Definitely one species of perfection; another's Anna K, still another's (like it or not) Madame B. I'd toss in Louis Aragon's Paris Peasant as another type.
I'm working my way through Madame Bovary and then Anna Karenina. You can see how they were defining advancements of the novel form. I'll check out Aragon.
Melville with Moby-Dick
Wasn't Moby Dick a hidden gem that wasn't appreciated by its contemporary audience? Perhaps it is the "perfect novel" in itself, but did it influence and define the novel form for other writers and readers?
>Wasn't Moby Dick a hidden gem that wasn't appreciated by its contemporary audience?
Was a commercial failure and was out of print by the time of Melville's death. Probably the quintessential example of The Great American Novel these days though. Funny that.
For me the perfect novel would have to be more compact. It should have a distinct form with structural elegance rather than these monumental (anti)novels.
Dumb response. Anti-novel could mean a thousand different things, so you don't even know what I mean. What I mean is that Proust and Melville reject the tradition of the novel by creating excessive accumulations of details and structural complexity. But excess is ultimately antithetical to perfection, which is why I wouldn't choose them.
Novels had been very detailed and complicated for a long time, Dumas in some of his works will write a whole chapter on something like the pipe and its importance to a side character. By your logic he wrote anti novels. Really the point of a novel is precisely to go into more detail and complexity than a narrative poem can
2 years ago
Anonymous
As Goethe said, the essence of the novel is that it is moronic.
Then why did you come here to opine on something you don't know a thing about? Why did you think it would make a difference to serious readers who don't childishly dismiss a monumental work? It's not prima facie athletic. He speaks of Catholicism in positive terms even.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Atheistic**
2 years ago
Anonymous
He’s just a schizo who does anything in his mentally deranged power to derail Proust threads
>character eats biscuit >"THIS REMINDS ME OF WHEN I ATE THESE BISCUITS AS A CHILD" >that's the entire point of the 10000-page novel
Damn....... That's deep.......
keep coping homosexual, 90% of volume 5 and the first half of volume 6 suck (in comparison with the rest of ISOLT, at least)
plus volume 7 has far from an adequate finale for a work that's 2000+ pages long
He wrote Volume 1 and 7 contemporaneously, you mongoloid.
2 years ago
Anonymous
and how exactly is that fact not compatible with the fact that volume 7 has far from an adequate finale, imbecile?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>finale
Maybe you should stick to reading Game of Thrones, bud.
2 years ago
Anonymous
No, you.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Go watch a movie or a play if you want a proper ending
a 2000+ page long work that focuses on big themes should have a worthy finale, final segment or however you want to call it
even some of the previous volumes had adequate final parts (e.g. volume 1 has the (at the time) surprise reveal that odette actually became swann's wife (despite the end of the previous segment making it seem that he let go of her), and volume 3 had the scene with sickly swann)
keep coping, brainlets
2 years ago
Anonymous
>calls other brainlets >spergs out over a finale
Actually, I retract the GoT comment: maybe YA is better suited for your intellectual prowess.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>responds with an ad hominem and nothing else, ignoring the substantial part of my post
keep coping
2 years ago
Anonymous
>bitching about ad homs on IQfy
Go back. You have not said a single substantive point worth addressing.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>y-you haven't said anything worth addressing!
watch it with that copium, pseud
2 years ago
Anonymous
Smartest MCU enjoyer
2 years ago
Anonymous
cope and seethe
2 years ago
Anonymous
The ending of ISOLT is completely adequate. There is no other way the novel could end other than the monologue at the party, everything was building up to this exact moment, so much so that the entire series feels like an excuse to write this scene.
2 years ago
Anonymous
the party itself is a great event to end off things, but while it starts off strongly (e.g. marcel's memories of venice being triggered by the uneven stones and the plot twist related to the identity of princess de guermantes), it peters out
2 years ago
Anonymous
Go watch a movie or a play if you want a proper ending
Kafka, Franz: The Trial (1915)
Stendhal: The Red and the Black (1830)
Fyodor Dostoevsky (Russia, 1821): "Bratia Karamazovy/ Brothers Karamazov" (1880)
Mann, Thomas: Buddenbrooks (1901)
James, Henry: The Golden Bowl
Joyce, James: Ulysses
Francois Rabelais (France, 1494): "Gargantua et Pantagruel" (1552)
Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra (Spain, 1547): "El Ingenioso Hidalgo Don Quixote de la Mancha" (1615)
Bulgakov, Mikhail: The Master and Margherita (1940)
Witkiewicz, Stanislaw: Insatiability
Bronte, Emily: Wuthering Heights
Nabokov, Vladimir: Ada
Pynchon, Thomas: Gravity's Rainbow (1973)
Gogol, Nikolaj: Dead Souls (1852)
Faulkner, William: Light in August
Dostoevskij, Fyodor: The Idiot (1869)
Musil: The Man Without Qualities(1933)
Woolf, Virginia: To the Lighthouse
Conrad, Joseph: Nostromo
Tolstoy, Lev: War and Peace
Celine: Journey to the End of the Night (1932)
GarciaMarquez: One Hundred Years of Solitude (1967)
Zola, Emile: Germinal (1885)
Bolano, Roberto: 2666 (2003)
Canetti: Autodafe (1935)
Balzac, Honore: Eugene Grandet (1833)
Jose, Saramago: The Year of the Death of Ricardo Reis (1984)
Svevo, Italo: Coscienza di Zeno/ Zeno's Consciousness (1923)
Bernhard, Thomas: "Korrektur/ Correction" (1975)
Goncarov, Ivan: Oblomov (1859)
Carpentier, Alejo: "Lost Steps" (1953)
Flaubert, Gustave: Madame Bovary (1856)
Gaddis, William: The Recognitions
Pavese, Cesare: Luna e i Falo'/ Moon and Bonfires (1950)
Krasznahorkai, Laszlo: Satantango (1985)
Cortazar, Julio: Rayuela (1963)
Vargas-Llosa, Mario: "Conversacion en la Catedral" (1969)
Gide: Les Faux-Monnayeurs (1925)
Barth, John: Giles Goat Boy
Murakami, Haruki: "Sekai no Owari to Ha-doboirudo Wanda-rando/ Hard-Boiled Wonderland and the End of the World" (1985)
Camus: "The Stranger" (1942)
Kis, Danilo: Clessidra (1972)
Schnitzler, Arthur: Traumnovelle/ Dream Story (1925)
Lem: Solaris (1961)
Peter Nadas (1942): "Emlekiratok Konyve/ Book of Memoirs" (1986)
Melville: "Moby Dick" (1851)
Marcel Proust: "A La Recherche du Temps Perdu" (1922)
Rushdie: "Midnight's Children" (1980)
Bellow, Saul: "Herzog" (1964)
Pavic, Milroad: "The Dictionary of the Khazars" (1984)
Donoso, Jose: "El Obsceno Pajaro de la Noche" (1970) ++
Lessing, Doris: "The Golden Notebook" (1962)
Hrabal, Bohumil: "Prilis Hlucna Samota/ Too Loud a Solitude (1976)
Tanizaki, Junichiro: "Sasameyuki/ Makioka Sisters" (1948)
Gadda: Cognizione del Dolore (1963)
I want to object to "Satantango".
Someone shilled it to me recently (if you're that guy then I am sorry) and it was terrible. It was confusing, and I've spent the past years studying Hegel AND Heidegger. Believe me when I say I am aware of when confusion is necessary and when it is "avant garde" bullshit for the sake of it.
Novels had been very detailed and complicated for a long time, Dumas in some of his works will write a whole chapter on something like the pipe and its importance to a side character. By your logic he wrote anti novels. Really the point of a novel is precisely to go into more detail and complexity than a narrative poem can
Because it is this. You write about the pipe because meta or even directly it refers to one character. You don't just jump around to make it seem like a dance. When you can dance then it's not at all confusing. Hell, the most basic novel you can imagine will be more of a dance this.
And I get that Hungarian is difficult to translate, but it can't have been that different. It's still just language, like how the works we read are just fricking books. It's not more, and it's not less. It's just the idea of a book in the most living and wholesome way you can understand it, you don't need it to purposefully object to be a book. Following the radical escalation of that principle you'd end up with a mess that is titled: I am a Book! But it will probably be called: Buk am I., and put in that dot instead of an exclamation mark or question mark to really frick with you. All of that thought put into everything about the book but little to no effort put in making it a book.
>I want to object to "Satantango". Someone shilled it to me recently (if you're that guy then I am sorry) and it was terrible. It was confusing, and I've spent the past years studying Hegel AND Heidegger. Believe me when I say I am aware of when confusion is necessary and when it is "avant garde" bullshit for the sake of it.
Literally the only good novel on the list... you're just a dumb westoid that got filtered because you speak an indo-european language group and can't appreciate a superior set of concepts involved with uralic languages.
>but it can't have been that different. It's still just language, like how the works we read are just fricking books
Learn to speak hungarian, you ignorant frick and come back at me. I have to deal with inter-language group communication 24/7 and you're just handwaving it away "oh, it's just language" Well, if that's true, we must also say that Kant etc. is only language, indo-european language and grammar imposed on others...Hegel is reification of indo-european grammar etc. It's just language bro. You're reductive when it suits you.
I'm being pragmatic okay. Also, you just shit on Korrektur and I can't let that slide.
A book is a book, language is language. If a language is too different to be appealing in just translation you need to study and build a system for translation, supersede what we built as a methodology for translation.
Traditional translation would be more like transliteration for intergroup, I agree on you with that, it's very different and difficult, but you can't use that as an excuse.
I mean do you think that you can translate that freely even from family to family? How long do you think did it take for people to figure out Latin and Greek as they are figured out now. Greek philosophy is so well translated, a classical philologist might disagree here, but ignore him, and varied in translation that it's no longer even appears like the very distant language to English and French and German and Latin that it in actuality is. The amount of history people have spent translation and re-translation literature from language to language here is staggering, the effort made however doesn't change anything about the fact such a procedure could be more effectively and in a more structured way performed for any other language as long as a human uses it in relation to a common world. The issue is of what we find as equivalent in style and meaning, what options we have to express meaning and translate grammar through translation techniques which do not yet exist apparently to a significant degree or were not used in the translation of Satantango.
I want to give the example of Chinese philosophy which is not just ethics, not just law and society and alchemy and mysticism but has the logic of the Organon, has surprisingly equivalents to the Absolute, to the Idea, to the One and Nothing, to almost every natural element we find in Greek philosophy and has its own developmental history you could considering the circumstances relate to Scholasticism and even Rationalism, not as a whole but in the stages and schools you'd expect to find a varied and complex philosophical history which we would study in the west under the lable of philosophy.
>Believe me when I say I am aware of when confusion is necessary and when it is "avant garde" bullshit for the sake of it.
yeah...when it's written by a german guy and with an indo-european style it's necessary, if not, it's bullshit. it's a pretty simple formula really. im so ashamed for every uralic-language speaking person with english friends now: this post just shows it, there's no communication and never will be.
oh come on there aren't even 10 million Hungarians in Europe. It was already hard enough to learn Latin, Greek, Mandarin, English, French, Arabic, Hebrew, Old Italian, Spanish, Medieval Castilian Spanish, Middle High German and Old German, Old English, Danish, I know Danish too, Russian a bit... like I can't also learn Hungarian now. Who am I when I now also learn Hungarian? That's like learning Japanese or Korean after you learn 普通话 Standard Chinese Mandarin. You just can't do that. I don't want to be that guy who also speaks Hungarian. "Hey, look at me larping all k. u. k." like what would I be doing with my life, seriously. Have a bit of compassion here.
>Believe me when I say I am aware of when confusion is necessary and when it is "avant garde" bullshit for the sake of it.
yeah...when it's written by a german guy and with an indo-european style it's necessary, if not, it's bullshit. it's a pretty simple formula really. im so ashamed for every uralic-language speaking person with english friends now: this post just shows it, there's no communication and never will be.
Me
Melville with Moby-Dick
Definitely one species of perfection; another's Anna K, still another's (like it or not) Madame B. I'd toss in Louis Aragon's Paris Peasant as another type.
I'm working my way through Madame Bovary and then Anna Karenina. You can see how they were defining advancements of the novel form. I'll check out Aragon.
Wasn't Moby Dick a hidden gem that wasn't appreciated by its contemporary audience? Perhaps it is the "perfect novel" in itself, but did it influence and define the novel form for other writers and readers?
>Wasn't Moby Dick a hidden gem that wasn't appreciated by its contemporary audience?
Was a commercial failure and was out of print by the time of Melville's death. Probably the quintessential example of The Great American Novel these days though. Funny that.
No
Schlegel with Lucinde
>Schlegel with Lucinde
anon can you please elaborate...
For me the perfect novel would have to be more compact. It should have a distinct form with structural elegance rather than these monumental (anti)novels.
So we can agree it's The Murder of Roger Ackroyd
So we can agree that it's A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man by James Joyce
>(anti)novels
Truly, morons browse this board.
Dumb response. Anti-novel could mean a thousand different things, so you don't even know what I mean. What I mean is that Proust and Melville reject the tradition of the novel by creating excessive accumulations of details and structural complexity. But excess is ultimately antithetical to perfection, which is why I wouldn't choose them.
You are a sperg, but you have a point.
So throw out some candidates for GOAT..
Dumb response.
Novels had been very detailed and complicated for a long time, Dumas in some of his works will write a whole chapter on something like the pipe and its importance to a side character. By your logic he wrote anti novels. Really the point of a novel is precisely to go into more detail and complexity than a narrative poem can
As Goethe said, the essence of the novel is that it is moronic.
That's not what an anti-novel is.
>gay french israelite
>"perfect novel"
seriously?
Any arguments as to its literary nature or the lack thereof? You seem to have lost your way to some other board, it appears.
i'm not reading trash, sorry. atheist fiction is worthless.
Then why did you come here to opine on something you don't know a thing about? Why did you think it would make a difference to serious readers who don't childishly dismiss a monumental work? It's not prima facie athletic. He speaks of Catholicism in positive terms even.
Atheistic**
He’s just a schizo who does anything in his mentally deranged power to derail Proust threads
>jew
>atheist
que?
Proust was raised Catholic and never considered himself israeli, for which he has been criticized as Anti-Semitic for his stance on the Dreyfus Affair
Seethe harder.
>character eats biscuit
>"THIS REMINDS ME OF WHEN I ATE THESE BISCUITS AS A CHILD"
>that's the entire point of the 10000-page novel
Damn....... That's deep.......
It was definitely kino, though
literally family guy
Think of it as the literary equivalent to French impressionist paintings. You just enjoy it for the beauty it’s not about destroying the one ring.
He copied Ratatouille.
Only just started it a few days ago but it is absolutely kino. Perfect novel depends on your metric but I think no one can dispute it is a 10/10
the first 2 books are 10/10, then it becomes like most other novels imo
No. It gets better. gays who say this clearly never read further than volume 3
keep coping homosexual, 90% of volume 5 and the first half of volume 6 suck (in comparison with the rest of ISOLT, at least)
plus volume 7 has far from an adequate finale for a work that's 2000+ pages long
He wrote Volume 1 and 7 contemporaneously, you mongoloid.
and how exactly is that fact not compatible with the fact that volume 7 has far from an adequate finale, imbecile?
>finale
Maybe you should stick to reading Game of Thrones, bud.
No, you.
a 2000+ page long work that focuses on big themes should have a worthy finale, final segment or however you want to call it
even some of the previous volumes had adequate final parts (e.g. volume 1 has the (at the time) surprise reveal that odette actually became swann's wife (despite the end of the previous segment making it seem that he let go of her), and volume 3 had the scene with sickly swann)
keep coping, brainlets
>calls other brainlets
>spergs out over a finale
Actually, I retract the GoT comment: maybe YA is better suited for your intellectual prowess.
>responds with an ad hominem and nothing else, ignoring the substantial part of my post
keep coping
>bitching about ad homs on IQfy
Go back. You have not said a single substantive point worth addressing.
>y-you haven't said anything worth addressing!
watch it with that copium, pseud
Smartest MCU enjoyer
cope and seethe
The ending of ISOLT is completely adequate. There is no other way the novel could end other than the monologue at the party, everything was building up to this exact moment, so much so that the entire series feels like an excuse to write this scene.
the party itself is a great event to end off things, but while it starts off strongly (e.g. marcel's memories of venice being triggered by the uneven stones and the plot twist related to the identity of princess de guermantes), it peters out
Go watch a movie or a play if you want a proper ending
pretty sure the later volumes were published posthumously and weren't finished
KD Walter with his comedic epic "Six Days in the Life of David Vallejo".
The very obvious answer is Jane Austen, your reason to disagree is cope and you know it
Reliance on gothic contrivances.
Interesting, I don't think it could qualify as perfect because of the epistolary form but thanks for the rec.
for me les miserables felt very complete, as there's everything i want to see in a novel
ulysses, anna karenina, lord of the rings
any of murakami's works
perfect novels have an ending
Don Quijote
The Red and the Black
Stoner
The Trial
Both true.
Why is he so perfect? I would. No homo.
Don Quixote and Madame Bovary
Bump for fresh answers and recs
Don Quixote
It's an epic.
It's obviously Gravity's Rainbow.
I hate that the correct answer is pedoshit, but, e-girlta.
I was waiting for someone to throw Nabokov into the ring.
Yeah. His subject matter is stupidly deranged, but the prose is too good.
Not an argument.
Kafka, Franz: The Trial (1915)
Stendhal: The Red and the Black (1830)
Fyodor Dostoevsky (Russia, 1821): "Bratia Karamazovy/ Brothers Karamazov" (1880)
Mann, Thomas: Buddenbrooks (1901)
James, Henry: The Golden Bowl
Joyce, James: Ulysses
Francois Rabelais (France, 1494): "Gargantua et Pantagruel" (1552)
Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra (Spain, 1547): "El Ingenioso Hidalgo Don Quixote de la Mancha" (1615)
Bulgakov, Mikhail: The Master and Margherita (1940)
Witkiewicz, Stanislaw: Insatiability
Bronte, Emily: Wuthering Heights
Nabokov, Vladimir: Ada
Pynchon, Thomas: Gravity's Rainbow (1973)
Gogol, Nikolaj: Dead Souls (1852)
Faulkner, William: Light in August
Dostoevskij, Fyodor: The Idiot (1869)
Musil: The Man Without Qualities(1933)
Woolf, Virginia: To the Lighthouse
Conrad, Joseph: Nostromo
Tolstoy, Lev: War and Peace
Celine: Journey to the End of the Night (1932)
GarciaMarquez: One Hundred Years of Solitude (1967)
Zola, Emile: Germinal (1885)
Bolano, Roberto: 2666 (2003)
Canetti: Autodafe (1935)
Balzac, Honore: Eugene Grandet (1833)
Jose, Saramago: The Year of the Death of Ricardo Reis (1984)
Svevo, Italo: Coscienza di Zeno/ Zeno's Consciousness (1923)
Bernhard, Thomas: "Korrektur/ Correction" (1975)
Goncarov, Ivan: Oblomov (1859)
Carpentier, Alejo: "Lost Steps" (1953)
Flaubert, Gustave: Madame Bovary (1856)
Gaddis, William: The Recognitions
Pavese, Cesare: Luna e i Falo'/ Moon and Bonfires (1950)
Krasznahorkai, Laszlo: Satantango (1985)
Cortazar, Julio: Rayuela (1963)
Vargas-Llosa, Mario: "Conversacion en la Catedral" (1969)
Gide: Les Faux-Monnayeurs (1925)
Barth, John: Giles Goat Boy
Murakami, Haruki: "Sekai no Owari to Ha-doboirudo Wanda-rando/ Hard-Boiled Wonderland and the End of the World" (1985)
Camus: "The Stranger" (1942)
Kis, Danilo: Clessidra (1972)
Schnitzler, Arthur: Traumnovelle/ Dream Story (1925)
Lem: Solaris (1961)
Peter Nadas (1942): "Emlekiratok Konyve/ Book of Memoirs" (1986)
Melville: "Moby Dick" (1851)
Marcel Proust: "A La Recherche du Temps Perdu" (1922)
Rushdie: "Midnight's Children" (1980)
Bellow, Saul: "Herzog" (1964)
Pavic, Milroad: "The Dictionary of the Khazars" (1984)
Donoso, Jose: "El Obsceno Pajaro de la Noche" (1970) ++
Lessing, Doris: "The Golden Notebook" (1962)
Hrabal, Bohumil: "Prilis Hlucna Samota/ Too Loud a Solitude (1976)
Tanizaki, Junichiro: "Sasameyuki/ Makioka Sisters" (1948)
Gadda: Cognizione del Dolore (1963)
>Zola
Well, now I know your post isn't serious.
Mega based Donoso reader, thanks for the awesome list anon
I want to object to "Satantango".
Someone shilled it to me recently (if you're that guy then I am sorry) and it was terrible. It was confusing, and I've spent the past years studying Hegel AND Heidegger. Believe me when I say I am aware of when confusion is necessary and when it is "avant garde" bullshit for the sake of it.
Because it is this. You write about the pipe because meta or even directly it refers to one character. You don't just jump around to make it seem like a dance. When you can dance then it's not at all confusing. Hell, the most basic novel you can imagine will be more of a dance this.
And I get that Hungarian is difficult to translate, but it can't have been that different. It's still just language, like how the works we read are just fricking books. It's not more, and it's not less. It's just the idea of a book in the most living and wholesome way you can understand it, you don't need it to purposefully object to be a book. Following the radical escalation of that principle you'd end up with a mess that is titled: I am a Book! But it will probably be called: Buk am I., and put in that dot instead of an exclamation mark or question mark to really frick with you. All of that thought put into everything about the book but little to no effort put in making it a book.
GeP is not a novel.
>I want to object to "Satantango". Someone shilled it to me recently (if you're that guy then I am sorry) and it was terrible. It was confusing, and I've spent the past years studying Hegel AND Heidegger. Believe me when I say I am aware of when confusion is necessary and when it is "avant garde" bullshit for the sake of it.
Literally the only good novel on the list... you're just a dumb westoid that got filtered because you speak an indo-european language group and can't appreciate a superior set of concepts involved with uralic languages.
>but it can't have been that different. It's still just language, like how the works we read are just fricking books
Learn to speak hungarian, you ignorant frick and come back at me. I have to deal with inter-language group communication 24/7 and you're just handwaving it away "oh, it's just language" Well, if that's true, we must also say that Kant etc. is only language, indo-european language and grammar imposed on others...Hegel is reification of indo-european grammar etc. It's just language bro. You're reductive when it suits you.
I'm being pragmatic okay. Also, you just shit on Korrektur and I can't let that slide.
A book is a book, language is language. If a language is too different to be appealing in just translation you need to study and build a system for translation, supersede what we built as a methodology for translation.
Traditional translation would be more like transliteration for intergroup, I agree on you with that, it's very different and difficult, but you can't use that as an excuse.
I mean do you think that you can translate that freely even from family to family? How long do you think did it take for people to figure out Latin and Greek as they are figured out now. Greek philosophy is so well translated, a classical philologist might disagree here, but ignore him, and varied in translation that it's no longer even appears like the very distant language to English and French and German and Latin that it in actuality is. The amount of history people have spent translation and re-translation literature from language to language here is staggering, the effort made however doesn't change anything about the fact such a procedure could be more effectively and in a more structured way performed for any other language as long as a human uses it in relation to a common world. The issue is of what we find as equivalent in style and meaning, what options we have to express meaning and translate grammar through translation techniques which do not yet exist apparently to a significant degree or were not used in the translation of Satantango.
I want to give the example of Chinese philosophy which is not just ethics, not just law and society and alchemy and mysticism but has the logic of the Organon, has surprisingly equivalents to the Absolute, to the Idea, to the One and Nothing, to almost every natural element we find in Greek philosophy and has its own developmental history you could considering the circumstances relate to Scholasticism and even Rationalism, not as a whole but in the stages and schools you'd expect to find a varied and complex philosophical history which we would study in the west under the lable of philosophy.
oh come on there aren't even 10 million Hungarians in Europe. It was already hard enough to learn Latin, Greek, Mandarin, English, French, Arabic, Hebrew, Old Italian, Spanish, Medieval Castilian Spanish, Middle High German and Old German, Old English, Danish, I know Danish too, Russian a bit... like I can't also learn Hungarian now. Who am I when I now also learn Hungarian? That's like learning Japanese or Korean after you learn 普通话 Standard Chinese Mandarin. You just can't do that. I don't want to be that guy who also speaks Hungarian. "Hey, look at me larping all k. u. k." like what would I be doing with my life, seriously. Have a bit of compassion here.
>Believe me when I say I am aware of when confusion is necessary and when it is "avant garde" bullshit for the sake of it.
yeah...when it's written by a german guy and with an indo-european style it's necessary, if not, it's bullshit. it's a pretty simple formula really. im so ashamed for every uralic-language speaking person with english friends now: this post just shows it, there's no communication and never will be.
why narrator of this is simping all over teenage girls if author himself was gay?
Anna Karenina.
F Gardner