Does Gass spoil any plot points for The Recognitions in the pic related edition? I'm about to start reading this, and like Gass' writing, so I want to read the introduction but don't want it spoiled by his fat ass.
Also anything I should know going in? I read 'J R' and really liked it.
>>9166194
>reading for plot
FUCKING
L
E
A
V
E
>>9166206
Shut up you pretentious cunt. I read almost purely for escapism and it's quality/fidelity is attenuated if I know what is going to happen
>>9166194
Did you get take the last one from Amazon? I went to order last night and its a 1-2 month wait.
What does /lit/ think?
Read it years ago, recommended it to everyone. Don't know if I would want to slog through it again, but I thought it was brilliant.
in order to truly appreciate this book you need to find it in a stairwell or some shit. Me, I love Danielewski's vision so much that I've bought hundreds of copies. I take each copy and rip the covers off, then I black out everything on the title pages, and every page number. After you have to bind the whole thing in electrical tape, or loose staples, or carpenter nails. You can't give yourself a mystery, so I give others mystery by hiding these unmarked copies throughout my city. I am doing god's work
>>9166140
Jesus finding that randomly would be weird.
Why the FUCK haven't you read the greatest theological-philosophical work of the whole last 2000 years?
Oh yeah, you speak E*nglish and not glorious Serbian. I pity you.
I utterly pity you.
If it was really the greatest it would've been translated into English
is it in russian
i can read cyrillic but is it readable by russians ?
"Better Microcosm?"
>>9166084
No, this knowledge is not for the weak-minded A*glo. It would break them, they would evaporate instantly.
Post what you get.
Does literary history know any examples of authors willingly 'updating' their works, or perhaps reworking them from ground up? Why is it such a rare thing? Artistic pride/embarrassment to admit that you didn't do the best job?
Personally I'd love to read several versions of the same idea to see a sort of pursuit of perfection
does A Brave New World Revisited count?
>>9165943
Lots of poets do this, Walt Whitman being an example that readily comes to mind. There are a few versions of leaves of grass.
I would imagine publishing companies might serve as an obstacle for this as well.
Was Socrates right, /lit/?
>>9165895
It certaintly made it worse
He was wrong about literally everything.
We could test this. Get a person with a PhD in literature and put him in a memory game match with an illiterate African, then we'll see who has the better memory.
Is philosophy nothing more than mental masturbation?
>>9165888
After the romans, yes
Before Kierkegaard, yes.
After the DFWians, yes.
Have you read self help books? Which ones are good? I'm a shy male. I want to become powerful alpha male!
Ad.. Hi... i mean... Napoleon was a role model!
Tried books by Carnegie and they're a waste of time. In my opinion, the only people who could find them helpful are complete autistic hermits, who haven't interacted in society at all. Most of it is absolutely basic advice known by everyone over the age of 16.
>>9165921
good... very good thanks
What happened to the horror genre?
Stephen King brought it to its natural conclusion
>>9165810
We are no longer scared by monster or even death. We now fear failure, being alone and things like that, so the real horror books talk about that and not about monsters anymore.
>>9165893
deep
Hi /lit/ friends. The weather is getting better and it's been a while since the last meet-up, so part 2 is here.
Back in October 2016 we had a NYC /lit/ meetup. ~8 people showed up and we had a light dinner plus some drinks and memed about books. It was decent and a lot less autistic than expected. I think some people still owe me a drink desu.
Join the Discord for organization and planning. If you don't actually live in the area I will kick you.
https://discord.gg/P5kByMx
sounds gay
>>9166163
are you saying book clubs are gay and only lonely single moms actually go to them?
>>9166192
nice projection faggot
didnt see one in the catalog so heres a stack/recent purchases thread
i didnt expect underworld to be so massive but im looking forward to reading it so whatever
What the fuck is the point of these threads? To discuss works you haven't read yet? To show off shitty used paperbacks? It has no purpose whatsoever. Even an autistic robot pasta is more /lit/ than this shit. Sage.
>>9165821
>>9165797
I was kind of disappointed in Underworld. It felt like Delillo got too cute with the dialogue. Every character spoke the same.
Can someone give me some guidance in reconciling the field of philosophy with reality? In my own lack of understanding of proper terms I distinguish "academic philosophy" at least from political philosophy, which I am an appreciative reader of. It just really addles my mind, seeing how much thought goes into the philosophical topics that to me seem so esoteric and removed from reality. I just have a rudimentary acquaintance with Kant, for example, but take the Categorical Imperative. Within the field of moral philosophy Kant's ideas are hugely influential, but what about Kant himself? After all, every philosopher is just a man. Was Kant known to be discerning in his own morals (not a rhetorical question)? Even if he was, just in the space of ~250 years humanity obviously hasn't undergone a Kantian moral revolution (or moral revolution whose prerogatives you could attribute to any one philosopher, for that matter). There's a long shadow of history that shows that "higher thinking" is generally constrained to a narrow group in any given society (shamans, elders, priests, academics, or of course "philosophers") anyway.
Besides the domain of "knowledge", there are influential figures in any number of disciplines, but while they may be aware of philosophy, it obviously doesn't, and hasn't, governed the actions they've taken that have altered the course of history. How do philosophers justify their self-worth alongside the current of everything else that happens outside the ivory tower?
>>9165752
>it obviously doesn't, and hasn't, governed the actions they've taken that have altered the course of history
On rereading this I realize this is pretty poorly worded, but the point I wanted to convey is that presumably those actions weren't rationalized out in peer-reviewed journals or complex treatises.
I'm currently on the edge of a vortex of paranoia myself struggling with some of these issues.
>It just really addles my mind, seeing how much thought goes into the philosophical topics that to me seem so esoteric and removed from reality.
Reality is a motherfucker. For many, getting more remote by the hour. Basically, we're in a golden era of reality as subjective perception. Personally I think that luxury is going to come with a high price tag, the cheque for which is going to arrive fairly soon.
Reality, like subjectivity, can be conjectured an almost infinite number of different ways. This has its benefits and its downsides. The benefit is that it leads to all kinds of creativity; the downside is that it is incredibly fragile.
>just in the space of ~250 years humanity obviously hasn't undergone a Kantian moral revolution (or moral revolution whose prerogatives you could attribute to any one philosopher, for that matter).
I don't know if I can agree with this (or even what a 'moral revolution' would look like). Nietzsche's impact has been huge. So has that of Marx and Freud. Would it be so hard to claim that postmodernity itself is not a kind of moral revolution? Contemporary radical skepticism?
What about Bannon? What else is the Fourth Turning but a moral revolution?
>How do philosophers justify their self-worth alongside the current of everything else that happens outside the ivory tower?
One way is by extending the influence of the ivory tower to the edges of the known universe. Again, good for some people, less so for others.
If I wanted to be cynical, I would say that the best way to do it is to dodge the question and infinitely problematize everything (which also requires the permanent combatting of anything resembling heteronormativity). There are academics out there writing good and interesting books. But to me at least the concept of justifying anything seems to be becoming increasingly remote.
I like Peterson's idea: sort yourself out, become competent. That is enough. That is at least the advice I am giving myself these days, since otherwise imagination can run out of control. In the public sphere or in private.
>>9165837
>>just in the space of ~250 years humanity obviously hasn't undergone a Kantian moral revolution (or moral revolution whose prerogatives you could attribute to any one philosopher, for that matter).
>I don't know if I can agree with this (or even what a 'moral revolution' would look like). Nietzsche's impact has been huge. So has that of Marx and Freud. Would it be so hard to claim that postmodernity itself is not a kind of moral revolution? Contemporary radical skepticism?
>What about Bannon? What else is the Fourth Turning but a moral revolution?
That was sort of a facetious statement, because I believe that human nature is governed by evolutionary principles, so any kind of idealistic "revolution" is only fated to be co-opted at some level by our basest desires. So the argument for Marx's initial influence is there, but the revolution was not borne out in reality.
On the topic of reality, I also think it's independent of perception.
Is the book of Job in the Bible poetry?
>>9165723
>The Book of Job (/ˈdʒoʊb/; Hebrew: אִיוֹב Iyov) is a book in the Ketuvim ("Writings") section of the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh), and the first poetic book in the Old Testament of the Christian Bible.
Learn to use google, cretin.
>>9165731
>use google
Nice try, shill.
>>9165723
It is not poetry.
I have determined to read the "The Bible"
Which translation should I read?
>>9165675
For literary quality? KJV or Knox.
For accuracy/academic quality? Revised Standard Version 2nd Catholic Edition (esp. the Didache Bible from Ignatius Press).
RSV is pure cancer. Read NASB for accuracy.
Let's assume I have a silly dream. Let's assume I want to learn by heart one million of the best verse ever written in human history. Which poems would I have to pick ? I this formulation suits you more, which are the best pieces of poetry according to you ? I know it is a matter of taste, but some work are definitely considered more achieved and more important than most by most of the world. My list already includes:
-The Illiad and the Odyssey
-The Ramayana and the Mahabharata
-The Divine Comedy and Paradise Lost
-Beowulf and le Roman de la Rose
Would you add anything to this list, /lit/ ? A Chinese poem maybe ? Most poems on the list above are epics, because they tend to be long and old and as such more influential, but I'm not against other forms of poetry.
>>9165633
Alexander Pope's 'Essay of Man.'
The Poems of Jesus Christ. It's an actual book.
>not becoming a seanchai