/lit/ - Literature

Post all overrated hacks of literature that you can skip reading.

>>20124428
Why would a grain merchant NOT know granular details you fucking idiot

>>20040925
>>file:///C:/...

Good afternoon fellow anons,

Today I write to you to request assistance in a vague goal i have. In these modern days we live in, and as, contradictions; we social creatures have the world at their fingertips, yet atomization is rampant and destroying every level of social connection and cohesiveness. I am ashamed to have to admit that I am particularly afflicted by this (although, I suppose me writing to you was proof enough). I crave to find acquaintances, peers, mentors, peoples whose ear I would love to bend, be it over sincere and in-depth discussions or debates on a variety of serious topics, or simple conversation to learn more about another human, and anything in-between.

However, being atomized as we are, I suffer from a lack of knowledge of where to go finding people to write to. I know Noam Chomsky will respond to anything, and I have sent him a few pieces of mail already. But where does one find other professionals, semi-professionals, people of interest, or simply common folk desiring a conversation at length? How do I connect with, say, other writers, who may or may not be published in various periodicals, or to question a scientist on papers they have written or concepts they specialize in? How do I find civilians in countries thousands of miles away to strike up a conversation with and learn more about their part of the world?

Thank you for your time and I wish for a speedy response from you.

-Anon

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA PEOLE ACTUALLY READS THIS GUY JUST BECAUSE SOME DUDE WROTE A GOOD BIOGRAPHY ABOUT HIS LIFE
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
THAY ACTUALLY REAHAHAHAHAH READ HIS FOREWORD TO THE FUCKING DICTIONARY
BABAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
AND AAAND HIS MMMMAGAZINE PPINION PIECES???!?????
HAHHAHA TROLOLOKOKOOKOI BHAHAHAHAHAGHAHAHAAHAHGAAFAFAGAAGAH

>>19427490
Hundreds of years later, Schopenhauer is still btfo'ing Hagel, lmao.

Why doesn't /lit/ ever discuss Samuel Johnson? I know he's mostly known for his dictionary, but on top of a good body of poetry and fiction, his essays in the RAMBLER and IDLER are incredibly insightful. He also has a very entertaining style of prose.

As white as snow. Needs more diversity. Why isn't Abdulrazak Gurnah on this list.

What book is the greatest example of excellent modern prose? I'm looking to learn from the very best of my contemporaries.

>>19293325
samuel johnson

It's called getting on your knees for people in high places. You should know we're in a dick sucking matrix. No one at the top hasn't sucked illuminati cock.

18th century: Johnson
>As for Johnson, I have always considered him to be, by nature, one of our great English souls.
– Thomas Carlyle
19th century: Carlyle
>By common consent, or nearly so, Mr. Carlyle died our greatest English Man of Letters. Of this claim on his behalf (which includes of course a recognition of him as a great intellectual and spiritual force) there can scarce, I should say, be much question.
– Patrick Proctor Alexander
But what of the 16th, 17th and 20th centuries? Who were the great men of letters of these times? Did the type die out in the 20th century?

>Lo!

Where do you start with this lazy fat ass if someone recommend him because you're pessimistic as all fuck.

>>18074086
oh ffs
well gimme a minute, I need to sort this out

>>18064956
>le not an argument
the political compass is a bad way of looking at politics
>Also not an argument.
It was an add on on your comment about "the auth-right"
>They're facing straight-up rebellion in Hong Kong
Which they're quelling.
>having to go full-interrment camp mode with Uyghurs
good example for eugenics, see?
>and a number of other political problems.
I can only see the aging population that is easily fixable. I'd like to mention that I'm not much of a shill for China; I just like their political system.
>It was enough to disprove your point.
That eugenics work? I simply said that it wasn't enough.

>>18022210
You're the most incoherent poster on /lit/

Top tier anglo pneumatic.

>>17039895
>>17039921
Pic related.

Our next meeting at the Mitre was on Saturday the 15th of February, when I presented to him my old and most intimate friend, the Reverend Mr. Temple, then of Cambridge. I having mentioned that I had passed some time with Rousseau in his wild retreat, and having quoted some remark made by Mr. Wilkes, with whom I had spent many pleasant hours in Italy, Johnson said (sarcastically,) 'It seems, Sir, you have kept very good company abroad, Rousseau and Wilkes!'
Thinking it enough to defend one at a time, I said nothing as to my gay friend, but answered with a smile, 'My dear Sir, you don't call Rousseau bad company. Do you really think HIM a bad man?' JOHNSON. 'Sir, if you are talking jestingly of this, I don't talk with you. If you mean to be serious, I think him one of the worst of men; a rascal who ought to be hunted out of society, as he has been. Three or four nations have expelled him; and it is a shame that he is protected in this country.' BOSWELL. 'I don't deny, Sir, but that his novel may, perhaps, do harm; but I cannot think his intention was bad.' JOHNSON. 'Sir, that will not do. We cannot prove any man's intention to be bad. You may shoot a man through the head, and say you intended to miss him; but the Judge will order you to be hanged. An alleged want of intention, when evil is committed, will not be allowed in a court of justice. Rousseau, Sir, is a very bad man. I would sooner sign a sentence for his transportation, than that of any felon who has gone from the Old Bailey these many years. Yes, I should like to have him work in the plantations.' BOSWELL. 'Sir, do you think him as bad a man as Voltaire?' JOHNSON. 'Why, Sir, it is difficult to settle the proportion of iniquity between them.'

>Milton, finding blank verse easier than rhyme, was desirous of persuading himself that it is better.
Completely and utterly btfo. How will Milton ever recover?

>Philosophers make imaginary laws for imaginary commonwealths, and their discourses are as the stars, which give little light because they are so high

well, /lit/, can you refute him?

Most people here spend more time autistically planning reading and pouring over lists than actually reading. Stop wasting time here. Go actually read.

>>15530858
>Samuel Johnson, English author, critic, and biographer, was convinced that Macpherson was "a mountebank, a liar, and a fraud, and that the poems were forgeries". Johnson also dismissed the poems' quality. Upon being asked, "But Doctor Johnson, do you really believe that any man today could write such poetry?" he famously replied, "Yes. Many men. Many women. And many children."