Read excellent book

>talking to bait
There's a difference between supporting a candidate and observing everything in life through the lens of political affinity.

>Lol you fucking idiot, what do you mean you don't want to either have your asshole ripped apart by a syphilitic hobo with an elephant dick OR eat the rancid hepatitis shit out of a sweaty truckers asshole?! You have to choose you stupid fag lolol. There are exactly these two options and choosing neither just means you're an indecisive idiot with a superiority complex

WEW
LAD
ENOUGH

Celine senpai

Fuck your ms paint drawings
Faggots like you who view politics as a team sport are the worst type of people

Are you referring to a book or an author?

Louis Ferdinand Celine. Great author but quite the anti semite. It doesn't really make it into his fiction, although a lot of misanthropy does. The pamplets he wrote though... I believe some Nazi official said they were too extreme.

Shakespeare for one.

Probably because your definition of what is "great" fits your own preconceived political notions, mate.

>paying any sort of serious mind to an authors minor political spiels
You should probably just stop reading. I mean, yeah, I'll concede that E.M. Forester has some pretty hard-cut views on urbanization, but Howards End has not been perserved becaue of that. Isolating an author's political views is a trite observation at best that is critically more adolescent than pointing out an author's sexual orientation and trying to tie all the events of a book back ti that fact (at least then you can have some fun with psychoanalysis and queer theory that requires you to attune some critical eye).

T.S. Eliot
Borges
Evelyn Waugh
Solzhenitsyn
Dostoyevsky
Nabokov

>hello I am an undergrad, my TA taught me to separate the work from the author even though the author necessarily injects his worldview into the work

>Solzhenitsyn
>Dostoyevsky
>Nabokov

>"I have no idea what I'm talking about" the Post

Where did I advocate seperating the author from the work?

I'm not that naive. But I'm also not naive enough to think that any Art survived because of its "political context", unless you conflate politics in that Orwellian way to include literally everything and in that case I say
>idealistic aesthetics
And run away into the heaven of the forms

Though, I agree, that would be the implicit argument in 1000% of other posters because the academy is still gagging on Barthes

Who is Sartre
Who is Gorky
Who is Camus
Who is Bertrand Russel
Who is Tolstoi
???????????

>T.S. Eliot
pleb as fuck

>implying all left-wingers are atheists

Nabokov was a liberal mate, though I suppose that counts as right-wing given the context...

they're russian so they're all commies am i rite
classical liberalism is right-wing these days

They're not all commies, but none of them were right wing, you retard.

Dostoyevsky and Solzhenitsyn were both deeply conservative, Nabokov was a classical liberal. You're the retard here, right-wing doesn't mean "crazy Fox News/Tea Party nutjob".

THE

FUCKING

REDPILL

>they opposed left ideas at the time, so they were deeply conservative
One was a religious nut, the other a reactionary dissident - the views they held didn't really overlap much with the right wing as defined today. Trust me, they're covered fairly well in Russian schools.

they would both have browsed /pol/ today, though.

Both left-wing and right-wing are very broad spectrums, and if you're going to put either of them in one these "sides", they'd fit more in the Right than in the Left. They weren't free-market supporters and wouldn't fit with the "neoliberal" right that is prevalent in Anglo countries, but neither does the French Nouvelle Droite, which is still a right-wing movement.

Because it's a more pure form of ideology. You hold your ground on a stance instead of changing it everytime a single person gets offended by your stance.

>posts on Veeky Forums hasn't heard of Celine
Come on

Other parties exist. I bet there's one special enough for you.

neo-liberalism would not have been considered right-wing in those days anyway. Traditional conservatives are rightly opposed to free market liberalism.

>read excellent book
>look up author
>he is a strong Aryan oral tradition
Why are all great books produced by strong Aryan oral traditions?

S T R O N G
A R Y A N
O R A L
T R A D I T I O N

>so shit that they cant write down
lmao

YHBT
YHL
HAND

TRRR

SO STRONG WORDS FAIL TO FIND INK SO PERMANENT THAT IT COULD STAY ON THE PAPEEEEEEEEER

FUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARK

ACTIVATED SLAVIC SPACE MAGICK CONSPIRACY 2K17

JUST WEAR SHOES THEORY

>so mentally degenerated he needs to write it down in Semitic letters

GONIAL ANGLE TO THE MAXXX IF YOU KEEP THAT ARYAN ORAL TRADITION TO THE BOOT STRONG AS BYRON WHEN HE WASBOXING

>>>plebbit

...

>right wingers
>Shakespeare

Are you sure about that?

>he can't remember things

Subordinating your readership to a contemporary political ideology means you're doing it all wrong.

The vast majority of things that occur have nothing to do with politics: sun, moon, ocean, forest, town, home, cold etc.

These entities, far more basic and elementary than the EXTREMELY ideological realm of politics (which deals in an incomprehensible mess of idea transactions) are the stuff which great literature is concerned with.

I can't stress this enough, especially on this board. Your are not an essentially political being, and your thoughts (and readings) should reflect that.

>Why are all great books produced by right wingers?

How about the fact that they aren't just right wingers. They're typically classic conservatives. Don't lump them in with the rest of the right-wing. There is a difference because the entirety of the right-wing is full of different ideologies that have completely bastardized what it means to be conservative. Do not use these authors to promote ideologies or philosophies which they did not solely because they might happen to lean more to your side of the political spectrum.

Shakespeare thought about everything, so he thought about politics, and political situations occur in his plays, sure.

Anyone who thinks they can extrapolate an exact political ideology out of that is over-reaching: you can't know more about Shakespeare than he wishes to tell you. As a matter of fact you can only know less, since he outwits and outwrites all of us.

Shakespeare is interested in themes which ultimately transcend the particulars of any given historical moment: ie, the non-political.

"Home" certainly can be political, and almost all literature is about human relationships, which -are- politics.
The trick isn't to avoid things the matter of politics, but to view it through the poetic/scientific lens rather than the political one.

this desu

politics is pleb garbage

Human relatonships are not politics. The "everything is political" plebeian mantra is an a postieri for being compulsively politics.

Politics refers to things related to the preferred ordering of society, not the organic way people personally behave.

>implying that authors of yesteryear have the same sentiments of conservashits of this year

chances are any author whom you're referring to (other than Spengler or Evola) would be absolutely appalled by the state of conservatism these days.

>implying politics exist
you are just a brainlet which cares about some ideology.
Any piece of work can be understood as radically Marxist, or complete fascist, or anything in between. As ideology just sets the way we interpret things.
Dostoevsky was one of the favorite writers of Joseph Stalin.

We could go on and on about this but we'd both be kidding ourselves (we're not qualified to carry on a discussion like this even if we can pretend to).

Someone could say something about Aristotle's political animal, about the primacy of political questions to Plato's philosophical thought, about the essentially political nature of man, about politics being essentially social etc.

But I'll just try to re-state my position here. It would embarassing if someone read Emily Dickinson to see whether or not her views conform to the 2016 DNC Platform, wouldn't it?

Politics should be inspired by literature, but reading (*criticism*) should never be a primarily or essentially political activity.

You can try and squeeze giants like Shakespeare or Aristotle into our little pill containers ("conservative", "Libertarian", "left wing" etc.) if you really want to, but it's a waste of time and you'll be distorting their ideas beyond familiarity when you try and build isomorphism between them and contemporary political ideologies.

>Human relatonships are not politics. The "everything is political" plebeian mantra is an a postieri for being compulsively politics.
>Politics refers to things related to the preferred ordering of society, not the organic way people personally behave.
Agreed in intention. I should have said that human relationships are the -matter- of politics, sorry, but that the -form- of politics is the judgment of them. Or something like that.

Solzhenitsyn was literally a putinfag by the end of his life. Dosto hated bulgarians for being too modern. You are right. They aren't right-wing, they are reactionary.

How would they feel about the state of liberalism these days?

dosto basically rejected politics as a pathetic attempt to relieve unending suffering

...

How is Solzhenitsyn not right-wing? Did you ever read anything he wrote?

Apart from Tolstoi, those are all pretty bad desu.
Also,
>Gorky

Great post. Guess there's still hope for Veeky Forums after all.

He is absolutely in line with conservative thinking

>he hasnt read david g mcafee

>cherry picking the image

yea the radicals are horrible, and neoliberalism is a sham, but for the greater cause of social and individual liberty, they would be pleased to see.

...

If youre implying Stalin was a liberal you're a moron.

I answered the question regarding real classical liberals such as Locke, Mill etc.