It makes me roll my eyes whenever anyone tries to write about death as a topic. What the fuck is some dipshit novelist gonna say about death that hasn't already been said since the beginning of time?
And I don't care what it means to him personally. Unless he's really funny and charming and can make me enjoy a ride through ball-numbingly familiar territory. And from the outside, he sure as hell doesn't look like a funny and charming guy.
>>7561996 Good but i'm very conflicted if it's "worth it" to read the entirety of it. How many writers have you gifted with 3k pages of your time? How many of them would you say are superior to Karl Ove, and why is he the exception, thus?
>>7564787 How many hours have you spent on /lit/ on 4chan on this thread alone? I understand that you probably don't want to waste your parents money on this meme of a book, but hell just shoplift it (a gentleman's crime) and figure it out or don't. you're probably just attracted to the guy, homo.
>>7564839 He constantly drops interesting things here and there - thoughts, really fitting descriptions, moments of humble sincerity - that makes it worthwile to trudge trough the pleasant but a bit unremarkable rest of the pages
>>7564859 Does it? I guess there's nothing really "original" in the novel, in the sense of Finnegan's-Wake-original. It's the autobiography of a middle aged norwegian intellectual. Is it written well enough to justify the 3k pages read? I'd say yes, arguably yes.
>>7563566 He is supposed to be masculine? How? Thats not something he is trying to.
>>7563040 He is a funny guy, i dont know about charming. But there are parts that made me laugh out loudHe goes over his childhood experiences talking about all the stupid things he did as a kid and a youth and his thoughts and so on. Its funny, other times cringe inducing, its honest, its very relatable.
I think if you are really /lit/ you will enjoy him a lot. He talks a lot about the literature he reads and other authors and his struggle trying to make it as an author.
>>7563566 he isn't "supposed" to be masculine, one of his concerns is with masculinity and the feminization of modern men. I am on book 2, and he traces feminization to progressivism, equality, Americanization, etc., forces which he describes as accelerating the meaninglessness of contemporary life.
Good is rather subjective. Personally I'm on book 4 and a bit addicted to the writing. Hard to quite put my finger on what it is, there's nothing wildly original or anything but it's just immensely enjoyable to read.
Pretty much this I guess. There's just a real sense of honesty, at times quite brutal honesty that feels refreshing. I can understand that people would find it boring but I'm genuinely loving it. Have probably enjoyed book 3 the most so far, he's able to evoke a sense of childhood that's just lovely. His ability to describe the Norwegian landscape is brilliant as well.
Think it just comes down to him being a good writer, the way in which he's able to turn the mundane into something genuinely compelling to read. Bit of a muddled post but I would say it's definitely worth at least reading book 1, if you don't get on with it then just stop. It does start to get a bit less grim from book 2 onwards.
In my experience that's very accurate, unless she's elderly or otherwise very disfigured. It doesn't mean fucking her is your prime objective whenever you interact with her, though. I'm sure women have a similar kind of process going on in the back of their minds as well, but since, evolutionarily speaking, they're more involved and made vulnerable in the subject of reproduction, a partner's basic sex appeal wouldn't be the only thing they evaluate I assume.
>>7563181 >Knausgaard said that the first thing men think about when they see a woman for the first time is how it would feel to fuck her. Was he right? that is true for most men, since most men seek validation of their existence as a response from what they conceive as the reality, validation which is the most intense through taking women, after women have accepted them to be satisfied by them, and nowadays making women explicitly wet. these men are devoted to women. of course, most women snub most men, since women live for pleasures, being hedonistic-histrionics/egotistic but not narcissistic, which excludes, most of the time, what they consider poor or ugly men. higher men are narcissistic without being egotistic, but the woman takes this narcissism as her egotism, which thus draws her to these men, for each woman knows that her best lovers are not the puny devoted men, but precisely are her fantasy of men like her, but not like her either !, which means just as egotistic as her, without being narcissistic. the problem of the woman is that men cannot be egotistic without being narcissistic (only the woman is this). the problem of women is that narcissistic men are not egotistic so that they take the woman for what she is, to wit, pure (external) entertainment.
Thread replies: 48 Thread images: 3
Thread DB ID: 411412
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.