/lit/ - Literature

>>2707815

I have to ask you, what is it you are so bitter about? Is it something really simple? Perhaps you have never made a woman moan or a person laugh? Maybe you just need a friend.

>>2707801

Only problems I can see in terms of vocabulary is Joyce's use of words like 'fad'. But I'm sure there is a Spanish equivalent.

>>2707793

Stop insinuating that's what I'm doing, I'm showing you up(!).

>>2707783

>Books are the real world.

Hey son! You seem like a right old cunter! Come here and shine my sideburns!

>>2707771

I reckon it's the millions of interpretations that make it seem more influential (but it still is, very).

>>2707763

Probably, I'm the nice one.

>>2707758

haha.. 3/10???

Just to show subjectivity;

>2012.
>Ulysses.
>ISHYGDDT.

>Not reading Hamlet as a prerequisite to Ulysses.
>2012.
>Get on the level of many.

I've thought for a long time that polygamy is not really dealt with openly. Meaning nothing about it is well publicised.

Might be wrong time period, but lot of work by Richard Yates. (The author, not Tao Lin's book)

Hey guys, why don't you just disregard all this stuff and just write. You wouldn't want to be a pseudo would you?

When the Autodidact got caught, it was the only time I nearly cried while reading.

>>2681115

Wouldn't you consider literary impressionism as new compared to doing many other things? It's under-represented. Tell me what's new man.

Too drunk for this, I'll be back tomorrow, where's the big man?

I was thinking maybe The Stranger dealt with the process of Impressionism, when Meursault is bothered by the heat and kills and Arab. It seems a fair representation, it could be of Expressionism though.

>>2680958

I'm probably the same, I need to do some more reading all this. Just wanted to know any of /lit/'s opinions.

>>2680953

Do you read that 'words all over a page' stuff then?

>>2680950

Big man over here, fuck off, this is an above average thread.

>>2680939

I only called it silly because lots of writers use it almost as a plot tool.

>>2680934

Trouble is, people think you are a cunt then.

>>2680931

I'm of a different view I'm afraid. It takes a detour through epicureanism for me, sounds pretentious, but it isn't really. The process of dealing with an external environment goes through 3 processes, sensations, concepts, and then wider impressions. Although the word impression may make you think of impressionism, it isn't. Impressionism shows in itself the inability to fully process reality, therefore we probably shouldn't go beyond sensations or at the very least, concepts, when we write impressionistically. I think symbolism and structures that blend together as you mentioned would fall under the wider impressions, going against the spirit.

My apologies for spelling Benny I'm very drunk.

>>2680913

Oh my, same, what have you got as ideas?

>>2680905

+4

I thought as Impressionism relies on colours bleeding and such (such), if a writer were to assign hues to words it could work, sophisticated write-by-colours perhaps.

How would someone recreate Impressionism in literature?

Don't say stream of consciousness, that would be silly.