/lit/ is for the discussion of literature, specifically books (fiction & non-fiction), short stories, poetry, creative writing, etc. If you want to discuss history, religion, or the humanities, go to /his/. If you want to discuss politics, go to /pol/. Philosophical discussion can go on either /lit/ or /his/, but those discussions of philosophy that take place on /lit/ should be based around specific philosophical works to which posters can refer.Check the wiki, the catalog, and the archive before asking for advice or recommendations, and please refrain from starting new threads for questions that can be answered by a search engine./lit/ is a slow board! Please take the time to read what others have written, and try to make thoughtful, well-written posts of your own. Bump replies are not necessary.Looking for books online? Check here:Guide to #bookzhttps://www.geocities.ws/prissy_90/Media/Texts/BookzHelp19kb.htmBookzzhttp://b-ok.cc/http://libgen.rs/Recommended Literaturehttp://4chanlit.wikia.com/wiki/Recommended_Reading
Are you incapable of making decisions without the guidance of anonymous internet strangers? Open this thread for some recommendations.
The "Iliad is Marvel" meme is wrong but not for the reasons most think. The real reason is because the Odyssey was ancient Marvel. It was basically fan fiction of the Iliad (written by a woman btw) that added retarded sci-fi and mythical elements that the superior Iliad lacked. It also made the gods perfectly moral and no longer motivated because of personal reasons because...the world shouldn't be that harsh, man! have a normal one! Picrel likes the Odyssey more, BAP likes the Iliad more. That tells you everything.
>>23329204lmao
>>23328499Looks like someone got triggered by >>23327602
>>23328499>BAPFuck off, Israeli shill. Your gay larp got exposed
>>23329237He wears Blackf*ce too?!
BAP will live rent free forever in lit midwit book idolater minds, especially in those of ifunny.co meme posters.
>there's this guy and... get this>BUREAUCRACYamazing
>>23330148>daddy issuesWow what a biting and totally not arbitrary reduction of Complex Thing into Simple Thing!
>>23330148I think psychoanalysis is itself based on some need to scale others down into bite sized consumables so as to keep one's feeling of security, and ego superiority intact. It could be true that father issues informed his work, but i see this shit thrown about lazily all the time. "Oh, he's got behavioral issues; must be his dad. Oh, he's moody; daddy wasn't there!" I'm less interested in the apparent truth behind any of that and more about the need that some people have, to identify the "hidden" motives of others. That shit seems like it comes from something very small, and very bad inside of a person. Yes I'm aware that that is itself psychoanalysis. But still. It seems more like a form of attack or security blanket shit than good faith.
>>23330152Isn't horror supposed to be off-putting? Or what do you mean?
>>23330159Idk it's hard for me to articulate. I guess I just mean there's something about it I didn't like and I find aesthetically displeasing enough to never want to read any of it again. Lovecraft especially makes me want to puke. Guy was a freak of nature. When I read Kafka it feels like I'm reading something written by an alien. I'm not trying to be vague it's just a vague feeling.
>>23330162Sounds like you hit kino and can't handle it, f a m
Are there any YouTube videos or free online college courses that go through the entirety of a literary fiction novel and discuss how it works? Like going over its structure, narrative and creative decisions, character progression, etc etcI realize I don't know how a novel "works". The few times I've attempted a solo concentrated study of a novel, I just forget to pay attention to the mechanics of it all and just enjoy it.The only reason I can write poetry and short fiction with some non-zero degree of confidence is because I've taken uni electives on it and have had profs teach the rules and mechanics behind shorter prose and poetry. So I wanna do the same thing with novels
>>23330031you have to go back, buddy. im here asking for ways to improve my writing. you're here to be a fag.
>>23330032Not OP but thanks for the non-retarded reply.
>>23330032you are unfathomable based, anonthis is exactly what I was looking for>>23330042that's a shame
>>23330048>>23330055You're welcome. OP, ignore the guy, saying the Yale lectures are awful. They're not useful for learning how to make literature in a traditional sense, but they do provide a lot of worthwhile information. Just like any good book/video on a theory or a criticism, it inadverntly teaches how to add depth in your literary work and what not to do
>>23330047no you are here to ask for shortcuts, i am here to tell you. there aren't any, and i am not going back
Take a passage you wrote and post it as it was when you finished writing it by hand. Post the polished result after you used Chat GTP to polish it.Ideally you do this naturally but if you have nerver done try it and post results. Or explain why you dont write with Chat GTP.I just started writing this is the first 1000 words of fiction I have ever writen. As soon as GTP touch it it became so much better. I got really demoralised. I always knew I was trash but this is so much.
>>23328716I dint know how I feel about this one. I read a lot but my linguistic prowess is not that great specially in english, my secund language. I analise things by reading paing attention to what I like or don't like. I have some bery rudimentary knowladge of bad writing practices from schoold.First passage used "and" a bit to much and I think that is basic mistake writers make when they are learning and want to talk about someting diferent and don't yet have a clear grasp of diferent sentence structures and good pontuation and that makes the writing bad and then they ware happly ever after...The secund as the standard GTP mistake of using complex/exocti words as adjectives just for the sake of it like: > dwelling nestled within a quaint village.> shimmering with a serene blue hue> dusty veneerI'm not quite sure how I feel about this one. While I love reading, my language skills, especially in English (which is my second language), aren't as strong. I tend to analyze things based on what I enjoy or dislike. My understanding of writing techniques is fairly basic, mostly learned from school.******************** AFTER CHAT GTP********Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>23328799I think option 2 is my favorite as its the simplest and again english is my secund language. After while all thouse texts just blend together in my head I'm strugling to notice the diferece. I guess its like when you lissen to the same song to much.
>>23330075true
>>23328716This is interesting. The original passage is clunky. In the very first sentence I would have omitted "the plain to" because I think that interrupts the flow. The description sounds very dry and lifeless to me. The repetition of the troops and the dust makes it sound like a first draft the way it repeats. I should mention I really don't like Hemingway. I never read A Farewell to Arms and as I read this I thought "this guy is really copying Heminway." Haha. Chat GPT's really isn't any better. It's more verbose. The collocations "quaint village," "dwelling nestled" and "majestic mountains" are outright bad. Those are cliche expressions and they don't actually help with the image of these things, because all mountains are majestic and all villages are quaint.>the sturdy trunks of these trees bore a dusty veneer, as if touched by the passage of time... I really like this, and would call it an improvement, even if I would personally change a few things, but then it continued...>and the transient nature of human endeavor. That reads like AI spaghetti fingers. I wouldn't call what ChatGPT did an overall improvement. Adding cliche expressions and inflating the verbosity of the language sounds amateurish.
>>23328348ChatGPT could never improve my writing beyond fixing typos or forgotten words. My writing is immaculate.
Post your favorite art edition
>>23329027or so he says
>>23326376Nope. Still believe that the only way we get TWOW is after GRRM's death.
>>23327024>People can make all the jokes they want but it's clear he is working on Winds and he's got another 10-15 years before he's probably too old to work on Spring.Lol cope
some of you have deluded yourselves into forgetting that dying in your 70s is like the most normal thing ever
>>23330120Especially when fat. Have you ever met a fat 85 year old?
The average person is unironically too low IQ to read the Bible. All the amount of parables, allegories, metaphors, and allusions are literally too high-brow for most Christians to comprehend the actual meanings within the scripture.
>>23329635>Paul quotes from Luke 10:7 in 1 Timothy 5:18.>he actually thinks Paul wrote 1 Timothy>Mark is not the only gospel that talks about it.You're right, I misremembered the argument, which is that generally the other evangelists take away references to a gospel when reinterpreting Mark.>That's just the Alexandrian version of Mark.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark#Ending>The earliest extant Greek manuscripts of Mark, codices Vaticanus (which contains a large blank space in the column after 16:8) and Sinaiticus, end at Mark 16:8, with the women fleeing in fear from the empty tomb. The majority of recent scholars believe this to be the original ending,[40] and that this is supported by statements from the early Church Fathers Eusebius and Jerome.[41]>Also Paul himself mentions Jesus appearing to the twelve in 1 Corinthians 15. You knew that, right?Yes. But Paul has this whole inferiority complex about the "super apostles". Because they include people like Peter, who was close to Jesus, and James, Jesus' actual brother. And they preach different things like having to keep Jewish law for example. Meanwhile Paul just saw Jesus in a vision, allegedly, which probably made James and Peter mad that this random guy who never met Jesus was just making shit up about his teaching. Now if it turns out that Jesus appeared in the flesh and went fishing and had lunch with the apostles, they have an even better claim than Paul, who just had a vision. Luckily Mark doesn't say that, so the apostles just had a vision like Paul, since the women didn't even tell the apostles like the angel told them to. At least that is how I remember the theory, I saw it a while ago. Later books like Acts try to make it sound like the apostles had minor disagreements and made up their differences afterwards.
>>23329665The modern scholars are hoodwinking you.>he actually thinks Paul wrote 1 TimothyThat's what it says, so yes. Read 1 Timothy 1:1. I don't see why someone who thinks the Bible outright lies would even care.>Meanwhile Paul just saw Jesus in a vision, allegedly, which probably made James and Peter madOk, but the book of Acts which was written by Luke says that Paul was accepted by the apostles. I'd say that is a higher priority source on what happened.>Luckily Mark doesn't say that,In Mark 16:14 it says, "Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen."Also the other Gospels mention this, and Luke was written before 1 Timothy. So there are some significant problems with that theory, it relies on basically assuming the Bible is wrong as a starting point to try to disprove it, but that is begging the question. If a person starts by assuming something is false, it is then possible to reach that as a conclusion and make it look like they've proven something, but that's only if they assume it's false to begin with. Everything they've said requires them to first assume it's false. But this is something they haven't yet established as being a given or a valid assumption.
>>23329726>The modern scholars are hoodwinking you>That's what it says, so yes>book of Acts which was written by LukeI understand, I'm talking to an inerrantist apologist. Discussion can't continue because there is no common ground between our views. But this brings up OP's point:>>23327626You need historical context about what was going on during when each book was being written, when we don't even know for sure for most of them and lots of them got edited a lot. You need to be aware of the differences in translations, where for example the NIV just makes shit up to make the text agree with dogma when it says something the translators don't like. You need to be aware of the possible theological motivations for each passage. You need to know church tradition. You need to know what 2nd temple Judaism was like during Jesus' lifetime, how Jews slowly abandoned polytheism, how they adapted Mesopotamian myths to suit their theology and more. It's basically impossible for a normal person to just read the bible without completely misunderstanding what is going on. Or you can just listen to your favorite priest/pastor/scholar/whatever.
>>23329745>You need historical context about what was going on during when each book was being written,Which I believe we have.>You need to be aware of the differences in translations, where for example the NIVThis is indeed very important. I don't use inaccurate translations and I wouldn't recommend anyone else to either. That would be irresponsible. The NIV is inaccurate, for example its editors tried to eliminate what they saw as a difficult passage by removing the rooster crowing in Mark 14:68 because it seems to be different from what Matthew and Luke were saying.>You need to know church tradition. You need to know what 2nd temple Judaism was like during Jesus' lifetime, how Jews slowly abandoned polytheism, how they adapted Mesopotamian myths to suit their theology and more. It's basically impossible for a normal person to just read the bible without completely misunderstanding what is going on.It would be completely impossible if it wasn't for God seeing fit to grant understanding to grasp the inspired words. Without that, it simply wouldn't happen."Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."(1 Corinthians 2:12-14)The Holy Spirit has to be real, otherwise nothing in Scripture will ever have the right context, even for someone who was completely literate in Greek in the 1st century. However, on the other hand-- God being real makes everything possible. If God inspired prophecies which no one could have possibly foreseen, if that actually happened– then it is also possible for any person who is open even now to know those inspired truths. The verifiably true understanding, the true interpretation which is spoken of in 2 Peter 1:20, would only be possible to have through same Spirit through which it was inspired. Otherwise it would simply be impossible, even for someone who was alive back then and who was in all the right groups to give them the context for things. They would be hopelessly lost. This is since God's intervention makes all the difference.Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
I just want the Q text bros
In our modern culture, many people tend to avoid suffering as much as possible, instead always seeking happiness for it's own sake, but who can blame them -- everyone wants to be happy after all.I'm looking for books offering a different perspective and perhaps even promoting the beneficial effects of suffering.
>>23329889That's just masochism. Christ was not a masochist. He endured for the sake of achieving a goal. He didn't seek suffering for its own sake or make something superficially spiritual or significant out of it.
>>23329889>beneficial effects of sufferingkek, this is what happens if you try to broaden yourself beyond a hedonistic horizon but your mind is still too constricted by angloid utilitarianism.
>>23329889Infinite Jest and The Pale King. Although they don't really consider what you are talking about as suffering and are more about the shortsighted pleasure seeking at cost of long term happiness which results in long term needless suffering.
>>23330078>needlessI meant to replace that with "pointless" but forgot.
>>23329889>the beneficial effects of suffering.Such as?
>claims that Confucius wrote the Spring and Autumn Annals>nobody checks for 2000 years
Aristotle claimed that heavier things falls faster than lighter things and nobody checked that either for more than 2000 years. it is just polite not to check what the great minds claim
>>23328717What proportion of academic references do you actually bother to check in those endless bibliographies and footnotes?
>>23328717Everything about China is an ABSOLUTE LIE fabricated by the Communists in the 20th century.
just horny? Seems like he gets constant criticism for "misogyny" but I don't put stock in that given how they say that about anything mildly critical of a character whose a fucking woman. I read a few pages into 1Q84 and I definitely see the horniness. Is that what is being negatively reacted to?
>>23329956I don't quite understand these internet acronyms, though they seem to be used in an almost random fashion. You are carried up by the pride of your heart, doggedly committed to a belief in nihilism and a belief in female depravity, extracting whatever pleasure you can from "winning" meaningless online arguments--and I am supposed to care to refute you. You should pause and consider if this is really all there is to life, or if you are not perhaps missing out on reality.The main point I made at the beginning of this, which is less a precept of religion than an empirical fact, is that women who hate men are inevitably sluttish and slavish to male attention, and men who hate women are inevitably attracted to whores. On the other hand, chaste men and women have naive views about their gender counterparts. You appear to among the men attracted to whores, and who hates what he most wants to exploit.Logging off the computer now, good night to you.
>>23329973You aren't even a Christian, you're part of some anti-"judaizer" /pol/ LARP. Farewell.
>>23329876Why is that? Is he just not essentially Japanese enough for the Japs? What makes him resonate with the Westerns more?
>>23329814Does it matter if he's a little bit sexist? Like I don't think anyone's arguing that he's like a rabid misogynist. (Probably some are... lol) Basically his women characters are a bit cliched sometimes and they're always sexy, so it sometimes comes off like he's objectifying women somewhat. Sure, those aspects of his work should be looked at critically but even so his books are still well worth reading. Also some of his female characters actually defy stereotypes in a way that reinforces the notion that his gender poltics aren't all that bad.
>>23329816>almost no partI’m not saying I don’t greet from Kazakhstan occasionally but this is just naive, even putting aside that securing the lineage is the most important work in creating a civilisation
>Highsmith [author of the Tom Ripley books, and Strangers on a Train] proudly called herself a “Jew hater” and referred to the Holocaust as “the semicaust”, claiming that its genocide had not gone far enough. Her attitudes to other races were just as foul. “She was an equal opportunity offender,” one friend said. “You name the group, she hated them.”H O L Y B A S E Dhttps://uk.news.yahoo.com/murder-kind-making-love-strange-050000019.html?guccounter=1
>>23327836Wrong.
>>23327854Ahead of her time.
she had boobies
>>23327761I wonder how she came to hate Jews. Pity she didn't write a Mein Kampf type treatise on the subject.
>>23328814Yes, I see.
Have you ever recorded an audiobook? I am looking into getting into the industry and would like the advise of anyone who has experience. I at the very least would like to make some audiobooks for books that don't have one yet.
>>23329610Also, is there any money to be made by someone independent?
Look into voice acting tips, same shit really.
/wwoym/ write what's on your mindhigh trust editionprevious >>23324263
>>23329947Fuck me, but I can't get by on less than a quarter pound of meat, red or white, per day. Not much of a fan of ice cream cream or milk, but when it comes to chocolates and cheese, I'd almost rather be dead than do without.
>>23330093*still a skinny bastard, who knows why that is.
>>2332994990% of native North Americans, about 200 million of them, were wiped out by diseases introduced by Europeans, almost entirely in ignorance of both parties involved. It has no parallel to what you're trying to draw.
I'm tired of being horny.
>>23330169Everyone else is tired of you being horny, too.
Roald Dahl is a fucking moron
>>23325441True. The thing with Rowling though is that her class views are implicit and tacticly show through the way she wrights 'sufficiently magical' races, vs variations of humans.For example, she's very clear that discriminating against 'mudbloods' is a very bad thing that only evil, arrogant and disreputable people do, and this is the kind of view she wants to present herself as having and promoting.On the other hand, she has no issue whatsoever creating magical made up races, which have clearly innate characteristics that are undeniably distinct from normal humans, and actively mocks characters who refuse to respect these obvious distinctions as being completely natural and moreover justifying the most blatant discrimination and class divisions thought this (of course House Elves are born natural slaves silly).For most of her life she seems to have been easily swayed by the 'vibe' of the environment she lived as as so what felt right or wrong, but recently seems to have gained a backbone and developed a much more deliberate worldview that she actively defends and I respect her for seemingly developing out of her previous unreflective naivety.
>>23325441>>23329418>when pseudy libtards get BTFO by children's literature
>>23325419chad hominem
>>23323207All of this is the "morality" of the liberal shopkeeper who despises everything that doesn't benefit his priggish milleau. It resents natural aristocracy because it is unfair and while despising the proles because they might take their place. Family, community and the notion of forgiveness and virtue is hogwash to Dahl, because his only values are the kind of trite, bourgeois morality that led Englishmen to accept a Paki as their PM because he plays the part of the snobby "good sort."If you think there's anything admirable in any of the inhuman garbage he's written you are a bugman. You are all liberals. I will read my children Beatrice Potter and James Gurney.
>>23330160Imagine being this assblasted by someone who wrote children's books where the overriding theme was "be kind and don't hate yourself">I will read my childrenBest of luck to them they're gonna need it
Trevor was six foot three. He was clean and fit and confident. I’d choose him a million times over the hipster nerds I’d see around town and at the gallery. In college, the art history department had been rife with that specific brand of young male. An “alternative” to the mainstream frat boys and premed straight and narrow guys, these scholarly, charmless, intellectual brats dominated the more creative departments. As an art history major, I couldn’t escape them. “Dudes” reading Nietzsche on the subway, reading Proust, reading David Foster Wallace, jotting down their brilliant thoughts into a black Moleskine pocket notebook. Beer bellies and skinny legs, zip-up hoodies, navy blue peacoats or army green parkas, New Balance sneakers, knit hats, canvas tote bags, small hands, hairy knuckles, maybe a deer head tattooed across a flabby bicep. They rolled their own cigarettes, didn’t brush their teeth enough, spent a hundred dollars a week on coffee. They would come into Ducat, the gallery I ended up working at, with their younger—usually Asian—girlfriends. “An Asian girlfriend means the guy has a small dick,” Reva once said. I’d hear them talk shit about the art. They lamented the success of others. They thought that they wanted to be adored, to be influential, celebrated for their genius, that they deserved to be worshipped. But they could barely look at themselves in the mirror. They were all on Klonopin, was my guess. They lived mostly in Brooklyn, another reaoson I was glad to live on the Upper East Side. Nobody up there listened to the Moldy Peaches. Nobody up there gave a shit about “irony” or Dogme 95 or Klaus Kinski. “The worst was that those guys tried to pass off their insecurity as “sensitivity,” and it worked. They would be the ones running museums and magazines, and they’d only hire me if they thought I might fuck them. But when I’d been at parties with them, or out at bars, they’d ignored me. They were so self-serious and distracted by their conversation with their look-alike companions that you’d think they were wrestling with a decision of such high stakes, the world might explode. They wouldn’t be distracted by “pussy,” they would have me believe. The truth was probably that they were just afraid of vaginas, afraid that they’d fail to understand one as pretty and pink as mine, and they were ashamed of their own sensual inadequacies, afraid of their own dicks, afraid of themselves. So they focused on “abstract ideas” and developed drinking problems to blot out the self-loathing they preferred to call “existential ennui.”"
>>23330127I only have one more thing to suggest before I go. Sometimes people just associate the good feelings they had with concrete markers of what they were associated with. e.g., what their first love was like, what their best romantic partner was like, what they grew up with when life was peachy, what captured their fascination when they were maturing as teenagers, etc. People spend a lot of time chasing what they had in hopes of replicating it instead of figuring out what's actually good for them.
>>23326020>would come into Ducat, the gallery I ended up working at, with their younger—usually Asian—girlfriendsseething"de aap komt uit de mouw" as we say in dutch
I really enjoyed this book. Anything else she's written that's worth it?
>>23330099What youre describing is a secure person who is True Neutral but tends toward Neutral Good. This is very hard to find because it takes a wealth of spiritual discipline and intelligence.
>>23330155>"de aap komt uit de mouw"take the tulip out of your mouth lmao
