody does

>>3411428
There's no purpose in having arguments about the "existence" of any sort of "god" when we ourselves created both of those concepts in our relative understanding was what I was getting at

>implying you can "prove" a "truth" or "untruth" in an existence where we ourselves have created all "truths" relative to human understanding and that there can be a "truth" or "fact" or "proof"