/lit/ - Literature

>>6681899
Concept: YHWH
Word: Tetragrammaton

>Everyone posting Melville
Is it that I just don't understand this meme or am I right that the people of the 19th century just had better taste than you lot? The writing is laboriousness intersected by nauseatingly adolescent 'fun with references'. It reads like he's trying to associate himself with an aristocracy that, by his time, no longer exists. In all of Moby-Dick there isn't as much merit as in any one short story by Borges.

>>6678488
So that's how you guys are getting communism to work.

>>6678289
I would definitely read about that.

>>6677971
>it's fine for anyone to do literally anything so long as they're not an authority

>>6677952
I would read about that.

Depends what you want to create. Nietzsche was a chronic masturbator, many reckon (cite: Wagner).

>>6658292
There's your go. Not nihilistic, really, but I can't imagine fantasy plus thematic nihilism without imagining the horror genre... but actually... I've only read the first book of it but the Gormenghast trilogy could fit that bill, actually pretty much perfectly. Glad I could help, OP.

>>6658023
It was relativism, which Joseph Conrad deludedly reads as the aristocratic secret of nihilism/atheism.

>>6658263
>>6657128
It's too idiosyncratic to quite be 'fantasy' tho

>>6652713
*~11

>author's name isn't bigger than the title for deadpan-ironic purposes

>>6648531
>>6649731
>>6649746
I didn't mean there was anything wrong with being an idiot, or anything wrong with writing for idiots for that matter; it's a perfectly noble disability you guys have. But his whole shtick is, 'Here's what you believe, elegantly expressed, expressed even more elegantly perhaps than you'd express it, and here am I, the Christian, still not believing it. Don't you feel humble now?' The trouble is, if you were familiar with and up to date with the day's politics and philosophies, you'd not draw a drop of interest, and all the winding, mincing dialogue would be nothing more than that: only so much talking. I'm not saying 'get to the action'. I think I'm saying something more, à la this anon >>6647774, like 'get to the passion'. He's not without his value, but that value's grossly overstated. (Think of Eckhart Tolle; Dostoevsky deserves more repute than him, just for his artistic facility, but in terms of as a philosopher, all his merit there, all Dostoevsky's as with Tolle's, is nothing but an appeal to the lowest common denominator.)

>>6649623
I think you may be right. I read somewhere about an author I respect being asked to give a lecture on Dostoevsky and then saying, in effect, 'As I don't care for Dostoevsky, I've decided I'll give a lecture on Dante instead.' I searched a bit and could't find the quote again, but it must not have been Borges.

10:04 by Ben Lerner

>>6647832
>master and margarita is a criticism of the right
>muh state-capitalism
Mate, 'right' doesn't just mean 'everything I don't like'.

>>6647855
Holden Caulfield

>>6647805
Dostoevsky is not a prophet. Much of his philosophy, to educated people (e.g., Vladimir Nabokov and Jorge Luis Borges: two despisers of Dostoevsky), is old news and a drag to have to read. Idiots appreciate him for breaking them of the delusion of their not being idiots; his intellectual peers, however, would prefer he'd shut up his reference books and write some bloody fiction, i.e., keep to what he's good at.

>>6647720
If you care about literally nothing but philosophical stimulation and 'usefulness', read non-fiction. It's inarguable that Dostoevsky overwrites and has a tendency to wax sophistic. The Brothers Karamazov is by no means a perfect novel.

Aesthetics matter, you cunts.

>>6647731
>No artist has ethical sympathies. An ethical sympathy in an artist is an unpardonable mannerism of style.

>implying he wasn't an edgelord

>>6642802
*

>>6637373
>in answer to: Was Alexander the Great bisexual?
Tbh it looks a bit like someone's just jealous he isn't bisexual master race.

>>6640997
>>6641004
>>6641013
>>6642686
chill fam

>>6639643
>hasn't already read TBK
Why would you willingly admit that?

>>6640534
>develop a psychotic monomania
>if you have that the rest falls into place
Not that you're wrong.