You're all idiots. Marcel Proust is a faggot and a hack,

>>9160660
>coffee should be given up—coffee makes one gloomy

What did Nietzsche mean by this?

>>9160660
oh shit i just got wrecked

this post is like an atomic weapon detonated in my anus

there's ass shrapnel everywhere. figuratively speaking i will never walk again

my whole life has been a lie, scales fall from eyes, carmina_burana.mp4

Joyce even said Proust was better than him fuck off

>>9160660
>Marcel Proust is a faggot
>Ecce Homo
>Homo

god op you fucking idiot

>the gay science
>ecce homo

??

>>9160689
Post 9160689, in which the author's script is flipped.

>>9160660
Proust is good. Joyce is good. Kneechee is kinda obvious in the 21st century.

>tfw Jung analyzed Joyce for years and concluded that his ''masterpieces'' were not coherent

Damn

>>9160660
>reading any of that shit
I only read Prima Game Strategy Guides. Anything else is for faggots

>>9161559
which masterpieces, the big 4? well FW definitely seems Incoherent but i doubt it, Ulysses definitely is coherent, just crazy af, and portrait and dubliners are clearly not incoherent. wonder what he meant. maybe he just couldn't understand? maybe he went crazy or something.

>>9161718
He was talking about Ulysses. Here's the actual quote:

>one should never rub the reader’s nose into his own stupidity, but that is just what Ulysses does.
>It occurred to me when I was plowing through Ulysses for the first time. Every sentence raises an expectation which is not fulfilled; finally, out of sheer resignation, you come to expect nothing any longer, always giving the reader an irritating sense of inferiority

It took him 3 years to read it.

>>9161718
Finnegans Wake always seemed like a good book, kind of. I own a copy and its the only thing he's written that I get any kind of enjoyment out of reading, even though it's incredibly exhausting if you try to read it like a novel. But his work gets increasingly boring the further back you go, Dubliners being one of the most intensely boring works of literature I've ever read (without going even further into genre fiction).

>>9161718
not him but here's his essay http://jungcurrents.com/jungs-essay-on-ulysses

He never complain about a lack of coherence, he just thought that it was boring and pretentious. It should be noted that he changed his mind later in his life (he considered it woth reading, but he still was somewhat ostile towards it).
Also keep in mind that Jung psychoanalyzed both James Joyce and his daughter and discovered that they were both typical schizotypal (wich, if you have read JJ works, won't come as a shocking news).

Jung didn't have any good pot. I cannot understand Ulysses while sober. There will be times I catch myself rereading the same paragraph eight times trying to decipher what's going on. Once I'm slightly stoned, I am able to get on track with the view that what I'm reading is someone's actual thought process. No repititon is needed at that point and my speed at least doubles. However, it's interesting to note that Joyce incorporates stumbling blocks wherein the thinker refocuses on their surroundings, or ends a train of thought to reference hard-reality.

Did Jung never once question why it was taking him so damn long? If you trying to analyse the text it really is gibberish. You have to let it blossom into your mind as if you were the thinker experiencing these visions, observations and gestures. Just my two cents.

>>9161783
>> Dear Sir,
Your Ulysses has presented the world such an upsetting psychological problem, that repeatedly I have been called in as a supposed authority on psychological matters.
>Ulysses proved to be an exceedingly hard nut and it has forced my mind not only to most unusual efforts, but also to rather extravagant peregrinations (speaking from the standpoint of a scientist). Your book as a whole has given me no end of trouble and I was brooding over it for about three years until I succeeded to put myself into it. But I must tell you that I’m profoundly grateful to yourself as well as to your gigantic opus, because I learned a great deal from it. I shall probably never be quite sure whether I did enjoy it, because it meant too much grinding of nerves and of grey matter. I also don’t know whether you will enjoy what I have written about Ulysses because I couldn’t help telling the world how much I was bored, how I grumbled, how I cursed and how I admired. The 40 pages of non stop run at the end is a string of veritable psychological peaches. I suppose the devil’s grandmother knows so much about the real psychology of a woman, I didn’t.
>Well I just try to recommend my little essay to you, as an amusing attempt of a perfect stranger that went astray in the labyrinth of your Ulysses and happened to get out of it again by sheer good luck. At all events you may gather from my article what Ulysses has done to a supposedly balanced psychologist.
>With the expression of my deepest appreciation, I remain, dear Sir,
>Yours faithfully,
>C.G. Jung

He got it later in life. Keep in mind that he did not have secondary reference to validate what he was reading. I guess he wasn't sure wethere there was something to understand or if it was just gibberish.

Der Nabokovinator luff You Sissies--