/lit/ - Literature

Now that's what I call a fat sad cunt

“Jacque Derrida asks a central question in his essay on Freud and the Scene of Writing: “What is a text, and what must the psyche be if it can be represented by a text?” My narrower concern with poetry prompts the contrary question: “What is a psyche, and what must a text be if it can be represented by a psyche?” Both Derrida’s question adn my own require exploration of three terms: “Psyche,” “text,” “represented.” "Psyche" is ultimately from the Indo-European root bhes, meaning "to breathe," and possibly was imitative in its origins. "Text" goes back to the root teks, meaning "to weave," and also "to fabricate." "Represent" has as its root es: "to be." My question thus can be rephrased: "What is a breath, and what must a weaving or a fabrication be so as to come into being again as a breath?"”
— Harold Bloom

“A political reading of Shakespeare will probably be less interesting than a Shakespearean reading of politics, in the same way that a Shakespearean reading of Freud is much more productive than the Freudian reductions of Shakespeare.”
— Harold Bloom

Literature's own Ann Coulter

"Stendhal has learned from Shakespeare (and from his own romantic disasters) the arbitrariness of all grand passions, and from Cervantes he has learned that passion, even when it kills, is a mode of play."

— Harold Bloom

>>5144671
>Harold Bloom
>not the greatest living literary critic

>[on his appearance] "Every morning I wake up and I take a weak, watery shit in my cavernous Harvard toilet bowl. It's hard work for a man my age to be straining himself so hard just to spit out another tired old fart from my decaying anus, but I do it, I do it every single morning. Then I call my wife in from the bedroom and I show her my little baby shit and I ask her, 'Well, what do you think, honey?' And she glances at the toilet for a second, smiles to herself (maybe I get a quiet sort of giggle if it's a Sunday or if she's in a good mood), turns to me, bends down to my ear, and shouts as loud as she can: 'The men I fuck shit dynamite! What do you shit, you weak old man? You're fucking dying, don't you know that?' Then she pantomimes giving a blowjob, smacks me in the face, and tells me, 'Do better.' And then I go to work."

>>5144850
Go to bed, Ruggles

He wrote the introduction to a collection of essays on Thomas Wolfe I snagged at some point.

>If there were a single indisputable achievement by Wolfe, I would be pleased to end with the High Romantic note that perfection of the work had replaced perfection of the life, a Yeatsian formulation that makes Wolfe's fate seem more unhappy than it may have been. But Wolfe, as Donald vividly presents him, was a human disaster, and his books, despite Donald's enthusiasm, are all of them aesthetic disasters. I do not think that we can even say anymore that Wolfe is the novelists for adolescents, the Salinger of the 1930s, as it were. Perhaps some adolescents still read Wolfe, but I do not encounter them.

>>5144649
>>5144654

Freud status:

BTFO
T
F
O

>>5144850
>And then I go to work

What I'd give to see him read and review and alt-lit book/poem.

Somebody make this happen.

>>5145073
That's mean.

>>5144633
>But Stephen King is Cervantes compared with David Foster Wallace.

Now I think we can safely say that that Tublord is completely full of shit. Stephen King is the Cervantes of nothing.

>>5144649
>>5144676
Those are good quotes. Much better than the others.

>>5144649
>not understanding how words are actually used by real people (language-games)
>being that fat and sad of a cunt

>>5144850
kek

Every time I see these threads I can't help but notice this frenetic condemnation of HP because it is full of cliches. So what? Children can't recognize any damn cliches. It's a skill they have to develop by reading tons of books and yes they have to start somewhere.

>>5144850

>>5144633
>[on Lord of the Rings]
>I am not able to understand how a skilled and mature reader can absorb about fifteen hundred pages of this quaint stuff.
Confirmed for trying way too hard to seem 'mature' and 'skilled'.

Reading this type of nonsense just makes me feel like the serious pursuit of literature is a waste of time unless you are an artist yourself. Harold Bloom spent his whole life acquiring all that knowledge and what good has it done anybody? It doesn't even seem to have done him any good.

>>5144944
Kek, this proves that the literary Bloom Cult that is contemporary publishing will publish anything by Bloom without actually reading it. I'm not saying that all criticism must be positive criticism, but really? In the introduction?

>>5145211

It's just part of a project of essay compilations for lit students. Sometimes they have to have something just because it's famous and so Bloom has to grudgingly write an essay about it.

>I pursue my now quarter-century-old project of Bloom’s Literary Criticism knowing well that for the enterprise to survive, it must compromise with the marketplace. Johnson’s Lives of the English Poets is my precursor. The booksellers (then publishers as well as vendors) enumerated the poets, and Johnson was free to speak his mind and tell his truth. I assert the same freedom. The Kite Runneris in fashion and serves the needs of our moment. We have been fighting in Afghanistan for seven years now, and the recent resurgence of the Taliban means we may be embattled there beyond the horizon of my likely span of life (I am seventy-eight as I write). Someday we will be out of Afghanistan and no one will return to reading The Kite Runner, which is a grindingly sincere narrative in the shape of a memoir.

>>5145130

The issue isn't with children reading it, so much that otherwise reasonable people try backing it up as an intellectual and/or creative text worth reading in the first place.

If you want to read shit and let your children read shit, that's fine, but don't fucking tell me it's a masterpiece when it does literally nothing new or intellectual in the first place. Even the world building's shit since all logic falls away once you realise magic can literally do anything.

>>5145167

His writing on McCarthy I thought was very good. Helped me appreciate Cormac more and understand him better.

>>5145167
>quaint
When they refer to this it says attractively unusual.

Is that the same as unusually attractive? As in those weird looking supermodels?

>>5145330

I like this interview about Blood MEridian
>http://www.avclub.com/article/harold-bloom-on-iblood-meridiani-29214
>The first time I read Blood Meridian, I was so appalled that while I was held, I gave up after about 60 pages. I don’t think I was feeling very well then anyway; my health was going through a bad time, and it was more than I could take. But it intrigued me, because there was no question about the quality of the writing, which is stunning. So I went back a second time, and I got, I don’t remember… 140, 150 pages, and then, I think it was the Judge who got me. He was beginning to give me nightmares just as he gives the kid nightmares.

lol what a wimp

>>5145339

lol yeah that was pretty weak

>harold bloom and others say they read to learn about life and better themselves
>spend all their time reading and not living life, but instead escape reality while say they are getting closer too it

Hypocrites man

Have any of you guys read this?

>Catch-22 (1961) after more than forty years is definitive of what is meant by a Period Piece, a work not for all time, but for the 1960s and 1970s. If Catch-22 prophesied anything, it was the spirit of the Counter-Culture that began in the late 1960s and was dominant in the 1970s. By now, the Counter-Culture has been assimilated and co-opted; its principal organ is The New York Times. In the aura of an official Counter-Culture, Catch-22 can be read with nostalgia (though not by me) or with the qualified patience that a four-hundred-fifty-page extended joke demands if it is to be read at all.

>I remember going to a performance of Heller’s play, We Bombed in New Haven, featuring Ron Leibman, in New Haven, though I cannot recall the year. Before the intermission, I was gone, irritated by the same qualities that caused my incredulity when reviewers proclaimed Catch-22 “an apocalyptic masterpiece.” It is neither apocalyptic nor a masterpiece, but a tendentious burlesque, founded upon a peculiarly subjective view of historical reality. Subjectivity, to be persuasive, requires lucidity, and nothing in Catch-22 is lucid.

>>5145378
I have a hardback copy waiting to be read. What's it like, or even about?

>>5144649
That's genuinely horrible

>>5145385

It's Harold Bloom's fan sequel to A Voyage to Arcturus.

In his own words:
>Flight to Lucifer is certainly the only book that I wish I hadn’t published. It was all right to have composed it, but I wish I hadn’t published it. I sat down one night, six months after it came out, and read through it. I thought it was—particularly in the last third or so—quite well-written, but I also felt it was an atrociously bad book. It failed as narrative, as negative characterization. Its overt attempt to be a sort of secret sequel to that sublime and crazy book A Voyage to Arcturus failed completely. It had no redeeming virtues. It was a kind of tractate in the understanding of gnosticism. It clearly had many obsessive critical ideas in it. The Flight to Lucifer now reads to me as though Walter Pater were trying to write Star Wars. That’s giving it the best of it.

>>5145385
No idea. All I know is that Bloom renounced it a while ago.

>>5145398
Should I read A Voyage to Arcturus first?

>>5145211

I should note he edited the collection. I didn't walk away from his introduction with an understanding of why he edited the collection, but I appreciate that he put the work in despite personally thinking Wolfe is trash. I'm a big fan of Wolfe and would disagree with Bloom here, but I don't see why an intro can't be negative.

>>5145404

It would be neat to see how Bloom plays off of it. I haven't read it but, hey, Harold Bloom liked it.

>>5145339
>giving up 60 pages in at Bloom's reading speed

Goddamn.

>>5145408
I'll download a copy of Arcturus. I may never read Flight to Lucifer, I mainly bought it on spec that it could be valuable one day.
Not that I'm a serious speculator or anything, I do actually read, it just seems smart to buy books of note from time to time even if you're not interested in them as such.

>>5145073

What would he say about this?

>>5145130
>Children can't recognize any damn cliches. It's a skill they have to develop by reading tons of books and yes they have to start somewhere.
good job you've distilled the value of reading harry potter down to "it allows children begin to grasp cliches"

Say what you will about Bloom, his canon makes for a great list of shit to read.

http://home.comcast.net/~dwtaylor1/chaoticcanon.html

I would have never found out about books like "The Harder They Come" and "Cane" and "The Spoon River Anthology," among others, had I not pored over Bloom's canon. Everything I've discovered through his lists has been impeccably written and pretty great overall.

>>5145378
I should read a tad slower, 'cause I misread that as
>The Flight of the Cocksucker

If Bloom likes it, it is probably good.

If Bloom doesn't like it, it is still probably good

>>5146010
To be fair Stephen King has gotten shitty since the 90s, and him getting the award in 2003 is disgusting.

I respect Bloom in his quite noble goal, I do not think his demeanor and pretentiousness are enough for me to discard him entirely.

>>5145948
i agree with this. browsing through his canon is a great way to find what to read next.

>>5145948

Although keep in mind that list is something he made up in a couple hours just because his publishers wanted him to have a list. Now he hates half that list and calls them period pieces.

>>5145892
It just seems such a ridiculous point to me. Would you argue that HP will ruin children and keep them from reading classics later on? I don't believe it. I really do think that any introduction to reading is better than nothing and that children might as well start young and get some mileage instead of waiting for someone to spoon-feed great gatsby to them. We're living in the age of facebook and minecraft. I'd say they're allowed to trip over some shitty cliches.

>>5146101
>Would you argue that HP will ruin children and keep them from reading classics later on? I don't believe it.

>Later I read a lavish, loving review of Harry Potter by the same Stephen King. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are reading Harry Potter at 11 or 12, then when they get older they will go on to read Stephen King." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you read "Harry Potter" you are, in fact, trained to read Stephen King.

>>5146125
So he believes kids will only be able to digest cliches and escapism later in life. Well, damn. I was so busy worrying about digital media that I didn't realize it's the same problem.

>>5145303

>If you want to read shit and let your children read shit, that's fine, but don't fucking tell me it's a masterpiece when it does literally nothing new or intellectual in the first place.

do you people say these things sincerely? are you actually claiming that harry potter is 100% devoid of anything that would make you think?

why does everybody speak in black and white terms these days?

>>5146101
I guess Bloom thinks every kid is to fall out of the womb reading Cervantes.

I'd like to know what little Bloom read during his childhood.

>>5146669

Shakespeare and The Bible.

>>5146669
as a 20 something I've encountered many books I wish I read as a young teen

>HomeArts: Why should children read? And why should children read good books?

>Bloom: To be coldly pragmatic about it, reading good books will make them more interesting both to themselves and to others. And it is by becoming more interesting--and this sounds callous, but it's true, I think--that by becoming more interesting both to oneself and to others, one develops a sense of one's separate and distinct self. So if children are to individuate themselves, they will not do it by watching television, or by playing video games, or by listening to rock, or by watching rock videos. They will individuate themselves by being alone with a book, by being alone with the poetry of William Blake or A. E. Housman, or being alone with Norse mythology or The Wind in the Willows.

>>5144649
This seems poorly considered. Can the meaning of a word in its current use be defined by its etymology? Or maybe I've just missed the point here?

>>5146696

pretentious fucking bullshit

if everybody read the poetry of william blake, then william blake would become thoughtless cultural insemination just like video games, rock music, etc

what a fucking embarrassing opinion

the funny thing is I agree. literally the ONLY value literature has is as a dick-waving device, it makes you more interesting as a person to have read classic literature, and it gives you a way to feel superior to those who havent read such literature

damn this guy is accidentally on some real honest shit here

>>5145103
He's being hyperbolic.

>>5145119
He's just being cute. IMO

Someone seems jealous.

>>5146721
i don't think he's accidentally on it. he said he's being "coldly pragmatic." it's true that reading blake makes you in some way more interesting.

>>5146721
>then william blake would become thoughtless cultural insemination just like video games, rock music, etc

not really

this post is really shit

>>5146661
If I want to be made to think I'll read philosophy or something. Harry Potter is for entertainment

>>5145339
Same thing happened to my grandma

>>5145369
Harold Bloom has mentioned this in reference to Schopenhauer before, but he does do plenty of things other than read, sure

>>5146736

except it would

what is it about the poetry of william blake that makes it worth more than a great rock album like Abbey Road or something?

in today's day and age, the only extra value in William Blake is that its less known, and therefore a comparatively unique source of aesthetic entertainment, one that will expand your cultural sensibilities solely because of this uniqueness, because its not prevalent in today's society

if everybody read william blake, then his sensibilities would be inherent in society would become twisted into cliches and inversions and so on, just like it was when he was more popular

his opinion is literally just an ignorant hand-wave in the direction of ALL DIGITAL MEDIA whatsoever, he's literally saying

>>5146732
>tumblr filename
>the niggest maymay
lel

>>5146742

philosophy is just entertainment as well

and entertainment's purpose is literally

"to make you think (and feel)", just like philosophy

entertainment and philosophy are indistinguishable in this sense

>>5146762

>harold bloom doing things other than reading

his waist size begs to differ, i doubt the man is capable of having sex, or any physical activity

>>5146061
Pretty sure he's still fine with everything from the early 20th century and earlier, and most things after as well, or so it seems from various things he's written about them

>>5146669
He was reading really difficult modernist poetry at like the age of 8, but he also read popular books for children like Through the Looking-Glass and The Wind in the Willows

>>5146772
>hat is it about the poetry of william blake that makes it worth more than a great rock album like Abbey Road or something?

development of critical thought, development of apprehension, expansion in language comprehension, etc etc

additionally, you've changed from "it's thoughtless drivel" to "his ideas would become innate and therefore worthless" and blah blah

that's not what bloom is arguing about, and what you're saying is debatable either way

>>5146785

>implying he doesn't have multiple orgasms writing about hamlet's influence on all literature

>>5146785

>not knowing that one of his claims to fame is his many affairs with the students at Yale

>>5146785
he lost a lot of weight over the past few years

>>5145303
>The issue isn't with children reading it
It is for Harold Bloom

>>5146826
Because he was ill :(

I doubt he actually cares much about people reading Harry Potter, and he only wrote about it because he was paid to

>>5146742
Philosophical thinking is mostly for entertainment. It is top notch entertainment, but to label it otherwise is like playing chess and saying, "If I want recreation, I play Monopoly; if I want to think, I play chess."

Here's a good, but old, write up about him.

http://www.martykihn.com/scan/gq/bloom.pdf

Wow, what a life this man has lived.

>>5146823

>implying awkward sexual harrassment = affairs

>>5144649

>he's not aware of the distinction between darstellung and vertretung

laughingspivak.jpg

>>5146785
At least he probably won't touch food with cliches.

>>5146852

being that passionate about something really horns up women, but he is not about relationships, so they woman lash out.

>>5146847
Chess and monopoly are games; philosophy is the thing by which the person is made. Do stop making such dumb posts, Feminister.

>>5146847
>>5146781
I disagree. Philosophy is about finding Truth, which is more than just entertainment.

>>5146888
No, no ... it's all just for pleasure, anon, as per egoism -- and that even includes war.

And I got my dog to lick me out one time, too, so he's included. And I watch rape and murder on TV, them too. And I have monsters on my cereal boxes, them too.

So retarded. And that's your philosophy, Feminister: pre-pleasure.

Semicolon would've worked better there? I really gotta get good at this English stuff.

>>5146922
Don't worry. I don't care

Harold Bloom seems like a retard.

And he also just looks stupid. I dunno, maybe that's just some integration of my having thought he was a retard prior to this.

>>5146888
Nah, it's entertainment, same as searching for beauty is. Both are honorifics.

You're a retard.

>>5146886
Experience is the thing by which the person is made, unless you have no experience, in which case you latch onto all your philosophy as all you have to you, and your whole identity gets tied up so that you can no longer even talk about real world things like laughing and ice cream, you can only talk about the things you've read.

>>5146804
That a man whose livelihood depends entirely on convincing other people that his subjective opinions about wholly subjective entertainment are better than others' opinions would tell you that some art is objectively better than other art is, in no way, a surprise. He's too smart to be this rigid of opinion. At this point it's simply a pragmatic classicism, because one of the implications of a nihilistic, postmodern artistic subjectivism is Bloom's unemployment.

And the scared little girl imagines everything to pleasure her. That's your philosophy. And you might put it to writing and spread it. And everyone might end up the same. And if you compare that to a game, you're fucking stupid.

is this accurate?

"No, no. I don't need to take what anyone is saying seriously, because my experiences have made me. Basically, I'm an utterly self-absorbed cunt."

Seems legit.

>>5146966
I really don't think so. Page-wise maybe it matches up, but HP is so much easier to read. Therefore, it goes a lot faster. Reading 4000 pages of HP would take a lot less time than reading 4000 pages of classical texts.
I wouldn't call Harry Potter a waste of time since it really doesn't take very long to read it all.

I read Harry Potter as a kid and it was a quite literally a lifesaver. Harold Bloom is a pompous retard.

>>5146778
And and how does this discredit what they said exactly?

>>5146778
And how does this discredit what they said exactly?

>>5146966
Let's put it another way
Harry Potter, if not intellectual poison, intellectual junkfood. Yes, you can eat a heap of junk. But you'll get flabby. Reading higher forms of literature is like trying a variety of interesting dishes that also are healthy.

>>5147029
You certainly seem an enlightened individual.

>>5147038
T-thanks, legbeard.

>>5146946
The mechanism isn't as straightforward as that though. There are certain experiences and ideas that one comes across in the due course of time over the period of a life that hold a certain sway over the heart in a way that other experiences preceding it have not that causes one experience and process information in a different way.
Philosophy and other intellectually dense works tend to have a very high rate of such moments that will allow one to perceive the world in a new and perhaps "better" way as entropically stronger ideas remove weaker ones.

It amazes that someone such as yourself whose entire world view was shifted at some point to Stirnerism would be so dismissive of the significance that works like philosophy (or "experience" of ideas if you wish) would be so easily dismissive of this reality

>>5146946

>This is what people who don't read actually think.

>>5146781
Analytic philosophers are above such common concerns.

>>5146781
Everything is entertainment if you willfully neglect the strong connotation of leisure associated with "entertainment." Philosophy is often a practice stemming from negative emotion. Speculation in ethics, for instance, can be pursued as a relief from the acute anxiety over how to act. Does that sound like entertainment to you?

>>5146946
There's no "real world." There's just experience. Experience of the mind is still experience. The only problem is when it's mis-identified as experience about the world. And our emotional lives, which books strongly enrich, is a big part of that world. Every time I walk down a street I'm struck by the resemblance to a beautiful line of poetry, and when I sit down to read I remember that street, and so on.
You also miss that people writing books are often including mimesis in their project, which, if it's successful, gives you a version of real experience.

>>5146980
This
If it wasnt for potter getting me into books I wouldnt be the person I am today, id be another welfare queen white trash drunk most likely

>>5147143
And yet if were living in a healthy society you would have had a community, a Church, values, and a tightly bound family to prevent you from becoming a degenerate drunk. Instead you get to thank nihilistic, elitist, globalist capitalism for throwing you a few scraps of junk food after it has robbed you of your entire inheritance. Amazing that people are willing to put up with this.

>THE DECISION

not even gonna read what he said, fuck Lebron James

>>5145846
He would call it exactly what it is: garbage.

>>5147085
If the new way you perceive the world doesn't affect your average day, then it's mostly just an identity, a fresh Other. Sure, sometimes you read something and become an ascetic monk, but that's not very common.

Stirner has not radically changed how I live my life. There are certainly something I will do differently, but his greatest contribution is therapeutic because all the things you worry and fret and feel bad or try to conform to, I cease to be duty toward. That doesn't mean I'm all of a sudden torturing cats or letting my pubic hair grow to unseemly lengths.

>>5147102
I read an awful lot. Reading is sublime. But 99% of what I read doesn't drastically alter how I live my life.

>>5147134
Okay, well than I guess what I was saying is that immanence isn't what makes you in an absolute sense.

>>5147398

>implying so many stupid implications
>implying things "used to be better" in this regard
>implying there is some conspiracy against values, preventing people from keeping them in modern society

>>5146804

i made no such change, I meant to imply that nothing is thoughtless drivel, and that classic literature is not especially "thoughtful" compared to modern literature.

>>5146669
the talmud

>>5146966

the real problem with this is that nobody's life consists purely of reading

harry potter may not be as life and value altering as reading something more intended to be controversial and argumentative, but we also are here on /lit/ posting, and we probably masturbate and watch tv occasionally

we all have a lot more free time than is necessary, they may be replacing porn or video games with harry potter, not replacing beowulf and the divine comedy

>HP
>not life altering

This girl loved HP hardcore, I gave her a replica of Hermione's bag that was infinite or some shit and she put my dick in her mouth.
It was my first blow job, life altering enough for me,

>>5145383
>its principal organ is The New York Times.
Honorary goy

>>5147497
I enjoyed this story

>>5147497
Sex has nothing to do with love, and blowjobs are just foreplay anyway.

>>5147617
Sex is only good if it's with someone you love.

>>5147619
Which is why no one has had good sex with Harry Potter.

>>5147617
>Sex has nothing to do with love
And that has nothing to do with his post
And a bj is oral sex, well past what constitutes foreplay.

>>5147619
It's pretty good with yourself even when you're down

>In 2004 author Naomi Wolf wrote an article for New York Magazine accusing Harold Bloom of a sexual "encroachment" more than two decades earlier, by touching her thigh. She said that what she alleged Bloom did was not harassment, either legally or emotionally, and she did not think herself a "victim", but that she had harbored this secret for 21 years. Explaining why she had finally gone public with the charges, Wolf wrote, "I began, nearly a year ago, to try—privately—to start a conversation with my alma mater that would reassure me that steps had been taken in the ensuing years to ensure that unwanted sexual advances of this sort weren't still occurring. I expected Yale to be responsive. After nine months and many calls and e-mails, I was shocked to conclude that the atmosphere of collusion that had helped to keep me quiet twenty years ago was still intact—as secretive as a Masonic lodge."[46]

Is Harold Bloom basically John von Neumann tier when reading? A website I saw said he reads 1000 pages a minute and remembers almost everything. How can this be true?

>>5146778
>>5146778
Bet you never did the "Kenisha," kid!

>>5147429
>That doesn't mean I'm all of a sudden torturing cats or letting my pubic hair grow to unseemly lengths.
HAHAHAHA. We are relieved.

>>5147683
He says he's gotten a little rusty with age.

>It was during my 47th year on this earth when I discovered that neither off my arms were long enough to reach around my enormous posterior to wipe the shit from my asshole.

>>5145119
2esoteric4u

>>5147429

>I read an awful lot.

So that just means you share opinions with people who don't read.

>>5147683

>1000 pages a minute

wtf, i doubt i could turn the pages of a 1000pg book one by one, with no reading at all in under 5 minutes

1000 WORDS per minute would be outstanding reading speed, ridiculously fast, let alone 1000 pages per minute

>>5147706
He's been hanging at /fit/, slimmed down.

OMG Harold Bloom is Deep&Edgy!

>>5147710
Welcome to /lit/

>>5147683
He's an old and clearly unhealthy man, and is churning out pop culture books because he's one of the few people who grasps how profoundly insignificant literature is to the general public, but M.H Abrams said of Bloom, to paraphrase, that he was the brightest student he'd ever had. M.H Abrams. The man who put together the Norton, wrote The Mirror and the Lamp.
I'd say he's probably dulled considerably from the dumbing down, his age, his poor health, but he was probably fearsome when he wrote Influence.

>>5147683

I am pretty sure the rumor is per hour, not minute. But I took a class with a professor who was a student of Bloom's way back, and he claimed this was an exaggeration. In the introduction to the Thomas Wolfe essays I mentioned earlier, though, he says he re-read Look Homeward, Angel in preparation, and I don't have the book on me now and forget the timespan for his reading, but it was within a day, and that book is around 900 pages.

>>5147497

Story... time?...

>>5147753

You don't need to transcribe your asthma in your typing.

>>5147713

I am not a wizard or a psychic, but I suspect that anon was using an exaggeration.

>>5147677
>nothing to do
"People tell me they've fallen in love with Harry Potter" HB
>>5147617
>>HP
>>not life altering
>goes on to join her "love" of HP to her willingness to give blowjobs as she desires.
I'm actually quite on topic. You just have to think for a second. But what could I expect from someone who doesn't love /lit/

>>5147465
kek

>>5147683
he's a liar and a charlatan