>tfw no Donna Tartt gf
>tfw I'm dating a retard who works at a clothing store and watches America's Got Talent
Just be happy you have someone at all
>>8378087
Thats nice of you to date someone with down syndrome
but does she have big tits?
Which religion is the correct religion? Do you let other people's perception of religions affect in how you worship?
>>8378016
Chaos magick is correct, and of course I let other people's perceptions of religions affect how I worship, because belief is a technique.
Hermeticism as conveyed to us through writings of Hermes Trismegistus.
>>8378016
The only correct religion, unfortunately, is feminist wiccan Judaism.
Literature has a completely different standard than other media. You can aim books at kids and still feature people dying left and right or kids getting abused, which is impossible in other media like tv.
Note some dark books aimed at young audiences that you know of.
>I began reading Warrior Cats and it really is as violent as people say. Within the first four chapters there's at least one death and a lot of fighting.
>The Secret Life Of Bees has child abuse, suicide, racism, etc
>I haven't read Out of the Dust since I was in elementary but I remember it was very graphic in describing how the girl burned her mother with oil and how her mother's life was painful until she died.
I heard Coraline was dark but I didn't notice anything particularly dark. Maybe for an eight year old but a ten year old probably wouldn't find it scary
>>8377999
>>8378005
I remember reading it when i was about 11. There is a fucked up part about coraline alluding to masturbating and a slight against the jews. Interesting stuff.
nevermind me. Just reading the best book ever on my phone.
>>8377911
Enjoy it senpai.
>29%
not for much longer
>reading on phones
>read some plato
>easily realise that forms are just arbitrary definitions
>easily know that morality is subjective and is just arbitrarily defined by everyone
Why fucking bother with the rest of it? Seems worthless.
>inb4 appeals to authority
Forms aren't the point, the dialectic process to reach a definition is the point - just like the cave myth is an allegory of the political and ethical implications of Plato's ontology, rather than the "how to" for enlightenment. Also, morality is subjective insofar as your worldview allows for morality to be subjective. Plato couldn't allow for it, Protagoras or Gorgias could.
But really, the only real answer to your question is that we read them to understand the genealogy og thoughts and concepts, to see how our collective worldview evolved and shape how it will evolve without making baseless, sudden assumptions and claims. Plus, it's amazing fun.
Always sage frogposts, by the way.
>>8377842
pleb
>>8377865
Perfect response.
What is /lit/ more comfortable with? Critiquing or Writing?
>>8377660
To do actual critiquing though means years and probably decades of study so you understand the topic you're weighing when you bring up a reference to something person A did and person B did better 500 years ago in a small town in portugal.
Ruskins don't come that often.
While writing anyone can take up freely as long as they have a feeling or understanding of the topic at hand and make it somewhat passable.
>>8377664
>providing legitimate criticism is easy
Who are some great authors that never took themselves too seriously? I am really getting tired of reading heavy-handed shit and an author's somber serious persona leaking through the pages. I want to read an author who is really good artistically but has the intelligence to make fun of themselves, or can break the tension once in a while.
>>8377496
Mark Twain?
Stephen King
>>8377496
cioran is extremely edgy but you can almost see him secretly smiling while he's at it
I want to read books (fiction/non-fiction) about solitude, alienation and inherent inability to connect with others. I've read Steppenwolf and liked it, and Book of Disquiet was recommended to me several times. Other recs?
>>8377489
go out and meet people you lazy fuck
my dairy moo
>>8377489
The Pale King
/thread
did DFW ever go on record about his feelings re: William Gaddis?
Yea in a couple of interviews I've listened to he's said that his prose is most modeled after gaddis, he said that he admires that gaddis writes truthfully about modern times in another interview, and in another ive read he said that gaddis and pynchon and mcelroy all write commercial avant garde. So typical dfw, likes gaddis but has to find a way to shit on him.
>>8378028
>all write commercial avant garde
kettle yelling nigger and so on
I finally understand what it means to read for prose. I thought it was all a meme but I was wrong. The pedophilia is just an added bonus
>reading translations
>>8377230
wew
>>8377230
Why translation?
There's something deeply troubling about the fact that /lit/ has so many Anons that seem to be only capable of communicating through memes. Doesn't that defeat the very purpose of /lit/ (if there's any)?
What is your end game Anon?
You always rant about your «plebeians» and their unworthiness, yet when a new Anon comes looking for help in trying to read deeper and diversified, you greet them with a flood of non-sensical memes and non-opinions.
What is your end game Anon? Are you trying to spread good literature or to ridicule the men who try to break out of the frivolous bubble?
Anon, do you know what you like or are you just interested in diving nose first into the «patrician/pleb» meme? Do you realize that being Anon, as you are, implies that judgement is meaningless?
Anon, what is the purpose of your literary pursuit? It's rather obvious that you rarely feel joy in your readings. Why do you read, Anon? Is it enlightment by itself a good reason? Then what? There will always be something left to read, something left to understand. This pursuit never ends Anon, you must realize that. If the pursuit is both means and ends, wouldn't it be reasonable to try to enjoy it?
Anon, is it relevant that your books are memes? Do you honestly think that Kundera, Murakami, Hemingway, Pamuk, Mo Yan, Chekhov, and all of them, are shit? Is it possible that they are simply not-Joyce? And maybe not-Joyce is not equal to shit?
Why is it relevant that an author is mainstream or not? Why do you care so much? Do these «plebeians» you talk about have so much influence over you that they can alter your taste simply by liking something?
Anon, you know who you are. After you finish dumping your memes here, I suggest you try to enjoy literature as you used to.
>>8377193
>Getting memed this hard.
Fuck off to r/books
>>8377217
r/books doesn't have the people /lit/ has, nor gets as deep as /lit/ can get. I believe there's Anons with great insight, they just get buried by memes.
>tfw you want to read but you're a poorfag and all of your lightbulbs are burnt out
what's your excuse, /lit/?
Library is free you lazy faggot.
I read on my phone on the train while going to and from work.
What the fuck is your excuse?
the weird frontier between post irony and new sincerity are these millennials the saviors of literature?
No.
Stop posting this crap, Tao.
>>8377052
Go to bed Tao
Reply to this post if you would fuck Mira
I lost brain cells reading this
> muh post-ironic sincerity
The only way I can remain sane after reading this is interpreting it as an anthropological log into the vacuous life of postmodern NYC millenials
> but muh extratextual interpretation
Fuck that. Lazy ass author, reads like the wholly unedited Facebook feed of a depressed numale trust fund baby. Drop his faggot ass off into the streets of Detroit, and maybe Tao Lin will have something to write about (((sincerely)))
Goddammit, fuck this book
I saw Tao in a supermarket last week, it felt a bit surreal seeing the meme himself in the flesh. I wanted to go up and ask something but I accidentally let out a big belch and everyone (including him) looked at me so I got mildly embarrassed and power-walked out. Left my shopping in there as well, sucked.
>>8376959
Nice comment, but fuck you.
>>8376966
*burps*
Do you guy's think, despite their plain disdain for the poet, both Byron and Shelley utilize Wordsworthian sublimity in their poetry?
As in Shelley's "Power" (With a capital P) and Byron's "true creativity" are one and the same, and are also the same as Wordsworth's Sublime? Especially when the poetry itself involves nature?
Or do you think that that attribution is too bold and that Wordsworth's popularity and notoriety made it so everything ecological in that time just kinda automatically becomes attributes to him?
I think the latter, just because I like to find patterns in Romanticism. Also, because my thesis depends on it.
> utilize Wordsworthian sublimity
I have never clothed my thoughts in such hideous words as these, no
>>8376899
I mean it in a literal sense. As in, "Wordsworth's definition of the Sublime"
>>8376903
well I think one should distinguish: Byron may use a Wordsworthian sort of sublimity, but "use" is the word: it's largely an affect, a bit of poetical license. I think it comes as naturally and honestly to Shelley as it does to Wordsworth, though Shelley seldom achieves it as Wordsworth does because he's a great deal less brilliant than Wordsworth