This is quite possibly the worst thing i've read in the last five years and the amount of people i've seen carrying it around or displaying it on their "getting offline" youtube videos is concerning.
>>25081838If you take Rick Rubin seriously at all you should probably see a shrink
>>25081838I understand you're using hyperbole and I agree for anybody who's actually an artist already but complete beginners can **maybe** get something out of it.
>>25081838>Rick RubinWhy did you fall for it in the first place? What made you interested in this book?
>>25087508For me all I knew was that he was one of def jam founders. I'm not a creative person so I thought I could get some insight on how to improve in this front. I didn't know he was a fraud.
>>25081899>>25081980kek. /lit/ still has it
>https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/against-high-brodernism/Pic related is a mid review of a mid book by Krasznahorkai, but he also makes a point about the existence of a trend among male readers called brodernism.>Brodernism is not a writerly movement but a critical tendency, not a tradition in the strict sense but a kind of post facto absorption, a critical construction with no real basis in textual history or novelistic corpus that is slowly trickling into the fictional unconscious. An aesthetic product, often, of critical ignorance or disregard: glorious local and regional traditions of experimentality or ambition vanish under the haze of a homogenizing (and loudly proclaimed) American reception as “difficult.” If careerism is the dominant literary style in the United States, brodernism esteems itself the resistance. Provincial or hermetic American texts balloon outwards and swallow up the world, unaware that the world was already in them. The complex interplays of local and transnational that define most literary production disappear into a diffuse but ever-expanding vacuousness into which all are incorporated: some broad notion of “challenging” or “maximalist” literature. I'd say the trend started in the US, and extended well beyond it among readers who are terminally online. At least in my experience, I was first exposed to this kind of annoying male readership here on /lit/ more than ten years ago, and it seems that like me many other readers online (books of some substance, metafictional meathead, WASTE mailing list, etc.) have internalized this way of reading difficult fiction novels and using them as social signifiers. What do you think of this "brand"? Does it exist? Do you see others or yourself in it? And how do you interpret it as a phenomenon? Effortposts welcome.
>>25087453Retarded people breed more.
There definitely are people on this very board that refuse to read anything slimmer than a few hundred pages and they've told on themselves before. Size is often conflated with profundity and that's just an observable fact. This guy's prose is, however, cheeks.
Yeah, hard reading books are for incels, we should read those pornographic novels that women like
>>25087424>>25087453You are obsessed with us. We rule your entire existence.
>>25087301That doesn't exist. People, not only male readers, choose books that have a good reputation, and there's nothing wrong or ignorant, or "fascistic" about that. The list he gave is full of people drowning in awards. Perhaps a young reader might give Krasznahorkai a try because he got the Nobel prize last year? Is this a far-reaching conclusion? Very few of the books he mentioned are known to be difficult, by the way, whether in their original language or in translation. Céline writes in an oral and fragmented prose notorious for avoiding any literary ornament and Sorokin underlines violence and alienation by using a deliberate flat style with some socialist pastiche. Nowhere is there any trace of "winding sentences", "explicit references to entropy and math and classical music", let alone "brick-length tomes". "Wittgenstein's Mistress" is a bit over 200 pages long, "The Looser", less than that and "The Plains" laboriously reach 150 pages. The whole article is just about insulting people with different tastes, he doesn't substantiate any claim, and the last quarter focuses on nazism for no evident reason. I'm baffled when he discusses his own review of a Romanian author he then admits knowing nothing about, and has the audacity to project his crass ignorance onto the literary critique world.Also, the irony to complain about some glorification of density in a prose so convoluted and pretentious. Every word is polysyllabic, abstract, and culturally coded.>Brodernism, nostalgic for the would-be uncharted waters of modernism (but whose?), revives the early 20th century’s fetish for textual originality devoid of its acute historical self-consciousness and critical cosmopolitanismCan these people even read their own articles?
There are some strange summer mornings in the country, when he who is but a sojourner from the city shall early walk forth into the fields, and be wonder-smitten with the trance-like aspect of the green and golden world. Not a flower stirs; the trees forget to wave; the grass itself seems to have ceased to grow; and all Nature, as if suddenly become conscious of her own profound mystery, and feeling no refuge from it but silence, sinks into this wonderful and indescribable repose.
>>25088780Seriously? >>25088776 was for >>25088088.
>>25087234
Magnus es, Domine, et laudabilis valde.the most chad of all
>>25085113>In the beginning the universe was created.>This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.
STATELY
>And as we've established the greatest good is not pleasure.>Of course!>Let us then rank the five typologies of individual based on the amount of pleasure they enjoy.>I see no problem with this.>Based on my quick calculations, the philosopher sigma male enjoys pleasures around 729 times greater than the tyrant.>Incredible maths, and also very true.>Do you want to also rank the types of societies now?>We should do that!>The power-ranking goes as follows: 1. The realms where philosophers rule, 2. Sparta (based retards), 3. Oligarchies, 4. Democracies, 5. Tyrannies >In my opinion, this ranking is completely correct.
>>25088749>Spartai'm sorry but did plato really? i don't remember the socratic method being used to justify cunnilingus, even in "republic"
Quick maffs!
>>25088759Yes, the ideal society is literally just Sparta if the elite valued philosophy and ruled over the lower classes in the interest of common good rather than personal interest. He views timocracy a.k.a Sparta as a decayed form of his ideal society.
Why do zoomers read 12 Rules For Life instead of this?Are they fucking retarded?
>>25085710How is it kike behavior to be reasonably critical of some of them?
>>25086280
>>25086296generational warfare, conquer and divide and they won't revolt
>>25085684what an odd thing to say. Obviously they don't read Works and Days because they haven't heard of it. Nothing to do with being retarded. This just reads like a very awkward way of saying you've just read Hesiod for the first time and want to have a conversation about it
>>25085684Why is everyone on this board obsessed with zoomers right now? Their time is nearly up. It's all about Gen Alpha now.
When Nietzsche said “God is dead” he meant that God is not necessary for our morality anymore. He meant that we had been lying to ourselves about God, using him to create an artificial system of morality that is no longer viable.When he says we killed God, he means that our science, skepticism, education, and technology have pushed us past the point where believing in miracles is possible; but as a consequence of this murder we are lost, have no goals, no aspirations, no values. Christianity was a made up morality, but it served a kind of purpose.The resulting nihilism results in despair, or requires us to look deeper within us and find a new source of human values.That’s what Nietzsche hoped would happen, but that is not what happened.The modern twist to Nietzsche is that we didn’t kill God after all: we enslaved him. Instead of completely abandoning God and embracing a will to power, or taking a leap of faith back towards the “mystery” of God because the angst was too great to bear; instead of those opposite choices, God has been kept around as a paid-for judge. They accept the “morality” but secretly retain the right of exception: “yes, but God knows that in this case…”Atheists do this just as much but pretend they also don’t believe in “God.” “Murder is wrong, but in this case….” But of course they’re not referring to the penal code, but to an abstract wrongness that they rationalize as coming from shared collective values or humanist principles or economics or energy or whatever. It’s a “God” behind the God, not a Christian God but something bigger, something that preserves the individual’s ability to appeal to the abstract, the symbolic.“…but in this case…” Those words presuppose an even higher law than the one that says, “thou shalt not.” That God, the one that examines things on a case by case basis, always rules in favor of the individual, which is why he was kept around.But the crucial mistake is to assume that the retention of this enslaved God is for the purpose of justifying one’s behavior, to assuage the superego. That same absolution could have been obtained from a traditional Christianity, “God, I’m sorry I committed adultery, I really enjoyed it and can’t undo that, but I am sorry and I’ll try not to do it again.” Clearly, Christianity hasn’t prevented people from acting on their impulses; nor have atheists seized their freedom and become hedonists.Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>25088562I think he was just admitting to a crime, but smooth talking his way out in tandem.
But why no guilt?The reason there is no guilt is because there is no longer a shared Symbolic order. The "God" that has been kept around isn't a judge at all; he's a mirror. When you look at him for a ruling, he doesn't look at the Law; he looks at you, and since he is you, he sees that your intentions were good, or your stress was high, or your childhood was bad.We have moved from a culture of Guilt (violating a law) to a culture of Anxiety (failing to be who we think we are). In the movie The Science of Sleep, the main character Stephane isn't "bad," he's just unable to distinguish between his internal desires and the external reality. That is the modern condition: we aren't immoral, we are just dreaming that we are moral, and we've rigged the dream so the phone never actually wakes us up.
>>25088562Majority of humans are assholes by nature that need religion as a moral compass or else they'd be savages just look at the modern world.
I just spend most of my time with my face in a book. Top is some chess stuff. Then my nonfiction (usually history or philosophy). Then a nice relaxing Dan Brown thriller. I usually try to read higher calibre fiction, but I do enjoy a Dan Brown novel every now and then. Think of it like this: I enjoy steak (high calibre), but I also enjoy McDonald's (Dan Brown, Stephen King, etc.). On the bottom is my french language learning. Do you think I'm spreading myself too thin?
>>25087478If it works for you, it works for you. I personally do 2 books at most, usually only 1, but as long as it's still entertaining and edifying for you, I don't see the issue.
>>25087529>>25087678>>25087705Besides the pleasure of it all, what gains do I stand to see in my life? I'd like to make some erudite friends or create something of meaning and value. Or could I be catapulted into some profession and excel in it?
>>25087478>nice relaxing Dan Brown thrillerGr8 b8 m8
>>25088291i r8 it an 8
This is the most healthy thread I've seen
>my favorite book of all time is Halo: The Fall of Reach by Eric NylundWhat type of person do you imagine?
>>25085997why are you posting action figures on a literature board
>>25086133This thread is about Halo: The Fall of Reach by Eric Nylund, which is literature.
>>25082033Skylar Popcollar
>>25086939and how many action figures are in that book
>>25086967a lot
What's the oldest book you own?
>>25085477>The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms by Newton published in 1728What a treasure.>not all that accurate at this pointIt never was, it was kind of crankish.>And its also somewhat random to me that Newton wrote a work of history, but to be fair I don't know all that much about the man.Newton was a massive polymath, although his work in mathematics, physics, and optics are what made his fame, he had many many fields of study, including alchemy.You should read up on the context and read a digital copy of Chronology. You are incredibly lucky to have a copy of it in the family.
>>25086450I see what you mean but I actually gotta go soon so I'll be quick. Reading a book from the time, held by the people of the time, with the language of the time, which shaped the mindset of the time is vastly different from reading the most faithful of all translations that is still bound to the language of its time.>If Dacier were among us today, she would urge you to read Mazon/BérardAnd I'd answer her that I find it more fun to read what the people the translation the people of her time read, as opposed to Mazon/Bérard which her contemporaries had no knowledge of.It's obvious that modern translations are more faithful, but you cannot get into an 18th century aristocrat's head by limiting yourself to them. It's just what I personally find fun to do. Will read your article when I get back
>>25086501>It's just what I personally find fun to do.Impossibly based.
1899, a copy of Lives
>>25085376Could you show me the tin/box on the right, anon? It looks appealing to me
>Religion insofar as it is a source of consolation is a hindrance to true faith; and in this sense atheism is a purification.Was she right?
>>25085226A Jewish fedora.
>>25084853She basically came to the same conclusion as Moldbug, that atheism is a form of pure Protestantism.
>>25084853I don't understand these people who seem to deliberately refuse to take the claims of a religion, especially Christianity, seriously.Christians are Christians because they believe Jesus Christ is God, and they believe He is God because He rose from the dead after being crucified. That's it. It's actually pretty simple. The Church is the Church because Jesus founded it on Peter's head and the line of of the Popes follows down from Peter's successors, and the lines of the bishops follow down as successors to the Apostles.That's it. That's all. That's the truth that Christianity and Catholicism are asking you to accept. You either do it, or don't. But if you don't there's no point in faffing around with weird philosophical constructs like so many of the mid-20th Century philosophers liked to do. Just go be an atheist and be done with it. Or if you can't stand being an atheist just shut up and go to Mass every Sunday.All these midcentury fucks just fagged around for no good reason, obfuscating and complicating something that's actually really pretty simple. I honestly respect atheist assholes like Christopher Hitchens more than somebody like Weil or Baudrillard or Girard, at least somebody like Hitchens wasn't trying to play some stupid game with religion.
>>25088554It is beyond language
This thread proves how hopelessly fucking dumb this board has become. There could have been an interesting discussion here but no one meaningfully engaged with the quote - half of the posters ITT lacked the reading comprehension to even understand it. Grim.
Would you let Nabokov and Lewis Carroll babysit your child
No, but I'd let C.S. Lewis.
>>25088533Throw in Arnold Lobel, of Frog and Toad fame.Imagine this as a children's story. Three awkward and dubious adults try to take care of a couple of loud children
Books on relaxing child labor laws in a postindustrial economy?
nyo
>>25088444I know I've read the first book, not sure about the second but perhaps I have. I don't see the benefit of increasing child labor for farming. Would probably get better gains using technology. I was thinking more along the lines of media and assistant work.
>>25088337Anon, they, the rich and powerful, are scouring the masses for the best genes to preserve and breed so that they can suck on the children's adrenaline and whatnot after they rape them.They're also in the process of replacing most of the working goyim with machines, so that is why they're trying to kill off large portions in various moneymaking schemes. They want a dramatic population drop. They do not need children labor (aside from brothel work)That's right. Your masters don't like you and wouldn't care if you lived or died fighting for them or against them. They're going to kill you at some point in your life.
>>25088337Further proof that anyone who watches anime is morally reprehensible person.
>>25088376Because, chud, sex work is work
rec me some ice cold blood curdling thrillers
Ballsack
>>25086989What an unsettling pic
Drunkowski
Satire
>>25086913That's John Lovitz though
What's the first book you read in Catalan?
>>25088042Fuck hispanitards, Fuck Franco and your whole fake ass government.
>>25087943The only relevant catalan literature was written by valencians kek.
>>25087943the visitor's pamphlet at la sagrada familia, first and last
>>25087943>What's the first book you read in Catalan?Nothing because I don't know the language. But I have read picrel in English and it was fantastic.
>>25088398seven twilights? shit that's a lot of twilights bro
