Archived threads in /lit/ - Literature - 278. page

>>9926966

he's an old fogy and that was the hip way they sezd it back in the 50s

>>9926966
Prez says its A-OK

>>9926966
>"sez" instead of "says"?
>this is a serious question for some
literature is no longer poetic or human. its more of a science now.

His life was a failure

Above-average writing for an above-average story.

It wouldn't be as popular on /lit/ if it weren't depressing as shit.

>>9926956
Edith was raped by her father, hence her coldness

I read it more than once

Why would I remember it when it's written down?

http://figment.com/books/1047853-Trouble-in-the-Big-Empty-Page-1

>>9933839
Scatterbrained statements merit no discussion

>>9933839
There's no evidence to say he wasn't

>>9933846
Hanging himself in his garage is pretty solid counter-evidene

You just... *accelerates* gotta go... *meltdown* fast dude... praise gnon hehe

fuck reading. cryogenically freeze your central nervous system and wait for technology to advance to where they can implant 'you' into a sweet, super-powered android body.

fully-automated luxury neocameralism whennnnnnn amirite fellas?

libgen.io

>>9926768
Proust is highly overrated. Millionaire neurotic shills proto-Lacanian nihilism for 3000 pages.

Overall you have boring taste and this is a bad bait thread. Sage!

>Tolstoy at 8.
He should be in the top 5 at least.

>>9926729

Go to bed Josh

I read it last summer and I enjoyed it

File: 1501269651887.jpg (26KB, 513x513px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 513x513px

>>9926729
>Published: 2015
into the dustbin it goes

Don't get memed, it's unbelievably awful. Starts out a mediocre Taipei sort of deal, then spirals into incoherent garbage. Boring, incoherent garbage.

Know what the most entertaining part of the book is? The quotes at the beginning of the sections from Answers In Genesis, which aren't even his, they're lifted directly from the website.

Avoid Cohen, read Levin.

a chick made this thread

>>9926698
Yes, because otherwise they'd have used their intellect to fix their problems otherwise. And this is coming from a pseud

>>9926698
Being concerned over who is and isn't a pseud is the biggest indicator of a pseud

>>9933812
>Can we all just agree that Ulysses is better than anything Shakespeare wrote?
Not really, no.

>>9933812
you have to look at Shakespeare's Complete Works as one work. If you can say THAT is better than Ulysses, then okay. I'm liable to maybe agree with you if you said something substantial about Ulysses--even a paragraph's worth. As it stands, Shakespeare offers superiority because of his characters like Falstaff and Hamlet and Rosalind and on and on; the nigh-infinite interpretabiliity of all the plays (hell, I've gone threw Shrew and marked it up like hell [pages black and blue], and that was one of his earliest); the endless in-your-head interpretation a la Daedalus of Hamlet or Shrew or The Tempest and how a certain passage may apply to your life at any given time...

Ulysses is fucking phenomenal though. Everything that I wrote above can apply to it. Why do we have to say one is better than the other? Both are amazing. Joyce might not have accomplished what he accomplished without Shakespeare's existence, and we might not look at Shakespeare like we do without Joyce.

>>9933812
I've always thought that Shakespeare never actually wanted to write plays.

Imagine a meek, bookish kid with a weirdly shaped head born to moderately successful farmer/business man in a small village in 15th century England. Half the people in the town don't own any book besides the bible, and the oldest (surviving son) son of one of the prominent businessmen in town. His father (who was the son of another farmer) probably wanted him to take over the family business and farm, continue the tradition, make their family name. But Shakespeare didn't want any of that.

He wanted to write. He had a basic education in latin and classical works in public school, but, once that was finished, he was expected be like all other good little british boys and fill the shoes their father made for them. But all this young Shakespeare cares about, all he really enjoys, is writing.

So does he do? He leaves his hometown, his family, his WIFE, and takes his happy ass 150 miles south to London in THE YEAR 1590. 150 miles wasn't an easy trip back then. It was a commitment. He didn't dabble in it before becoming a playwright. It must've been a huge risk to move to London, where he (likely) knew nobody, with a vague hope of making a living with his writing.

So what did he do in London. A lot of people think Shakespeare joined the thriving London theatre scene. But was there a scene? Richard Burbage, the first Hamlet, the most popular actor of the era, was 4 years younger than Shakespeare, and didn't appear in the scene until Shakespeare had already been there for 5 years.

Did the great London theatre scene ascend independently from Shakespeare? Lord Chamberlain's Men wasn't founded until he was a 12 year veteran of the theatre scene. The most popular theatre at the time, the Globe Theatre, was built in 1599, and showed Julius Ceasar on it's opening night. The other great playwrights weren't even established before Shakespeare's plays were on stage. Thomas Kyd's "The Spanish Tragedy" was first preformed in 1592, by which time Shakespeare already established his own company.

Take all this in with how little we know about Shakespeare's life. Unlike almost every other great writer/thinker from the era, he left behind no letters. Not to his father, his wife, or his children. Hell, his kids grew up in Stratford-upon-Avon, 150 miles away from where he spent most of his time. He doesn't seem to have had very many near and dear people in his life.

So, who was Shakespeare? A kid from a small village in central England who found a passion, who left everything to go 150 miles away to pursue that passion, fanned the Elizabethan drama scene to its apex, and turned out comedy after comedy to keep his business afloat.

Shakespeare wasn't nobility. His father didn't bail him out. He literally carved a place for himself in the world. Imagine if he had the choice to choose a different medium.

File: 1485203072254.jpg (9KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 250x250px

>>9926636

>author is a talk radio host
>clickbait meme title
>blurb from Newt Gingrich

>Chapter 15
>Algae

>lol dead zones are actually good for the environment lol what do you guys hate business or something lol go hug an electric eel SQUEEEEE SQUEEEE SQUEEEE lol stupid liberals

File: microexpressions-disgust.jpg (28KB, 524x336px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 524x336px

If you read shit written by somebody with the writing skill of a Cracked columnist unable to make a book without using list format, you are the plebbest of plebs.

These kind of books are basically just lengthy strawman attacks against the people the author hates. It doesn't teach you what's good about conservatism. It doesn't teach you, in any serious manner, the weaknesses of liberalism. It's just crap pulp fiction so you can laugh at the dum libruls like a brainlet and feel like part of an enlightened elite.

You should feel bad for ever considering it. You should feel bad for being friends with somebody that recommended it. It will probably make you dumber if you read it.

To help inform you of the company you're in by reading this, I've pulled up some excerpts from the 80 positive reviews of this book:

"SENT THE BOOK TO TWO LIBERALS. ONE MSAID THE BOOK WAS RIGHT ABOUT HER. THE SECOND BOOK WENT MY BROTHER-IN-LAW WHOSE COMMENT WAS. DON'T YOU KNOW THAT OBAMA WON. . ALOHA"

" I really do feel sad for libs - they have far too much hate that they can't see the forest from the trees anymore. The latest nutty fit with DJT is crazy with Soros organizing riots is beyond common sense."

"If you feel the need to bow to the leaders of the other World nations as Obama does, and if you feel the need to apologize for America's greatness as Obama does, definitely STAY AWAY from this book "

" I'm also one of those who believes that every time a politician says that they are promoting a bill or creating a new program, I'd better guard my wallet because what they really mean is "I'm taking your money and your liberty."

Verified purchase: "I am not good with writing reviews. Maybe that's because i only have a 9th grade education. I made the terrible mistake getting my girlfriend pregnant and marrying her, getting a low paying job, had another child!"

"Those liberals exalt government too highly, to the point that government is like a god to them, and their liberalism is a religion ("the bigger the government, the smaller the God")."

>>9926606
I enjoyed the first one very much, but the second was a bit of a slog to get through and I haven't gone back to the series. There's so many books on my to-read list.
The movie's somewhat faithful as I remember.

>>9926606
r/booksclassics

>>9927859
What if instead of telling people to go to loleddit we actually discuss books?

I saw an episode of Jerry Springer where some fat bitch married a traffic cone when I was a kid.

>>9926585
No, no, not explain it. Express it.

Tell me what you like about them. The smooth texture, the PVC smell, the glamorous shine. Tell me what you'd like to do with a traffic cone, if you both were alone in the house.

>>9926608
I don't really like them. I am somewhere between indifferent to them and I hate them.

>>9933774
>why do we have to give names to things in the world?
So we can talk about them

>>9933774

Because we are damned.

>>9933774
Did a little kid make this thread? Seriously, this is the type of question that just pokes at existence without offering alternatives. "Why" this and "why" that, without thinking "why not" this or "why not" that.

There's a reason we use verbal language: because all other methods sucked.