Can’t be anymore LARPy than we wuzzing as an Israelite and following a dead rabbi who didn’t have a single prophecy that came true. Any homosexual who is still a Christian now after seeing the world Christianity led to is moronic
8 months ago
Anonymous
Pagans don't even believe in their phony norse gods. It's nothing but posture for reactionary politics. Pagans don't even follow a coherent, living tradition. They follow anachronistic reconstructions.
This is why you are a LARPer.
8 months ago
Anonymous
You can switch pagan with average IQfy tradcath larper and it would be exactly the same
8 months ago
Anonymous
Yes.
8 months ago
Vindler
They follow anachronistic reconstructions because the christianization of Europe destroyed what was written, if anything.
8 months ago
Anonymous
You "know" this because it's the popular myth among hysterical morons like you right now, not because you really evaluated anything. The few hard points of data we actually have don't paint the picture you want so you'll ignore them and focus on pop media memes and shit you make up instead. Most of what we know about pre-Christian myths we know because it was written down and preserved by Christians.
8 months ago
Vindler
In euhemeristic ways, yes, because people who loved their old faith spread their knowledge. I'm interested in your data, though. Please share it.
8 months ago
Anonymous
The source of all your information being Christian is an example of a hard data. It's consistent with a culture that values the preservation of information and vilified examples that were counter to that goal, a culture where, big surprise, scribes were valued. It's not consistent with your deranged portrayal of your ancestors as idiots as braindead as you.
8 months ago
Vindler
The active word is euhemeristically, and only ~1200 after the birth of Christ. Medieval sources also attest that Charlemagne destroyed an Irminsul in-or-about 780, then built a church where it once stood. The same thing happened to Donar's Oak, and they built a church out of the very same tree.
hello frens
where to start with Nietzsche?
Zarathrusta. But also understand his words were twisted by the people around him after his death.
8 months ago
Anonymous
There is no version of history possible where no such events happened. No matter the situation, even if Christianity was the greatest thing ever you could still find examples like that. You don't know how to think so you cherry pick to serve the conclusion you want.
I can tell you a reductive story like the ones you like that's much more consistent with everything we know: iconoclastic behavior was always the norm until Christianity when it became the exception.
8 months ago
Vindler
So you're saying that Christians destroyed holy sites but also loved to preserve the cultures of the people they subjugated? The idea of a living tradition, I would argue, doesn't exist in many religions aside from Christianity. Likely because the subjugation of paganism has continued into the modern era, and prevents organization. Calling it how I see it, people are more comfortable calling Mormonism Christianity and heathenry a cult.
If what you're arguing is that Christian sites were also toppled by pagans, that's true. Nobodies perfect, but first you say my hard data doesn't support my conclusion, then I provide data that does, and you disregard it by claiming that later perversions of the myth make up for the destruction of holy sites and temples. I would like to hear your reductive story, if only because it would make you condense your point into something attackable.
8 months ago
Anonymous
The point is the data doesn't say what you pretend it does. I can imagine a million models that aren't your model but fit the data you present, I gave you one example and your brain apparently exploded at the thought of considering hypotheticals.
I didn't say any of the shit you felt the need to add and it's not relevant to anything, it's schoolbook cope, adding confusion to avoid the point.
The alternative reductive story I was referencing is in the post you illiterate worm.
8 months ago
Vindler
Give me one.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>iconoclastic behavior was always the norm until Christianity when it became the exception.
8 months ago
Vindler
You have given me a strawman, not evidence to support your claim or refute mine. Unless you're willing to do so, I am content to call this discussion over. I would like to know your position regarding this, along with the ideas and facts that led you to this position. If you continue to act in this manner we will not reach a synthesis.
yes all of those are bloated shit filled with needless exposition. They objectively do not need to be as long as that to get across an idea on the human condition. this of course doesn't apply to purely plot focused works like Harry Potter or some shit. My favorite author is Fitzgerald but I've dropped the vast majority of works by him because they were all pale imitations of either Gatsby (his thoughts on America) or The Beautiful and Damned (basically his diary). Again The Passion According to G.H. says more about the human condition in one chapter than most of the books you listed manage in their entire length and since I don't think anyone actually enjoys the minutia in Anna Karena it's kinda pointless. Its telling of how unobjective people are with literature when they can't even attempt to entertain the idea that some literature is filled with exposition that pads it's length needlessly while other don't and someone may actually care about such a thing. It's not a hard concept yet the vitriol I get for simply saying how I view literature is absurd.
although I did like how someone replied once and said "you know how people will post stuff everyone thinks with the title "am I the only one who?", I think OP may be the first person ever to actually be the only one who thinks something". I wish it wasn't true but I've yet to see anyone who even entertains the thought that there may be an objective way to categorize books as needlessly long or perfectly written to include not one word of needless exposition.
The exposition in Moby Dick is necessary if only to assist in understanding how whalemen deify their prey as much as they hate it. The quasi-magical nature of their prey and their majestic scale is well reproduced. Additionally, I don't think the point of Moby Dick was to necessarily get a point across about the human condition. It is a fiction piece first, and a book about the philosophy of obsession second.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>You have given me a strawman
Everything you say is braindead including this. My position is stop posting until you learn how to think moron. You justified your deranged claims with "data" that's like it's a schoolbook example of how to put together propaganda through cherrypicking. Learn to fricking think moron.
I don't have a "position" toward history, that would be braindead. I have multiple models I adjust when I get new information. I know all of them are flawed.
You have nothing, no models, no thoughts, just the same hysterical propaganda every moron on the planet is mindlessly spewing for some reason.
8 months ago
Anonymous
if it's fiction and written to enjoy then the plot is whatever length it needs to be to finish the story. If it's primarily trying to convey an aspect of the human condition then it shouldn't be necessary to write more than a couple hundred pages. The amount of works that want nothing more than have you agree with them about humanity yet are filled with ultimately pointless descriptions of random settings and things is too damn high. All you really need for a book concerning such things is vague dream life suggestions of a world not these 700 page epics that describe every object in every room to the fullest. Almost all my favorite books are less than 200 pages, it just works better as a length for literature.
Feel free to write up why you think it's necessary to describe everything in order to express a truth of the human condition.
this may be unpopular but in all but the rarest of cases most thinkers get across everything they want to say in one book and reading everything they wrote is largely useless because of the unavoidable and massive amount of repetition; this goes for fiction authors too. It may be an early work or a very late work but at some point an author will write the "ultimate" form of their ideas and that is the only work you should read. Exceptions may be allowed for a single early work being bookended by another work later but two is the max you need to understand anyone's mind. We aren't reading for pure enjoyment here we are reading for ideas and if you're reading something trying to get the same idea across as something you already read thats a waste of time.
also any fiction work concerning the human condition does not need to be over ~250-300 pages long, any longer and you're guaranteed unnecessary exposition, the enemy of all readers in pursuit of knowledge. I've never read a fictional piece longer than 300 pages that deserved to be that long. All my favorite fiction works are less than 250 pages many are less than 200 pages. Clarice Lispectors "Passion according to G.H." says more in 150 pages than most authors can say in 1000 pages.
>Clarice Lispectors "Passion according to G.H." says more in 150 pages than most authors can say in 1000 pages.
oh god, i had to read that dross in high school. frick off
no you didn't. I don't what you think Passion According to G.H. is but there isn't a highschool classroom in the world that would be appropriate to teach this book.
Just because you’re a moronic monolingual does not mean a Brazilian writer is not taught in Brazilian high school classrooms, Jamal
8 months ago
Anonymous
Imagine getting btfo'd by a Brazilian who learned English, only to laugh at you on IQfy.
8 months ago
Anonymous
just like they teach Finnegan's Wake in Irish highschool because he's Irish. If you're not joking thats one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. The idea that even an above average Brazilian would have a single clue what the book is saying is laughable. You're probably confusing it with her other work which is dramatically more accessible. It's 150 pages of surrealistic borderline nonsense only really appropriate for academics or someone at that level.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>let me tell you about your country
8 months ago
Anonymous
yes I will tell you it's not normal to read something akin to Finnegan's Wake in highschool no matter what country you're in. I flipped to a random page and copied two random consecutive paragraphs. No this book is not read in highschool, I'm guessing the anon remembers reading Lispector in highschool but forgot the name of the book or something like that because you'd have to be pretty stupid to try and teach this to anyone outside of someone who seriously studies literature.
>Will I stay lost amid the silence of the signals? I will, for I know what I'm like: I never learned to look without needing more than just to see. I know that I'll terrify myself like someone who was blind and then finally opened her eyes and saw—but saw what? a mute, incomprehensible triangle. Couldn't that person consider herself blinder still for seeing only an incomprehensible triangle? >I ask myself: if I look into the darkness with a magnifying glass, will I see more than darkness? the glass won't disperse the darkness, it will only reveal it all the more. And if I look at brightness with a magnifying glass, I shall see, with a shock, only greater brightness. I have seen but am as blind as before because I saw an incomprehensible triangle. Unless I also transform myself into a triangle that will see in the incomprehensible triangle my own source and repetition.
8 months ago
Anonymous
here are the remaining paragraphs in this single section. Feel free to try and explain coherently what is being said here. The book is fragmentary and should require no other reading to understand each fragment as they are barely connected to each other if at all. To be honest this isn't even close to as confusing as it gets
>I'm stalling. I know that everything I say is just to put it off— to put off the moment when I'll have to start talking, knowing that there is nothing more for me to say. I'm putting off my silence. Have I been putting off silence for my whole life? but now, in my disparagement of the word, perhaps I'll finally be able to start talking.
>The telegraph signals. The world bristling with antennas, and here am I receiving the signal. I'll be able to do only a phonetic transcription. Three thousand years ago I lost my head, and all that was left were phonetic fragments of me. I'm blinder than before. I did see, I really did. And I was terrified by the raw truth of a world whose greatest horror is that it is so alive that for me to admit that I am as alive as it is—and my most hideous discovery is that I am as alive as it is—I shall have to raise my consciousness of life outside to so high a point that it would amount to a crime against my personal life.
>For the profound morality that I felt before—my morality was the desire to understand, and, since I didn't understand, I shuffled things around, that was only yesterday, and now that I discover that I have always been profoundly moral: I admit only of finality—as for my prior profound morality, for me to discover that I am as crudely alive as that bare light that I learned of yesterday, as for that morality of mine, the harsh glory of being alive is horror itself. I lived before of a humanized world; did the simply alive destroy the morality that I had then?
>A world wholly alive has a Hellish power.
8 months ago
Anonymous
seems like a bad attempt to imitate Pessoa tbh
8 months ago
Anonymous
they both wrote in Portuguese, maybe you're right
8 months ago
Anonymous
here are the remaining paragraphs in this single section. Feel free to try and explain coherently what is being said here. The book is fragmentary and should require no other reading to understand each fragment as they are barely connected to each other if at all. To be honest this isn't even close to as confusing as it gets
>I'm stalling. I know that everything I say is just to put it off— to put off the moment when I'll have to start talking, knowing that there is nothing more for me to say. I'm putting off my silence. Have I been putting off silence for my whole life? but now, in my disparagement of the word, perhaps I'll finally be able to start talking.
>The telegraph signals. The world bristling with antennas, and here am I receiving the signal. I'll be able to do only a phonetic transcription. Three thousand years ago I lost my head, and all that was left were phonetic fragments of me. I'm blinder than before. I did see, I really did. And I was terrified by the raw truth of a world whose greatest horror is that it is so alive that for me to admit that I am as alive as it is—and my most hideous discovery is that I am as alive as it is—I shall have to raise my consciousness of life outside to so high a point that it would amount to a crime against my personal life.
>For the profound morality that I felt before—my morality was the desire to understand, and, since I didn't understand, I shuffled things around, that was only yesterday, and now that I discover that I have always been profoundly moral: I admit only of finality—as for my prior profound morality, for me to discover that I am as crudely alive as that bare light that I learned of yesterday, as for that morality of mine, the harsh glory of being alive is horror itself. I lived before of a humanized world; did the simply alive destroy the morality that I had then?
>A world wholly alive has a Hellish power.
You are a Black person for comparing it with FW, that is freshman content at its best.
>It may be an early work or a very late work but at some point an author will write the "ultimate" form of their ideas and that is the only work you should read >IQfy - You shouldn't read books
moron.
that's likely the case with many authors but even then it's at the very least interesting to read most works of a thinker you enjoy and see how his thoughts developed. >any fiction work concerning the human condition does not need to be over ~250-300 pages long, any longer and you're guaranteed unnecessary exposition
Oh no, I'll be exposed to reading which is something I love to do, that's really sad.
If you have never read a book over 350 pages that was worth the effort you have been reading shit books. >the enemy of all readers in pursuit of knowledge.
more like the enemy of lazy morons.
why do people get so mad at the idea of being particular about what you read and trying to get the most out of your time? if you have such a small literary outlook that you can afford to read books based on nothing more than the author that's fine but some of us have way too much to read to do that. I usually read to learn not to finish some arbitrary collection
being particular is one thing and no one cares what you are particular about.
Being moronic with claims like "no fiction book over 350pgs is worth reading" or "you should only read the 'ultimate work' of any given thinker".
8 months ago
Anonymous
"I think you usually only need to read the best book someone wrote to get most of what they have to offer" seems pretty innocuous and understandable yet people think it's insane lol.
8 months ago
Anonymous
I think it’s when you say pretentious shit like “if you read more than one book by a given author you’re a pseud/wasting your time” that upsets people. Sure, you can get most of what you need from an author in one work, but like, what if you like that author? What if you want to hear their ideas developed further? What if you just enjoy their style/perspective? I don’t view literature as an autistic collection of “who I’ve read” I just read books that interest me. Maybe you’re not like that though.
Also >no fiction over 350
Cmon dude. Moby Dick, Ulysses, BK, Anna Karinnina, etc. are just all bloated shit then?
8 months ago
Anonymous
yes all of those are bloated shit filled with needless exposition. They objectively do not need to be as long as that to get across an idea on the human condition. this of course doesn't apply to purely plot focused works like Harry Potter or some shit. My favorite author is Fitzgerald but I've dropped the vast majority of works by him because they were all pale imitations of either Gatsby (his thoughts on America) or The Beautiful and Damned (basically his diary). Again The Passion According to G.H. says more about the human condition in one chapter than most of the books you listed manage in their entire length and since I don't think anyone actually enjoys the minutia in Anna Karena it's kinda pointless. Its telling of how unobjective people are with literature when they can't even attempt to entertain the idea that some literature is filled with exposition that pads it's length needlessly while other don't and someone may actually care about such a thing. It's not a hard concept yet the vitriol I get for simply saying how I view literature is absurd.
although I did like how someone replied once and said "you know how people will post stuff everyone thinks with the title "am I the only one who?", I think OP may be the first person ever to actually be the only one who thinks something". I wish it wasn't true but I've yet to see anyone who even entertains the thought that there may be an objective way to categorize books as needlessly long or perfectly written to include not one word of needless exposition.
8 months ago
Anonymous
A book can say a lot about the human condition and be long without it devaluing the work though. Like could those novels be shortened and still retain their core message? Yes absolutely, however, they would lose a lot in the process. They lose character development, prose, phrasing, scene building, story, and they are compromising the vision of the author, not allowing the point to be driven home how they intended or the message to unfold naturally in the narrative.
It seems to me like you read exclusively for ideas, and you read with a time-oriented mindset. You want to know what a book is “about” as efficiently as possible, whereas myself and most other readers enjoy reading because it gives us all those benefits you’re looking for in addition to being entertaining, engaging, and beautiful as art.
To be fair I understand your POV, so many books so little time and all that, I just don’t look at literature that way.
8 months ago
Anonymous
my books aren't lacking those traits though, the authors just know how to get all that across in 1/10th to 100th the time of other authors, which takes skill. one of my favorite books is an autobiography by a Romanian Surrealist named Gellu Naum. The book is called My Tired Father and it's written by doing (Burroughs style) cut-ups of American magazines and arranging the sentence fragments into something more. At first it feels like aphoristic nonsense but eventually as you read you begin to see a definite outline of a life lived. That's really all you need to get everything you mentioned if your imagination is good enough, sentence fragments cut from magazines and arranged into an outline of a plot. My Tired Father is a fascinating autobiography despite being around 50-75 pages long.
8 months ago
Anonymous
See that does sound interesting, and you do sound intelligent, but all I’m saying is that there is nothing inherently wrong of superior in longer novels. It’s just art of a different form. It’s a photograph vs a film or a portrait vs a fresco, or a song vs a symphony. All of these have value, and it’s unfair to judge some as bloated simply because you prefer to consume others
I’ll give that novel a read soon though
8 months ago
Anonymous
I hope you like it. I found it online free to download without too much effort. but yea that's just the kind of writing I like most, the kind where an outline or trace of something greater than the sum of its parts is all you get. like The book of Monelle by Marcel Schwob which is hands down my personal favorite depiction of grief ever which is made up mostly of fairy-tale like short stories that the author wrote for his love while watching her slowly die from disease before his eyes.
>GS: TSZ: GOM >PrePlatonics Lectures/On Truth in the Non-Sneed Sense/Birth of Chuck: Early aphoristic works through GS again, then chronologically to the end.
Zarathustra is the key and it will cast the early work in a different light, and the late work - like Twilight of the Idols - cannot be parsed without it.
>GS: TSZ: GOM >PrePlatonics Lectures/On Truth in the Non-Sneed Sense/Birth of Chuck: Early aphoristic works through GS again, then chronologically to the end.
Zarathustra is the key and it will cast the early work in a different light, and the late work - like Twilight of the Idols - cannot be parsed without it.
Was going to say this, do not worry about BGE until later. Gay Science and Zarathustra are his two magic works
I'm going through his works now and am reading in this order
1. Genealogy of Morals
2. Twilight of the Idols and Anti-Christ
3. Gay Science
4. Zarathustra
Reading Nietzsche as an adult is so satisfying man. Hope you enjoy your journey through his works as much as I am.
Finished and loved Genealogy of Morals and Twilight of the Idols but I don't really like the aphoristic way he writes in beyond good and evil. Can I skip it and move into Gay Science? Feels like what I read was almost 99% the same as what was in Genealogy but just written more clumsily.
Give me your forehead.
For a kiss, to me
So which way is it then? Will you become a true atheist, or admit you were lying to yourself and rejoin the church?
You’re forgetting one
LARP
gay
Can’t be anymore LARPy than we wuzzing as an Israelite and following a dead rabbi who didn’t have a single prophecy that came true. Any homosexual who is still a Christian now after seeing the world Christianity led to is moronic
Pagans don't even believe in their phony norse gods. It's nothing but posture for reactionary politics. Pagans don't even follow a coherent, living tradition. They follow anachronistic reconstructions.
This is why you are a LARPer.
You can switch pagan with average IQfy tradcath larper and it would be exactly the same
Yes.
They follow anachronistic reconstructions because the christianization of Europe destroyed what was written, if anything.
You "know" this because it's the popular myth among hysterical morons like you right now, not because you really evaluated anything. The few hard points of data we actually have don't paint the picture you want so you'll ignore them and focus on pop media memes and shit you make up instead. Most of what we know about pre-Christian myths we know because it was written down and preserved by Christians.
In euhemeristic ways, yes, because people who loved their old faith spread their knowledge. I'm interested in your data, though. Please share it.
The source of all your information being Christian is an example of a hard data. It's consistent with a culture that values the preservation of information and vilified examples that were counter to that goal, a culture where, big surprise, scribes were valued. It's not consistent with your deranged portrayal of your ancestors as idiots as braindead as you.
The active word is euhemeristically, and only ~1200 after the birth of Christ. Medieval sources also attest that Charlemagne destroyed an Irminsul in-or-about 780, then built a church where it once stood. The same thing happened to Donar's Oak, and they built a church out of the very same tree.
Zarathrusta. But also understand his words were twisted by the people around him after his death.
There is no version of history possible where no such events happened. No matter the situation, even if Christianity was the greatest thing ever you could still find examples like that. You don't know how to think so you cherry pick to serve the conclusion you want.
I can tell you a reductive story like the ones you like that's much more consistent with everything we know: iconoclastic behavior was always the norm until Christianity when it became the exception.
So you're saying that Christians destroyed holy sites but also loved to preserve the cultures of the people they subjugated? The idea of a living tradition, I would argue, doesn't exist in many religions aside from Christianity. Likely because the subjugation of paganism has continued into the modern era, and prevents organization. Calling it how I see it, people are more comfortable calling Mormonism Christianity and heathenry a cult.
If what you're arguing is that Christian sites were also toppled by pagans, that's true. Nobodies perfect, but first you say my hard data doesn't support my conclusion, then I provide data that does, and you disregard it by claiming that later perversions of the myth make up for the destruction of holy sites and temples. I would like to hear your reductive story, if only because it would make you condense your point into something attackable.
The point is the data doesn't say what you pretend it does. I can imagine a million models that aren't your model but fit the data you present, I gave you one example and your brain apparently exploded at the thought of considering hypotheticals.
I didn't say any of the shit you felt the need to add and it's not relevant to anything, it's schoolbook cope, adding confusion to avoid the point.
The alternative reductive story I was referencing is in the post you illiterate worm.
Give me one.
>iconoclastic behavior was always the norm until Christianity when it became the exception.
You have given me a strawman, not evidence to support your claim or refute mine. Unless you're willing to do so, I am content to call this discussion over. I would like to know your position regarding this, along with the ideas and facts that led you to this position. If you continue to act in this manner we will not reach a synthesis.
The exposition in Moby Dick is necessary if only to assist in understanding how whalemen deify their prey as much as they hate it. The quasi-magical nature of their prey and their majestic scale is well reproduced. Additionally, I don't think the point of Moby Dick was to necessarily get a point across about the human condition. It is a fiction piece first, and a book about the philosophy of obsession second.
>You have given me a strawman
Everything you say is braindead including this. My position is stop posting until you learn how to think moron. You justified your deranged claims with "data" that's like it's a schoolbook example of how to put together propaganda through cherrypicking. Learn to fricking think moron.
I don't have a "position" toward history, that would be braindead. I have multiple models I adjust when I get new information. I know all of them are flawed.
You have nothing, no models, no thoughts, just the same hysterical propaganda every moron on the planet is mindlessly spewing for some reason.
if it's fiction and written to enjoy then the plot is whatever length it needs to be to finish the story. If it's primarily trying to convey an aspect of the human condition then it shouldn't be necessary to write more than a couple hundred pages. The amount of works that want nothing more than have you agree with them about humanity yet are filled with ultimately pointless descriptions of random settings and things is too damn high. All you really need for a book concerning such things is vague dream life suggestions of a world not these 700 page epics that describe every object in every room to the fullest. Almost all my favorite books are less than 200 pages, it just works better as a length for literature.
Feel free to write up why you think it's necessary to describe everything in order to express a truth of the human condition.
What did you learn?
I'm looking forward to replying to this exact post upon my return. Before I wasn't.
that hammer's are destructive, and there's only a few dozen people in the world who are actually worthy of living
"Collected" and "Friedrich Nietzsche" but good job anon!!
this may be unpopular but in all but the rarest of cases most thinkers get across everything they want to say in one book and reading everything they wrote is largely useless because of the unavoidable and massive amount of repetition; this goes for fiction authors too. It may be an early work or a very late work but at some point an author will write the "ultimate" form of their ideas and that is the only work you should read. Exceptions may be allowed for a single early work being bookended by another work later but two is the max you need to understand anyone's mind. We aren't reading for pure enjoyment here we are reading for ideas and if you're reading something trying to get the same idea across as something you already read thats a waste of time.
also any fiction work concerning the human condition does not need to be over ~250-300 pages long, any longer and you're guaranteed unnecessary exposition, the enemy of all readers in pursuit of knowledge. I've never read a fictional piece longer than 300 pages that deserved to be that long. All my favorite fiction works are less than 250 pages many are less than 200 pages. Clarice Lispectors "Passion according to G.H." says more in 150 pages than most authors can say in 1000 pages.
>Clarice Lispectors "Passion according to G.H." says more in 150 pages than most authors can say in 1000 pages.
oh god, i had to read that dross in high school. frick off
no you didn't. I don't what you think Passion According to G.H. is but there isn't a highschool classroom in the world that would be appropriate to teach this book.
Just because you’re a moronic monolingual does not mean a Brazilian writer is not taught in Brazilian high school classrooms, Jamal
Imagine getting btfo'd by a Brazilian who learned English, only to laugh at you on IQfy.
just like they teach Finnegan's Wake in Irish highschool because he's Irish. If you're not joking thats one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. The idea that even an above average Brazilian would have a single clue what the book is saying is laughable. You're probably confusing it with her other work which is dramatically more accessible. It's 150 pages of surrealistic borderline nonsense only really appropriate for academics or someone at that level.
>let me tell you about your country
yes I will tell you it's not normal to read something akin to Finnegan's Wake in highschool no matter what country you're in. I flipped to a random page and copied two random consecutive paragraphs. No this book is not read in highschool, I'm guessing the anon remembers reading Lispector in highschool but forgot the name of the book or something like that because you'd have to be pretty stupid to try and teach this to anyone outside of someone who seriously studies literature.
>Will I stay lost amid the silence of the signals? I will, for I know what I'm like: I never learned to look without needing more than just to see. I know that I'll terrify myself like someone who was blind and then finally opened her eyes and saw—but saw what? a mute, incomprehensible triangle. Couldn't that person consider herself blinder still for seeing only an incomprehensible triangle?
>I ask myself: if I look into the darkness with a magnifying glass, will I see more than darkness? the glass won't disperse the darkness, it will only reveal it all the more. And if I look at brightness with a magnifying glass, I shall see, with a shock, only greater brightness. I have seen but am as blind as before because I saw an incomprehensible triangle. Unless I also transform myself into a triangle that will see in the incomprehensible triangle my own source and repetition.
here are the remaining paragraphs in this single section. Feel free to try and explain coherently what is being said here. The book is fragmentary and should require no other reading to understand each fragment as they are barely connected to each other if at all. To be honest this isn't even close to as confusing as it gets
>I'm stalling. I know that everything I say is just to put it off— to put off the moment when I'll have to start talking, knowing that there is nothing more for me to say. I'm putting off my silence. Have I been putting off silence for my whole life? but now, in my disparagement of the word, perhaps I'll finally be able to start talking.
>The telegraph signals. The world bristling with antennas, and here am I receiving the signal. I'll be able to do only a phonetic transcription. Three thousand years ago I lost my head, and all that was left were phonetic fragments of me. I'm blinder than before. I did see, I really did. And I was terrified by the raw truth of a world whose greatest horror is that it is so alive that for me to admit that I am as alive as it is—and my most hideous discovery is that I am as alive as it is—I shall have to raise my consciousness of life outside to so high a point that it would amount to a crime against my personal life.
>For the profound morality that I felt before—my morality was the desire to understand, and, since I didn't understand, I shuffled things around, that was only yesterday, and now that I discover that I have always been profoundly moral: I admit only of finality—as for my prior profound morality, for me to discover that I am as crudely alive as that bare light that I learned of yesterday, as for that morality of mine, the harsh glory of being alive is horror itself. I lived before of a humanized world; did the simply alive destroy the morality that I had then?
>A world wholly alive has a Hellish power.
seems like a bad attempt to imitate Pessoa tbh
they both wrote in Portuguese, maybe you're right
You are a Black person for comparing it with FW, that is freshman content at its best.
then what's it saying?
>It may be an early work or a very late work but at some point an author will write the "ultimate" form of their ideas and that is the only work you should read
>IQfy - You shouldn't read books
moron.
that's likely the case with many authors but even then it's at the very least interesting to read most works of a thinker you enjoy and see how his thoughts developed.
>any fiction work concerning the human condition does not need to be over ~250-300 pages long, any longer and you're guaranteed unnecessary exposition
Oh no, I'll be exposed to reading which is something I love to do, that's really sad.
If you have never read a book over 350 pages that was worth the effort you have been reading shit books.
>the enemy of all readers in pursuit of knowledge.
more like the enemy of lazy morons.
why do people get so mad at the idea of being particular about what you read and trying to get the most out of your time? if you have such a small literary outlook that you can afford to read books based on nothing more than the author that's fine but some of us have way too much to read to do that. I usually read to learn not to finish some arbitrary collection
being particular is one thing and no one cares what you are particular about.
Being moronic with claims like "no fiction book over 350pgs is worth reading" or "you should only read the 'ultimate work' of any given thinker".
"I think you usually only need to read the best book someone wrote to get most of what they have to offer" seems pretty innocuous and understandable yet people think it's insane lol.
I think it’s when you say pretentious shit like “if you read more than one book by a given author you’re a pseud/wasting your time” that upsets people. Sure, you can get most of what you need from an author in one work, but like, what if you like that author? What if you want to hear their ideas developed further? What if you just enjoy their style/perspective? I don’t view literature as an autistic collection of “who I’ve read” I just read books that interest me. Maybe you’re not like that though.
Also
>no fiction over 350
Cmon dude. Moby Dick, Ulysses, BK, Anna Karinnina, etc. are just all bloated shit then?
yes all of those are bloated shit filled with needless exposition. They objectively do not need to be as long as that to get across an idea on the human condition. this of course doesn't apply to purely plot focused works like Harry Potter or some shit. My favorite author is Fitzgerald but I've dropped the vast majority of works by him because they were all pale imitations of either Gatsby (his thoughts on America) or The Beautiful and Damned (basically his diary). Again The Passion According to G.H. says more about the human condition in one chapter than most of the books you listed manage in their entire length and since I don't think anyone actually enjoys the minutia in Anna Karena it's kinda pointless. Its telling of how unobjective people are with literature when they can't even attempt to entertain the idea that some literature is filled with exposition that pads it's length needlessly while other don't and someone may actually care about such a thing. It's not a hard concept yet the vitriol I get for simply saying how I view literature is absurd.
although I did like how someone replied once and said "you know how people will post stuff everyone thinks with the title "am I the only one who?", I think OP may be the first person ever to actually be the only one who thinks something". I wish it wasn't true but I've yet to see anyone who even entertains the thought that there may be an objective way to categorize books as needlessly long or perfectly written to include not one word of needless exposition.
A book can say a lot about the human condition and be long without it devaluing the work though. Like could those novels be shortened and still retain their core message? Yes absolutely, however, they would lose a lot in the process. They lose character development, prose, phrasing, scene building, story, and they are compromising the vision of the author, not allowing the point to be driven home how they intended or the message to unfold naturally in the narrative.
It seems to me like you read exclusively for ideas, and you read with a time-oriented mindset. You want to know what a book is “about” as efficiently as possible, whereas myself and most other readers enjoy reading because it gives us all those benefits you’re looking for in addition to being entertaining, engaging, and beautiful as art.
To be fair I understand your POV, so many books so little time and all that, I just don’t look at literature that way.
my books aren't lacking those traits though, the authors just know how to get all that across in 1/10th to 100th the time of other authors, which takes skill. one of my favorite books is an autobiography by a Romanian Surrealist named Gellu Naum. The book is called My Tired Father and it's written by doing (Burroughs style) cut-ups of American magazines and arranging the sentence fragments into something more. At first it feels like aphoristic nonsense but eventually as you read you begin to see a definite outline of a life lived. That's really all you need to get everything you mentioned if your imagination is good enough, sentence fragments cut from magazines and arranged into an outline of a plot. My Tired Father is a fascinating autobiography despite being around 50-75 pages long.
See that does sound interesting, and you do sound intelligent, but all I’m saying is that there is nothing inherently wrong of superior in longer novels. It’s just art of a different form. It’s a photograph vs a film or a portrait vs a fresco, or a song vs a symphony. All of these have value, and it’s unfair to judge some as bloated simply because you prefer to consume others
I’ll give that novel a read soon though
I hope you like it. I found it online free to download without too much effort. but yea that's just the kind of writing I like most, the kind where an outline or trace of something greater than the sum of its parts is all you get. like The book of Monelle by Marcel Schwob which is hands down my personal favorite depiction of grief ever which is made up mostly of fairy-tale like short stories that the author wrote for his love while watching her slowly die from disease before his eyes.
there are so many great books to read that you should try to avoid repetitious works, here is how I do it.
>so you're saying not to read???
......
Neach didn't write "works" he crafted dynamite
No he didn't
*flips you off*
yes he did, all he did was destroy and then quipped back with: "lmao not my problem, just go be an artist or something lol"
For me it's Genealogy of Morals
Good work, what is next on the agenda?
Is it working? Have you ubermenched?
hello frens
where to start with Nietzsche?
>GS: TSZ: GOM
>PrePlatonics Lectures/On Truth in the Non-Sneed Sense/Birth of Chuck: Early aphoristic works through GS again, then chronologically to the end.
Zarathustra is the key and it will cast the early work in a different light, and the late work - like Twilight of the Idols - cannot be parsed without it.
Was going to say this, do not worry about BGE until later. Gay Science and Zarathustra are his two magic works
I'm going through his works now and am reading in this order
1. Genealogy of Morals
2. Twilight of the Idols and Anti-Christ
3. Gay Science
4. Zarathustra
Reading Nietzsche as an adult is so satisfying man. Hope you enjoy your journey through his works as much as I am.
Just finished the collective works of your mom
have you realized he was wrong by now?
Finished and loved Genealogy of Morals and Twilight of the Idols but I don't really like the aphoristic way he writes in beyond good and evil. Can I skip it and move into Gay Science? Feels like what I read was almost 99% the same as what was in Genealogy but just written more clumsily.
>read his entire collected works
>still can't spell his name
it's so over T.T