No.3141
The year is about to end, let's have one of these!
No.3157
No.3166
>>3157Have you read Meditations?
No.3169
No.3185
>>3166i started it.
i was kinda liking it too.
then some very distracting things happened in my life and i put it down because i wanted to give it my full attention.
come to think of it i do this very often, with books, movies and so on…
and usually i get disappointed when i finally get around to read/watch those things.high expectations, i guess.
all these unrelated things to say i'll pick it up again and try to see what you mean.
No.3235
No.3840
Shitty OC because I'm on my phone.
No.3864
No.3871
>>3868>tfw the future is now>tfw the future sucksI am about to start reading A Brave New World
No.3873
>>3871I'm sure you already know some things about the book, maybe even the whole plot itself, but I'll refrain from saying anything about it in comparison to 1984 overall. Enjoy the book, anon.
No.3882
No.3886
No.3890
>>3873It was a very good read, obviously very different from 1984 but in many ways far more real
No.3893
>>3871>A Brave New WorldIt's a lot closer to what we have now. I never understood why people compare 1984 to our situation when the state has incredibly little power. Certainly not the power to impede anyone's desires.
No.3894
>>3235i fucken loved that book …
I wonder what he;s thinking right now (earth guy about watney)
how come aqua man can talk to whales they;re mammals (watney next page)
No.3895
i'm really liking this series
No.3898
>>3893Well the surveillance is certainly headed in the
wrong right direction for a 1984 style world, coupled with the social conditioning of Brave New World. Basically we currently have a less extreme version of both that have melded together, moving towards both at once
No.3963
No.3973
No.3974
No.3975
No.3976
No.4216
Fuck you Stephen King. Fuck you.
No.4254
>>3864didn't liked?or just not as sublimely as you thought?
No.4314
>>4254>>4254I definately liked Dostojevskjii, it's extremely well written. But his protagonists are pretty good examples of what /r9k/ would be like in the 1850's.
No.4351
>>4314Agreed. Raskolnikov is literally an edgy NEET who has trouble handling basic life functions.
No.4356
>>3185meditations is one of those books you needn't give your full attention. Just keep it somewhere within arms reach of where you spend a lot of time and pick it up every now and again. you don't even need to read it cover to cover, jut open it randomly and start reading.
but i dont get op either No.4389
No.4397
>>4389your last pic is a little misleading.
someone could think that he actually endorsed certain things…
No.4424
>>4314>>4351Maybe art should change the way we look at reality instead of the other way round
No.4425
>>4424Reality's looking at me?
No.4426
>>4425No you idiot. Art's looking at reality.
No.4500
Srsly, this was pretty boring.
No.4501
No.4507
>>4500you were expecting porn?
No.4508
>>3871If you thought _1984_ was eerily similair to what we have now, you're gonna get a mouth full of bitter red pills when you read _A Brave New World_.
No.4512
No.4521
>>4351You should definately check out Notes from the Underground.
No.4522
File: 1427978933510.png (809.46 KB, 1600x602, 800:301, notes from the underground.png)
>>4351>>4521over 9000 hours in paint
No.4526
>>4522>implying the supreme gentleman wasn't an autist himself No.4561
No.5156
I went in after an impulse buy thinking the book would do a decent job at conveying despair and depression.
I had to stop partway through because of just how much I couldn't stand Bulgakov. Throughout the book his semi autobiographical self does nothing but make dumb decisions and alienate himself from what little social support he has before eventually killing himself.
In retrospect, Bulgakov did a remarkable job portraying robots. They wallow so much in their self pity and social anxiety that no one finds them likable. I should try reading it again, but I don't have any hopes for it.
No.5211
1984 is an okay story but its also ironic in a sense that turned me off to it. the irony is that the society closest to duplicating the totalitarian and domestic surveillance in the style of 1984 was the U.S.S.R. which was largely a Jewish organization. I'd like to make a note that I don't think Orwell was ignorant of the Jewish influence on communism and the U.S.S.R. because reports had been done of it at by the time he wrote the book, and it was something that was already widely talked about, by such a bright example of Winston Churchill no less. So here comes George Orwell to write about an oppressive regime that mirrors a Jewish terror government in real life, and he makes the hero of his silly book a Jew named Immanuel Goldstein. Oy, the Chutzpah of this Goy! In times of oppression you gotta remind the goys of their greatest ally.
No.5223
Oh gawd ..
Can't. Stop. Laughing.
No.5227
>>4397
Orwell was a Socialist and a supporter of Trotsky so yeah, he did endorse certain things.
No.5228
>>5211
Go back to /pol/, antisemite scum.
No.5231
>>5228
Eh, a little /pol/ now and then keeps the pot stirred. Plus the board has no particular dogmatic direction, and we're not exactly overflowing with content either.
Enjoy it as it was meant to be, with a laugh, and blow by it. Plenty of other stuff to amuse here as well. Ain't a bad thread at all.
No.5232
>>5218
>expecting Stirner to be like Rand
What the fuck
No.5240
It's literally radical individualism, why is that a dumb assumption to make?
No.5248
>>5215
Sounds like a recommendation to me.
No.5258
lucien/lucifer proved that "the only real temple in this world is the (living) human body"
No.5268
No.5321
>>3963
I thought the movie ending made more sense than the book ending. I liked the idea of setting up Dr Manhattan rather than making up some random alien species you should check out "The Losers" from vertigo as well, the comic series was really amazing and well written
No.5343
>>5263
This is one of the best greentexts I've ever seen
No.5690
>>5689
Did you read past the first few chapters?
No.5692
>>5690
Yeah. It was pretty decent.
No.5694
File: 1436986154178.jpg (40.57 KB, 265x376, 265:376, Cien_años_de_soledad_(book….jpg)
I've dropped this because it turned out to be some psychodelic soap opera. Am I a pleb?
No.5704
>>3840
>La vida es sueño
Holy shit I didn't expect to find spanish literature in here
No.5722
>>4500
I vaguely recall my high school english teacher telling us about some french book he read that had pornographic elements but ended up being a boring piece of shit. This might be the one he was referring to.
No.5727
Just finished reading it.
No.5780
>>4389
you posted the same picture twice under what I expected and What I Got
No.5846
No.5907
>>5321
The point is the common enemy.
In the movie, the whole plot behind the scenes has been degraded, because it is very complex in the original story. It was easier to make Manhattan the "big evil", than to establish the whole plot of Veidt.
But the point is the same: We must unite against a common enemy.
No.7077
>>5211
>and he makes the hero of his silly book a Jew named Immanuel Goldstein
He makes the scapegoat of the book Goldstein, David Duke detected
No.7097
>>5211
>USSR was run by da Jews
Yeah, that's why the Bolsheviks killed 300k Jews before the Nazi party was even a thing.
Go home, /pol, yer drunk.
No.7098
>>5211
not understanding the minute of hate.
go back and read it again.
Plus Goldstein, never existed. (being the whole point).
No.7099
No.7106
>>7097
jews had always been a sizeable part of communist elites everywhere though, even the early soviet communist party, would you deny that?
No.7112
>>7097
>/pol
You're showing your faggotry.
No.7120
>>7111
if you've seen the movie first it can be a little misleading…
No.7125
>>7111
I actually didn't, even though I'm a big fan of David Lynch. I heard it was pretty bad.
I just think I heard a lot of it being a Asimovian polemics epic, and that conjured certain images in my mind. I didn't know just how much politics and dialogue would be in it.
My picture is, of course, an exaggeration. The book isn't all bad. The first half tested my patience but the last third gets pretty good.
No.7126
>>7111
>>7120
>>7125
Read the book first, saw the movie and mini-series much later.
Of the two, the movie or the miniseries, I preferred Lynch's. The visuals were more appealing, and he captured the epic feel of it more solidly. Additionally, the depiction of baron Harkonen was outstanding.
It is generally conceded that Lynch's is a poor adaption of Dune overall. Far more enjoyable as eye candy, and it did some things right. I agree it's not accurate – weirdly inaccurate in some ways.
In contrast the mini-series is far more true to the novel. It's also not over the top as Lynch did it. Very well done and well worth watching.
But I still feel Lynch captured some aspects of Dune better than the mini-series did. In spite of all he did wrong making for a poorer adaption it remains my favorite.
Of course, the book is better than either.
No.7138
>>7106
Please give one source that doesn't eventually link back to the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, then we'll talk.
>>7112
What's your beef?
No.7147
File: 1445541190099.jpg (Spoiler Image, 238.6 KB, 520x489, 520:489, 1422166803314.jpg)
>>7138
Hehe.
You think that a) the Protocols are forgeries and b) there isn't evidence that Jews were major communists and that doesn't lead back to the Protocols (lel). Who is Trotsky? Lenin? There are another two I believe who were also revolutionary leaders.
Then there's pic related.
Sorry BO for diverting this thread.
No.7180
>>7147
i don't know about the protocols. but the fact that jews were very much linked with the far, radical left is really a fact.
now it's shot down as an antisemitic canard, but there is apparently a surprisingly numerous works by conservative jews plainly admitting as much. a good part of the bibliography of pics related is dedicated to that
for those who speak italian i would also recommend "sionismo bifronte" by this guy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ettore_Ovazza
a very good book. with plenty of history of italian jewry.
it really made me fell the loss.
very few nation wreckers among them, unlike russians and germans.
sage because off topic.
No.7221
>>7181
>>7180
This thread just turned into /pol/ so hey can't get any worse. The reason why Jews are over represented in Communism is because in the late 19th to early 20th centuries it was a way out of the ghettos. It also explains why it rose so quickly in Jew heavy Eastern Europe. Russia was three things before the revolution, the Tsar, Orthodoxy and the masses. Many writers from abroad talked about a "mystical bond" between them all. When the Tsar announced war against Germany from his palace balcony the people outside broke into a spontaneous rendition of God Save the Tsar. Even in 1905, Bloody Sunday from memory, when "protesters " were shot outside his palace by guards. They were singing hymns and carrying pictures of the Tsar. They genuinely believed that the Tsar was like their national father. Of course the guards had to fire on the crowd because they wouldn't stop advancing. Jews being Christ killers etc. were excluded from this feeling of belonging. Subject to pogroms, real or imagined, deserved or undeserved it created a lot of resentment. Communism was an ideology that was consistent with Judaism (as it is to an extent with all religions). These Jews mostly atheist, but culturally Jewish flocked to it. At last they could free themselves from persecution. The massive anti-Orthodox violence that came during and after the revolution is the release of 400 years of pent up angst and fury. They mellowed out as time went on. Now Eastern European Jewry in fact global Jewry saw the revolution in Russia, and like many left leaning non-Jews, saw it as the way of the future. For Jews Communism was the direct path to power for a people who had none. Now you get other Jews like Friedman and Ayn Rand who are not Commies in the slightest. The explanation is simply that not all Jews are the same. Biologically they're little difference to anyone else but they have a unique culture and historical memory which impacts them. I say 'them' because they are a lot more ethno-centric than Europeans. Anyway that's my reasoning
No.7224
>>7221
you say it like i somewhat implied that there was/is an underlying jewish conspiracy. i do not.
No.7236
>>7221
This is interesting as fuck, m8.
No.7281
>>7150
obviously never read Houellebecq before
Protip: He isn't endorsing MGTOW and not all protagonists are supposed to be likeable or act as surrogate self-inserts
No.7333
>>7281
>Houellebecq
What the fuck is that name?
No.7336
>>7333
what a waste of trips…
No.7339
No.7340
>>7339
the french are not known for sparing Qs or not surrendering.
No.7344
>>7340
I know but they usually throw a u and an e in there to give the q company. This one is just chucked all alone onto the end of the name, when it would do perfectly well with just the c.
No.7345
>>7344
dutchs do that too
https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frans_Banning_Cocq
france banning cock…lel, as if they could live without
No.7346
>>7345
What an ugly name… and inaccurate, too.
No.7538
>>5694
no, it's a shit book high school english teachers love because muh surrealism + muh sexy tailed foreigners.
No.7539
>>7126
it's a poor adaptation because the movie studio aborted jodorowky's dune then brought lynch in and told him that instead of reworking it from the ground up he had to resuscitate the cold dead fetus corpse.
No.7558
>>3840
whats the last picture suppossed to mean?
No.7564
No.7573
>>7564
it's really not a bad book.
helped me dispel certain misconceptions i had about enlightenment.
No.7611
>>7559
Is this for a real book? I'm intrigued.
No.7624
Learned more about poetry reading this than any other book.
No.7625
It's like David Lynch writing communist propaganda with only half his heart in it. Very strange.
No.7636
No.7662
>>5740
Read that in high school. Something told me the author likes the thicker girls.
No.7686
>>7538
I loved this. Maybe it is because I am not born in a first world country. It is perhaps the most realistic book I ever read.
No.7697
>At least love does real, right?
>No, love doesn't real. Is all brain.
>Das not tru!
>It real, tho.
>NOOOOOOO!
Every single fucking dialogue, unless the little kid screams about shitting or the protagonist talks about how big of a cock the villain has.
No.7699
>>7697
a very apt choice of pics.
No.7705
>>7701
ok. you got me interested.
No.7708
>>5211
emmanuel goldstein isn't the hero, he either doesn't exist or was one of the major figures in the revolution hat the party turned on. kind of like trotsky or someone else that became at odds with stalin
as for the jews running the USSR: during the russian revolution the bolsheviks did not have many jews at all, and the mensheviks were mostly jews. a bolshevik joked once that all they had to do was have another pogrom to win.
i don't know how many jews were in charge in the USSR later but i would think many would be purged if they were mostly mensheviks. people who were ever a part of a party other than the bolsheviks would definitely be targeted for execution or the gulags. later on stalin specifically targeted jews in the late 40s and into the 50s because they weren't assimilating apparently.
if the USSR was a "jewish organization" then why would they go against their own?
No.7723
>>7708
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_Soviet_Union#The_Bolsheviks
they sure had the key figures, and in the earlier times they outlawed antisemitism.
as for
> why would they go against their own?
for the same reasons jews where treated like shit in eastern europe.
because they were not "their own". it comes a time when being, for some reason, always ruled over by a group of people that represents the 2% of the general population. and that despite their claims to love for internationalism they always care about being distinct from others.
for some reason they kept alive this, just to give you an example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Jewish_Labour_Bund_in_Lithuania,_Poland_and_Russia
and it doesn't help the fact that this elite was ruling over everyone else had a badly concealed contempt for…everyone else. pic related.
don't get me wrong. jews were indeed treated unfairly. but there were more reasons than the ones we are taught at school. i.e. none.
No.7733
The 30 year gap between the third and fourth books, during which Le Guin discovered radical feminism is very, very noticeable.
No.7738
>>7733
are the books good though?
No.7739
>>7738
The first two are great, nothing mindblowing but fun fantasy romps all the same.
Tombs of Atuan is my favorite for the first half alone and I was honestly disappointed when (minor spoiler) Sparrowhawk turned up to steal the show.
The third is pretty good, but in many ways feels like more of the same if not a weaker mirror of the first book.
The fourth is definitely not the same and unfortunately not for the better. The writing style is completely different and the scope is much, much smaller. The worst offense for me is that Le Guin uses my favorite character, the protagonist from the second book, and completely changes what was her implied fate in the previous stories in order to shoehorn her into a role as Le Guin's self insert; a depressed, lonely old woman who blames men for all her bad life decisions.
There are no adventures in the fourth book, most of the actual written words form 2nd and 3rd wave feminist dialogues between the self insert and an old hag witch; it feels as out of place as it sounds and I struggled to get through the whole thing as I was not expecting it. The self inserts inner feminist monologues that sound more like the author trying to sort her own feminist feelings out in her head but mistakenly inserted them into a novel also occur with near constant frequency. Actual content outside of these diatribes is few on the ground, and every female character has either been raped, beaten or oppressed by the male characters; I think they only exception was a butch farmhand, but It's been a while since I read so I could be mistaken. Male characters are presented either as unintelligent beaters and rapers or as apathetic weaklings that are holding women back. Le Guin is not at all subtle with her strawmen, it's incredibly obvious, vitriolic and out of place.
I wish I was exaggerating, but I'm not.
Earthsea was originally a trilogy and I strongly recommend it be read as such. I've have no problem with crazy people writing novels, but Tehanu is so wildly different from everything that was Earthsea I struggle to understand why Le Guin didn't just write a series of feminist essay's instead of ruining the world she originally wrote when she was sane.
No.7765
No.7768
>>7766
why the japanese soldiers?
why the filename?
No.7776
>>7768
Because the tsuranni were basically nips.
Because it was the first word to come into my head.
No.7785
>>7776
>Because it was the first word to come into my head.
i know that feel.
No.7792
that 300 movie sucked dick! Literally. Those dudes all had sex with eachother. That's pretty gay and not Manley like it wishes it could be.
No.7794
No.7795
No.7881
>>7792
>implying being gay isn't manly as all fuck
>implying fucking a buff guy in the ass is somehow less manly than fucking a small woman in the ass
No.7929
>>4397
Orwell was a Trotskyist.
No.7933
Wastes a decent story that could have easily been the basis of a much better book on muh current year politics and the MC being an unfunny, smug asshole.
No.7980
>>4356
Aurelius was all about not distracting yourself with frivolous studies and making the best use of your life without distraction. He reminded himself (Meditations is a collection of his personal notes that were never really meant for anyone else) a lot to not worry about books, and to instead work to live his philosophy instead of talking about it.
No.7993
>>7933
kinda like david wong's books.
except that they waste nothing since they are shit to begin with.
No.7994
>>7929
yes and no.
assuming that snowball in animal farm is trotsky, i'd say that despite its depiction is overall positive, orwell would have ended breaking stones in siberia or whatever.
No.7997
>>7993
Is David Wong that idiot from cracked who kept shilling his books in every single one of his articles? Damn, that guy was pissing me off after a while. His articles were basically that cool scene from Glengarry Glen Ross, except David Wong was never Alec Baldwin.
No.8005
>>5694
If you are reading a translated version, don't even bother.
No.8006
>>7686
Are you wetback, amigo?
I really like that book because why some people think it's stupid and too surrealist, even the most crazy stories from Cien Años de Soledad are just as crazy as the things my father told me about when he was a kid (1950' in Chile).
No.8023
No.8041
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>8035
>>8035
i guess you hadn't seen this.
still, it really feel like it was written by a jew. someone rootless.
like the part when she says that women do not really like children because there are hundreds of millions of starving nigglets, yet women seem to prefer their own children.
No.8050
>>8035
>pic
Wasn't le funny hat man associated with white knights and reddit-tier atheists? How exactly did it get associated with MRA and libertarian strawmen as well? Seems contradictory.
No.8054
>>8050
I'm pretty sure it's always been that way. I've had that pic since about 2012
No.8055
>>8054
Fedora man was a maymay before 2012. Then again, I've seen fedoraman be used against a number of different types of people. I'm pretty sure no matter how he stated he's now just a weak strawman against anyone you don't like.
No.8067
>>8050
>Wasn't le funny hat man associated with white knights and reddit-tier atheists? How exactly did it get associated with MRA and libertarian strawmen as well?
Because there are people are people on both sides of those divides that embody the stereotype more than likely.
No.8075
>>8050
it was coopted by feminist meme warriors
No.8081
>>8050
I think the essence of le intellectual warrior is that of a pretentious dick who has achieved nothing in life, yet is full of himself because he's supposedly intellectually and morally superior to everyone else. Some atheists are like that, some libertarians, commies and even fascists are like that, and pretty much every person who has ever taken a fixed side in the gender war is like that. As is often the case, though, people eventually forgot what le classy hat guy actually symbolized.
No.8082
>>8075
Everyone in the gender war is like that. A telltale sign of a fedora is that it believes that whoever disagrees with it has been brainwashed. Not just led astray, not just suffering from some (or even a lot of) logical fallacies, but brainwashed. Fedoras go out of their way to deny the autonomy of anyone who dares disagree with them, except the people they claim are malevolent. Feminists do that with their concept of internalized misogyny; MRA's don't have their own term for it, but they also believe their opposition has been mentally enslaved.
Sage for doublepost.
No.8092
>>7766
accurate as fuck.
It was a pretty fucking good trip, too, if you ask me.
No.8097
>>8096
When I read it, I got a bunch of gibberish and ultraviolence. The rest seems accurate.
No.8100
>>8096
so you thought the movie was a bad adaptation?
No.8110
>>8097
The penguin book came with an introduction where they explain some of the slang. I've also been teaching myself Russian so it wasn't that confusing at all.
>>8100
The last time I watched the movie was when I was around 13 so I may have forgotten specific details. Did they ever show Alex's parents? I also don't remember them using the slang and also wasn't the milk they drink just normal? Also Kubrick only read the American edition of the novel which was censored so he fucked up the ending.
No.8111
>>8110
Also Alex is 14 at the start of the book, wasn't he an adult in the film?
No.8118
>>8110
I understood it too, after a few pages. So gibberish may hae been the wrong word.
No.8119
>>8110
>Did they ever show Alex's parents? I also don't remember them using the slang and also wasn't the milk they drink just normal?
yes they do.
yes they use it.
no, it's not normal milk.
No.8126
>>8119
dang, the only scenes I remember are the gang going all like horrorshow tolchocking vecks and devotchkas
No.8143
>>8126
it might sound silly but i happened to rewatch it very recently and i noticed for the first time alex's "eye" cufflinks.
and they are showed several times and in detail.
No.8154
>>7929
Orwell had much more respect for Trotsky than Stalin, but judging by Animal Farm he still thought him a scumbag. Remember that Snowball did jew the other animals just as much as the other pigs.
Even 1984 implies he didn't have much love for the kike bastard because Goldstein knew exactly what was going on and went along with the revolution anyway.
No.8188
>>7733
Why are you reading Ursula?
She's actively keeping new authors from hardcore Asimovian polemics, preventing them from joining organizations, preventing them from even publishing through her links with Tor publishing. Simply because those new authors are white men.
Ursula is evil as fuck, don't buy her shit.
>>7702
lol
Thank god I'm not the only guy on /lit/ that reads state department documents.
No.8189
Anyone else find moby dick really, really, really hard to read? I felt like I was reading EULA for a really gay game.
The most difficult book I've ever read.
No.8193
>>8189
haven't read it.
what keeps me away from it is that i've heard about it precisely what your assessment says.
No.8194
>>8189
Have you read Proust? Are they comparable?
No.8207
>>8194
You actually asked about a book that's eerily similar to moby dick.
I picked up swans way in university because our prof couldn't stop talking about it. The book was a major let down, it's basically a mary sue tumblr oppression marathon. I guess people into goth/emo subculture could get it because it's so depressing.
Anyway the eery part is that moby dick is hard to get through because of really shitty sentence structure, whereas swans way has similar problems with run on plot points (because of french translation? idk).
Moby dick has weird subtexts of homoeroticism among the crew, swans way has weird subtexts of cuckoldry and incest.
it's basically the same book, just written by an englishman vs a frenchman.
No.8211
It would have been better if it had concentrated on what set it apart from all the other time loop stories instead of all the usual stuff that's been done before.
No.8213
>>8194
>>8207
I feel like they are fairly different, although I can see how one would consider them to be pretty similar. Certainly they're both long books that are hard to get into.
The short version of the difference is that Moby Dick belongs with epics, and Proust belongs with novels. The longer version is that there are two principal differences in the experience of reading and in the central theme. Reading Proust is like floating down a river on an inner tube. I don't know how widespread that experience is, but I'll try to describe what I mean. You don't feel like you have much control over what happens or where you are going, sometimes its beautiful and sometimes its uncomfortable and eventually you end up at the end. Moby Dick, by comparison, is like riding a rollercoaster with lots and lots of hills. You don't necessarily make a lot more total progress, but you get tossed around a lot more, and I think it feels faster, even without making more progress.
Furthermore, In Search of Lost Time is all about life. Its about remembering random things from long ago and catching glimpses of pretty girls and realizing that you're getting older and finding out how to recognize gay people. Its full of memories and self doubt and pointless parties where no one really likes each other but everyone feels obligated to attend. Moby Dick is about death. Its about finding yourself in the wilderness, and about being eclipsed by things far vaster than you are, and about being face to face with Death's avatar.
No.8215
>>8207
>a mary sue tumblr oppression marathon
I really wouldn't describe In Search of Lost Time as that. It definitely doesn't have the special snowflake mentality.
>swans way has similar problems with run on plot points
Nah, that's just the style it's written in (stream of consciousness)
>Moby dick has weird subtexts of homoeroticism among the crew
Are you sure this isn't like the "Frodo and Sam (Lord of the Rings) are gay" kind of thing? People are interpreting the book with a more modern =degenerate mindset?
>swans way has weird subtexts of cuckoldry and incest
I know the part of incest, but where is the cuckoldry? Wait, wasn't Swann's wife a whore or something?
>written by an englishman vs a frenchman.
Melville was American, though and Proust was half-Jewish—explains the incest
No.8242
>>8189
It's not just you. It's amazing how someone can write a novel over 600 pages without any plot.
No.8279
>>8242
You don't know what the word "plot" means: it means "that which happens". You could write a boring as hell story, but that does not mean the story has no plot. Perhaps you meant to say "excitement", or would that make you sound too much like a pleb who only enjoys thrillers.
No.8281
>>8279
Which dictionary has that definition or etymology?
No.8283
>>8281
You don't know what etymology means: it means "the study of the origin of words and the way in which their meanings have changed ". Did I talk about the origin of the word "plot"?
I took my definition of the word "plot" from "Writing in General and the Short Story in Particular", but every dictionary will give you something similar: a three second google search will say "Plot is a literary term used to describe the events that make up a story or the main part of a story. ".
What definition of plot exists that allows you to say "Moby Dick has no plot"?
No.8284
>>8283
I didn't say that. There is a difference from "that which happens" and "a literary term used to describe the events that make up a story or the main part of a story". Giving information on whales is neither an event nor a plot. But it is a digression.
>ignorant of the word etymology
No, I couldn't find a definition that matches what you said. So I thought it may be etymologically based because I've seen a lot of etymologies with "that which…". Secondly, I said "definition or etymology" because I'd already looked both up.
No.8366
>>8110
You need to read it twice.
No.8389
>>7723
>Wikipedia as a source
lol
No.8524
>>7097
>Yeah, that's why the Bolsheviks killed 300k Jews before the Nazi party was even a thing.
never heard of that. source?
No.8545
>>8389
>>8389
you can read gilad atzmon's "the wandering who" or dennis pragers's "why the jews?" or this
http://www.iamthewitness.com/books/Israel.Shahak/Jewish.History.Jewish%20Religion-The.Weight.of.Three.Thousand.Years.pdf
and some others right now i don't rememeber.
they all have a somewhat different outlook on jews and judaism but the facts are usually sorta verifiable.
you must understand that i'm not going to get to those books which i keep a few kilometers from here and scan them just so that i can "win" a debate with some guy or girl on the internet.
No.8546
No.8575
>>8242
>It's amazing how someone can write a novel over 600 pages without any plot
Have you read any Joyce, perchance?
No.8576
>>8575
Or Proust, for that matter.
No.8598
File: 1455335009090.png (1005.36 KB, 1600x595, 320:119, what i read starship troop….png)
Heinlein's an interesting guy.
No.8604
>>8598
but there is democracy in starship troopers.
the idea, as far as i understood it, so i might have taken it incredibly wrong, is that vote is given to people that have proven to care more about the greater good than their own personal interests.
No.8605
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>8604
and yes, heinlein was an actually interesting guy.
No.8657
>>8604
>the idea…is that vote is given to people that have proven to care more about the greater good than their own personal interests.
True, but it's much closer to an aristocracy than democracy (like the early US vs the US now). If you look at how few of the US, for example, is in the military (0.3% of the total population iirc), it's conceivable the Federation is run by less than 1% of the human population, high single digits tops.
I haven't read Plato's Republic, but I'm aware of the concept of 'Guardians' acting as a benevolent elite presiding over the rest of society.
Or it could be I made the mistake of reading Troopers before Plato.
No.8660
>>8657
probably, but unlike aristocracy, you can join anytime.
No.8666
No.8676
No.8696
No.8743
>>3868
I've always thought 1985 was better.
No.8759
Basically, I did get the nazi-superscience I was looking for, plus more politics than I would've liked. A bit like the Turner Diaries, except less sociopathic.
No.9419
>>8660
pretty much this, because it's not a rigid caste system I would call it more of a meritocracy. Aristocrats not because their dads and grandfathers were, but because they're 40 year old virgins with a half-dozen phds.
No.9422
It was actually a /lit/ recommendation from ages ago. Thanks guys.
No.9424
>>9422
did carlos ascend to a greater state of being?
No.9426
>>9424
he became star of the class
No.9481
>>9426
this guy tho
anti fa
literal boat people in his book
galactic racial homogeneity
final master race of the universe intelligent carpets living on neutron stars or group mind worms
no