Help me sort out this opening paragraph /lit/, its a jumble of sentences at the moment:
The individual statements are:
That winter was colder than usual
There was an icy mist which clung around for most of the day
I bought myself a long black coat which went down to the knees and a pair of black leather gloves
The buildings were full of students with their hats and scarves and coats piled up all over the seats
You could see your breath as you walked from one building to another across the frozen campus
In the centre of the courtyard the fountains had frozen up mid-flow somehow, like ice sculptures
I've tried a million combinations of connectives and nothing seems to read gracefully.
>>9096973
Is this something you wrote?
I'd personally cluster setting description together, rather than fragment it with character description (but feel free to do otherwise)
So I'd reconstruct it as: That winter was colder than usual. There was an icy mist which clung around for most of the day. The fountains in the centre of the courtyard had frozen up mid-flow somehow, like ice sculptures. The buildings were full of students with their hats and scarves and coats piled up all over the seats. I bought myself a long black coat which went down to the knees and a pair of black leather gloves. You could see your breath as you walked from one building to another across the frozen campus (not really a fan of the phrasing of this last sentence but I cant think of any obvious ways to improve it)
>>9097002
Also more varied sentence length would make it flow a little better t b h
How is this?
THAT WINTER was unusually cold, and I wore a long black coat which went down to the knees and a pair of black leather gloves, and the buildings were full of students with their hats and scarves and coats piled up all over the seats. In the centre of the courtyard the fountains had frozen up mid-flow somehow, like ice sculptures. There was an icy mist which clung around for most of the day.
Hypothetically, what would you recommend a little monkey to read?It's a hypothetical, because obviously monkeys can't read.
curious george
>>9096779
The Bell curve
There was once a first book.
Someone read that book.
There was once a man that had read every book that had ever been written.
You are more well read than that man was.
How does that make you feel?
>>9096619
No writing could--reasonably--be id'd as the first book. Or do you have the definitive answer as to how many words a book must have to "even be considered a book"?
As our infrastructure, it was gradual additions over generations.
I think I have to be smarter than everyone in the past. I have far more general information and have had far more learning experiences than all the philosophers in greece and rome put together. I have read thousands of books to get different ideas and viewpoints and being well-read allows us to analyze and re-evaluate cult-ural beliefs and rituals.
>>9096619
i honestly could not give less of shit
is this the kind of shit you worry about?
if you want something spooky to think about, get ready for some shit:
every day hundreds of thousands of books are thrown away or otherwise lost... among those books are priceless first editions, rarities, unpublished manuscripts, the last copy of a forgotten masterpiece...
>>9096755
So... /lit/, what stops you from living the sincere lifestyle?
I never got these types of images. Wearing a suit means what? That you're suddenly no longer a 16 year old metrosexual but instead some sort of businessman working 14 hours a day?
This pic is so cringe it makes my cringe cringe.
>>9096608
Looks to be an ad to get inadequate suit-guys to buy more pansy, pretty, flashy, shiny clothes to make up for their severe insecurities.
What typically happens to books the get self-promoted here? I'm tempted to do it, but I'm not sure that the typical board reaction is.
>>9096581
Check the amazon (.com , not uk or eu) reviews for pic related if you want to find out how they're recieved if anyone even bothers reading them.
well, go ahead
>>9096594
Hmmm, seems like a mixed bag actually
Just finished this and I feel like I'm missing something. My immediate impression is that Kafka was trying to portray the absurdity of religion. The trial itself being analogous to life and the verdict of guilt being the judgement of God.
Am I completely missing the point?
>>9096526
It's not just a simple allegory that you need to decipher.
>>9096526
Yes. You're wrong for thinking it's an allegory to something specific.
>>9096526
>he didn't get the anti-arch-ultra-montanism.
Read Karamazov.
looking for recommendations on books that have narrators like Aesop Rock in Labor Days, particularly in terms of attitude.
I can do with or without the allusive language, that's not too important to me.
Nonfiction is fine too.
>>9096514
Aesop rock is shit tho
>>9096548
thanks for taking the time to chime in
>>9096560
Anon is right tho
Are there any books similar to part 2 (Swann in Love)? But 10 times more feels?
No jokesies, Kazuo Ishiguro, the only other author able to capture the sweet beauty of memory that Proust was master of
You, sir, wanted to say:
>But 10 times less feels
Right? Swann in Love is me in love. He is the incarnation any of us in love.
>>9096477
Yeah. Nothing has made me cry more than Swann's Way. A lot went on while I was reading it too so it became a lot more personal
I'm thinking about reading a book by Sam Harris. Has anyone here read some of his stuff and can recommend one?
>inb4 religious rage and memeing
Please stick to the subject and only reply when you have actually read some of his stuff.
>morality can be established scientifically
Dropped.
>>9096391
What subject do you want to read about?
>mfw a faggot says nothing exists
lol
'Nothing' also doesn't exist.
>>9096224
to be, or not?
How the fuck am I supposed to read this? I'm really trying but there are so many words I don't know. Am I supposed to know these words or are they mostly made up nice sounding "words?"
Does anyone have any resources that helped them? And no I'm not an English student looking for an easy way out of an assignment I'm genuinely interested in the work
>>9096172
Do you write?
Is Objectivism the philosophical opposite of Utilitarianism?
>>9096060
Redpillism is the only thing you need
>>9096060
>Solipsism is a reasonable philosophy
>if you're solipsist you're sure only of your consciousness
>therefore if you believe in solipsism objectivism is a synonim for utilitarianism
Problem solved
>>9096071
Surely by that logic you could say solipsism is the opposite of any school of thought, and every philosophy is interchangeable?
I want to believe that it isn't true; I want to have faith in humanity; I have to believe that we have risen above our carnal nature, but the more I read this the more I feel like I agree with every word in it.
I am starting to see it everywhere; everyone is greedy and selfish; everyone wants to have power; even religious people are selfish and greedy; they want to be on the good side of their god, gods, spirits, energies or whatever it may be that they believe in, so that they can have a good afterlife or good fortune in this life. This is not just limited to Abrahamic religions; even pagan and other "spiritual" paths are essentially about people somehow gaining something out of their practices, no matter how selfless or humble it may appear. The end game is the same. I'm sure that there are exceptions, but this is what I am seeing with people in general.
I wish I had never opened this book. I am losing faith in humanity, and I am realizing that I am no different and I am also become more and more greedy and selfish the more I read. Or rather, I am embracing and accepting my selfishness.
I know that what is written in this book has been said by many authors before Anton Lavey, such as Ayn Rand and many others, but this book feels like a package of all these dark beliefs and philosophies.
I wish I could deny it, but I can't. I am trying to find ways to deny it, but it's true. It's an accurate description of humans.
I hate this book; it's so badly written and it is full of logical inconsistencies, but I can't help but agree with every word till the part about magic. The part about magic is just crazy nonsense, but I can also see the psychological effects and benefits that such rituals can have on the practitioner, even if they have no real affect on reality.
I am an atheist, by the way, so I started reading this book with an unbiased point of view, and now I can't escape it.
Someone help me before I fall off the ledge and become a satanist; I'm only one step from it.
I don't want to accept that humans are like this, but I can't deny it.
>>9095996
How's middle school going so far, champ?
>LaVeyan satanism
literally just hippy self-indulgence combined with flowery poetics about social darwinism. It's atheistic liberal nonsense in an edgy package. At least study theistic satanism
>theistic satanism
It suffers from the same disadvantages that other religions suffer from; it fails to provide any evidence to it's claims.
>It's atheistic liberal nonsense in an edgy package
Anton LaVey states clearly in the book that he believes that a god exists, but he also believes that this god probably doesn't care about humans. This is in the chapter "God wanted: dead or alive".
He also fails to provide any evidence regarding this belief.
When I said that I agree with every word of this book, I meant that I agree with it's general message of how humans are selfish, greedy, vengeful, envious and many other things. I don't believe in the things regarding magic and this "dark force" that he seems to believe in.
>liberal
It's in no way liberal; the belief that "might makes right" is very apparent in this book, which is not a belief that liberals agree with.
Anton LaVey criticizes humanists quite a lot in this book, which is also not a liberal belief.
The book encourages using what Anton refers to as "lesser magic" to get what you want, which is basically using manipulative tactics such as lying, using sex, threats, deceit, etc.
There is an entire book he wrote about manipulating people called "The Satanic Witch".
Most liberals will also consider this book quite sexist because it truly does objectify women and encourages them to use their bodies to get what they want. Anton also believes that marriage is mostly about sex and that one should leave his partner if he is not being sexually satisfied.
Social Darwinism is a big part of this book, which is quite the opposite of most liberals who are often concerned with helping the weak (although they rarely accomplish much). LaVeyan Satanism states that the strong shouldn't be held back by the weak, and that the weak shouldn't be pitied or accepted.
This is another thing that I have noticed about humans, especially politicians and celebrities, who have no regard for the weak and often abuse them.
Has anyone read this yet? I'm just about to start it. It's the first Orwell book I'll be reading.
>>9095921
literally has one book worth reading
>>9095933
And is it this one?
>>9095979
Read Orwell in this order: Animal Farm, 1984, Homage to Catalonia, Down and Out in Paris and London
Wow
>>9095886
I do things like ride around yelling DAVID FOSTER WALLACE at passersby.
>>9095886
That's actually a Pynchon quote.
>>9096154
Almost baited me.