Has anyone here actually read it? If so, what'd you think?
reminds me of chicken soup for the soul
>>8306559
spicy
Ultimate comfy time book, one of my favourite novels tbqh, very funny trying to catch every reference to other stuff Perec puts in the book.
Perec is GOAT, I like that we've been seeing more threads dedicated to his work.
>Once upon a time, in some out of the way corner of that universe which is dispersed into numberless twinkling solar systems, there was a star upon which clever beasts invented knowing. That was the most arrogant and mendacious minute of "world history," but nevertheless, it was only a minute. After nature had drawn a few breaths, the star cooled and congealed, and the clever beasts had to die. One might invent such a fable, and yet he still would not have adequately illustrated how miserable, how shadowy and transient, how aimless and arbitrary the human intellect looks within nature. There were eternities during which it did not exist. And when it is all over with the human intellect, nothing will have happened.
Probably my favorite Carl Sagan quote.
>>8306538
RĂ©!
"The theory of moral sentiments" is Adam smiths less known book and apparently takes a different tone than the "wealth of nations". I am in possession of the book and was wondering if any of you lads had read it and what you thought about it ?
It's the less funny version of A Modest Proposal.
Why can't you guys read for yourself? Why must you ALWAYS ask the opinion of this meme board? Go check some online reviews and make sure they're honest, but don't come here thinking you'll receive god-tier patrician feedback, because that'll never be the case, idiot.
>>8306388
No I was not thinking I was going to get some "god-tier patrician feedback" I was just interested what some of you guys had to say. I like this site, sometimes something funny comes up. Some times you get a very strange poster acting like an arse like you. Whatever it it, generally its good.
>postmodernism
>continentals try to remain relevant after getting BTFO by analytic philosophy
prove me wrong
>>8306329
>remain
>Foucault
>relevant in a post-nihilist, pre-centralist society
Ha
>>8308186
Don't bump your shitty thread
I mean something that makes you laugh
>pic not related
>>8306184
On level 4 and level 6 irony that's a pretty funny picture though.
>>8306184
three men in a boat by jerome k jerome
>>8306184
Joyce, Beckett, Flann O'Brien, and Pynchon consistently make me laugh
What's the best book and why is it Book Ten?
Cuz you like little boys
What dictionaries or style guides would you recommend and why?
>The occasion for this article is Oxford University Press's semi-recent release of Bryan A. Garner'sA Dictionary of Modern American Usage. The fact of the matter is that Garner's dictionary is extremely good, certainly the most comprehensive usage guide since E. W. Gilman'sWebster's Dictionary of English Usage, now a decade out of date.[1] Its format, like that of Gilman and the handful of other great American usage guides of the last century, includes entries on individual words and phrases and expostulative small-cap MINI-ESSAYS. on any issue broad enough to warrant more general discussion. But the really distinctive and ingenious features ofA Dictionary of Modern American Usageinvolve issues of rhetoric and ideology and style, and it is impossible to describe why these issues are important and why Garner's management of them borders on genius without talking about the historical contexts [2] in which ADMAU appears, and this context turns out to be a veritable hurricane of controversies involving everything from technical linguistics to public education to political ideology, and these controversies take a certain amount of time to unpack before their relation to what makes Garner's usage guide so eminently worth your hard-earned reference-book dollar can even be established; and in fact there's no way even to begin the whole harrowing polymeric discussion without taking a moment to establish and define the highly colloquial term SNOOT.
-- DFW
Are dictionaries too patrician for this board?
New Oxford Guide to Writing is pretty good. Guranteed to upgrade your prose if you use it right.
stop watching dildobananas and giving her views. Watch actual good youtube channels about books like this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EL3sMF9cVqg
>>8305944
nah these guys are way more Epic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C58Yu99cnew
>>8306712
Reddit incarnate. there must be a collection of trilbys behind the camera somewhere.
What books should I read to become well-read/memed?
Ulysses, Gravity's Rainbow, and Infinite Jest
bump faggot
>>8305864
all you need, OP
You guys ever cringe real hard and refuse to read your past papers and lit because it doesn't abide your standards?
>>8305848
I would if I could, I trash and burn everything.
I don't have a single picture of document relating to my past besides the ones the state demands. Keeps things fluid desu.
Is he worth reading?
Didn't even fucking know he write
I like the Ulysses podcast though
>>8305827
>I like the Ulysses podcast though
That's why I'm asking.
I've heard that Tipperary and Ireland are good. I haven't read them yet though.
What are some individuals you would recommend to read about that achieved the greateness of and had the level of accomplishment, intrigue and excitement in their lives as the likes of Lord Byron, Sir Richard Burton and Cesare Borgia?
Recently on a critique thread someone wrote some absurd nonsensical passage with one part being a 'reverse great gatsby affirmation'. IT received a bit of attention
Anyone got it and if on the off chance the person who wrote it is here, is there more?
>>8305722
What's a Great Gatsby affirmation?
I've heard people on this board making fun of people who think that literary analysis = "a hunt and peck search for symbolism." Does anyone know of any resources, preferably somewhat compact, where myself and other anons could start getting our heads around basic literary analysis? with the goal being a greater appreciation of everything we read.
>>8305587
>I've heard people on this board
This was your first mistake.
>>8305587
author ded, make up what you want
>>8306900
Make up whatever you want, but interpretations with strong support from the work itself stand better.
Which edition of Ulysses should I read?
The one by Homer.
Anything less than the Little Review serial version and you're a pleb
Gabler, of course.