I appreciate that this book has a built-in retard filter due to the extensive usage of rhyming slang and bastardized Russian. Also, I loved the ending, fight me.
>>24711303>forced to write that last chapteri hate sell-outs
>>24711303>>24711811>forced to write the chapter/lit/ once again proving they don't readHe's had forewords explaining it was always his original intention, that's why there's 21 chapters, and it defeats the entire purpose of the book to go without itBeing a dim malchickiwick I doubt you'd understand though
>>24711947you do not have to insult everybody to make your point. this is a civilized board here. we are /litizens not poltards, sir.
>>24711969Gavoreeting like that will make me sharp for a bit of the old ultra-violence
>>24711969>>24711947>>24711811Yeah check out the intro to the post-1986 American editions and read "A Clockwork Orange Resucked". Gives you all the info about it, O my brothers.>>24711971>*tolchoks you in the yarbles with me shlaga*Nothing personal, malenky malchick
GAYEST SHIT I EVER READ IN MY LIFE NIGGA>start with the gree-THEY'RE FUCKIN GAY!!!
>>24711047>GayDeboonked, pic related.
>>24711066fuck you faggot
>>24711062Interesting.--Like, if I'm 'moral,' I'm going to bear some stigma that I can't shake, as I read the sodomite Greeks. Honestly true. I'm Hebrew brained. >I mean this when I say, though:--in earnest I read and love Plato regardless.
>>24711293I know this is satire. Otherwise this an half-witted heteronormative-'Christcuck' cope, yes?--As a Christian I will always associate with Greeks because I naturally have the healthiest-most robust Neo-Platonic-mindset, as all Christians should... but these Greeks were total sodomites. And of course I should refrain from saying--for the sake of being polite, but being objective-.
>>24711293The best trolls always have a bit of truth to them..
Is it good for writing good stories?
>>24711012What the fuck do any of those words mean?
>>24711012what stage are you at bros?i think im about to cross the first threshold now
>>24711012No because it's not recursive and can't descend to the level of syntax. Pick a short (short) story from somebody talented and run Greima's narrative framework on it, annotating each phrase, objective 100% coverage. The value doesn't really reside in the story's structure, but in its minimality. It can help you understand what makes great writing great.
>>24711469By following your heart.
>>24711469You write a bad story, cut out the bits that repel or depress you, contemplate the bits that surprise and delight you, expand it into a longer, deeper story, and repeat.
Are you the author of your next thought? Since thoughts seem to simply arise in consciousness without prior command, can you truly be said to be in control of the mental processes that lead to your actions?
>>24712006>Are you the author of your next thought? Yes>Since thoughts seem to simply arise in consciousness without prior commandNo they don't>can you truly be said to be in control of the mental processes that lead to your actions?Yes
Let's do this>Favourite novel and novelist.>Favourite poetry book and poet.>Favourite play and playwright.>Favourite philosopher.>Favourite classical piece.>Favourite popular music album.>Favourite film.>Favourite director.>Favourite painter.>Favourite painting.
>>24707185based
>>24710160Based
>>24711034Thank you sir
>>24710490>I love all races and ethnicities; least is Indiansyou're missing out, anon
>>24710160not chinese but thanks. they're just the best at short poems and philosophy. i'm an eye guy too, unironically. or perhaps it is ironic given my affinity for the chinese... love t&a though, i'm not gay. the eyes are just the difference maker. >most and least favorite race / ethnicitychinese and arabs
>He who respects the infant's faith>Triumphs over Hell and Death
>"You see, truth is just what we find useful to affirm. It's entirely pragmatic. It's a compliment we pay to our beliefs. Truth is just what our peers let us get away with saying."Uh, since most people think this is bullshit, wouldn't this be false according to its own definition? People don't find it useful to go this far down the "pragmatism all the way down" volanturist rabbit hole, therefore it is simply a false theory. It seems to refute itself as long as it isn't popular (which it isn't).Also, why would I find it useful to think that only sharp knives cut or that penicillin cures bacterial infections if it wasn't *already* true. >"B-but you're smuggling in that things are true in virtue of some pre-existing actuality."Uh, yeah. Things aren't useful for no reason at all. People didn't decide it was useful to have to scrape a life from agriculture or gathering because they didn't "find it useful" to eat rocks, they didn't find it useful to eat rocks because it was already true that you cannot eat fucking rocks.How is this not the very sort of sophistry Plato rolls out as a sort of joke to kick off his dialogues?
>>24711760>>24711796By the way, I didn't say "could", I said WOULD be wrong, necessarily. You clearly don't believe the current scientific consensus to be correct, and it's not like we're already at the endpoint of knowledge, so you shouldn't ignore that "dogmatism" that you yourself uphold.
>>24711796>Everyone in this thread is one person.>The New Science was motivated by scientific concerns and not theology.The New Science was motivated by religious beliefs, first nominalism and fideism within Catholicism, and later by the Reformation. Volanturism is the biggest factor. The complaint was that, if things had natures, then God would somehow be constrained by natures. He couldn't make the good of a horse "whatever he wants," and if loving God is the good of rational creatures then somehow God would be unfree because God couldn't make it good to hate God (Ockham's example).This had nothing to do with scientific advances, which basically kept up their same basic pace until industrialization, centuries after the New Science (nor did growth in economic and military power corelate with an adoption of empiricism, nor is there any shortage of great scientists and inventors who rejected the mechanistic metaphysics, nor am I aware of any empirical support for the claim that empiricism makes people better scientists).The language of the New Science is, of course, theological not scientific. The idea of "natural laws," and things "obeying" those laws is a product of volanturist theology where God commands and things obey. This is more John Calvin than Albert Magnus.At the same time, Reformation politics led to a bunch of good ideas simply being thrown out in a wave of iconoclasm, while even in Catholic areas these ideas hit hard. At the same time education expanded to the growing middle class and away from career contemplatives who lived a life of study and praxis. The result was that more people got educated, a good thing, but at a much lower general quality. By the time of Locke, or even Descartes, core concepts like substance have already morphed into ridiculous parodies of the form they had from Aristotle to high scholasticism. Hence, the via antiqua wasn't so much displaced as forgotten. To the extent it was displaced, it was on account of (bad) theology.But sure, just roll out the dogmatic Whig history of empiricism everyone has crammed down their throat at school. If it gets repeated enough it apparently becomes true according to luminaries (sophists) like Rorty.
>>24711826Nigger, Aristotle's natural philosophy is riddled with sensible mistakes. Take On the Heavens, where he argues that lightness and heaviness lead to linear movement away or towards the center of the Earth as a consequence of the kind of mixture of the four elements that compose something, that the uppermost part of the atmosphere is a layer of the element of fire above air, and that the planets in space have to be made of the unknown element of perfect aether because that's the only way they could have natural circular movement. It's all logically necessary as a part of his system yet it's factually untrue, if you believe that such a thing as absolute truth exists you should be able to admit this fact and that it indeed caused trouble later on, neededing to be torn down.It happened in astronomy, in chemistry, in biology, and I'm not talking about Ockham in the 1300s, I'm talking specifically about the 1600s as I said. Even the Jesuits had to leave behind the Ptolemaic model and move on to the Tychonic, because the creation of the telescope allowed them to see the phases of Venus and the imperfections of the planets, contra Aristotle. Descartes was perfectly aware of this, and shelved his scheduled publication on astronomy once he heard of the inquisition taking action against Galileo's retardation. It doesn't mean everything you dislike is a theological aberration, there were scientific reasons to move on to something else and that's not Whig propaganda.And yes, I do have that image saved. It's a great piece of art.
>>24711961>Argument over whether mechanism and empiricism are flawed.>"W-well Aristotle wasn't right about everything!!!!"No shit, that's a total strawman. Aristotle being wrong about some (unrelated) things doesn't prove that the New Science wasn't deeply flawed (indeed, it arguably retarded scientific progress in a number of areas, most obviously information theory and the social sciences).Notice, you didn't address a single post I made about the (factually true) reasons for the rise of mechanism and empiricism. You instead go off on some irrelevant tangent about specific models, as opposed to philosophical presuppositions that lie prior to those models.Note that underdetermination of theory was known since ancient times. Epicures writes about it, as does Aquinas. It's only empiricism that makes it utterly intractable such that you get post-modern power theories and anti-realism.
>>24711961>It doesn't mean everything you dislike is a theological aberration, there were scientific reasons to move on to something else and that's not Whig propagandaAlso, please explain how any of the specific things you mentioned require empiricism, a denial of natures, and a framing of science in terms of "law" and "obedience" or reductionism, or the claims like "values, color, etc. aren't real," only extension in space is real. Only what is quantifiable is real. And also there are no cats and trees, only particles arranged in such and such a way (all claims that come out fairly early with this new philosophy, which had fuck all to do with astronomy, which had been challenged and reformed for ages. Aquinas is writing about how the Ptolemaic system is underdetermined centuries earlier, and that we can posit all sorts of theories to "save appearances," because that sort of theory always involves quia demonstrations. What empiricism does though is claim that there is no real abstraction and so all demonstrations are quia, and essentially turns abstraction into induction and pattern recognition, not by "scientific proof," but by theological fiat.
I wasn't expecting this book to be so fucking funny. The first half wasn't anything out of the ordinary for a realist novel, but the second half, once Emma starts her affairs, is non stop genius comedic situations after another.The clubfoot guy. Rodolphe writing the letter. The theater. The punchline at the climax with Emma hearing the blind guy. Good lord. So good.Probably the funniest book I've ever read.Discuss.
>>24700158I don't believe I had ever heard of this book, although it is obviously a famous piece of literature. What led me to discover it was that I had a dream a few months ago wherein I was attending school again in an old manor house in the countryside, my peers were various friends; some I have known since childhood, some from college, some university friends. We were moving from the computer room to another lesson when I became lost and alone. I suddenly became frozen to the spot and an ethereal white cloud or smoke like substance began to fill the room and I was filled with a pure terror. Out of the ether a woman made of the cloud itself took the form of an early 19th century woman, dressed in a large dress with corsett and hoop skirt/crinoline. My terror was compounded upon seeing her and for some reason I was only able to shout the words "Madame Bovary." When I awoke I found myself taken by the vividity and odd features of the dream, so rushed to my PC as my phone was dead and googled Madame Bovary to see if there was a woman with such a name that died in my area long ago, instead I found only this book. This post reminded me about it. Maybe I should give it a read.
>>24710842>Maybe I should give it a readYou should, my nigga. It's hilarious.
>>24700255What's so funny about that one? It looked like a lesser Balzac to me when I read it.
Madame Bovary > Salammbo > Bouvard and Pecuchet > Sentimental Education >>>>>> The Temptation of Saint AnthonySorry, I don't make the rules.
>>24700464That had to happen several times in the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia.
What a wild ride, it's weird this book is not more popular
>>24698929What are some other underrated novels from non-major European countries (France, UK, Germany, Russia, Italy)?
bump
>>24698929One of my favourite books... Proto-psychedelic, it influenced Robert Anton Wilson's work imo.
>>24699777>think about how the largeness of a woman's eyes or the 'freshness of her countenance' was enough to send a 19th-century man into a protracted period of erotic mania, and now many people have to seal themselves into goon caves and blast porn on multiple monitors to feel some flicker of desire. i imagine something similar has occurred with our sense for the spooky.Go over to /tv/ and look at the threads concerning “Wednesday” and the pics of Emma Myers, and since the second season came out, Evie Templeton.Big Eyes and a fresh countenance is still sending men into a state of “erotic mania”.
>>24710611>he thinks the snood spammer is the whole board and not just a single schizoIts the same with gadonfag
>spend a lifetime enriching my mind through classic literature>cultivate an extensive and rich vocabulary>when speaking to others they don't understand what I say and think I'm a tryhard fedora-tipperHow has reading negatively impacted your life?
>>24711027Kek.
>>24710917Do foxes even eat grapes? They're kinda like dogs and dogs shouldn't eat grapes.
>>24706259If you don't find speaking to normalniggers boring and dull, you clearly haven't read enough.
Dumbing down your speech is easy. I've been doing it since I was a kid. The danger is obviously that it makes people think you're stupider than you are. If you want to manipulate people you can maybe use that to your advantage otherwise it's a downside. You kinda just have to pick your poison.
>>24711027nta, but learn subtext.
>friend 1 is an edgelord nietszche and froid fan, keeps talking about how life has no meaning, we were born to become dust etc etc, everything's worthless, people are bleak, everything boils down to the biological desire of fucking>is happily married with his cute wife and 2 kids, lives the most peaceful and boring life imaginable>friend 2 is a very trad catholic guy, reads the classics, is a fan of Thomas Aquinas and the church doctors and says he appreciates classical beauty and that a family and marriage are things required to be happy>still lives with his mom, doesn't work nor help her in anything, i only see him in person like every 6 months, has never dated because he says all women are slutsWhy does this happen?
well imo guy one actually has it right. As i’ve studied philosophy with the Bible close i’ve realized it’s Just defining religion without God. Substitute “fucking” with “life”God did not like cains Gift because it wasn’t life. Trad guy isn’t helping his family or trying to procreate. It’s really that…. I used to instantly groan at a philosopher who was anti-religious but then I realized defining life without God is still beautiful. Negative Nothing. i.
>>24710346Friend 1 is a chad who doesn't read but uses random nihilistic quotes to look smart and edgy around women. Friend 2 also doesn't read books but wants a more sophisticated excuse as to why he his a virgin loser rather than admit his addiction to vidya and gooning.
>>24710346Love how the creator of this meme didn't even bother to understand what Nietzsche meant by this. Probably some tradcath who thought Nietzsche was just saying "duhh God not REEL!!!" and immediately got offended.
>>24710346>muh turditional gontology>muh fags>muh kids>muh trud virg >muh merdernna muh whore >muh herpiness Yeah op this is some metashitical done always been fags done all the way around. My verdict is that you need to tell them to trade places. Truecuck core. If they manage to do it then it becomes trVecVck core, otherwise it's just you being overly nosy about your hypothetical friends.
>>24710357Guy 1 lacks the lack then.AACCKK-
Do you actually remember what you read?
>>24706710I used to think you draw conclusions from what you remember but its the other way around. It's why schools (admittedly in an ineffective way) get you to think and write after every individual chapter. You remember what you drew conclusions from, and there are examples in this thread right now. Whether or not you consider a part important or what the bigger picture is or isn't are in themselves conclusions, and your explanation for why something is worth recalling is prior to you being able to.
>>24706710Like 30% of it unprompted, if I take notes. 70% if prompted, with notes. Almost fuck all if I don't take any notes, unless the imagery is very vivid.
>>24706710I remember the imagery I form in my head of what’s going on, but I don’t remember the exact words.
Yes but I remember images and spoken dialogue betterWhen a character is visualized as an actual person with visible emotions it's just easier to remember
i remember facts about nonfiction and impressions and themes about literature, i couldnt recite any excerpts of either
I. The Run and Its OmensRucky and Chung, being again on the run, discovered themselves not so much fugitives as exemplars of the human condition: that perennial oscillation between stability and dislocation, hearth and horizon. But before we speak of their actual sprint, let us speak of the omens that foretold it—omens so contradictory that they might serve as a primer on epistemological doubt.The meteorologist: a priest of isobars and Doppler radar, whose incantations of “high pressure system” and “chance of showers” are modernized analogues of entrail-reading. Here it must be noted that meteorology is not mere science but also economics, for every farmer with his crop futures and every energy trader with his natural gas options hangs upon its forecasts. To mispredict a storm is not merely to inconvenience picnic-goers; it is to move millions of dollars across exchanges.The newspaper: that daily sheet whose ink is less a medium of truth than of advertisement. For though it announces robberies and chases, its true client is not the reader but the advertiser, who counts upon the trembling eyes of those who fear crime in order to sell them insurance, locks, or sensational novels.The constable: who tipped his cap while wheeling forth his bicycle. Permit me here a full digression on the bicycle: invented in its modern form in the late 19th century, it revolutionized personal mobility, particularly for women, whose bloomers were as much symbols of liberation as their pedals. Bicycles transformed rural courtship, labor commutes, and even military logistics (the Swiss army used entire bicycle infantry regiments until 2001). That such a machine should serve as the herald of pursuit is not accident but allegory: modernity chases the outlaw at every turn.And then the final omen: the voice of heaven, booming “Yes” when Rucky inquired if they were indeed fugitives once more. But whose voice was it? The divine? The sheriff’s megaphone? Or the echo of history itself, which has a way of repeating itself until men despair?
NONE (Ninth Hour)Reading from the Gospel of Broadway “And they trod their boots down Broadway, and all the passersby marveled, saying, Who are these men pursued by the whole police department, yet drinking openly at the saloon?”Responsory: Tell them, tell them of our youth! Tell them of our running!
VESPERS (Evening Office)Canticle of the Sheriff’s Wife’s Selfie She framed his bed in pixels, Tequila revolver glimmering like censer. Villagers blurred behind her, And the caption—now lost— Yet still whispers: Another job well done, boys.Magnificat of Chung (apocryphal) My soul magnifies tequila, My spirit rejoices in the outlaw, For he has looked upon the lowliness of fugitives, And stamped their cards eightfold.
DIES IRAE RUCKIANUM (Sequence for the Dead)Dies fugae, dies rota, Steam and Tesla, horse and quota. Run shall end in smoke and shot-a.Quantus tremor est futurus, Cum constabule venturus, Rationes examinat.O Chung, my pallid brother, Come meet me where cacti cannot prick. Tell the unborn of our exploits, Tell the saloons of our songs, Tell heaven’s clerk: stamp my card complete.
Conclusion: The Eternal RunThus ends the Office, though not the outlawry. For Rucky runs still, across constellations, Stamped card in hand, Toward a heaven paved not in gold But in railroad ties.
The stars all hung in place, as if announcingThe hour had come at last, and on the porchThe sheriff called the village-folk, pronouncingSweet stories of salvation, as the torchShone weaker by the moment, and insideThe constable and stately priest kept watch.O dearest Chung!, the bedded Rucky criedSince our just Lord saw fit thou yode before me,And leftest me alone, since then I bideMy hours before this hour. Now I implore theeCome, greet me when I join the chosen few.Already dims the light. Already, stormy,Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Someone on here said long ago that once you've discovered your own interest in literature you'll slowly stop browsing these boards, looking online for suggestions. You'll have the things you want to read and write already and if you've been earnest in that self-discovery you won't have to listen to no one else.I've been at this stage for years, I have a list of books I want to read and anything that moves ahead or catches my attention comes from what I'm already reading or author's praise that I've been interested in. I've struggled through university and also finding anything relevant here to even interest me is hard.I read through these 5 books I have with me now, I write inbetween reading and in the morning and I'm slowly starting to distance myself from any short term gratification. I know I'm going to make it but I've submitted to the fact that this will go on for years and years maybe even to the end of my life - there is no community it's just you, till you make it, and become that community.Anyone else have similar feelings or are in a similar place? I'm graduating soon with a literature degree that I don't necessarily regret I'd be unmotivated or too stupid for anything else but I think about the fact that from here I either get a Master's and teach or just work odd jobs for 15 years and then, I know something will come out, that, at the very least I could be proud of
>>24711738I hope for your sake that you’re ESL
I'm in love
>>24705921>we have scully at home
>>24710648>She seems to despise formulas (masculinity), but then makes several videos about how things are straying too far from formulas (masculinity)So your average woman then
Her video on "Why we never got another LotR" was so wildly misinformed that I'm pretty sure she hasn't read most of the books she talks about or done any research into the actual history of fantasy/SF fiction. She seems to think that some of the genre's pioneers are in fact derivative of books that were written much later and in fact were aping those original writers.
>>24711295but she is hot though
>>24711733>anons find midwit jowls-scully hotGrim. Chudbaiting must be one of the easiest grifts around.
