And can it not be just some combination of platitudes and descriptions of how it made you feel (ie. "it was comfy" "it was like x but not as good as it" "I got bored after the first ten pages") ect.)
>in b4 "just fucking read it"
I plan to; it's next on my log. I was wondering what sort of mythologies or criticisms I would want to maybe get familiar with before diving into it. It's a newer book and there aren't exactly resources online to have this kind of discussion (meaning no phd student has botched a disseration on it yet). What do the narrative styles remind you of? Are there any passages you like just because you like them. What philosophers/thinkers do you think align with Moore and why? Come on /lit/, surprise me.
Haven't read it, sorry
>>9212468
it's okay, what are you reading rn?
>>9212473
Currently? Dry academic lit for my history studies, which is almost the exact opposite of what Moore seems to be doing here
Narrative styles didn't really remind me of anything. Honestly I hated it. The first 200 pages were best described as a stylistic failure, the prose is so fucking purple its almost unreadable. There are no characters with any real substance to them (beyond that one carpenter who see's the Angel in the ceiling of the chapel), and the philosophy is a horrible mishmash of mystic 'magick' shit that doesn't do anything except give Moore a chance to posit some memes about universal consciousness.
Overall I wish I could get the hours I spent on it back.