QTDDTOT

when people here suggest reading Dune, are they referring to the entire series or just the first book

I'm getting a nazi wibe from it, but that might be because i recently read Celan.
It flows awkwardly for the most part and the language is mediocre and does not feel too poetic, and there's a lot of uneccessary repetition of 'its' for example.

the rhymes don't feel deserved (like it seems like you changed what you really wanted to say to force a rhyme, and it's only obscuring what you're tryin to tell us; rhyming's just one technique; saying what you really wanna say well enough is more effective than any forced technique)

nah, to read at the same time, and to discuss about it

Does anyone else absolutely hate Nynaeve and Egwene? (Egwenaeve)

I don't know if they're decent characters for disgusting me or just plain shit.

What is a good word for having a great idea but not having the skills to actually execute it?

just write
words like this
and call it
a
poem

An "Ideas guy"

But, seriously I think a phrase would better capture this concept than a single word.

"user has the capacity for innovative ingenuity yet is restrained by a lack of ability to see it come to fruition."

"Philip K. Dick"

One up'd me, user

>"user has the capacity for innovative ingenuity yet is restrained by a lack of ability to see it come to fruition."

Jesus fuck, did you deliberately write that in the most turgid and unsightly prose possible?

I'm describing myself.

not bad tee be age pham

Well played.

Bump

Bros K vs. Dr. Zhivago

Which one should I read first?

top kek

Thanks come to think of it the poem felt kind of forced. I'll keep working on the original idea though. There was no nazi meaning in it though lol.

Here's a new one.

I walk alone between the rocks,
once molten lava, now sharp stone.
Overgrown with thick green moss,
boulder and man stand alone.

Brothers K IMO is far more fun than Zhivago, which I put down and forgot about.

Use bookz in sticky or Project Gutenberg for old books. Sometimes people post libgen links.

In all honesty, if you want to start with greek philosophy i'd start with plato then go to aristotle's ethics rather than the presocratics. I'm guessing the book you found would be a substitute.

If you really like philosophy then yes it is. There's still a lot of stuff from logic to ethics that people are working on.

For fiction start with Homer then do the plays.

For Philosophy do Plato's Republic then Aristotle's Ethics, and then the rest of their work.

For history do Thucydides then whoever else you want.

first book. In my opinion the series isn't great but the first book is kind of like Aristotle's Ethics and Metaphysics.

You really shouldn't start Plato with the Republic, it's too long and nuanced for the Phil novice, Apology or Euthyphro are the adequate starting points.

Not literature, but could someone explain panentheism in layman's terms?

I have some short stories and poems to read, should they be broken up or read continuously like a normal book?

Just read em pham, then you decide.

People who study philosophy end up just in academia, there's no real point in trying to do research. I wanted to do the same with linguistics.

How do some writers manage to reimagine a work of literature without shitting on it? Like Joyce.

anyone got any queer authors they like?

Thomas Mann.

Seconded for Apology. Pretty solid start.

So I'm about 2/3 of the way through Lolita and I still can't figure something out: just how unreliable is Humbert's narration? For example, he argues that what he did when he fucks Lolita was not wrong because she had already had sex. Can we believe him? He mentions casually throughout the text that he spent a year here and there in a sanitarium, so how delusional can we assume he is, you know, besides the whole pedophilia thing?

heres a hint: hes fucking raping a little girl

Fucking or raping?

it's not a rape if the girl agrees the more so if and the current law considers she is in the legal age to agree

The question still stands: how much of his narration is made up? I get that he's a fucked up but I'm still having trouble figuring out how much of it is bs and how much of it is legit?

Wrong question, don't ask 'is it true or false' but 'why is he saying this, specifically'.

I'd say its still rape, or at least un-ethical and fucked up. She's 12, definitely not old enough at that point to make a decision like that. Have you talked to a 12 year old recently? They're fucking children

>Have you talked to a 12 year old recently? They're fucking children

it depends on the culture

12 y.o. was old enough for marriage for thousand years

currently they are children, yes, but i am not sure it was the case with lolita, she doesn't behave like a child at all

Well I know why he would say it. It supports his argument that that it was wrong because he did not corrupt her in any way, he simply participated in an act he claims is like a "game" to her. A game that she had already participated in. He even goes as far as to claim the boy she had previously copulated with, Charlie, was the one who raped her. He argues that she enjoyed him so it couldn't be rape. The reason why he said it is clear, he wants the audience to sympathize with him.

Is there no way of knowing how much is real and how much is simply there to support his narrative?

>a bunch of men arguing whether or not abducting and fucking a 12 year old girl counts as rape or not

i really, really wish i was less surprised right now

What do you mean 'real'? I hope you don't think that I'm being thick or using cheap rhetoric tricks when I say that there is no 'real', it's a fictional book. Where are you trying to get?

But our only source is Humbert, who has an obvious bias and admitted to being institutionalized. How much can we really trust what he says? The day following their first hookup, H admits that she acts indifferent to him. Perhaps because he molested her and she feels bad about it. He also says how she cried every night as soon as he feigned sleep. That sounds a lot like she was upset about it.

Also, children tend to lie, and Lolita seems to have a defiant personality. Maybe she lied about having sex to seem more mature, as many children that age do.

I guess I meant that when you have an unreliable narrator, you might encounter a situation where the author wishes to convey something happened that the narrator wants to obfuscate. Or do you think the author wants it to be ambiguous with no definite series of events

Thank you! I found the book I needed :)

What are the best Yukio Mishima translations?

rape is a social construct

Does anyone else think English is a weak language?

"social construct" isn't even remotely interchangeable with "not real", just fyi

that's true though

Burroughs

>start writing vidya/anime re-imagining/what-if? fanfictions
>eventually go so far off base that the original cannot be derived from my own work
>change names and distribute
Anyone else do this?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_of_Delirium

this master of orion fanfic :3

Why does this board seem to hate Tolkien so much? Half the criticism about him here is from people who obviously haven't read him

Are there any good literature forums where I won't be subjugated to terrible memes and where I can have serious discussions about books?

no one here would know anything about that kind of stuff

What exactly is epistemology? When I look up the definition it seems "theory of knowledge". But I don't know exactly what that means.

do you think psychohistory can be applied to our own society?

on Veeky Forums it's a meme more than anything else

Defined narrowly, epistemology is the study of knowledge and justified belief. As the study of knowledge, epistemology is concerned with the following questions: What are the necessary and sufficient conditions of knowledge? What are its sources? What is its structure, and what are its limits? As the study of justified belief, epistemology aims to answer questions such as: How we are to understand the concept of justification? What makes justified beliefs justified? Is justification internal or external to one's own mind? Understood more broadly, epistemology is about issues having to do with the creation and dissemination of knowledge in particular areas of inquiry.

I didn't hate the characters, I just hated the perspective, but that's because was too invested in the male perspectives.

this is so meta that it's actually a poignant and perfect shit poem. noeffort10/10

kafka on the shore. metamorphosis, and the unbearable lightness of being would be pretty good. oh, and turn of the screw.

no, no, its humbert that's fucking children. you must have been confused if you thought it was her that was doing it. glad to clear it up for you, senpai

>The Creation of 'X' during the reign of 'X' and the Factors Involved in its Foundation

OR

>The Foundation of 'X' by the 'X' and the Factors Involved in Its Creation

semantics hurt me

Why is it sometimes called Fiesta: The Sun Also Rises and sometimes just The Sun Also Rises? Why isn't it often called Fiesta?

read the sticky

American publication is called the sun also rises. The English publication is called fiesta.

Are both x's supposed to be the same word?

plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/

Can anyone recommend books where the author writes about their personal experiences to portray some important lessons to be learned? The type of authors I'm looking for are philosophers, ancient leaders, or generally accomplished men.

My friend gifted me a Marcus Aurelius meditations book a year ago, and after going through it it affected my life positively so I'm looking for more of that.

Why is logic as a basis of a system undesirable?

The second one is smoother, I think.
Jean Genet and Yukio Mishima are very interesting, especially read side by side.

It implies the world is capable of meaningful one-to-one relationships between definitions/protocols and things, which is naively positivistic

Every theory or philosophy or method needs a meta-theory that accounts for the human/interpretative/hermeneutic element

at least that's the current opinion

Logic seeks to promise reproducibility, which is death.

Read Montaigne's essays.

What is the literary equivalent of the eric andre show?

Why is reproducibility death?
>the world is capable of meaningful one-to-one relationships between definitions/protocols and things, which is naively positivistic
Why?

I've stopped reading for quite a while, and as I tried to get back into it I realised I have the attention span of an autistic squirrel with ADHD (thanks internet).
How do I overcome this?
unrelated pic

Other than Harold Bloom, are there any notorious approaches to the theory of literary influence?

How do I fix wanting to write but being unable to find works stimulating enough to read?

Hi Veeky Forums i need some help because i have some troubles listening to this video about Husserl and Heidegger and it's because I'm not used to hearing English, so if someone could transcript this it would be very useful for me, cc sucks in youtube

this is the video
youtube.com/watch?v=aaGk6S1qhz0&list=PL1B2436687744840B

His writing is not great, all those pages of Frodo whining, the fairy tale morals, and bad Elven poetry is still bad poetry.

The stupid but it works way is to force yourself to read between 10 to 25 pages a day- after a week should be good.

Look up new criticism, it's what Bloom and Sonntag get at, which is looking at art as an isolated piece.

By writing.