/lit/ - Literature

WHERE MY TRADITIONALIST NIGGAS AT?

My dog died. I'm spiraling in existential crisis that our mind is tied to our brain's death. I need texts for a confirmation bias of continuing on conciousness to help me cope. Something that will confirm there is more to existence after death. I'm looking for babby tier books to understand dualism, or anything transcendental. Something with intelligence. No 'The 'Alchemist' bullshit. Is dualism philosophy? Many of the terms, I dont understand. Any other analytical subjects that will help my heart ache is welcome as well. Thanks /lit/.

I loved that dog more than anything. She was 2 years old.

Redpill me on the Kama Sutra by Vatsyayana.

what are some books that you REALLY want to read but can't find anywhere due to any reason whatsoever?

For me it's Milkbottle H by Gil Orlovitz

>American publishers weren’t interested in Orlovitz’s work, as either poet or novelist. Despite decades of productivity as a poet no major U.S. house had published any of his work. It’s no surprise that Milkbottle H was rejected wholesale in the U.S. after years of circulating among publishers

>Defining ‘Hard’ SF is a bit difficult. If we use the Millerian definition (scientific or technical accuracy and detail), it won’t hold water. The reason is not all sciences are equal in SF. In my experience, fictional works that focus on physics, astronomy, mathematics, engineering and (to a lesser extent) chemistry tend to be filed as ‘Hard,’ especially if there is an exploratory or militaristic aspect. The further the extrapolation of the science from what is known, the more likely the story will be classed as ‘soft.’ On the other hand, those that Jeff VanderMeer jokingly refers to as ‘squishy’ sciences like botany, mycology, zoology, etc. tend to be classed as soft SF along with the social sciences like anthropology, psychology, etc. Medicine can fall either way, depending on the actual narrative.

>That the definitions are problematic becomes obvious immediately. I find the terms intellectually uninteresting because they assume that social sciences use less rigor, which I know to be untrue. My background is in medicine and anthropology, and I have seen both sides.

>There may be other elements to the definitions. There may be a pejorative flavor to being designated ‘soft’. There may be some gender bias, although I have seen this in discussions, and not in print. Take a lot of the work of Ursula Le Guin. Many would not class her SF as ‘Hard’ despite her clear understanding of anthropology and psychology. The exploration of cultures should not take a back seat to the exploration of the solar system. Take Frankenstein, which is often regarded as the first science fiction novel. Few would regard it as Hard SF, yet it used contemporary scientific beliefs. At the time the novel was set, galvanism was a big thing. Reanimation was not thought to be impossible. The Royal Humane Society in England started with reanimation of the dead at its core, and its motto is a small spark may perhaps lie hid.

>At the root of the Hard-Soft divide is a kind of “I scienced more than you” attitude, which is unnecessary. There are fans of all flavours of SF and the last thing we need is to focus on divisions that were introduced in the late 1950s.

Do you agree with these sentiments? Curious to know what /lit/ thinks about this debate

Share the best books you have read or that were new in 2018. I share this list:

https://howaboutthat.site/best-20-books-of-2018-amazon/