Is he as good as Shakespeare?
my dad?
>>7988470
better, in technical writing ability
shakespeare understood humanity better though, he invented the human.
>>7988470
why joyce and not someone like yeats?
Joyce was a novalist and Shakespeare was a poet.
ITT we replace titles using their synonyms and guess what book others are describing
>enormous detective
>>7988287
unintelligent amphibianposter
Heaven misplaced
>>7988287
Big Joke
Fundamental Force's Arch
Odysseus
It's all ultimately a matter of opinion, but I think that Absalom, Absalom! is still the great American novel as compared to Blood Meridian. While Blood Meridian is a great lyrical work of philosophy and violence, I still prefer the coalescence that occurred in Absalom, Absalom! rather than the diffuse, picaresque nature of Blood Meridian.
McCarthy is perhaps the best living American author, but Blood Meridian, to me, is a shade below Absalom, Absalom! and Faulkner's masterworks. What do you guys think?
>>7985350
>corncob vs corncob
IMO, Faulkner is better.
I haven't read a more violent book. This shit's brutal.
I don't think McCarthy wanted to write the great American novel.Blood Meridian is a conscious created post-colonial text and a take down of the Wild West and manifest destiny.
While Corncob is Shakespeare but in Mississippi.
What is a book you can recommend that is similar to this?
My diary desu
Infinite Jest
Catcher in the Rye
its out today any one picking it up
No, I don't read contemporary American babble and I despise who does.
>>7995677
shut up
mobi when
I can't find it on #bookz
>>7995677
Regardless of whether you're happy about being culturally colonized by the United States, as a subject of her dominion, it is willfully ignorant to avoid learning about your shared culture.
Have you ever read a book that offended you so much that you had to stop reading it? Mine, personally was Harry Potter 4 for the racist descriptions of the French and "Bulgarian" students or whereever they were from. Just ridiculous.
>>7993477
It's the author's mind. Enjoy it, laugh at it or discard it if it's shit.
>>7993491
Idiot, if we don't complain about it in a public space then how will it EVER change?
Thankyou.
>>7993494
Racism isn't really something to complain about in literature. If a book is bad then it's bad. If an idea triggers you it's your problem.
Can I dive right in to Babby's First Edgy philosopher or am I expected to be familiar with the Greek faggots first?
You can dive right in. He makes references but nothing you can't look up.
>>7992830
the only people that think nietzsche is babbys first philosofur are those who desu dont catch the depth of his thought. the allusions he makes throughout to other philosophies really illustrate aspects of his own thought that are otherwise missed by the new reader
>>7992830
you should probably be somewhat familiar because he brings them up a lot but you could still understand the points he is trying to make.
How do you find time to read novels while in college?
>>7990408
I didn'twent out and got wasted bruh
>>7990408
By doing a degree in literature.
>>7990408
By not living in a shithole and having a functional public transport network.I read on the bus/at the bus stop.
You know the drill.
>>7959211
4/6
Here is where I start to lose you.
What is nothing?
not being
now the question is what is being
>>7994963
thing
>>7994959
The absence of all things.
>"The falseness of an opinion," said Nietzsche, "is not for us any objection to it.... The question is, how far an opinion is life-furthering, life-preserving...." [15] When such pragmatism begins, Nihilism passes into the Vitalist stage, which may be defined as the elimination of truth as the criterion of human action, and the substitution of a new standard: the "life-giving," the "vital"; it is the final divorce of life from truth.
>Vitalism is a more advanced kind of Realism; sharing the latter's narrow view of reality and its concern to reduce everything higher to the lowest possible terms, Vitalism carries the Realist intention one step further. Where Realism tries to reestablish an absolute truth from below, Vitalism expresses the failure of this project in the face of the more "realistic" awareness that there is no absolute here below, that the only unchanging principle in this world is change itself Realism reduces the supernatural to the natural, the Revealed to the rational, truth to objectivity; Vitalism goes further and reduces everything to subjective experience and sensation. The world that seemed so solid, the truth that seemed so secure to the Realist, dissolve in the Vitalist view of things; the mind has no more place to rest, everything is swallowed up in movement and action.
cont
>>7993316
>The logic of unbelief leads inexorably to the Abyss; he who will not return to the truth must follow error to its end. So does humanism, too, after having contracted the Realist infection, succumb to the Vitalist germ. Of this fact there is no better indication than the "dynamic" standards that have come to occupy an increasingly large place in formal criticism of art and literature, and even in discussions of religion, philosophy, and science. There are no qualities more prized in any of these fields today than those of being "original," "experimental," or "exciting"; the question of truth, if it is raised at all, is more and more forced into the background and replaced by subjective criteria: "integrity," "authenticity," "individuality."
cont
>>7993323
>Such an approach is an open invitation to obscurantism, not to mention charlatanry; and if the latter may be dismissed as a temptation for the Vitalist that has not become the rule, it is by no means possible to ignore the increasingly blatant obscurantism which the Vitalist temperament tolerates and even encourages. It becomes ever more difficult in the contemporary intellectual climate to engage in rational discussion with Vitalist apologists. If one, for example, inquires into the meaning of a contemporary work of art, he will be told that it has no " meaning," that it is "pure art" and can only be "felt," and that if the critic does not "feel" it properly he has no right to comment on it. The attempt to introduce any standard of criticism, even of the most elementary and technical sort, is countered by the claim that old standards cannot be applied to the new art, that they are "static," "dogmatic," or simply "out-of-date," and that art today can be judged only in terms of its success in fulfilling its own unique intentions. If the critic sees a morbid or inhuman intent behind a work of art, the apology is that it is an accurate reflection of the "spirit of the age," and it is implied that a man is naive if he believes that art should be more than that. The latter argument is, of course, the favorite one of every avant-garde today, whether literary, philosophical, or "religious." For men weary of truth it is enough that a thing "is," and that it is "new" and "exciting."
cont
>>7993334
>These are, perhaps, understandable reactions to the overly literary and utilitarian approach of Liberalism and Realism to realms like art and religion which use a language quite unlike the prosaic language of science and business; to criticize them effectively, surely, one must understand their language and know what it is they are trying to say. But what is equally clear is that they are trying to say something: everything man does has a meaning, and every serious artist and thinker is trying to communicate something in his work. If it be proclaimed there is no meaning, or that there is only the desire to express the "spirit of the age," or that there is no desire to communicate at all--why, these too are meanings, and very ominous ones, which the competent critic will surely notice. Unfortunately, but very significantly, the task of criticism today has been virtually identified with that of apology; the role of the critic is generally seen to be no more than that of explaining, for the uninstructed multitudes, the latest "inspiration" of the "creative genius." [16] Thus passive "receptivity" takes the place of active intelligence, and "success"--the success of the "genius" in expressing his intention, no matter what the nature of that intention--replaces excellence. By the new standards Hitler too was "successful," until the "spirit of the age" proved him " wrong"; and the avant-garde and its humanist "fellow-travellers" have no argument whatever against Bolshevism today, unless it be that, unlike National Socialism, which was "expressionistic" and "exciting," it is completely prosaic and Realistic.
cont
>No structure at all.
>"... put in so many enigmas and puzzles that it will keep the professors busy for centuries arguing over what I meant"
>Literally written to be overly analyzed.
>It's fucking boring and stupid.
>He doesn't even use quotation marks.
When will this meme stop?
>>7993301
A divine work of art. Greatest masterpiece of 20th century prose. Towers above the rest of Joyce's writing. Noble originality, unique lucidity of thought and style. Molly's monologue is the weakest chapter in the book. Love it for its lucidity and precision.
>>7993301
>No structure at all.
Nigga, what?
>It's fucking boring and stupid.
Wrong opinions is wrong.
>He doesn't even use quotation marks.
Meaningless.
people who think there is a deeper meaning in this chaotic novel are the same retards that think a piece of toast looking like Jesus, or a random pattern in a tomato, is a message from god
Hey lit. I'm about to start writing and I want to know what you guys think of my project. Here's a summary!
(Book name at the moment is Letters To The Future, but i might change that)
Charles is a mess. He has good ideas but no time to write them out. His roommate is an insufferable narcissist. His ex-girlfriend is his only real friend, but nobody believes that they aren't still together. His family is annoying and unsupportive. At the moment, Charles is having a hard time trying to find the motivation to do anything. Out of sheet boredom, he writes a letter to his future self. The next morning, after rebooting his computer, Charles is surprised to say the least when he finds a response waiting for him.
Anyone interested? I will elaborate on the minutia of the story if anyone wants.
Telling us about the story will release the same chemicals in your brain that drive you to write it, so don't talk about it until you've finished.
Whether or not it's any interesting to read depends on how you write it, plot summaries are generally uninspiring.
>>7993248
>Anyone interested?
Nah not really.
>>7993255
Thanks for the frank speech, it's what I come here for. Perhaps I should elaborate, do you think the story is interesting enough to be a full novel? Does the prompt itself have the potential, or should I just wait and stick it in with some other short stories?
Does /lit/ know of any novels that "tell, don't show" rather than "show, don't tell?"
I both "telled" and "show" my mom your dick last night, bro
>>7993120
Why are you even on /lit/? We both know you've never read anything longer than this sentence before.
>>7993117
Look in the critique thread
Arthurian Edition
What's your favorite book about (or inspired by)
the King Arthur mythos?
Previously: >>7985766
>Fantasy
Selected: http://i.imgur.com/3v2oXAY.jpg (embed)
General: http://i.imgur.com/igBYngL.jpg (embed)
Flowchart: http://i.imgur.com/uykqKJn.jpg (embed)
>Sci-Fi
Selected: http://i.imgur.com/A96mTQX.jpg (embed)
General: http://i.imgur.com/r55ODlL.jpg/ http://i.imgur.com/gNTrDmc.jpg (embed)
>>7992428
>What's your favorite book about (or inspired by) the King Arthur mythos?
I've always really enjoyed Cornwell's Warlord Chronicles. Been meaning to read his Sharpe stories too.
the once and future king you stupid fucks
>>7992505
>random BR thinks he speaks for everyone
Don't you have a soccer stadium to burn down?