other way around.
midwits think he's deep and shit. pseuds call themselves better for "getting" bukowski.
it's a big circlejerk.
9 months ago
Anonymous
low and high iq people understand you are allowed to read for fun, midwits and pseuds keep forgetting this and just seethe at him
but nobody ever thinks he is deep
Depends on what you're looking for. If its fiction you want "The Man Who Was Thursday" is the best place to start. If its non-fiction, that's a little tough. For me Chesterton is at his strongest when he's restrained by one particular topic, systematic thinking is something that he's a little resistant towards and his diatribes can be a little too sprawling to be enjoyable or insightful to read. But don't let that deter you from jumping right into what interests you, I just happen to be a bit more critical because of my long-standing familiarity with his oeuvre. If you have trouble deciding I strongly recommend "Tremendous Trifles". If you're looking something a bit more cohesive, his books on Browning and Stevenson are well worth pursuing. Keep in mind that his character sketches aren't wholly concerned with their subjects but also with the impressions this particular individual is able to invoke in Chesterton. Other than that, I can't say much due to his strongly individualistic nature. I've often felt that he can be spoiled for newcomers by his admirers due to their reverence for him so I won't be wasting any more of your time. Happy reading.
I suppose Rabelais has the crude humor that may endear him to the rabble but his writing is unmistakable erudite to the point you have to acknowledge it
De Sade could be seen as an edgelord wank for the low IQ, while for smarter people he has a dark philosophy
Henry Miller could have the same appeal as Rabelais but instead of erudition it’s spirituality and individualism. Most people who read him only read Tropic of Cancer it seems but that’s more of a tone setter for his later writings. Society is in the dregs and man must find a way out through himself
This is a pretty good trio but I think Rabelais would go over a lot of low IQ’s heads and they’d know it
bibble
fippy bippy
Pretty good answer. I'm not Christian but 4000 years of accumulated palimpsest makes for a fascinating text
He was talking about bibble, not Bible ye moron
oooh, look at mister high IQ over here casually dropping a five dollar word
Not literature
Genuinely true, and applicable to all of Christianity.
Low iq people don't read books
Go on booktok and you’ll change your mind
They read the bibble
Gravitys Rainbow
it's the opposite
absolutely not, midwits and pseuds hate bukowski
other way around.
midwits think he's deep and shit. pseuds call themselves better for "getting" bukowski.
it's a big circlejerk.
low and high iq people understand you are allowed to read for fun, midwits and pseuds keep forgetting this and just seethe at him
but nobody ever thinks he is deep
anything from bukowski
Where's Wally/Waldo
I drew this image in paint a few years ago
I too l, emulate the masters, in paint
anything right wing or fascist.
You wish, /misc/tard.
midwit outed
>iq
kys
Barbie (the movie)
Hello /leftypol/
The Bible is the obvious answer, I’ve only ever seen braindead morons and geniuses praise it, it’s the midwit’s worst nightmare.
Montaigne
The Qu'ran
The Bible
Treasure Island
The Works of G.K. Chesterton
Flashman
No low IQ person is picking up Montaigne
You'd be surprised.
Is Chesterton good?
Yes
Anything specific to start with or just dive in?
Depends on what you're looking for. If its fiction you want "The Man Who Was Thursday" is the best place to start. If its non-fiction, that's a little tough. For me Chesterton is at his strongest when he's restrained by one particular topic, systematic thinking is something that he's a little resistant towards and his diatribes can be a little too sprawling to be enjoyable or insightful to read. But don't let that deter you from jumping right into what interests you, I just happen to be a bit more critical because of my long-standing familiarity with his oeuvre. If you have trouble deciding I strongly recommend "Tremendous Trifles". If you're looking something a bit more cohesive, his books on Browning and Stevenson are well worth pursuing. Keep in mind that his character sketches aren't wholly concerned with their subjects but also with the impressions this particular individual is able to invoke in Chesterton. Other than that, I can't say much due to his strongly individualistic nature. I've often felt that he can be spoiled for newcomers by his admirers due to their reverence for him so I won't be wasting any more of your time. Happy reading.
Cheers laddie
Hemingway
Poe
Twain
Rabelais
De Sade
Henry Miller
I suppose Rabelais has the crude humor that may endear him to the rabble but his writing is unmistakable erudite to the point you have to acknowledge it
De Sade could be seen as an edgelord wank for the low IQ, while for smarter people he has a dark philosophy
Henry Miller could have the same appeal as Rabelais but instead of erudition it’s spirituality and individualism. Most people who read him only read Tropic of Cancer it seems but that’s more of a tone setter for his later writings. Society is in the dregs and man must find a way out through himself
This is a pretty good trio but I think Rabelais would go over a lot of low IQ’s heads and they’d know it
>for smarter people he has a dark philosophy
I never thought I'd see a socratic dialogue in a porno about anal sex.
Anything by Phillip K. Dick, specially latests books.
The Tanakh (referred to by low- and mid-IQ types as "the old testament").
I don't know but I'm curious what other anons would say: Old pulp adventures, like Doc Savage and The Shadow.
The Turner Diaries
I've read more interesting /misc/ copypastas. It's just shit writing
Finnegans Wake
Dostoevsky
Nietzsche
Nietzsche is for 115s who think they're 135s
Tolkien
Hemingway
RL Stevenson
Kafka
Brothers Karamazov
Money Dick.
Art of the Deal
AH SAVE ME ZOGNALD