Are any of our modern authors erotic in the classical sense?
>>12646346>Classical eros is to eros what cosmic horror is to horror.So, a superior form of eros?PS: I still don't know what you mean by "classical" eros.
>>12644658>>12645085>>12645445>>12646380Am I the only one who finds her genuine enthusiasm for great men and great ideas refreshing? I see her smiling with artifacts or discussing with other academics and I can't help but smile. She seems like a kind, exuberant person.
>>12646821>She seems like a kind, exuberant person.She's a fucking tart.
>>12646748We’re here; we’re queer; get use to it.
>>12646840A kind, exuberant tart! Nice.>>12646402I know right!
The "least favorite recognizable poster" thread was deleted (understandably), so I couldn't finish my answer to Brazilian Shakespeare anon. I'll post it in first reply itt.Also it's a occasion to talk about the rather underappreciated languages of the Iberic Peninsula. So: Literature in Spanish, Portuguese, Catalan and Basque general. Pic related but you'd have to guess how.
>>12646926>I still think you are a gentle, intelligent and well-meaning person.It is very pleasant to read, though those qualities are not hard to fake over a Palestrinate choir-sculpting academy. Anyway I hope I helped you.>It's like: you feel that you are indeed wrong and that a wiser and more restrained person is teaching you somethingThis is my standard demeanor on /lit/, mostly a consequence of unchecked arrogance. I used to teach an have noticed teachers often have to fake authority (because really they shouldn't have any, at least I shouldn't) but that this fake authority is often enough. Fwiw I'm 28 now, so probably still slightly above median age here.I turns out I have a much greater ability for criticism and flaw-detection that for any kind of creative work, I'm pretty much the slave leader of Genealogy of Morals. You really shouldn't aspire for that (if you ever did), it mostly leads to wanting to bash your head against the wall all the time. Keep being an actual writer, however flawed, it is infinitely more valuable and probably more pleasant as well. Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Can you help a brainlet out? I’ve wanting to read pic related ever since I read René Girard’s essay on it. What’s a good introduction? or do I just dive straight in? is Robert Adams’ translation good or should I get Moncrieff’s translation?
>>12644214No, it's about a would-be priest who idolizes Napoleon having sex with married women.
>>12644214I don’t think it is, but I’m not sure.I’ll let you know when I read it, anon.
>>12644214Its about mirrors. Huge mirrors
I haven't read it yet, but I own Margaret Shaw's translation. Any opinions on it?
Fantastic book. The MC reminded me of lit posters. It felt more modern writer had wrote it, but then there's this passage when the K–– makes an appearance, and I'm reminded that the author fought with Napoleon.
Any good recommendations on liberation theology lit?
Bump
Do you think Kirke lead a happy life?I read that he grew up in an overbearing and strict home. He held no job and wandered aimlessly all day; regretted breaking it off with his waifu and was tormented by watching her live a happy life that could have been his if he wasn't a depressed melancholic fucker.
>>12645633>Do you think Kirke lead a happy lifeno but at least he wasn't a virgin.according to Walter kaufmann when Kierkegaard was 17 he went to a whorehouse and fucked whores all night just so he would know what the experience felt like.
>>12645633he was as based as they come, but probably not very happy
The biography I read described him as mercurial, happy at times and devestated at others. It clearly noted that he would not have been seen as depressed as we typically think of it due to how productive he still was in spite of his bouts of misery.
>>12646782Smells like bipolar. He broke off the engagement because being close to another human and devoting himself to her made him anxious/depressed. He could somewhat function alone but then he felt lonely and needed God.It's funny how many great minds never looked at their past to solve their discontentment. His whole work opus was an effort to understand and help himself.
How was Dostoyevsky so brilliant?
Epileptic seizures which granted him divine insight
>>12646290God.
>>12646290He was
Natural talent and a fucked up life will take you far as an author.
>>12646290He wasn't, the translators really saved his work. If you ever ask a Russian speaker about him they'll tell you that his stuff is entertaining but overblown.
>1.>The reader is a friend, not an adversary, not a spectator.>2.>Fiction that isn’t an author’s personal adventure into the frightening or the unknown isn’t worth writing for anything but money.>3.>Never use the word then as a conjunction—we have and for this purpose. Substituting then is the lazy or tone-deaf writer’s non-solution to the problem of too many ands on the page.>4.>Write in third person unless a really distinctive first-person voice offers itself irresistibly.>5.>When information becomes free and universally accessible, voluminous research for a novel is devalued along with it.Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
1, 2, and 6 are excellent; most of the rest are meh; 9 is fucking horrible.
>>12646688Its this boomer meme that computers and modern technology are evil demons that magically steal your creativity from you unknowingly, its like when Tom Hanks was bragging about how he wrote his short story collection using a typewriter instead of a laptop.
>>12646638>The reader is a friend, not an adversary, not a spectator.
>>12646638>It’s doubtful that anyone with an Internet connection at his workplace is writing good fiction.Time to cancel your internet services, then, Fagzen.
>>12646638>>Write in third person unless a really distinctive first-person voice offers itself irresistibly>don't do this thing unless you really want to do that thing.
Any books about hating your sexual desire?
>>12646572I suppose I'm a sort of voyeur in that when I did watch porn it was only girls masturbating. And when I masturbate now its usually about a woman masturbating.
It's mentioned a few times in Lady Chatterley's Lover how ridiculous the act of sex is. I'm not sure if you'd be able to enjoy much of the book if you really hate sexual desire though.
>>12646607sounds like you're gay
>>12646456>>12646456What's that book about the guy with a permanent erection that decides to make the best of it before he dies, which is related to the erection. Trying to remember that author, some spanish american critic rec it before he became a women and decided to write about the experience. He'd probably have some shit to say. Other than that I don't know, I only hate what other people hate about my sexual desire, and that's mostly just a fickle selectivity due to sexual confidence, (though strangely my anxiety has also made interacting difficult with beautiful people, especially cute girls).
>>12646456This sad sordid tale right here oughta' do the job
Is this any good? Debo leerlo?
>>12646716Good, and fun. That edition is terrible tho.
>How many female novelists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?He owned a motorcycle, so what could I say?>How many female novelists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?I used to wish I was a ballerina. Now I only wish I was dead.>How many female novelists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?I love high heels, but I still hate men for making me wear them.>How many female novelists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?"The oppression never ends," she said as she sipped her latte and read Foucault.>How many female novelists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?My hair looks terrible today.>How many female novelists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?2,000 pages about how her mother was terrible but her father was more terrible.>How many female novelists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?"I would never published under a male pseudonym," she said while scratching her bald head.>How many female novelists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>12646511I unironically believe that society does mold women in a perverse way but the perversion is in making them neurotic and lacking confidence. Then they go on to write neurotic garbage shit obsessed with absolutely inane horseshit. I thought about what the most annoying facets of a woman can be, for the ones I dislike, and it is overwhelmingly linked to self obsessed neuroticism. Never do those people explore big ideas, they wallow in their own neurosis.
Girls are good and I like them
>>12646567Based. I think women are really cute, and also soft.
>>12646511>YOU>YOU IN THE BACK>WHO SAID YOU COULD LAUGH
It’s unfortunate that women can’t be funny, and yet you still managed to be even less humorous than big milky jewish chick
Why did Nabokov ACTUALLY hate Faulkner so much?We all know the famous quote:>Faulkner, William. Dislike him. Writer of corncobby chronicles. To consider them masterpieces is an absurd delusion. A nonentity, means absolutely nothing to me.But all it seems to imply is that Nabokov doesn't like his subject matter. Is that 100% his reasoning? Because then it's easy to understand seeing as Nabokov wrote what you could call 'aristocratic' works with aristocratic and upper class characters and Faulkner wrote about down-n-outs, hick country folk and niggers
>>12646281I've been trying to read Resurrection lately, it's like he didn't even fucking try to make it read well, everything is just in service of his ideas he wants to communicate.
>>12643643Semi-related, I read Gatsby at that age and hated it, but feel like I’d enjoy it now. But nothing in Catcher makes me feel that way. Is it just me? Is catcher a low point for Salinger or am I just a pleb?
>>12646483Dunno, m8. I loved Catcher since I read it at like 16 or 17 and now I want to re-read it. Not every book is written for everyone, so don't worry.
GHASTLY RIGMAROLE
>>12643423How could say that about based Plato... :(
Why is he a meme?
>>12644412Rejecting a finite set of worldly values does not make you a nihilist. Rejecting the very possibility of worldly values, throwing them out wholesale, these are the kinds of things that land you in nihilist territory.I'm still curious (assuming you're the same person) whether you think Buddhism addresses nihilism or simply doesn't concern itself with it. And if it's the latter, how does a sweeping rejection of worldly values not constitute a concern with nihilism?
>>12640779it fucks you over long-term. which I guess won't matter to you since you're probably planning to huff happy gas when you're 30
>>12644689Wasn't him, but I don't see why you're equating the rejection of worldliness with an outlook like nihilism? The entire premise on which Buddhism is built is the achievement of enlightenment - to this end, it outlines a complete and rigid set of statutes to follow, which encompass virtually every aspect of one's person and lifestyle (ethics, speech, occupations, clothing, etc). Buddhists live in the world, solely for the goal of transcending it, and to do so they adhere to a rigid set of guidelines that they must not only believe in mentally but are expected to embody as well. There really isn't anything here which even somewhat matches nihilism, which, if I have not mistaken your variety of it, involves the complete denial of any metaphysical realities like meaning, morality, purpose or otherwise.Perhaps I've misunderstood you, and what you meant by "worldly values". But from what I know, Buddhism is literally "transcendence-as-philosophy". The entire philosophy, and the lifestyle accompanying it, devotes itself to spiritual purification leading up until the final end known as Nirvana. It doesn't promote materialism, romantic love, or other worldly realities, but it most certainly has no connections to nihilism of the kind today's Western world lives under (I say that with no insult to you or Westerners, I am saddened by your loss of transcendence and want you to lift yourselves out from this horrible condition that has ensnared your societies).
>>12645005Alright, I think this is getting to the root of something about Buddhism I've always been unsure about, so maybe this is productive. I concede that Buddhists certainly have a goal, which is pretty antithetical to nihilism. But unless I'm mistaken, they also endorse the renunciation of all valuation, which seems to remove their grounding for goal-formation. So they must either 1. endorse the pursuit of a goal which they are unable to justify or 2. claim to renounce all valuation while sneaking values in to justify their goal.If they pick 1, I don't see why we should buy into the pursuit of enlightenment. It seems completely arbitrary whether we choose to pursue it or not in the absence of values. If they choose 2, they need a defense of why we ought to renounce all values except for the very specific set that they need in order to justify the pursuit of enlightenment.So is it 1, 2, or am I getting something here wrong?
>>12645136The reasoning behind renouncing valuation is for the very sake of their goal, Nirvana, which can only be reached by such a process. Renouncing valuation does not entail them as not believing in that which they are withdrawing judgement of, be it morality, materialism or otherwise - it's merely that, in their metaphysics of the spirit, one NEEDS to abandon the part of oneself that makes such judgements in order to reach the parts of oneself that lie beyond it, of which the final place is Extinguishment or Nirvana, which involves absolutely nothing of any kind, be it valuation or otherwise. So Buddhists aim to be very moral, for example, and that is part of the Eightfold Path - however, it is seen in the ultimate sense as a stepping stone, towards a land beyond such concepts. Therefore, a Buddhist must believe in morality and be moral, and no Buddhist could claim to be of such a sect while being immoral. That said, they are ultimately aiming for a place that is beyond the concept of "righteousness" itself, which is real but not as real as the Final Void, which is naturally without such concepts.I hope that makes more sense. Buddhists in the world have the task of both valuing certain realities and holding to them, while simultaneously recognizing this to be a temporary and provisional condition, which they are to ultimately and eventually overcome. Like the raft parable, wherein the raft itself is only a means to a destination, which, reached, requires one to leave behind the vehicle arrived there by.
Who is your favorite female author?
Novels: Virginia Woolf Poetry: Alejandra PizarnikShort stories: Alice MunroEssays: Susan Sontag
She is an absolute genius
>>12645215Ayn rand is the favorite female author of people who do not want to have a favorite female author
>>12646604ayn rand is the favorite author of kikes and silicon valley tofuniggers
Arundhati royMary Shelley for Frankenstein Virginia woolfAlissa Nutting right now
Spending a moment in modern academia will bring to you the realization that the modern discussion of literature at the university is through a lens of multiculturalist theory. I have observed myself that a lot of schools have their students read contemporary oppressed authors from specific ethnic backgrounds. I had even read an article on how middle eastern authors are purposefully unrecognized. The thought is that the whole literary canon is that of "dead white men." Will this end? Is it right?
>it’s another thread about politics disguised as a thread about literature
>>12643583Hmmm, people studying books written in the English language are mysteriously surprised to learn they tend to be written by mostly English people, who are, believe it or not, of English or Scotish or Irish ethnicity and not Chinese or Dutch or Nigerian. So strange!
>>12643755They didn't invent much on their own, but they invaded far and wide. Sure they translated Greek texts....after destroying about 90% of them.
>>12645370maybe if leftists irl didn't politicize aesthetics across a broad spectrum of mediums we wouldn't have this problem.
>>12643769>The arabs were the first to translate PlatoThis is a bullshit meme made up by the current powers that dominate academia. Read any history of the era, and you find out it was the Sassanids (Persians) that were the ones that kept the western tradition alive. They had a vast library, translation, and scholarship system that was tied up with the Persian elite education. The Arabs had nothing to do with any of it, apart from conquering the Sassanids and getting access to the libraries.
Why do I want to read primary philosophy sources when being recondite and esoteric, to keep the rabble out, is practically a known tradition of philosophy going back centuries?
