Fun fact: novels were considered juvenile entertainment, much like TV today, until Joyce elevated the medium with UlyssesDon’t forget to thank him for it
>>24839426Knut did more
The Pulitzer Prize and the Nobel Prize both predate Ulysses and their awards for novels were extremely prestigious
Give Irish gf pls.
>>24839426>juvenile entertainment until JoyceUlysses has one of the highest excrement per page ratios in literature>But his pissing shitting farting and cumming are different!No
>>24839426Book sucks, couldn't finish it.
Austrian school, liberal economics, and socialist economics are all totally unconvincing these days which proves they are not relevant to today.Rory Sutherland's takes and solutions immediately come across as reasonable and he has the market credentials to back it all up.What books do I need to read to think like him?>Inheritocracy: It’s Time to Talk About the Bank of Mum and Dad - Eliza Filby>Confessions of an advertiisng man - David OgilvyHe has mentioned, besides the historical classics (von Mises, Adam Smith, etc.) one needs to have read to throw into the trash.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnHkNyPyUTA
>>24839809who doesnt like fordism?
>>24839978The Dodge Brothers, probably.
b
>>24839069I used to watch this guy on Spectator TV a few years ago, I never thought in a million years he would become a big name like he is now, especially amongst gen Z.
>>24840885all thanks to tiktok mainly
Is brevity the soul of wit?
>>24841113Maybe. Is wit valuable?
>>24841113is this another Hegel vs Schop thread?
>anon, the first sales_numbers of your book just came in>3342 sold in total. 520 were prints, 2670 in audiobooks and 152 ebooks>80% of consoomers *listened* to my writings.>copyofacopyofacopy.wavHow will I cope with the fact that the numbers point out that the audience treated my work as slop? Obviously audiobooks are a lesser form of art than actually reading a book, right? Not that I would know because I do not consume either of those.The irony here is that in my script I went on a rant calling the "reader" a consumer who "reads" and most likely 80% of the faggots *listened* how I call them out for *reading*. They are now to think of me as a fucking tool. It's over.
>>24839982What I tried saying was I refer to it as a script, because if I would post the text/script on the internet it wouldn't be a book, right? Because the interface wouldn't be a book?
>>24836119A big issue with audiobooks is books are a visual medium. The one the words morph on the page, the line breaks, paragraphs, or even the word itself. Meanwhile audio books strip all that nuance.
>>24832900haven't most books for basically all of human history been consumed as audio books?
If it makes you feel any better, it's because most people are either illiterate or have ADD.
>>24840999Oral tradition does not produce the same type of discourse as the typographical.
If Matthew was a deciple of Jesus, why did he feel the need to copy Mark's account verbatim instead of telling his own account?
>>24838210>Okay where does it say he interviewed eyewitnesses? In Luke 1>probably didn't even leave his home town, if even leaving his own church community.Go re-read Acts.Again, do "orthodox" Christians, whether they be Catholic, EO, or Protestant, even read the Bible? Or do you just go based on vibes?
>>24839251Where do you get he is an orthodox Christian?
>>24834090Does Matthew and Luke mention mark?If they don't mention one of their sources, why would they mention another?
>>24839392>whether they be Catholic, EO, or ProtestantI'm going to assume from this that by ""orthodox"" he means Christians who aren't special skeptics like him who believe but not in that lame way where you actually believe but in that cool way where you think everything is totally contingent and fallible, dude. Doesn't help that the other anon is obviously not a Christian at all, though.But of course as Christians we ought affirm divine inspiration, which does not contradict that the scriptures were written by specific men, and indeed the same specific men named by tradition.
>>24831294So how do we know they're legit?
I think that all great stories are (at least in a major part if not entirely) love stories.Note, that in this declaration I include the negative cases under the umbrella of Love Story. Stories of a lack of love are as much love stories as those of the abundance of love. I think that says something profound about humanity, though I lack the eloquence to put it into words. Just that it seems Love is the highest power.
>>24838828All great stories reflect something fundamental about the human condition. All great stories are love stories and they're also family stories and they're also death stories and so on.
>>24839133I think love encompasses family and death. There is no family without love. Death is only tragic because of love (or the absence of love). In the end, death and family stories are love stories.
>>24838828Stupid boar poster
>>24839340Being true to yourself is never a sin
>>24839511But it is uncouth
Where do I start with him?
>>24840834i only know him because he ghostwrote anti-machiavel, start there
>>24840834disapproving of the most based fetish, tsk tskAlso I'm currently reading Candide and it's pretty good. Didn't know it had like an actual story going on and not just taking the piss out of Leibniz
Any books that describe the trve nature of w*men?
>>24837976>a whole book is necessary because women are soooo complexWomen are stupid and deceitful. That's it. The entire collective female psyche spanning hundreds of thousands of years is thoroughly inscribed in those five words.
Wheel of Time series by Robert JordanIt’s fantasy but it depicts a world ruled by women where everything has gone to shit and women mostly just stand there tugging their braids, crossing their arms under their tits, and complain about men
>>24840658Currently reading. Realised how stupid and ignorant I am
>>24837976becky sharpmadame bovarythe red and the blackwerther
Other than Shakespeare, What should one read if they really want to master English? Like works of Philology, Poetry, Linguistics etc on the English language.
>>24841075ChaucerMiltonMelvilleCarrollJamesJoyceGertrude Stein
>>24841075Keats
>>24841075
>>24841075MiltonPope
>>24841087>Joyce>master English
Man everyone at the Nietzsche book group is gonna laugh at me
>>24839062next ask for ecce homo
>>24839062Did you read the book?
>>24839229>behold the homoWhat did Nietzsche mean by this?
>>24839062
>>24839224>You just know what he's using that rubber bulb for...What for? I'm not looking up gay rubber black bulb.
How come nobody has surpassed Japanese literature?
>>24840323Japan has so much more cinema to offer than anime. Kurosawa's filmography alone is better than every film that's ever come from Russia
>>24840340>The best writer of the last 200 years was russian (Dosto)Agreed>the best director ever was russian (Tarkovski)Agree also but Japan has a far more weightier and strong back catalogue of cinema compared to Russia. They've got Tarkovsky, Lopushansky and Klimov but not a huge amount else. >the best prose written in english was written by a russian (Nabokov)Nabakov had nice prose sure but his books are shit and he was a dumb cunt
>>24840354>Kurosawa's filmography alone is better than every film that's ever come from RussiaLol. And /lit/ is supposed to be the high IQ board?
>>24840568m assuming your some Tarkovsky cuck
>>24841083Not him, but Andrei Rublev alone blows the entire nip cinema out of the water.
Why does no one read him anymore?
>>24840545BC he's a gen X of his time. Gen-exers are the worst kind of people and should not be allowed to exist.
>>24840545>books filled with romance and gossip and sexvery feminine
Sons and Lovers is excellent. Aside from that I have only read Kangaroo which was incredibly self-indulgent, repetitive and uneven. Next I will read The Plumed Serpent.
>>24840779>gossipNot reallyRomance and sex yes. That's also 80% of all books
>>24840545He wasn't a great stylist (as Joyce said he talked) and for whatever reason that quality which we call style seems especially to ensure an author's durability.The world and concerns of his books are irrelevant. The woman question is very different now. I heard Lukacks talk about him advocating a lapse into a naive animality to escape the ills of mechanical civilization--pure sex as pure love. For whatever reason this just doesn't work when conceived as a positive program, at least not today--we aren't the greeks, people are too dumb and stupid for that.I like him as a person and I think he tried to do good in the world. He had this great letter to Bertrand Russell. And he saw movies in their depiction of romance/sexuality as a great evil in screwing up people's naivety, which is interesting given that his books were prosecuted for obscenity.Actually his problem is he was one of those people who thought it was as simple as saying "You shouldn't be masturbating but should go have sex with real women." I listed to Nick Fuentes on Tucker and he said basically this, "if you see virtual women that how is a real women going to be attractive to you, which he must have picked up unthinkingly, anyway its not that interesting or insightful. Masturbation vs. Real Sex distinction is where Lawrence concerned himself, and in my opinion this misses the point.
What are some of your opinions which are verboten in literary history. Eg: Shakespeare sucks.My personal is that Robert Graves and Peter Green are better translators of Homer than Fagles, Fitzgerald or Chapman.
Pynchon is a good author but not a great one. He writes "humour" for pretentious readers to chuckle at simply because they "get" the joke he's making and not because it's actually funny. I tried reading some of his works with an open mind, didn't like them at all or find them funny, and any time I try to voice these opinions Pynchon fags come out of the woodworks to interrogate exactly what texts I read and put words into my mouth as to why I didn't "get it" to invalidate these opinions because they can't take criticism of his work
>>24836878I'll bite here, Beckett aside, the high modernists are ludicrously insecure, posturing fakes - their classical allusions a desperate attempt at gravitas. Read an interview with Faulkner and feel the pseud energy flow. Gunter Grass is the natural evolution of the unhinged style - earthier, funnier, better. From him things spin off the way of GGM, Pynchon, Tournier to everybody's benefitIn the meantime, less modern authors like Camus, Bellow, Mishima, were all putting out good and socially important work in the 50s. The rot doesn't settle in till later
>>24836040TRVKE
>>24835148Don DeLillo seems to write misery porn from my estimation.
>>24835148Not sure how "verboten" it is since I'm a newfag on this board, but Proust's work is some of the dumbest shit I've ever attempted to read. I went about 150 pages deep before I finally decided to call it quits for all the inane rambling and gooey autofellating prose.On the other hand, I often hear a similar argument made about Dosto's TBK which I thoroughly enjoyed.
>I would like to point out that this intuitive grasping of ever newer axioms that are logically independent from the earlier ones, which is necessary for the solvability of all problems even within a very limited domain, agrees in principle with the Kantian conception of mathematics. The relevant utterances by Kant are, it is true, incorrect if taken literally, since Kant asserts that in the derivation of geometrical theorems we always need new geometrical intuitions, and that therefore a purely logical derivation from a finite number of axioms is impossible. That is demonstrably false. However, if in this proposition we replace the term "geometrical" - by "mathematical" or "set-theoretical", then it becomes a demonstrably true proposition. I believe it to be a general feature of many of Kant's assertions that literally understood they are false but in a broader sense contain deep truths. In particular, the whole phenomenological method, as I sketched it above, goes back in its central idea to Kant, and what Husserl did was merely that he first formulated it more precisely, made it fully conscious and actually carried it out for particular domains. Indeed, just from the terminology used by Husserl, one sees how positively he himself values his relation to Kant.>I believe that precisely because in the last analysis the Kantian philosophy rests on the idea of phenomenology, albeit in a not entirely clear way, and has just thereby introduced into our thought something completely new, and indeed characteristic of every genuine philosophy - it is precisely on that, I believe, that the enormous influence which Kant has exercised over the entire subsequent development of philosophy rests. Indeed, there is hardly any later direction that is not somehow related to Kant's ideas. On the other hand, however, just because of the lack of clarity and the literal incorrectness of many of Kant's formulations, quite divergent directions have developed out of Kant's thought - none of which, however, really did justice to the core of Kant's thought. This requirement seems to me to be met for the first time by phenomenology, which, entirely as intended by Kant, avoids both the death-defying leaps of idealism into a new metaphysics as well as the positivistic rejection of all metaphysics. But now, if the misunderstood Kant has already led to so much that is interesting in philosophy, and also indirectly in science, how much more can we expect it from Kant understood correctly?
I'm getting back into reading after a long hiatus. Just finished The Crying of Lot 49. What should I read next? Other authors I like are Italo Calvino and Roberto Bolano. I've also read Gravity's Rainbow already
based fren
Foucault's PendulumBaudalinoImaginary Lives by Marcel Schwob
