/lit/ - Literature

>>15626

a lot of those are voided by using vm software, apart from the in-app messages and images collected.

i use it because there are a lot of useful private groups on there

>>15626

>>15627

ty for this website though, its useful

>>15625

Or just use a browser? What a bizarre recommendation.

>>15629

>a web browser is a sandbox

Are you seriously that naive?

http://webkay.robinlinus.com/

https://panopticlick.eff.org/

This seems Reddit as fuck

>Ubermenschs

>>13887

>plebian

>>12074

>>13814

>Rabbi Yeshua

>a common vandal suffering from schizophrenia

This board is really bad.

>>15585

You aren't helping.

>>13054

I love her work and you can't stop me.

>>12987

can tell you're repeating buzzwords you've heard but don't understand

fuck off NPC

Post new invite pls.

use Telegram for god's sake

another link pls?

>>15599

There's a four volume set of letters of Civil War Soldiers made by Library of America, which also does other primary sources on the Founders and Capt. John Smith among others.

Wow, really, no one? It's never been done or just no one here's read it?

>>15515

>but as the book draws to a close, it turns out they're all the same person maybe in different times of their life or different perspectives of them?

It depends on how the reveal(s) is(are) done.

>Did you feel cheated by it, like the writer was lying to you and you felt all like betrayed n shit?

Why would I feel betrayed by that? Presuming it was well-written and well-crafted, nothing would have changed about it.

I Promessi Sposi

It's jewish too so i'm sure you'll love it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrek!

>>15386

I swear to fucking God do not do this.

>>14662

Tristan and Isolde

Goethe's novels are great but they are also really sad.

>>14664

It's not even that, there was a study that concluded that what we term "love" is a word for the series of chemical reactions that trigger when we meet the person we "love", meaning it's just a word we made up for a specific set of neural pathways.

>>15532

>>15540

>>15547

When a story tries to act like characters have intelligence and directive, it's fair to ask why they don't do smarter things, so long as it doesn't break the rules of the universe.

Why didn't Sauron just make another ring after the One was destroyed?

I think the simplest answer to OP's question is that all Maiar are subject to the same creative principle regardless of inclination; Yavanna (like maybe Fëanor as well?) had simply incorporated too large, or perhaps too integral, a part of her spirit into the Trees remake them.

>>15561

(Thinking some more about it, the Trees arguably had a degree of sentience just like the Ring; consider how they gave the Sun and the Moon after witnessing others' grief.)

>>15661

>>15662

This power transference issue is complicated though.

Morgoth empowered his minions to the point of diminishing himself. (Tolkien says, interestingly, that at the end of the First age he was less powerful than Sauron at the end of the Third).

Sauron did likewise, but to no loss as long as the Ring existed. Furthermore, for some reason, he is only strenghthened by its possession, as in some feedback loop. Maybe Morgoth was being too indiscriminate in his dissemination of his evil?

Then, there are the Valar' works (the Trees, the stars, dwarves (who, at their very beginnings, were perhaps no better than Aulë's own kind of will-less orcs), which didn't seem to impact them at all, eg. by making them lose the power of (re)incarnation that Morgoth and Sauron had lost. Or maybe it did, ultimately? The Valar ultimately did give up direct wordly intervention; I suppose I can fancy that a reason.

I expect that either Tolkien, Christopher, or members of some learned board have already addressed all this perfectly.

>>15410

Read book of lost tales 1 nigger.

>Lotr like

I still don't see how Lotr is like those epics, Lotr seems more needlessly complex in a fashion Tolkein didn't understand and I'd argue is more related to modern fantasy.

>>15548

Of course it's not as deep as sacred books and books that are specifically made to be theological while historical but still :

>Tolkien wanted to create a mythology for great Britain

>Inspired himself of other ancient mythology

>Use symbols, make a cosmogony…

>Said he made it voluntarily christian in the second writing

>Talks about virtues of the nobility and of the ancients

>His work is in the straight line of traditional thinking (Tolkien being a traditional catholic), example of this can be found in his catachronic (opposite of progressive, I don't know the translation of this word in english) view of history.

While fantasy used the exterior appearance of lotr, there are not in the same category. Fantasy is a degenerate style (eragon, GoT, harry potter,…) which is now modern and totally against the deeper perspective of Tolkien. Also, I don't know, lotr seems quite complexe (I'm talking of the all Tolkien's universe).

tl;dr : I don't ask for dragons and elves, but for knights with virtues and for a traditional view.

>>15529

What are you … eleven?

>tv series screenshots on a book board

>asking "why are well read people virtuous" on a book board

>asking why an author presents oversimplified views when Daniel Handler is described as "an American writer and musician. He is best known for his children's series"

>>>/out/

Holy shit this board is actual cancer.

>>15484

>>15495

>>15499

>>15500

>>15501

>>15509

>>15513

>>15516

all me

In just one thread /lit/ manages to go to shit.

Can we delete the thread already holy fuck.

FILM IS FOR FAGGOTS. GET FUCKED, OP. ENJOY BEING SO TRASH THAT NOT EVEN A BUNCH OF SKINNY WEAK UGLY LIBERAL NIGGERS WILL WATCH UR SHIT.

>>15460

>How many retards have you met that like Dostoevsky or CS Lewis or Hemingway or Wilde some other 19th 20th century writer and then completely preach their books like it defines their life?

None? Then again, everyone I know who likes reading thinks that Harry Potter is a masterpiece. Honestly, there are much, much worse authors to base your philosophy off of than Dostoevsky and Lewis, though I can see how it would be annoying to talk to some fag who claims to love their works while completely missing the point.

Reading for messages can change thinking, at most, superficially.

>>15461

The only example i could think of is when reading out of date science papers. If they read to much of it, they will get a skewed view towards the subject.

Everything you said had coherence until you mentioned the centrism.

>radical centrist

>cuckolds

>implying

The irony here is that you hate people who preach their favourite books, while preaching your favourite philosophy/set of books/method of reading.

Op, did you ever read the book?

>>15467

Yeah, it was good

>Moravagine - Outlines the Judaea-Freudian-Bolshevic Conspiracy

Didn't find a single thing on this is it like a online pdf essay made by a modern day author?

>>15422

Cendrars

>>15426

Elaborate.

OPs picture is a disgusting and terrible insinuation, and I hate pedophiles more than anything. Kill yourself.

>>15430

is the novelist

My favorite London story is To Build a Fire. It's a comfy read and the prime example of his typical wilderness survival kind of stories. It also once again features his underlying theme of nature giving harsh lessons to the careless or unexperienced.

From what you wrote in the OP I think you might like it.

I've never liked wilderness novels. Those and westerns. People's interactions have always been more interesting to me.