An assortment of classics and some other random stuff. Highest ranked by me would probably be red and the black by Stendhal, I just enjoyed the Machiavellian nature of Julien. But Ive read people like Mishima, Williams, Junger, Steinbeck, twain(hated him especially), Thomas hardy, Nabokov, et al. I have read just classic books like brave new world, animal farm, (most other highschool classics). I have also read more current stuff to compare to like Stephen king, doing world series, light novels, and some other random stuff. It's hard to give a precise total but I wouldd say ~75 at my current time in life. I'm sure that number is a lot higher if I count books I only read in highschool and under but I don't think that's an accurate enough depiction of my current mental state/maturity level.
https://i.imgur.com/g45KMzy.jpg
I did not care for Brothers Karamazov
I completely agree. I wish I read books and actually really enjoyed them.
What do you mean by understand? For something like Moby dick did I realize it was more than a simple whale hunting story? Yes.
I initially didn't understand nausea but after taking a break and coming back later I felt I understood it. I currently got filtered by myth of Sisyphus, but am hoping to understand it better when I next pick it back up.
Even if I didn't completely understand a book does that make my ratings of it wrong? Am I not allowed to not like a book if it describes a house as reddish green. So I think red bricks green roof, but instead the author really meant green bricks red roof.(just an example I made up)
12 months ago
Anonymous
So no
12 months ago
Anonymous
Only a sith deals in absolutes.
You're not allowed to think anything different than what I do buddy. That's racism (or leftism, whichever sounds worse for you based on your personal beliefs)
I don't think interpreting things differently was the issue for them, just that I might be missing out on all kinds of subtleties or overarching themes in books. Which I suppose is possible, if I knew I was missing a certain theme then I wouldn't be missing it. But I generally dont think I do miss out on that kind of stuff...
12 months ago
Anonymous
You're not allowed to think anything different than what I do buddy. That's racism (or leftism, whichever sounds worse for you based on your personal beliefs)
12 months ago
Anonymous
>I currently got filtered by myth of Sisyphus, but am hoping to understand it better when I next pick it back up.
I'm sorry dude, you're just really dumb. That's one of the most brainlet pieces of writing ever, there's nothing to miss.
12 months ago
Anonymous
>I currently got filtered by myth of Sisyphus
Ludovici has an interesting take on the Myth of Sisyphus.
Unfortunately, this title is one of the few of his that is not available on line.
I keep hoping a book will change my view. There are so many books on here that are regarded as the "best ever" or "super amazing", so I look into them and get the ones that sound interesting. They all just leave me disappointed though, "this is considered an amazing book?" kind of thinking. Another not nearly as important reason is so I can have inspiration for my book. I highly doubt I will ever actually finish or publish the book though. I think even my own writing is subpar. Looking at it objectively and not subjectively it probably is subpar though, I mean look at this long winded pretentious explanation to a simple question as proof of that, its even getting meta and referencing itself.
in what sense? do you mean in terms of story, or in thoughts? plenty of nonfiction that's written well
In terms of overall, although prose or character development are the only 2 categories I really have seen any books be above average for me.
Yes very little chance your book is any good or writing is for you
12 months ago
Anonymous
I think writing is for anyone, I do agree there is little chance my book is any good though.
>I currently got filtered by myth of Sisyphus, but am hoping to understand it better when I next pick it back up.
I'm sorry dude, you're just really dumb. That's one of the most brainlet pieces of writing ever, there's nothing to miss.
It's one of the most brainlet pieces of writing compared to what? The ugly ducklings is an easier read that this. I even found Swanns way easier.
I'll go through a paragraph to show you my though process on it >Like great works, deep feelings always mean more than they are conscious of saying.
Basically we can feel certain things more than we are capable of describing. >The regularity of an impulse or a repulsion in a soul is encountered again in habits of doing or thinking, is reproduced inconsequences of which the soul itself knows nothing.
Not really sure I get this part, what is impulse or repulsion in a soul? >Great feelings take with them their own universe, splendid or abject. They light up with their passion an exclusive world in which they recognize their climate.
I don't get what the own universe part means, obviously its not a literal they go off in another universe. But what is the metaphorical meaning? They feel far away? What would that mean? >There is a universe of jealousy, of ambition, of selfishness, or of generosity. A universe—in other words, a metaphysic and an attitude of mind.
More universe stuff from previous breakdown basically. >What is true of already specialized feelings will be even more so of emotions basically as indeterminate, simultaneously as vague and as "definite," as remote and as "present"
as those furnished us by beauty or aroused by absurdity.
what is the difference of specialized feelings and emotions? They seem like the same thing to me. How are they indeterminate? I know when I am sad or happy. Are they saying emotions will be felt the same as those who like absurdity?
Feel free to say how or why I am wrong and my interpretation of stuff is wrong. I put this much work into a reply I would hope to get around the same level of effort in a response back.
>I currently got filtered by myth of Sisyphus
Ludovici has an interesting take on the Myth of Sisyphus.
Unfortunately, this title is one of the few of his that is not available on line.
https://www.anthonymludovici.com/texts.htm
I will look more into it or look on the used market, but unless I get some kind of "breakthrough" I will just wait a bit and read other stuff before coming back to it.
12 months ago
Anonymous
I'm not who you're responding to, but I'll gloss the greentext best I can.
>Like great works, deep feelings...
you got it >The regularity of an impulse...
we do things without knowing why we do them; we like or hate things without knowing why we like or hate them; and if we step back, looking at our lives objectively, we find that we replicate the same patterns, the same cycles, do the same things without knowing why -- and we repeat them precisely because we don't even know we're doing them >Great feelings take with them...
sometimes you can feel something so intense, so far-reaching, that it feels like the feeling itself is the size of the universe; a sadness that is greater than the world, or a joy that is bigger than the galaxy. not only that but the world of sadness/whatever is textured; it has its own ridges, valleys, its own cartography so to speak, with many different kinds and degrees of sadness within it, and this is especially evident when we feel one of those "great feelings." we know it because the feeling itself seems to create a world that recognizes itself as being vast. >There is a universe...
same as above, but now he's saying at the end there that these great feelings also encompass a way of looking at the world, a way of living in your mind >What is true of already specialized feelings...
okay, so hold all of what came before in your mind. he's saying that all that is even more accurate when we feel something that comes about from experiencing beauty, or experiencing absurdity. he's saying that the emotions that arise from beauty/absurdity are difficult to name -- contradictory even -- but this doesn't mean that they don't have the same qualities of "great feelings" as said above. they have them even more.
hope this helps. read more slowly, with a pencil in hand. annotate your books. earlier in the thread you said you'd read ~75 books, which probably feels like a lot but trust me, it's nothing. I keep track of every book I've read and I'm at ~1200 and it feels like I've read nothing. the more you read and the more closely you read the easier it becomes to figure out what a writer's saying. you just need practice. I'd encourage you to return to books that you didn't like just to see if you understand them better on a second go-round. I didn't "get" Melville for years, but I felt like I had to like him because everyone else did. so glad I revisited him. there will also be books that everyone loves that you can't stand. I'm allergic to Dostoevsky and Hawthorne. you'll figure all of it out just keep reading.
12 months ago
Anonymous
Nice looking vegana, I'd frick it.
12 months ago
Anonymous
I agree with that interpretations you gave but I am not sure I agree with the author on the content of them. For example I'm still not sure I see the difference between great or specialized feelings, besides one being indescribable. >A sadness that is greater than world.
I don't really understand that on a personal level, same with any of the other feelings. I don't think (at least not able to remember) feeling an emotion that big. Maybe I am just misinterpreting what you are saying though? >We do things without knowing why
Also once again here I understand what you were trying to get across what the writer said but I dont agree. I know why a movie is bad to me or why I do things. I do think saying that we repeat them because we don't know we are repeating them is a bit of a cop out. If I disagree it could simply be said you don't know you are doing something on repeat, so of course you will say you aren't doing anything on repeat.
12 months ago
Anonymous
have you ever lashed out at someone in anger, only to realize later that you got angry at them out of nowhere? do you avoid topics without knowing exactly why you avoid them, or do you tend to date the same kind of woman, over and over? when you talk with your parents do you find yourselves on the same conversational topics, or getting angry at them disproportionately, or when your girlfriend does something -- bends over in a certain way maybe, handles herself differently in a weird situation, says something in an accent -- are you more attracted to her, and you're not entirely sure why? I bet some of this rings true; nobody has plumbed the depths of their own mind. >sadness greater
I think you just haven't experienced something like it yet >great vs specialized
you're too hung up on this; in context, specialized feelings just means the feeling examples he gave in the preceding sentence, and great feelings can mean those, but it can also mean indescribable ones triggered by absurdity or beauty
12 months ago
Anonymous
No I don't think I have lashed out at someone only to realize later it was over nothing. I honestly don't think I lash out in anger at all. The only (one)example in my life I can think of is when I was robbed working at fast food. And I didn't even lash out at anyone, just did so I my head after the experience was over. I don't think I avoid topics without knowing why, if I do avoid a topic it's because I know it would make that person uncomfortable. I rarely date people (<3) but when I do look for people it is the same type, however I know why I like that type. It is a bias yes, but I perceive goth/alt/just nerdy girls as more intelligent and willing to engage in certain kinds of conversation. I don't really converse with my parents, when I do it is typically how my life is going, I know why they always ask that hough. I also know why I respond, instead of just going no contact(even though they did nothing wrong). If I was more attracted to her because of an action like that I would know why, but none of those things would really make me more attracted to her. I'm not really interested in sex, so bending in a certain way to draw attention to body parts isn't that interesting. I'm not interested in sex too much because my libido is low, if thats a non answer than im not interested in sex also because it's more trouble than what it's worth. I could just jerk off if I ever get the urge which is at most a few times month. I'm not saying I've instantly known the answer to these kinds of questions, but what I am saying is I do wonder why for something and then i I try to find the answer and keep branching down that to the end. Why do I dislike x? Because y why do I dislike y? Because q why do I dislike q because z and keep doing that till I reach the end, where lots of the time it's not even logical in the reasoning to how I got there. Where something like why do I like when a girl bends a certain way goes to because countless of generations of people before me passed down certain traits.
I'm not trying to sound like an edgy teenager or some special human god amongst men or anything. I just don't really think I stay not knowing something, especially about myself.
>sadness greater
Even for other emotions, like the anger I felt for having my life threatened, I wouldn't call that greater than the universe or anything. Just go home take a nap and not feel any emotion about it anymore. Before I did sleep it certainly wasn't some anger with depths so great I could write a 10 page poem on it or anything.
12 months ago
Anonymous
think for a moment; are you certain you know every single nook and cranny of your mind? or is it that you think you know them, think you're able to trace the "logical" chain, but really that's a story you tell yourself and the actual connections aren't visible?
12 months ago
Anonymous
No I don't think I know every nook and cranny of my mind, but I do think when I know I don't know something I try to find the reason for it. It is a possibility the logical chains I have in my mind aren't the real reason, it's also a possibility they are. it doesn't seem like it be possible to know which is really true. Kind of similar to if we are living in a simulation or not. Ty for entertaining my bad level of thinking anonymous poster.
If you are alluding to Dostoevsky’s worst novels, then, indeed, I dislike intensely The Brothers Karamazov and the ghastly crime and Punishment rigamarole. No, I do not object to soul-searching and self-revelation, but in those books the soul, and the sins, and the sentimentality, and the journalese, hardly warrant the tedious and muddled search. Dostoyevsky’s lack of taste, his monotonous dealings with persons suffering with pre-Freudian complexes, the way he has of wallowing in the tragic misadventures of human dignity – all this is difficult to admire. I do not like this trick his characters have of ”sinning their way to Jesus” or, as a Russian author, Ivan Bunin, put it more bluntly, ”spilling Jesus all over the place." Crime and Punishment’s plot did not seem as incredibly banal in 1866 when the book was written as it does now when noble prostitutes are apt to be received a little cynically by experienced readers. Dostoyevsky never really got over the influence which the European mystery novel and the sentimental novel made upon him. The sentimental influence implied that kind of conflict he liked—placing virtuous people in pathetic situations and then extracting from these situations the last ounce of pathos. Non-Russian readers do not realize two things: that not all Russians love Dostoevsky as much as Americans do, and that most of those Russians who do, venerate him as a mystic and not as an artist. He was a prophet, a claptrap journalist and a slapdash comedian. I admit that some of his scenes, some of his tremendous farcical rows are extraordinarily amusing. But his sensitive murderers and soulful prostitutes are not to be endured for one moment—by this reader anyway. Dostoyevsky seems to have been chosen by the destiny of Russian letters to become Russia’s greatest playwright, but he took the wrong turning and wrote novels.
Dosto is essentially sadomasochistic, he loves dwelling on characters who revel in how depraved they are, but who also prostrate themselves in the just punishment or humiliation of their depravity. Again, sensitive murderers and soulful prostitutes imply the exact situation he adored, all the violence and sexual intrigue he desired so much, but with the approval of his super ego since they ritualistically degrade themselves in a kind of spiritual fetishistic pleasure in confessing, being punished, and then being "redeemed". It's lurid and partakes of a sick kind of gratification in self flagellation.
I think the author is aware of this. Note's From the Underground deals exactly with this topic.
12 months ago
Anonymous
He’s one of my favorite writers but the way people interact in his books feels moronic a lot of times. Like the prostitute in Notes. He degrades her and rants like a lunatic at her for ten minutes and she basically falls in love with him? I get the sentiment but it feels so unnatural it’s hard to overlook.
12 months ago
Anonymous
Personally, I didn't find it too unnatural. It's obvious the prostitute was living in a state of self-denial (clinging to the love letter she received ages ago) and the protagonists rant shook her out of her trance for which she became grateful. Ironically, the protagonist didn't "save" her out off good will, but because he wanted to hurt her as much as possible. And in another twist of fate, he slowly begins regretting his initial decision and falls in love with her, but it taken over by guilt because of his malicious actions leading him to self-sabotage himself. The whole thing may be really, really "uncomfortable", absurd and paradoxical, but the lead up to their relationship seems reasonable enough in my opinion.
If you are alluding to Dostoevsky’s worst novels, then, indeed, I dislike intensely The Brothers Karamazov and the ghastly Crime and Punishment rigamarole. No, I do not object to soul-searching and self-revelation, but in those books the soul, and the sins, and the sentimentality, and the journalese, hardly warrant the tedious and muddled search. Dostoyevsky’s lack of taste, his monotonous dealings with persons suffering with pre-Freudian complexes, the way he has of wallowing in the tragic misadventures of human dignity – all this is difficult to admire. I do not like this trick his characters have of ”sinning their way to Jesus” or, as a Russian author, Ivan Bunin, put it more bluntly, ”spilling Jesus all over the place." Crime and Punishment’s plot did not seem as incredibly banal in 1866 when the book was written as it does now when noble prostitutes are apt to be received a little cynically by experienced readers. Dostoyevsky never really got over the influence which the European mystery novel and the sentimental novel made upon him. The sentimental influence implied that kind of conflict he liked—placing virtuous people in pathetic situations and then extracting from these situations the last ounce of pathos. Non-Russian readers do not realize two things: that not all Russians love Dostoevsky as much as Americans do, and that most of those Russians who do, venerate him as a mystic and not as an artist. He was a prophet, a claptrap journalist and a slapdash comedian. I admit that some of his scenes, some of his tremendous farcical rows are extraordinarily amusing. But his sensitive murderers and soulful prostitutes are not to be endured for one moment—by this reader anyway. Dostoyevsky seems to have been chosen by the destiny of Russian letters to become Russia’s greatest playwright, but he took the wrong turning and wrote novels.
This contrarian anti-dosto trend is pathetic. No one's impressed you read a couple of dosto novels and didn't like them
12 months ago
Anonymous
>This contrarian anti-dosto trend is pathetic. No one's impressed you read a couple of dosto novels and didn't like them
12 months ago
Anonymous
>Uncritically clapping like a seal for literature you """should""" like
Try having an original idea of your own for once in your life
12 months ago
Anonymous
Nah you're wrong. I've read quite a lot, as dostos great novels spoke to the depth of my soul more than any other author. Being contrarian and not liking books that are considered the greatest of all time, for the sake of novelty for noveltys sake, is sniffing your own fart. Pseud behaviour.
12 months ago
Anonymous
You have zero rebuttal to my points. If you have a fetish for suffer porn, that's fine for you, but don't pretend it "spoke to the depth of your soul", THAT is pseud behavior.
12 months ago
Anonymous
hahaha wew lad, how is it that "suffering porn" is all youve gotten out of dostoyevsky? no one is that dumb
12 months ago
Anonymous
is it that difficult for you to imagine that someone genuinely dislikes your favorite writer -- not out of childish contrarianism, but for genuine, careful reasons? I would think that someone who spends as much time slipping into other people's consciousness in books would be able to do the same in real life. I don't care for dosty either for the same reasons as
Dosto is essentially sadomasochistic, he loves dwelling on characters who revel in how depraved they are, but who also prostrate themselves in the just punishment or humiliation of their depravity. Again, sensitive murderers and soulful prostitutes imply the exact situation he adored, all the violence and sexual intrigue he desired so much, but with the approval of his super ego since they ritualistically degrade themselves in a kind of spiritual fetishistic pleasure in confessing, being punished, and then being "redeemed". It's lurid and partakes of a sick kind of gratification in self flagellation.
. also
You have zero rebuttal to my points. If you have a fetish for suffer porn, that's fine for you, but don't pretend it "spoke to the depth of your soul", THAT is pseud behavior.
>DEBATE ME BRO
stop this, it makes you look like a bullied fourteen year old who speaks with a lisp
12 months ago
Anonymous
hahaha wew lad, how is it that "suffering porn" is all youve gotten out of dostoyevsky? no one is that dumb
>Don't know how to have a constructive back and forth
My riposte was proportional to the post I was replying to. Calm down. >"You look like a bullied fourteen year old who speaks with a lisp!" >"No one is that dumb!"
No surprise these are the kinds of responses to genuine criticisms of Dosto and the reasons a person might enjoy him. But don't pretend it's me dragging the discourse down, at this point that would be the height of disingenuousness
12 months ago
Anonymous
I'm
is it that difficult for you to imagine that someone genuinely dislikes your favorite writer -- not out of childish contrarianism, but for genuine, careful reasons? I would think that someone who spends as much time slipping into other people's consciousness in books would be able to do the same in real life. I don't care for dosty either for the same reasons as [...]. also
[...] >DEBATE ME BRO
stop this, it makes you look like a bullied fourteen year old who speaks with a lisp
. I'm agreeing with your Dosto criticism. please read my comment again.
hahaha wew lad, how is it that "suffering porn" is all youve gotten out of dostoyevsky? no one is that dumb
of course it's not all that's present in dosto but he certainly loves it when his characters self-flagellate. everything in a dosto novel is cranked up to 11. it tires you after a while
I disliked it too, but liked his other novels like aneantir, serotonin and the map and the territory. The map and the territory was a personal favorite.
I loved Serotonin so I thought Atomised would be a good next one.
I'll finish it but made a mistake (from what I've read so far).
I can't read that shit because it seems like its written by a seething incel
It is but it seems written by an incel with no self awareness. Biggest coomer book I've ever read. Maybe if the focus is more on Michel instead of Bruno it would improve.
I'm about 3/4 of the way through, and I have to agree.
The Grand Inquisitor is an extremely poignant diversion, but over all, it is not what I was expecting.
I mean, it's ok, but Catch-22 was better.
I have not read a single book that I thought was any better than "slightly above average"
how many books have you read
An assortment of classics and some other random stuff. Highest ranked by me would probably be red and the black by Stendhal, I just enjoyed the Machiavellian nature of Julien. But Ive read people like Mishima, Williams, Junger, Steinbeck, twain(hated him especially), Thomas hardy, Nabokov, et al. I have read just classic books like brave new world, animal farm, (most other highschool classics). I have also read more current stuff to compare to like Stephen king, doing world series, light novels, and some other random stuff. It's hard to give a precise total but I wouldd say ~75 at my current time in life. I'm sure that number is a lot higher if I count books I only read in highschool and under but I don't think that's an accurate enough depiction of my current mental state/maturity level.
I completely agree. I wish I read books and actually really enjoyed them.
Did you understand any of it?
What do you mean by understand? For something like Moby dick did I realize it was more than a simple whale hunting story? Yes.
I initially didn't understand nausea but after taking a break and coming back later I felt I understood it. I currently got filtered by myth of Sisyphus, but am hoping to understand it better when I next pick it back up.
Even if I didn't completely understand a book does that make my ratings of it wrong? Am I not allowed to not like a book if it describes a house as reddish green. So I think red bricks green roof, but instead the author really meant green bricks red roof.(just an example I made up)
So no
Only a sith deals in absolutes.
I don't think interpreting things differently was the issue for them, just that I might be missing out on all kinds of subtleties or overarching themes in books. Which I suppose is possible, if I knew I was missing a certain theme then I wouldn't be missing it. But I generally dont think I do miss out on that kind of stuff...
You're not allowed to think anything different than what I do buddy. That's racism (or leftism, whichever sounds worse for you based on your personal beliefs)
>I currently got filtered by myth of Sisyphus, but am hoping to understand it better when I next pick it back up.
I'm sorry dude, you're just really dumb. That's one of the most brainlet pieces of writing ever, there's nothing to miss.
>I currently got filtered by myth of Sisyphus
Ludovici has an interesting take on the Myth of Sisyphus.
Unfortunately, this title is one of the few of his that is not available on line.
https://www.anthonymludovici.com/texts.htm
Sad
I tried Notes from Underground a couple times and hated it both times and it made me not want to read anything else by him. Am I missing out?
Then why bother reading?
I keep hoping a book will change my view. There are so many books on here that are regarded as the "best ever" or "super amazing", so I look into them and get the ones that sound interesting. They all just leave me disappointed though, "this is considered an amazing book?" kind of thinking. Another not nearly as important reason is so I can have inspiration for my book. I highly doubt I will ever actually finish or publish the book though. I think even my own writing is subpar. Looking at it objectively and not subjectively it probably is subpar though, I mean look at this long winded pretentious explanation to a simple question as proof of that, its even getting meta and referencing itself.
In terms of overall, although prose or character development are the only 2 categories I really have seen any books be above average for me.
Yes very little chance your book is any good or writing is for you
I think writing is for anyone, I do agree there is little chance my book is any good though.
It's one of the most brainlet pieces of writing compared to what? The ugly ducklings is an easier read that this. I even found Swanns way easier.
I'll go through a paragraph to show you my though process on it
>Like great works, deep feelings always mean more than they are conscious of saying.
Basically we can feel certain things more than we are capable of describing.
>The regularity of an impulse or a repulsion in a soul is encountered again in habits of doing or thinking, is reproduced inconsequences of which the soul itself knows nothing.
Not really sure I get this part, what is impulse or repulsion in a soul?
>Great feelings take with them their own universe, splendid or abject. They light up with their passion an exclusive world in which they recognize their climate.
I don't get what the own universe part means, obviously its not a literal they go off in another universe. But what is the metaphorical meaning? They feel far away? What would that mean?
>There is a universe of jealousy, of ambition, of selfishness, or of generosity. A universe—in other words, a metaphysic and an attitude of mind.
More universe stuff from previous breakdown basically.
>What is true of already specialized feelings will be even more so of emotions basically as indeterminate, simultaneously as vague and as "definite," as remote and as "present"
as those furnished us by beauty or aroused by absurdity.
what is the difference of specialized feelings and emotions? They seem like the same thing to me. How are they indeterminate? I know when I am sad or happy. Are they saying emotions will be felt the same as those who like absurdity?
Feel free to say how or why I am wrong and my interpretation of stuff is wrong. I put this much work into a reply I would hope to get around the same level of effort in a response back.
I will look more into it or look on the used market, but unless I get some kind of "breakthrough" I will just wait a bit and read other stuff before coming back to it.
I'm not who you're responding to, but I'll gloss the greentext best I can.
>Like great works, deep feelings...
you got it
>The regularity of an impulse...
we do things without knowing why we do them; we like or hate things without knowing why we like or hate them; and if we step back, looking at our lives objectively, we find that we replicate the same patterns, the same cycles, do the same things without knowing why -- and we repeat them precisely because we don't even know we're doing them
>Great feelings take with them...
sometimes you can feel something so intense, so far-reaching, that it feels like the feeling itself is the size of the universe; a sadness that is greater than the world, or a joy that is bigger than the galaxy. not only that but the world of sadness/whatever is textured; it has its own ridges, valleys, its own cartography so to speak, with many different kinds and degrees of sadness within it, and this is especially evident when we feel one of those "great feelings." we know it because the feeling itself seems to create a world that recognizes itself as being vast.
>There is a universe...
same as above, but now he's saying at the end there that these great feelings also encompass a way of looking at the world, a way of living in your mind
>What is true of already specialized feelings...
okay, so hold all of what came before in your mind. he's saying that all that is even more accurate when we feel something that comes about from experiencing beauty, or experiencing absurdity. he's saying that the emotions that arise from beauty/absurdity are difficult to name -- contradictory even -- but this doesn't mean that they don't have the same qualities of "great feelings" as said above. they have them even more.
hope this helps. read more slowly, with a pencil in hand. annotate your books. earlier in the thread you said you'd read ~75 books, which probably feels like a lot but trust me, it's nothing. I keep track of every book I've read and I'm at ~1200 and it feels like I've read nothing. the more you read and the more closely you read the easier it becomes to figure out what a writer's saying. you just need practice. I'd encourage you to return to books that you didn't like just to see if you understand them better on a second go-round. I didn't "get" Melville for years, but I felt like I had to like him because everyone else did. so glad I revisited him. there will also be books that everyone loves that you can't stand. I'm allergic to Dostoevsky and Hawthorne. you'll figure all of it out just keep reading.
Nice looking vegana, I'd frick it.
I agree with that interpretations you gave but I am not sure I agree with the author on the content of them. For example I'm still not sure I see the difference between great or specialized feelings, besides one being indescribable.
>A sadness that is greater than world.
I don't really understand that on a personal level, same with any of the other feelings. I don't think (at least not able to remember) feeling an emotion that big. Maybe I am just misinterpreting what you are saying though?
>We do things without knowing why
Also once again here I understand what you were trying to get across what the writer said but I dont agree. I know why a movie is bad to me or why I do things. I do think saying that we repeat them because we don't know we are repeating them is a bit of a cop out. If I disagree it could simply be said you don't know you are doing something on repeat, so of course you will say you aren't doing anything on repeat.
have you ever lashed out at someone in anger, only to realize later that you got angry at them out of nowhere? do you avoid topics without knowing exactly why you avoid them, or do you tend to date the same kind of woman, over and over? when you talk with your parents do you find yourselves on the same conversational topics, or getting angry at them disproportionately, or when your girlfriend does something -- bends over in a certain way maybe, handles herself differently in a weird situation, says something in an accent -- are you more attracted to her, and you're not entirely sure why? I bet some of this rings true; nobody has plumbed the depths of their own mind.
>sadness greater
I think you just haven't experienced something like it yet
>great vs specialized
you're too hung up on this; in context, specialized feelings just means the feeling examples he gave in the preceding sentence, and great feelings can mean those, but it can also mean indescribable ones triggered by absurdity or beauty
No I don't think I have lashed out at someone only to realize later it was over nothing. I honestly don't think I lash out in anger at all. The only (one)example in my life I can think of is when I was robbed working at fast food. And I didn't even lash out at anyone, just did so I my head after the experience was over. I don't think I avoid topics without knowing why, if I do avoid a topic it's because I know it would make that person uncomfortable. I rarely date people (<3) but when I do look for people it is the same type, however I know why I like that type. It is a bias yes, but I perceive goth/alt/just nerdy girls as more intelligent and willing to engage in certain kinds of conversation. I don't really converse with my parents, when I do it is typically how my life is going, I know why they always ask that hough. I also know why I respond, instead of just going no contact(even though they did nothing wrong). If I was more attracted to her because of an action like that I would know why, but none of those things would really make me more attracted to her. I'm not really interested in sex, so bending in a certain way to draw attention to body parts isn't that interesting. I'm not interested in sex too much because my libido is low, if thats a non answer than im not interested in sex also because it's more trouble than what it's worth. I could just jerk off if I ever get the urge which is at most a few times month. I'm not saying I've instantly known the answer to these kinds of questions, but what I am saying is I do wonder why for something and then i I try to find the answer and keep branching down that to the end. Why do I dislike x? Because y why do I dislike y? Because q why do I dislike q because z and keep doing that till I reach the end, where lots of the time it's not even logical in the reasoning to how I got there. Where something like why do I like when a girl bends a certain way goes to because countless of generations of people before me passed down certain traits.
I'm not trying to sound like an edgy teenager or some special human god amongst men or anything. I just don't really think I stay not knowing something, especially about myself.
>sadness greater
Even for other emotions, like the anger I felt for having my life threatened, I wouldn't call that greater than the universe or anything. Just go home take a nap and not feel any emotion about it anymore. Before I did sleep it certainly wasn't some anger with depths so great I could write a 10 page poem on it or anything.
think for a moment; are you certain you know every single nook and cranny of your mind? or is it that you think you know them, think you're able to trace the "logical" chain, but really that's a story you tell yourself and the actual connections aren't visible?
No I don't think I know every nook and cranny of my mind, but I do think when I know I don't know something I try to find the reason for it. It is a possibility the logical chains I have in my mind aren't the real reason, it's also a possibility they are. it doesn't seem like it be possible to know which is really true. Kind of similar to if we are living in a simulation or not. Ty for entertaining my bad level of thinking anonymous poster.
in what sense? do you mean in terms of story, or in thoughts? plenty of nonfiction that's written well
for me it’s more like I’ve never read a book better than average, and I’ve read all the classics, even blood meridian
Same, I dropped it early on, along with Don Quixote. I just don't care for old ass classics that don't engage me.
Frick off Don Quixote is the best fricking book I ever read.
I mean I get the message and shit, that's fine, I just can't stand the ancient writing style.
It doesn't have a moral, its just a protopostmodern romp
what are you talking about?
and yes I do prefer this schizo troll comic to a so called classic book beloved by so called millions
If you are alluding to Dostoevsky’s worst novels, then, indeed, I dislike intensely The Brothers Karamazov and the ghastly crime and Punishment rigamarole. No, I do not object to soul-searching and self-revelation, but in those books the soul, and the sins, and the sentimentality, and the journalese, hardly warrant the tedious and muddled search. Dostoyevsky’s lack of taste, his monotonous dealings with persons suffering with pre-Freudian complexes, the way he has of wallowing in the tragic misadventures of human dignity – all this is difficult to admire. I do not like this trick his characters have of ”sinning their way to Jesus” or, as a Russian author, Ivan Bunin, put it more bluntly, ”spilling Jesus all over the place." Crime and Punishment’s plot did not seem as incredibly banal in 1866 when the book was written as it does now when noble prostitutes are apt to be received a little cynically by experienced readers. Dostoyevsky never really got over the influence which the European mystery novel and the sentimental novel made upon him. The sentimental influence implied that kind of conflict he liked—placing virtuous people in pathetic situations and then extracting from these situations the last ounce of pathos. Non-Russian readers do not realize two things: that not all Russians love Dostoevsky as much as Americans do, and that most of those Russians who do, venerate him as a mystic and not as an artist. He was a prophet, a claptrap journalist and a slapdash comedian. I admit that some of his scenes, some of his tremendous farcical rows are extraordinarily amusing. But his sensitive murderers and soulful prostitutes are not to be endured for one moment—by this reader anyway. Dostoyevsky seems to have been chosen by the destiny of Russian letters to become Russia’s greatest playwright, but he took the wrong turning and wrote novels.
well stated.
Dosto is essentially sadomasochistic, he loves dwelling on characters who revel in how depraved they are, but who also prostrate themselves in the just punishment or humiliation of their depravity. Again, sensitive murderers and soulful prostitutes imply the exact situation he adored, all the violence and sexual intrigue he desired so much, but with the approval of his super ego since they ritualistically degrade themselves in a kind of spiritual fetishistic pleasure in confessing, being punished, and then being "redeemed". It's lurid and partakes of a sick kind of gratification in self flagellation.
I think the author is aware of this. Note's From the Underground deals exactly with this topic.
He’s one of my favorite writers but the way people interact in his books feels moronic a lot of times. Like the prostitute in Notes. He degrades her and rants like a lunatic at her for ten minutes and she basically falls in love with him? I get the sentiment but it feels so unnatural it’s hard to overlook.
Personally, I didn't find it too unnatural. It's obvious the prostitute was living in a state of self-denial (clinging to the love letter she received ages ago) and the protagonists rant shook her out of her trance for which she became grateful. Ironically, the protagonist didn't "save" her out off good will, but because he wanted to hurt her as much as possible. And in another twist of fate, he slowly begins regretting his initial decision and falls in love with her, but it taken over by guilt because of his malicious actions leading him to self-sabotage himself. The whole thing may be really, really "uncomfortable", absurd and paradoxical, but the lead up to their relationship seems reasonable enough in my opinion.
This contrarian anti-dosto trend is pathetic. No one's impressed you read a couple of dosto novels and didn't like them
>This contrarian anti-dosto trend is pathetic. No one's impressed you read a couple of dosto novels and didn't like them
>Uncritically clapping like a seal for literature you """should""" like
Try having an original idea of your own for once in your life
Nah you're wrong. I've read quite a lot, as dostos great novels spoke to the depth of my soul more than any other author. Being contrarian and not liking books that are considered the greatest of all time, for the sake of novelty for noveltys sake, is sniffing your own fart. Pseud behaviour.
You have zero rebuttal to my points. If you have a fetish for suffer porn, that's fine for you, but don't pretend it "spoke to the depth of your soul", THAT is pseud behavior.
hahaha wew lad, how is it that "suffering porn" is all youve gotten out of dostoyevsky? no one is that dumb
is it that difficult for you to imagine that someone genuinely dislikes your favorite writer -- not out of childish contrarianism, but for genuine, careful reasons? I would think that someone who spends as much time slipping into other people's consciousness in books would be able to do the same in real life. I don't care for dosty either for the same reasons as
. also
>DEBATE ME BRO
stop this, it makes you look like a bullied fourteen year old who speaks with a lisp
>Don't know how to have a constructive back and forth
My riposte was proportional to the post I was replying to. Calm down.
>"You look like a bullied fourteen year old who speaks with a lisp!"
>"No one is that dumb!"
No surprise these are the kinds of responses to genuine criticisms of Dosto and the reasons a person might enjoy him. But don't pretend it's me dragging the discourse down, at this point that would be the height of disingenuousness
I'm
. I'm agreeing with your Dosto criticism. please read my comment again.
of course it's not all that's present in dosto but he certainly loves it when his characters self-flagellate. everything in a dosto novel is cranked up to 11. it tires you after a while
Its way too fricking long for a book where nothing happens but people talking to each other.
Halfway through The Elementary Particles, it's very bad. 70% of the book is sex scenes or someone speaking/thinking about sex.
I disliked it too, but liked his other novels like aneantir, serotonin and the map and the territory. The map and the territory was a personal favorite.
I loved Serotonin so I thought Atomised would be a good next one.
I'll finish it but made a mistake (from what I've read so far).
It is but it seems written by an incel with no self awareness. Biggest coomer book I've ever read. Maybe if the focus is more on Michel instead of Bruno it would improve.
I can't read that shit because it seems like its written by a seething incel
>seems like
I'm about 3/4 of the way through, and I have to agree.
The Grand Inquisitor is an extremely poignant diversion, but over all, it is not what I was expecting.
I mean, it's ok, but Catch-22 was better.
>~~*Feivel Mousekewitz*~~
This should have been your first clue:
?t=63
>what do you mean Peter, how??
The answer is unrionically that it insists upon itself.
>Peter it's so good, it's like the perfect book!