How does it feel to have shit taste Veeky Forums?

Oh, all right. Can I at least keep my new Thebiad and Argonautika, though? I haven't read these translations yet!

Attached: IMGP0030edit.jpg (2000x601, 251K)

I honestly don't understand how people can become so self absorbed

>English translation

I threw out.

Being taught from a young age how special and important you are will do that.

Exactly. When I want to know wether or not a book is worth reading I never look at the positive reviews, always the one-star reviews.

I bet none of you are lining up to read books about trans people or dykes then. Of course readers want to be projected into a work of art, otherwise there's no semblance of culture for you to take away. It's very silly, sure, but they're not being a proper art critic. It's their small review on goodreads. I wouldn't read Homer if I didn't have small commonalities with the characters.

>pick random, well liked book
>go on Goodreads
>filter reviews by 1 star
>screenshot
>post on Veeky Forums
Why do you actively shit up the board with this crap? What are you trying to accomplish?

I am a female with a PHD in Classics and this makes me rage with a special kind of hatred

did they miss the part of the poem that concerns itself entirely with the domestic feminine sphere and the courage and tragedy of women in wartime or did they just read it to cherrypick some trigger material

Where is Clouds?

Does Athena show up a lot in the Illiad like she does in the Odyssey?

She is best girl

>domestic feminine sphere
yes, the book's true saving grace

>I bet none of you are lining up to read books about trans people or dykes then. Of course readers want to be projected into a work of art, otherwise there's no semblance of culture for you to take away.
I'd read a book about a tranny or a dyke if any of them were good. I'm not a king, nor a prophet, nor a soldier, nor a scrivener, nor a catholic, nor a latin, nor an italian, nor a woman, but I read books about such persons all of the time.

She supports the Hellenes in the war, and she even pulls Achilles' hair lol

Not liking those is a sign of a pleb

She's a cunt. She got in the way of based Achilles

>not being fascinated with the philosophical implications of time, mortality, culture, and masculinity that undergird the cataloguing

>tfw you just picked up the Folio editions of The Iliad and the Odyssey from your local bookstore for twenty dollery-doos.

>Of course readers want to be projected into a work of art, otherwise there's no semblance of culture for you to take away.

Tell me why gender and sexuality are the operative markers of identity vis-a-vis projecting yourself into literature. Why not religion, political belief, nationality, whatever? Why is it that your genitals and who you want to fuck are so crucially important? This question is where the backlash stems from. Criticizing a straight character or a white character or a male character, by claiming to be unable to identify with them, enforces the idea that sexuality, race and gender constitute incommensurable differences between people. That the differences these characteristics bestow on people are so great that they cannot be bridged, that there can be no common understanding. So much for all of us sharing a common humanity.

Which leads me to my second point: do you honestly believe that art is about projecting yourself into other contexts? If that is the case, art is not much more than solipsism, narcissism and masturbation. This is another reason for the backlash against the identity political points of the kind you are making. Art is about transcendence of the self, transcending the markers of identity you have for yourself. That's why I can take away something from Alyosha despite not being a saint, why I can take away something from Ahab without being a monomaniacal pure force of will, why I can take something away from Anna Karenina without being a married woman in 19th century Russia, why I can take something away from Hamlet despite not being a vengeful and pensive prince etc. etc. etc. I'm using characters as an example, but the same goes for authors: I can take something away from Woolf and Plath and O'Connor despite not being a woman, something from Dostoevsky and Gogol and Tolstoy despite not living as an orthodox christian in tsarist Russia.

>I wouldn't read Homer if I didn't have small commonalities with the characters.

And this is where the identity political critique falls flat on its ass. Everyone has commonalities with everyone else in virtue of being human. Identity political fags deny this in their ill-fated and belligerent hyperindividualism. They lament that no one understands their plight after deeming themselves too special to share anything with any other human being. It's fucking mindboggling, and it is literally the purest strain of spiritual cancer that modernity has spawned.

>unironically invokes the "current year" meme

A1 Grade post

i doubt if anyone here understands homer any more than that lot

I love Veeky Forums

Attached: 1520453948281.jpg (750x737, 52K)

>we do not allow our consciousness to become engrossed by abstract thinking, concepts of reason, we devote the entire power of our mind to intuition and immerse ourselves in this entirely... we forget individuality, our will... and we can no longer separate the intuited from the intuition as the two have become one, and the whole of consciousness is completely filled and engrossed by a single intuitive image

Attached: schopenhauer3.jpg (300x209, 27K)

Well I'm fat and I like beer and donuts so...

>goodreads

Attached: womeme.png (1290x422, 146K)

One star review of the phenomenology of spirit.

>Okay, I'll make this brief. As a Black studies philosopher in the tradition of Frantz Fanon and Sylvia Wynter, I view the 16th century invention of man and by extension the Hegelian dialectic to be an oppressive tool that was constructed to demarcate whiteness as being the sole possessors of the category of "human" and Blackness to, not only be its opposite but better served as its property. This critique is not a stretch for it is riddled throughout this book but also throughout his other work, namely in Philosophy of the Mind and Philosophy of History he asserts that Africans (and by extension Black individuals who live in the diaspora) do not offer the world any culture or value and exist to be intruded upon (2001, 117). This framework is present here, the easy spot to turn to is the "Master-Slave Dialectic or Lordship and Bondsman" but really I believe it reveals itself through how Hegel discusses property and the ownership of things. Hegel takes special consideration to assert the value of things/objects as being complex and in order to fully "understand them" (read consume) he turns to "life's resources/forces" to assert man's right to consume this property to take ownership of all things in effort to gain access to achieving "absolute knowing." Knowledge, for Hegel, is measured by one's property, one can think of the implications that arise of Foucault's Homo Oeconomicus subject that is defined in Biopolitics. Of course, only some individuals are able to be in some positions to achieve knowledge by extension, which according to this structure is fine because it adheres to the natural forces that exist in life. To be honest, my criticisms can not be fully explained within this review (because I choose not to have these reviews exceed a certain word count), and Hegel's dialectic is something that I intend to critique more fully in my research. For those who feel that they have to read this book to legitimatize their graduate school experience, I suggest reading Fanon's Black Skin, White Masks instead.

These people are teaching kids.

>>Okay, I'll make this brief. As a Black studies philosopher
stopped reading right there tbqh

Attached: IMG_3042.jpg (596x628, 57K)

what book though

thank you user

Attached: 1520331691639.png (1165x1075, 728K)

this doesn't stand up. no one can sincerely like tolstoy and dostoevsky they're mutually exclusive.

The Fault in Our Stars

Best post on Veeky Forums right now.

Attached: 152021444002094.jpg (375x285, 19K)

Preach.

I don't read so much Jane Austen because Im a qt high society British girl

they're not opposed they're just different. Tolstoy is very comfy whereas Dostoevsky is like being slightly manic

Attached: athiest's definition of respect.jpg (1283x554, 146K)

Attached: 1506187486321.jpg (524x400, 26K)

>It made me not happy to have come from the European tradition
Don't worry, you came from its drainage pipes.
But of course it would have been so much cooler to have come from one of the numerous other cultural spheres that produced advanced societies with rule of law, liberty, egalitarianism, abolition of slavery, LGBT tolerance etc. etc.

they are opposed, on an essential level. tolstoy is life-affirming

Enlightened post. Why can't everyone be more like you?

no one understands homer.
as it happens almost anyone who does probably hated him initially because of bad translations or having it dissected in the classroom.

God I hate Atheists.
This is why I habitually LARP as a Catholic apologist.

don't take the lord's name in vain then

Pure

Attached: Poetry.jpg (500x370, 60K)

I am an Atheist though.

>I bet none of you are lining up to read books about trans people or dykes then.
But that's just it. Nobody made these people read these books. Nobody made them write their reviews. They chose to read it, and chose to keep reading it, and then chose to review it. Do you really believe they expected these books to be PC and chock full of SJW memes. It's pure virtue signaling.

nobody made you read their reviews etc etc

Correct, and I had the good sense to stop once it was clear I wouldn't enjoy them. If your response isn't a strawman, then you'll see my "review" was actually a normal part of an ongoing discussion () instead of the publicly visible moral masturbation we saw in the Goodreads reviews.

I think you already know the answer to this.

well i wasn't specifically arguing with you. i'm making a point; that although the sort of people on goodreads are wrong, it'd be a folly to make out that they're worst than the rest of us

I can agree with that point, though saying we wouldn't read a lesbian love tale makes us no different than the virtue signalers is clearly not true. It's pretty much the opposite. We are at least honest enough with ourselves (and the world around us) to simply say we wouldn't read it, rather than gruelingly force it down our own throats so we could legitimately mount the soapbox and cast judgment on cultural icons.

And fwiw, I have enjoyed my share of lesbian love stories haha...

>gruelingly force it down our own throats so we could legitimately mount the soapbox and cast judgment on cultural icons
you don't really think that only the 'sjw' types do this
besides, cultural icons shouldn't be like caesar's wife, that is to say, above the law.
the case is i think

>snowflake

back 2 facebook please

I'd read a book from a kathooey, that sounds interesting as fuck. Some of them lead amazing lives and some are human cattle, stolen, kidnapped, and forced into prostitution. I'd read either of these tales. Would I read about some trans person from a Wisconsin suburb? No, who cares, you face no real struggle other than possibly against evangelicals, and I already hate them with a passion so you've got nothing to add for me. Now if that same trans person wrote something about the deeper human condition in relation to their experience? Sure, I would in a heart-beat. That's the difference between something like the Iliad and some feminist literature. The latter goes out of it's way to be exclusionary while the former tries to encompass greater emotion.

>He doesn't spend time doing this for fun

whatever autist put all the time into reading those fucking translations should have learned the damn languages. Latin isnt even that hard

can I ask what you did with your degree? I'm a classics undergrad and want to get my PhD but I hear it's incredibly hard to get a job as a classicist at a university

she posts on Veeky Forums and misses out the matriarchal origins of the iliad

>I bet none of you are lining up to read books about trans people or dykes then.

I have no interest in reading books about people whose identity revolves entirely around sex. They are the most boring people imaginable.

it wasn't missed, it just offended sensibilities because women are supposed to be breadwinners and warmakers while men are meant to mind their meagre station

Woah, dude... deep

the greek's had plenty of myths about hermaphrodites and lesbians (both of these words are greek in origin). they understood these things much better than we do.

>Greek Hero kills some freak
Based greeks

nope

looks like you're missing the other three volumes of Livy.

Is learning Koine Greek a meme? Does anyone here know it?

Brainlet: the post

>completely misses the point

Tell me more about how Alyosha and Myshkin aren't life-affirming.

i got the point - it doesn't stand up under any real study. are you joking? myshkin goes back to the asylum does he not.

Sadly true, but I'm missing a lot that I want. I just made a "purple stripe Penguin" stack for fun.

Attached: medieval4718_o.jpg (1200x1161, 261K)

From time to time I do read lgbt books, they are mostly garbage no better than litrpgs. gayness is often a gimmick and all the drama is very repetitive. It holds true for romance books(see Anna and the French Kiss by Stephanie Perkins) as well so I guess only a specialized audience could love any of it

kek, this

Attached: 1502756689035.png (181x201, 67K)

>women

Attached: file.png (619x535, 121K)

I wish there was a way to filter female users from Goodreads.

Stunning review that suggests to me that Flashman is a series I need in my life. Sounds like a missing link of the picaro.

Safe to say if there is an excess of chicks reviewing one or another book you're looking into, it's not the book for you. For example, Anna Karenina. A terrible overrated dimestore novel about some girl who cheats on her husband and a loser who mows grass, has thousands and thousands of female reviews extolling its greatness or dullnesss. Mayhaps one might avoid such books to conserve what little time there is for things of greater merit, such as shitposting.

>NeoGaf Bookclub
A-are we the Veeky Forums bookclub lads

Attached: 1344145031725.jpg (315x365, 25K)

>implying anyone here reads or discusses literature

Can I be friends with you guys?

How old are you, user? Out of curiosity.

GOOD post

>Hegel is racist yo
>read dis nigga rite here that says whiteness is evil

Emancipation was a mistake.

He's talking about Richard Dawkins.

I know it

I can read Koine Greek, but that’s mostly about reading the New Testament, the Septuagint, and literature form that time period. Plato/Aristophanes/Thucydides and the like write in an older form of Greek, and Homer wrote a still older form. Classical and Homeric greek are all separate fields of study. If you know Classical Greek, you can read the New Testament without much trouble. Not so much he other way around.

homer used an archaic form of greek for even his time in order to conceal his jokes

>i got the point - it doesn't stand up under any real study. are you joking? myshkin goes back to the asylum does he not.

This is just too low-effort mate.

For one, you didn't consider Alyosha, a character that pretty much annuls your terribly crude idea that Dostoevsky is life-denying (go read the last pages of Karamazov), despite being asked outright. Second, Myshkin's ultimate fate doesn't detract from the idea that he is life-affirming - tragedy can be life-affirming. Third, your idea that Tolstoy is life-affirming is just as unrefined - out of numerous examples, consider Bolkonsky as the most obvious. Fourth, even if we were to accept your completely unsubstantiated idea that Tolstoy is somehow life-affirming and Dostoevsky is life-denying, it doesn't even touch upon the post you are responding to originally. It doesn't talk about "liking", it talks about taking away something. So no, you clearly did not get the point.

If you want to sincerely argue that you cannot take away something from each of two mutually exclusive perspectives (again, a crude distinction that you've made no argument for is the case with Dostoevsky/Tolstoy), be my guest.

Ancient (40s). I'm an adjunct prof.

adjunct at 40 lol