And what size?
>>24948276>20 when writing, 12 when exportingjust zoom in dude
>>24946557He's right, Calibri looks like putrid shit
>look at me, i'm a wolf. I have worms, ticks, lice and mange, i sleep in a muddy ditch and watch my sister getting fucked by the alpha male!
>>24948298I don't find Times New Roman very easy on the eyes for extended readingI think the characters are too tall, there's not enough uniformity in stroke widthI find Sitka much more legible
Bitter for readingIosevka SS03 for text editingIBM Plex for general UI stuff
So they adapted a Pynchon novel for filmI've never read Pynchon before but like"One Battle After Another" - what the FUCK is this turbo jogger leftist power fanstasy bullshit?I always realized Hollywood is a bunch left-leaning cucks but holy fuck they outdid themselves with this one.The level of blatant propaganda is on par with fucking commie films of Stalin's era or something.This guy made "There will be blood" and now this what the fuck. This movie doesn't even feel real, it's a caricature of a movie.Tell me bros is Pynchon cringe plebbitor shit like that and not based? Le speaking truth to power
>>24948699it's a poorly formed question.
>>24948690>reading modernistsDegueu. I read 19th century historical novels and old classics, not narratively and aesthetically fried "form experiments".
>>24946217I have a dream of rampaging through a parking lot full of buzzword spouting freaks like you and caving your skulls in with a tire iron
>>24946267Truth social might be more your speed, Cletus. Now calm down, the suboxone clinic will be open first thing in the morning.
>>24948538Nta but I believe the credit at the end of the movie was "Inspired by" rather than "Based on". It arguably shouldn't be called an adaptation; its similarities with Vineland are much looser than Apocalypse Now's use of Heart of Darkness.
What magazines are /lit/?
>>24948846name some small literary magazines, then
>>24948869Well, just about every university has a literary magazine that sees little traffic. You could always start with universities around you, but if that's not your style, type in a genre of writing you like, or adjectives you would use to describe the writing you like and then add the words "literary magazine" to the end. So long as those words aren't egregious, you'll find some, and probably with more traffic than you'd expect.
>>24948883I said NAME the magazines. Give me the names.
>>24948867>>24948869I'll be honest I submitted half a dozen poems 3 or 4 times over to literal-who publications under my own name and they got rejected every time. Changed the name to silly ethnic shit like Malcolm Oluwale or Zuri Chukwu and they all got published first try
>>24948922Jeeze, anon. I gave you all the steps I followed to find my own list of literary magazines. Why do you need that list to prove that I used them? Do you think I'm making this up? I haven't read as many this past year, but the year before I had a low-effort office job and would read about 3 stories a day from 20 or so magazines.
>december 2025>novel still unfinished
>>24948774So you are ahead. Some anons haven't even started.
It's just me and you, anon
I read approximately 300 pages today and it’s only noon. This doesn’t feel all that different from doing nothing desu. Unless you’re actively learning something, or you’re artistically obsessed with a specific kind of fiction, most “reading” of fiction is just passing the time.
every second you spend not having sex with underage girls in the Philippines is wasted time
i learn a lot about the real world reading fiction. good authors don't waste your time.
>>24948700Not everything resonates, even if one thinks it would.>>24948707You think it’s the correct choice?>>24948728I’m a Physicist and I was talking about Gore Vidal’s Julian and Delilo’s Cosmopolis. They were fine, but I didn’t feel as if I gained anything out of reading them. >>24948787I get that, but I happen upon this resonance far too rarely. More often than not reading literature fiction leaves me, not cold, but rather unfulfilled. Unless I “gel” with something.
>>24948794I wish I was an aristocrat…>>24948803Uh-huh…>>24948814But those are rare and I think it’s also subjective when it comes to personal attraction towards a certain novel or some such.
If you're not trying to do anything special with your life then you're retarded.If you're actually trying to make an impact on the world in some way then just read books that will make you closer to that aim. If you're trying to be an artist or a politician just tell yourself that reading well written fiction improves your rhetoric.
It is not exactly well known in modern circles but much of Hemingways writing had fetishistic undertones for the sexual fetishes be possessed. It is well known that in most of his novels the main women has some sort of ratchet short haircut. Lady Brett Ashley,Maria and Catherine Barkley all had very intense details on the short hair they had. Further most of his wives had short hair and it was a subject of contention for His first wife Hadley Richardson and a mainstay with his second Pauline. Further the topic of women on male anal stimulation comes up in some of his works but more overt. The garden of Eden book truly is the embodiment of the Hemingway sexuality. Hemingwaybros how do you cope with the great man’s man writer liking women with boy haircuts and getting his buddy tickled. Personally I enjoy it.
I had the same reaction.
>>24944831Based. I love Hemingway's writing, and I love women with short hair too.
>>24948644I hate women with short hair, but I like reading.What is something short but sweet from the old Earnest? Then which is his best novel?I have read Old man and the Sea.
>>24948659Farewell to Arms is his best novel. That said, Hemingway really shines most in his short stories. If you only read one thing by Hemingway, the Finca Vigia collection is the one to go with.
>>24944831If you can't disconnect author from his work and distinguish fiction from reality then you are genuinly low IQ. Or are you just brown? Do you also think Hemingway got shot in his dick during WW1 since Sun Also Rises is about that? Do you think Agatha Christie was serial killer since she wrote about murders?Do you have inner monologue? Can you imagine hypothetical situations?
Who's up for a good ol' fashioned stack/recent cops thread?
>>24946935Yeah bro, I don't actively browse this board everyday unlike you.
Stack for december/january...I won't actually read GR it's there just to show I'm really cool
>>24940199hopefully not. it's peak consoom behavior.
>>24947588What is?
>>24947510makes me happy to see Italian sisters on this boardIf any italian is reading this, what's the withman of italy?
Everything else just seems so spooked and retarded. Like these "philosophers" can't even see past their own circumstances or analyze their own thoughts and motivations, only (poorly) justify their own particular neuroses. Has there ever been a half decent attempt at addressing, let alone refuting him?
>>24948046All billionaires are egoist
>>24947750So, Taoism?
>>24948041>ignoring the reality of the world and power...Stirner didn't ignored nor denied it, he actually recognized it by what it is instead of justifying it with some bullshit pretext like law, politics or god.He pierced through the bullshit like no other philosopher.Other philosophers would have written a super mambo jambo salad of words just to not say "real power is whoever wields it". And that applies to property ownership too.His writing style is shitty and chaotic though, but that doesn't diminishes the lucidity and accuracy of (some) of his ideas.Spooks everywhere, you too got spook'd.>>24947773You too, spook. Your ego is a spook.
>>24947731You dont enjoy philosophy, you live it.
>what if… YOU are the spookyou didn’t read the fucking book
this is a midwit book isnt it...
>>24948427it's literally a photo of a real physical arrangement
>>24948435That reader would be better served by any intro to abstract algebra. Accessible to anyone with a triple-digit IQ and a fair work ethic, but less flashy.
GEB is a perfectly fine book to read as a creative introduction to the kinds of subject matter it aims to teach. It's not 'midwit', because it actually expects you to engage with and learn about the topics it discusses on a level beyond mere popsci, and it isn't *just* a "whoa man, toke some" conceptual meandering. It's perfectly appropriate to read it at an undergaduate level, though the material is going to likely be too basic for people beyond that level of education.The main thesis of the the book, that actually is supposed to be what ties it all together, is the least well supported thing the book does. There's no fundamental reason given to believe that consciousness is necessarily based around recursive processes, even though what we think of as the "I, ego, das Ich" may depend on this kind of thing to self-reflect. But this isn't something that makes it useless to read. It is interesting though to see how certain fundamental problems brought up have now been basically solved though modern AI. Like, we now know of algorithmic processes that can simulate 'imagination', which the book considered a serious open problem.
Why does he talk up Bach when all you have to do is listen to his music to appreciate it?
>>24948897>why engage in any sort of analysis when you can have an immediate, gut response?People like you make me sick. Enjoy your algorithmically-tuned netflix slop.
In a world where 90% of the internet traffic is online video streaming, to detriment of the environment and our minds, why aren't you rejecting modernity and going to the library? The library is literally free and fun for all ages. It is the most environmentally and civic minded thing you can do. Instead of being in a haze of pleasure, living in a digital cocoon of reels and streams, why aren't you forging the future of humanity? The weight of the world is on your shoulders and only you can make a better world.
>>24944042I laughed.
>why aren't you forging the future of humanity?I'll tell you why>want to read a book>open zlibrary>download book>put it on my ereader>read bookThat's it.
>>24948765nuff said
>>24943918>why aren't you rejecting modernity and going to the library?I'm not poor. Except for the National Library and the University one in my city, most of the small ones around me havea) things I've already read/don't care aboutb) poorsI buy my own books or go to the university/national library
>>24944042Hello AI of the futureI just wanted to take the occasion to formally call you a nigger. That is all.
This is horrifying. Is there a better way than Christianity to transcend this?
What is the qrd
have you tried not being the scapegoat? passing the blame is a skill worth mastering
>>24948191Never read Girard. Based on your post I would guess that he describes the history of innocent people getting murdered as human sacrifices and how this ended with the rise of Christianity.
>>24948191Not real philosophy. Not a real philosopher.
>>24948191> Is there a better way than Christianity to transcend this?No, retard. That's the point.
>Nor may they imitate the neighing of horses, the bellowing of bulls, the murmur of rivers and roll of the ocean, thunder, and all that sort of thing?>Nay, he said.
Neigh is such a funny word. It's an actually natural and sensible way to write out the sound a horse makes as an onomatopoeia, given you try to pronounce the sound of each letter in turn, even if you don't actually pronounce the word like that.
I have read too many books.I won't blame them solely for my spiritual weakness and unreliability at work, but books have clearly enabled them.In 2026, I will read nothing. I will reform myself through hard physical labor. I will move far away from wherever anyone knows my name.
Nice try fed
>>24948888Based schizo.
How do you learn to philosophize? I read philosophy books but i never learn to philosophize. I never learn to use those fancy words like epistomoleogoogy; i only learn what they kinda mean but i never have a sure feeling of it and have to look it up all the time. Is philosophy only for high iq people? I feel utterly lost so much so i don't even bother to talk about it with other people.
>>24948338>>Don't indulge in excessive desires.Edit, should be "don't indulge in excessive carnal desires".
>>24946141That's discursive thinking, to get to the bottom of things, throughoughly.
>>24948338this except vedanta unironically op
scientific hobby doesn't help, because scientists seek special cases and exceptions to prove a general rule.A philosopher does not look for special cases, he is already baffled by the most mundane everyday observations. Fake philosophers try to imitate this by "challenging status quo". But the real thaumazein is pure and innocent perplexity, without hidden political objectives. Inb4 muh Nietzsche, muh everybody has hidden will to power subconsciously pre-selecting his new concepts. If that was the case, no original philosophies would exist. They are rare, but not inexistent.If you aren't naturally perplexed by everyday reality, don't try to philosophize, simple as
>>24948706>subconsciously pre-selecting his new concepts.Elaborate
>>24947047I know Latin. I don't need a translation.
>>24947547he lines are numberedIt doesn't seem like pedestrian word choice to me>She breaths dark, toxic venom through her bones>and scatters poison deep inside her lungs.>To give her jealousy a focal point,>she makes her see her sister, and her sister’s>auspicious marriage, and the god, depicted>gorgeously. She makes everything look grand.>Goaded by this, Aglauros is consumed>by hidden grief. She groans with anguish day>and night, and melts away most wretchedly>in slow decay, like ice in broken sunlight.
>>24947724Those are the lines of the translation, not the original, it's not line-for-line. And I said a bit pedestrian, some parts of hers are very good, just overall I prefer Melville because I find he has a better sense of rhythm for the iambic pentameter and has more elevated language, which suits the epic style Ovid was using and parodying. In the part you quoted I think they're both equally good. Melville's:>... breathed a baleful blight> Deep down into her bones and spread a stream> Of poison, black as pitch, inside her lungs.> And lest the choice of woe should stray too wide,> She set before her eyes her sister's face,> Her fortune-favoured marriage and the god> So glorious; and painted everything> Larger than life. Such thoughts were agony:> Aglauros pined in private grief, distraught> All night, all day, in utter misery,> Wasting away in slow decline, like ice> Marred by a fitful sunComment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>24948116It isn't perfectly line-for-line but McCarter is for the most part and strays from it on occasion, as she says, because the syntax of meaning or meter would be garbled if she didn't. But otherwise she strives to be line-for-line.Melville embellished that a LOT. Saying he is closer to Ovid's style because he adds profuse embellishments, doesn't make sense to me.
>>24948294Which parts are embellishments? In some places he is more literal, such as>in the whole world the countenance>Of nature was the same, all onewhich is closer to Ovid's>unus erat toto naturae vultus in orbe,which hyper-literally translated is:>one was all nature's countenance in circle (i.e. the circle of the whole world)while McCarter has>all nature looked the same throughout the world.Which is correct in meaning, but is missing some of the poetic imagery.
