/lit/ - Literature

>>23348870
both were groomers... one of Alcibiades, the other of John

>>23348929
The theme is better than the actual book, which is a total mess especially in the second half. The constant change of rhyming scheme is just horrible to read.

>>23348646
Do what everyone else does. Just say you’re inspired by Hemingway.

>>23348997
No, Samuel Roth was an American publisher.

It still weirds me out that the my chose “Whatever” for the English translation when it’s so far appart from the original French title

>>23348612
If you consider convervatism wisdom then you aren't intelligent enough for real philosophy.

At this point, I automatically know the writer is a woman if the protagonist has an IQ over 10. And no, I am not counting "geniuses" who are just wizards in denial.
I don't know why, but guys seem to prefer brainless heroes. Or maybe what we prefer is action, rather than thought? Or just thatmiddle aged women hate stupid male youths, and so always make them smarter just so they don't have to write the former?

>>23349055
>literary magazines
They still make those?

>>23348336
Writing creatively used to be a dream of mine when I was young but it's not any longer for several reasons, many of which have already been said in this thread. I would never write a novel until I myself am reading new novels by contemporary authors (no point in writing something that I wouldn't actually read myself) and I'm never going to do that until I've finished reading the Western canon, which may be... never. So my dream now instead is to write academically, since I will be forced to do that if I want to pursue a career in academia that will allow me to spend my time reading the canon, and hopefully I can write in a creative way. I think there's a space for this kind of writing -- even for creative academic writing to be read by people outside your field if you're lucky like Nick Land -- not to mention that this kind of analytic writing aligns better with what I've shown success in anyway. The major drawback of this of course is having to deal with academia but that's a different story.

>>23349054
Ok, I see where I need to make myself more clear. I think the idea of creativity we have in popular culture has more to do with boldness or being “unbridled” than what it actually is. However, you need intelligence (What we’ll call the actual creativity) to make it work. That is why I mentioned Dali. He’s an artist with zany ideas, but intelligent enough to make them translate. That is what I meant about him being a commonly associated figure with creativity. However, as I said, most people don’t equate his intelligence with his creativity. They think his creativity is something seperate. I agree with you so far. I was just being messy with my writing. To your point about creative people not being recognized, I think you can agree that there are people who aren’t as creative as these giants of creativity that are still good and able to be appreciated in the moment.

However, to contest all of this so far, Dali has said that he would have been a better artist if he was less intelligent.

>>23349090
Not every film or piece of television is nihilistic. That's a vast overstatement. I do understand what you mean in some pieces of it. Rick & Morty has that type of thing going on. But you're painting with a very broad brush.

>>23349029
There are a lot of bad P&V translations, but this is easily their best. My favorite Notes from Underground translation and I've read four of them I think.

Best autobiographies from people involved in elite special services from around the world?

>>23348682
Sounds accurate

>>23349083
Philosophers are all idiots.

>>23349056
I meant the subtle or outright nihilism disguised as comedy that also pervades the rest of tv and film. There's an undercurrent of malice to western media, sitcoms especially.

>>23348718
Make it part of the curriculum, make the world more dangerous, make magic necessary to normal life, or just make it so that Mages are economically a net benefit even if they're not exclusively workers.

>>23349038
Also if you are wondering about the religious aspect, the short answer is that "Daoism" describes multiple things. On the one hand it's a philosophy possibly like those ideas I just mentioned, on the other hand it's a political outlook sometimes compared to libertarian hippies. For example I saw somewhere a Daoist argument that the only purpose of an emperor is to pick officials. He doesn't do anything else. He is only there to be a chooser of the right people. And historically there were Daoist young nobles who were chided for just running off and living in caves. Anyway as for the religious part: well that's a whole other beast because a lot of it involves stuff adjacent to traditional Chinese medicine, so you will end up seeing a lot of wacky stuff about what you should eat or do to acquire the right energies and a bunch of it is very grifty but YMMV. Even more confusingly, Chinese folk religion and Daoism are NOT the same but share similarities and are often confused, and then more confusingly again, there is "Red Daoism".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_teachings

>>23348882
For me it's St. John's Gospel or Bach's Cello Suites.

>>23349003
That's an absurd criticism. Wagner is one of the greatest composers to ever live, saying he's not as good as Mozart is like downplaying Goethe because he's not as good as Shakespeare. They're both authors at the top of the game and equally worth reading, that Shakespeare may in the end be greater doesn't change anything.

And then, as the other anon says, we're talking about opera here, not music on its own. Comparing traditional opera with Wagner is like comparing the child to the man; none of them, even with the music of Mozart, can claim to be serious drama a la Greek tragedy.

>>23340269
True freedom lies only in Christ.

>>23348485
retardpilled and zoomer memed
kys

>>23346829
>start with the greeks
Not OP, but disagree. Most philosophers are responding to the landscape as it is in their time. You should understand the philosophical problems that they were attempting to solve, not attempt to know every philosopher who remotely influenced them. If OP really doesn't know much about philosophy, he should read an introduction (NOT a history) like https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Problems_of_Philosophy/HuPGLTYv5wUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=problems+of+philosophy&printsec=frontcover.. Then read some Plato or Aristotle, the English Empiricists or the rationalists, and then Kant. That should be more than enough to understand the arguments contained.