Anybody else think London was a bit pretentious? "I seemed

God help retarded people, and those even worse off, like dear OP.

If that seems pretentious to you, just go on ahead and give yourself that lobotomy you've been postponing on for so long

I mean, what's even pretentious in that phrase? Express your thoughts, try and be more articulated than a wooden Planck with a buzzword stenciled on it

>>9253320

I think OP is trying to say that he believes Jack London is trying to impress the reader with fanciful writing, which is a bit pretentious. I still like the book though.

>>9253328


I thought that was clear, but I guess not. That is what I meant, but it doesn't seem like it's worth getting into if ad-hominem is the opener to someone's counter argument like this is a discussion on /b/ or /pol/.

File: 1488232219015.png (266KB, 665x574px) Image search: [Google]

266KB, 665x574px

>>9253311
If I recall correctly he is describing a near death experience with that line where he is semi-conscious hearing and seeing visions. The wording appears completely appropriate to me. How else would you even begin to describe such a thing?

I suspect you may just be a retard-faggot, OP. If you want to ascribe pretension to London you picked one of the worst books of his you could, something like Martin Eden would be much more applicable.

That being said, The Sea Wolf is a phenomenal book, for its first half anyway. The character of Wolf Larsen is a true accomplishment, quite funny considering he was written as some refutation of Nietzsche's philosophy but was widely understood and adored otherwise. Rather than representing the failure of the ubermensche he romanticized the idea, the struggle even...because London too was a brainlet you see, and didn't actually understand Nietzsche. Still, it is worrisome when one brainlet cannot be understand a fellow. Hang in there, OP.

File: 543262373.gif (1MB, 400x225px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 400x225px

>>9253311
>Jack London
>pretentious

>>9253341
Do you think you're doing anything else with the question you've presented?

LONDON
O
N
D
O
N

>>9253311
>the main character s literally a 19th century aristocrat and sheltered writer/critic who knows nothing but ease and the world of books
>his choice of words is a bit pretentious
You don't fucking say op!

His name is Humphrey after all, everyone named Humphrey is a bombastic little shit.

>>9253311
>through orbit vastness
Is orbit an adjective there? How is that English

>>9254067
>How is that English

because he wrote it, noophumper.

>>9254009
beautiful

This book was very shit. The philosophy in it was very superficial and the author relied on casting an appearance of superficiality by bringing some of Nietzsche's stuff to it. Just a juvenile book written by an author from a juvenile nation.

>>9254507
Give an example? I don't agree with the totality of your assessment, it had massive potential in the first half as a swashbuckling sort of adventure before London shoehorned in the love story as the very forced resolution to something essentially unrelated.

And I'm not alone....
> Ambrose Bierce wrote, "The great thing—and it is among the greatest of things—is that tremendous creation, Wolf Larsen... the hewing out and setting up of such a figure is enough for a man to do in one lifetime... The love element, with its absurd suppressions, and impossible proprieties, is awful."[2]