Questions that don't deserve their own thread
If I'm published in a peer-reviewed undergraduate literary journal can I refer to myself as having been "published"?
im thinking of writing something like a redpilled cyberpunk novel... think turner diaries meets neuromancer, plus a side of austrian economics. The hero is a crack software programer and former marine with nothing to loose, together with a crew of misfits he sets out to bring down cultural marxism once and for all
What are some very diverse authors that hold anti-SJW beliefs?
Honestly, I want this so much. I know Yukio Mishima would be a good example due to his strong nationalistic views, but I want more. Thanks in advance, /lit/.
Let me help you with that (I assume you intend to BTFO of some SJWs):
Bret Easton Ellis (he's gay but I guess that's not diverse enough nowadays),
Harriett Beecher Stowe (devoted christian),
Chinua Achebe (he'd be seen as a misogynist by SJWs),
Yukio Mishima (you already mentioned him, of course, but he'll blow the fuck out of any SJW),
Gabrielle Wittkop (wrote an erotic novel about fucking corpses and is considered a modern legend of French literature),
Aphra Behn (Oroonoko has been spammed with low scores on Goodreads because SJWs can't accept that some literature from hundreds of years ago doesn't follow their double standards),
Ryu Murakami (often writes very violent books, In The Miso Soup contains scenes where women victims of brutal murder; the author of the infamous Audition).
Those are the ones that come to mind atm. Pick up a couple of those because they're actually all very good authors (well… Ayn Rand is divisive but you should make your own opinion on her work after reading at least The Fountainhead).
>mfw he means it ironically
>mfw he means it unironically
im aiming at some sort of post-ironic work with numerous references to internet culture. In fact, an important theme deals with memes as a pathway to a renewed cultural/racial consciousness.
Remember those "/lit/ bedrooms" threads? Does anyone have that one picture of the cozy attic room where the guy had a nice red armchair in the corner?
I'm trying to give my new room a /lit/ makeover and need some inspiration.
How the fuck am I supposed to approach plato? I want to understand him inside and out. I've read some philosophy after him and feel like I'd be cheating myself if I proclaimed to be a Nietzschean or something but without giving Plato his try. Do I just have to read all his dialogues?
There seems to be a bunch of books are /lit/ universally agrees to be good reads (i.e. Infinite Jest, Moby-dick)
I'm not suggesting they aren't, there are lots of critics outside of /lit/ that agree as well, but why are these more popular over others on /lit/?
Is it perhaps the crowd that's on /lit/? that said, I have no idea what the audience of /lit/ are like. I would guess INTJs
I've only read Anthem but based on that work, I think saying she "could" be considered a misogynist by today's standards is being a little soft. For a novella that is supposed to champion the importance of the individual for their own sake, Liberty 5-3000 is completely subservient to Equality 7-2521, not to mention the scenes where she doesn't do anything to help in the new household because she's too busy looking at herself in the mirror, etc.
Who should I read before Descartes? I've already read Plato and Aristotle. Am I ready?
Waste of time. Read Cicero. As in Marcus Tullius. Seriously, don't bother with Descartes. MTC will actually, tangibly make your life better. Descartes will not. You wouldn't even look cool reading him. You'd look like a fedora spinning nu-male.
Wasn't that guy an absolute savage?
I was listening to the history of philosophy podcast and got past the part where the one philosopher was invited to a party at a rich guy's house, and he spat on the dude; when questioned why, he replied "everything else was too nice to spit on"
Whenever I go through a slump, I just read anything that interests me. I got out of my recent slump by reading Born Standing Up which, despite not being replete with literary merit, rekindled my love for reading.
Can anyone offer me examples, either from literature or pop culture, that resemble Lady MacBeth as she appears when she says the following?
>"Come, you spirits
>That tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here,
>And fill me from the crown to the toe top-full
>Of direst cruelty! make thick my blood;
>Stop up the access and passage to remorse,
>That no compunctious visitings of nature
>Shake my fell purpose, nor keep peace between
>The effect and it! Come to my woman's breasts,
>And take my milk for gall, . . ." (Mac I.v.47-55)
Basically, I am looking for examples of characters who pray for/request to become hardened/evil/free of guilt and remorse so as to become powerful. Maybe they even perform some action, like drink a potion or make some sacrifice, to get what they want. I know there are characters like this, who are they?
Fukken savage m8
He's just a fun character to read
why is the word thug being replaced by the world savage? usually when words get replaced it's due to political correctness. have hindu devotees of goddess kali found the association of the word thug with african american criminals hurtful?
if he didn't have a week chin in that photo he'd actually be handsome.
Oh and I'm reading Soumission right now, didn't take any pre-reqs (that I'm aware of), I just picked it up. It's easy as hell to read but really, really good.
I think I made it more difficult than I intended. Just a character who seeks some change to achieve power and is willing to resort to evil to make it happen.
Even something like when Voldemort uses powerful dark magic in the form of the horcrux in an attempt to achieve immortality.
Something like that, except more specifically the character would ideally make some sort of statement calling for evil powers/spirits/evil itself to assist him. Like a turning point, probably early in the story as with that example of Lady Macbeth, where the antagonist changes from a more ordinary character into the powerful, evil being the protagonist must defeat (I realize LM isn't the antagonist whom the protag defeats, but you know what I mean). I feel like this has to happen in everything from classic lit to Disney flicks and I'm just drawing a blank.
That's more common. Tamora and Aaron have some great scenes in Titus Andronicus, as do Margaret of Anjou in Henry VI and Marlowe's Tamburlaine. Iago and Edmund are more sophisticated examples.
I've only read Republic by him but feel like I understand him very well, so I can second starting with Republic. Just consult the SEP if you have any trouble, and try engaging the material. My favourite thing to do is listen to podcasts on the books I'm reading--you can do it before you fall asleep, or in the morning, on the way to work, whenever. One of the best phil podcasts is imo the Partially Examined Life, which has an episode on Republic if you're interested: https://www.partiallyexaminedlife.com/2011/07/11/episode-40-platos-republic-what-is-justice/
Good luck, anon.
I only read the republic but I found this chart and I might give it a go. I dunno if it is a meme chart or a srsbsns chart tho
I want to begin writing literature and currently reading up on topics pertaining to the focus of the story but I don't know how to start. Do I just put pen to paper and begin writing away or is there some template I can use to help ease myself into writing literature?
You asked for pop culture, so I'm going to assume anime/manga is fine.
This is from Berserk, it depicts a scenario very close to what you're describing.
Does anyone else find it difficult to look back in the things they said, or did in their life from years or even months ago and feel an overwhelming tinge of guilt or shame? The more that I mature philosophically the more that intrusive cringe moments from the past seem to pop up in memory. How do I deal with this?
I guess you could say that I am fairly new to literature but I have acquired both gravitys rainbow and Ulysses (currently reading TCOL49). What book is easiest to comprehend and understand, and which book should I read first? P.s. Not an English faggot, hence I wonder what book is the most "readable".
best translation/edition for:
meditations-marcus aurelius ?
(any pre-requisite reading required?)
the dalkey archive :^)
any one where the sentences make sense to you. oxford classics usually have good footnotes, but a cheap one will do if you're buying a physical copy, again, so long as it's not in some weird english you can't make out. no real need for pre-reading because it's like a collection of his lecture notes on previous stoics. Zeno, Seneca, and Epictetus are the major three before him if you do want to work back.
It's a good chart, but Symposium lewdest and best. If you're just going to read one, do that.
Letters to Friends and Family, unless you're looking for a specific part, in which case, they're titled.
Actually, that anecdote is about the guy decorating his house in Persian and Egyptian shit. The Athenian democracy equated personal wealth and consumer products like that with being a savage foreign faggot. That one is less about Diogenes being a savage. Things that made Diogenes a savage were eating in the marketplace or giving a student a fish, because Athens had a different standard of what savage and polite behaviour were. When he busts into the wine party or wrestles with young boys, he's not being savage, he's pointedly averting male rape. When he spat in that guy's face he was trying to make him less like a faggot Persian and more like an Athenian citizen. A lot of Athenian virtues are imposed on Diogenes through the anecdotes around him, and this one isn't him being the savage.
I don't know about a whole history; there's probably one which traces the ancient state entirely, but many more which do small pieces. Peter Green's Alexander of Macedon; Nicolas Hammond's History of Ancient Greece to 322BC; Ian Worthington's Philip II.
If you want something in particular, there's lots of books on the Hellenistic period, but you'd need to trim it down to a specific subject.
You might want to read about Philip II first. It's his dad and he laid the foundation for Alexander's war machine, but also made Alexander more vicious because his marriage kind of fucked up Alexander's guaranteed succession. Most people kind of sweep over Philip but his interactions with the other the other states (and relationship to Alexander) is where Corinth's hegemony really starts to expand.
+1 for contributing good sir!
I agree with the over poster -- if you want the rise of Macedon, read about Phillip.
For primary sources on Alexander, read Plutarch's Life of Alexander (Get the Everyman edition -- you can either get all the lives, or just Alexander's; personally I'd get all the lives, as they're great and you can read the comparison of Alexander with Caesar), and read Arrian's Anabasis of Alexander (get the OWCs Edition).
thanks for the thoughtful and well-written response anon
>Zeno, Seneca, and Epictetus are the major three before him if you do want to work back.
Would it be ok if I read these three AFTER reading aurelius?
Yeah it's fine. Seneca wrote plays as well, you don't have to read them, but I like them more than his stoic decorum shit and they're better than some of the Greek versions in places. If you're only reading him for philosophy, his plays don't add much. Epictetus I enjoyed more to read as philosophy, but that's probably because he's less political since he wasn't a Roman Senator. Keep in mind when reading Seneca if something sounds like bullshit compared to Epictetus or Aurelius, it's Seneca sucking political ass.
I don't see too much John Le Carre mentioned on /lit/.
I loved the film version of Tinker tailor, and with The Nigh Manager getting a BBC adaption very son I feel like I should really read some of his works.
Where's a good starting point for Le Carre? I've heard that Tinker Tailor can be confusing so what would be a good, but entertaining start to his works? Any works I shouldnt bother with/should avoid?
Most of the Smiley books are confusing, but they come together well. It's just that being a spy is also confusing because everything cloak and dagger. The Spy Who Came In From The Cold is a good and quick read, and it'll get you into the Smiley plots gently.
has anything been published in the past decade or so that you would consider among the greatest things ever written ever?
or is the age of greatness behind us?
I can't take anyone who believes that HoD is racist seriously.
If you haven't read the Odyssey, start with that.
I prefer Homer, honestly, but Aeneas is a far more positive character than Odysseus (could be considered more boring). Not as much Inferno shit going on in the Aeneid. Eclogues and Georgics don't stand the test of time imo.
Which classic book should I pick up, next, /litl?
I'm reading all the classic/culturally significant books. Been doing so for a year or more, now.
Just finished The Giver and The Great Gatsby. halfway through 1984.
Not that hard. Read dialogues in chronological order, read minor commentaries on them (good collections will just put a nice short little essay on each dialogue's historical importance/intepretation/themes before it), read some kinda basic overall coverage of Plato's thought (e.g. the Stanford Encyclopaedia article), and then just wait to constantly encounter weird interpretations of Plato that aren't mainstream enough to get on the SEP but are still important.
With Plato you want to understand
>his historical/intellectual context (pre-Socratic natural philosophy + Sophistic ethics and epistemology)
>the distillation of his major ideas (i.e., what parts of each dialogue are the Big Important Ones that people talked about for thousands of years)
>subsequent totalising interpretations of his thought, which usually require understanding him developmentally (hence chronological reading)
Protip: Early dialogues are minor, and not that philosophically deep. Look up cheat sheets for them. Actually look up cheat sheets in general. Don't go trying your hand at exegesis on Victorian prose for 50,000 hours when you can just look it up and find out the whole thing was about "dialectic > eristic." Shit doesn't get that big until after the Apology, and then the REALLY meaty stuff is post-Republic. If you can make it to that point, you're good.
NEVER start with the Republic or only read the Republic. Such a weird thing to do IMHO, since he's so exegetically complex that his exegetical tradition is ITSELF fucking esoteric, and the Republic of all things is often at the centre of that, but up to you.
/lit/ is mostly inferiority complex undergrads with the intention to be super well-read, but not very far along in that quest, which most will give up on quickly. If you are reasonably knowledgeable, the board basically looks like a bunch of first years with spunk and a vague idea that they want to "read the foundations so that they can understand the cutting edge," but still basically newbies. Both the classics and the cutting edge books that /lit/ likes are just obvious ones, and the fixation on them reveals lousy knowledge of the traditions surrounding them.
Descartes is a good starting point for modern philosophy, and a common one in undergrad courses. Might also look at Machiavelli and Bacon, other classic forerunners of philosophical modernity in MODERN PHILOSOPHY survey courses.
Check this out:
Cicero's stuff on philosophy is actually really good before jumping to the Early Modern after Plato/Aristotle, if you are inclined that way but not really interested in Hellenistic quietism/emanationism.
Soumission you can go through in an afternoon and it's funny and breezy. His earlier stuff is good too but more clunky. His essay on Lovecraft is fantastic.
If you're new to lit, why start with experimental/pomo that has aged like piss and is such a creature of its time?
There are all kinds of books/courses on the norms and conventions of different kinds of stories, narrative structure, etc. But straight practice, and experimental imitation of authors you like, are good for finding your voice and getting more comfortable with shitting out drafts rather than letting them wither away in the back of your head.
Try seeing your past self as a child (relatively) and taking gentle pity on him for being a naive dipshit? We're all just trying to make it through life and make people respect us. If a past self's method of doing that was to wear a leather trenchcoat, listen to ICP, and long-distance date fat chicks on the Internet, just reach through space and time and pat him on the head for being adorably naive. He was trying his best.
Also this helps:
Like the other guy said well, Spy Who Came In From The Cold is the best easy intro. You cannot put that shit down, it's complicated but not TOO complicated, and it's so short.
Achebe's beliefs about Conrad aren't that outlandish if you understand their context. He's not shallow and he's not randomly picking a random author to be upset at for not "portraying blacks well." I think he's mostly wrong too, but his essay made me develop my views on it, which is good. Also he's an amazing author.
Question to non-native English speakers: how do you do reading more advanced English books?
I have no problem whatsoever with casual to medium hard stuff, but anything more difficult is troublesome. I have to read very slowly take it all in and sometimes I still feel I'm not getting it fully - either the prose is too advanced,or my everyday vocabulary isn't enough. Mix all this with a bunch of concepts and references and it can get confusing. I know the simple answer is to "just read more" but I don't know if I will ever reach a level where I can read Ulysses, or even something simpler like Nabokovs works at a decent speed with great comprehension, instead of basically just skimming and not fully appreciating the wit and so on.
It's not improper, but it is hard to read. Solutions to make it easier to read is to leave a stop between it and the quotes or to italicize instead of quoting.
Some people like Joseph Campbell even argue they're all means to the same end, and often the same means. Huysmans wrote A Rebours (Against the Grain) as an experiment, calling it a novel without a plot. Some authors write fractured narratives which are supposed to coalesce in the reader's mind (or not) so I suppose some of those fall into the category of having a defined end, while some fall into the category of having no defined end.
Rhetoric itself doesn't always have a narrative, but it does always have an end. It's a different category to plain narrative and deals with persuasive speech. Romans defined its main planks as invention, arrangement, style, memory, and discourse, and used these to mark how well an orator performed. Aristotle earlier defined the main persuasive ploys used (appeals to logic, to pity, to morals).
Usually it only refers to persuasive speech, but in some colleges the meaning of rhetoric has followed the memorization noted as key to both Romans and Greeks, and you will find history departments which are called the department of rhetoric instead.
>tl;dr- narratives are just a story, written or spoken; rhetorics are stories which aim to convince you of something, and are usually speeches.
Nabokov's short stories and novellas. His style is simpler, but still will give you a hint of what's to come. Lolita for instance is hard for native speakers, not least because he throws in the odd emigre phrase. After Lolita, you should be ready for his other works, which might be denser, but haven't got the leap of vocab or style between them and Lolita that his short stories might.
If you find yourself disheartened by Ulysses, you're pretty normal for an English speaker.
You know the answer: just keep reading.
Yep, I get this. If you want to be an optimist about it, take it as a sign that you're growing very fast.
Then again, it could be selective memory due to current depression/self-loathing. Memory is notoriously unreliable and tainted throughly by your current state.
I want to turn the name Moreau into an adjective in reference to The Island of Dr. Moreau, much like how Orwell became Orwellian. Whats the best adjective form? Moreauian, Moreaian, ect. (the adjective would mean relating to or having characteristics of the animal / human hybrid experiments of Dr. Moreau)
This is what I've read on my classics list, so far, off the top of my head, not counting the ones I put down and will pick up again;
The Picture of Dorian Grey
The Great Gatsby
>Need to finish
Brave New World
Dracula (libraries don't have a proper audiobook and all I can find online are radio dramas)
How am I doing, /lit/? Also, I didn't care for Oliver Twist, but should I check out Dickens' other works?
If a mediocre short story of mine has been accepted to be published in a small online literary journal that has been around for five years and features stories by several novelists, is it okay to refer to myself as "published?"
Think. Think. Think. Re-read some 'mysterious' passages.
And if you really can't connect some things, google 'IJ ending'. But Wallace said that what he intended was people making little lines and coming up with their hopefully as accurate as possible explanation.
What should I do with my life? I'm a former English major working a labor job in the transportation industry. I live in a pretty cool, smallish East coast city. I don't create any art. I'm very alone. I'm open to almost anything.
>tfw anon is reading your childhood
You're doing good, anon. I didn't like Tolkien, and Dickens is a bit meh to me. Bleak House is probably the only one I'd recommend by Dickens; David Copperfield bored my tits off. Because you're reading my childhood, I'm going to recommend reading Mathila by Roald Dahl because it mentions reading Dickens, and it will undo any harm recommending Bleak House might do. You really don't have to read everything he wrote, and his journalist stuff is often more fun than his novels.
Read more Stevenson. Don Quixote is great fun too, and you have a nice mix of somber awfulness and humor coming up in your to reads. Island by Huxley is a good counterpart to BNW, though the first bit is a slog it's probably better than BNW; and We by Zamyatin is a quicker read but definitely rounds up The Giver, 1984 and BNW.
Dracula's epistolary so have you considered just reading it in bits and pieces around other things? You could pretend you're finding letters and diaries randomly over the course of weeks while doing the rest of them.
Are there any books which have a similar feeling or atmosphere as Tetsuo, Rubber's Lover, etc?
I already have older translation which I read(Random House "Complete Greek Tragidies" and some other translations to compare along with it as I don't read the original greek).
the only thing that really compels me to buy this set its translations and introductions by Seth Benardete to some of Aeschylus writing if I remember correctly, and maybe more negligible, the typeset which better from what I already have.
What is the meaning behind part 8 of the Thus Spoke Zarathustra prologue ? What does the old hermit mean by saying that it does not matter if the other is dead, he should be fed ? Is Nietzsche saying that death is irrelevant ?