/lit/ - Literature

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.

>>15336

Cheers for the recs. Very much my line of thinking – Meditations was a great read and definitely something to share with my kids as they come of age.

The Prince has been on my reading list for too long, ditto so many of the classics, and it’s a good motivation to think of what my kids can learn from them as well as myself if I take my reading list more seriously.

I've been looking for more tips for the best impartial, non-revisionist history. I got ahold of a set of Encyclopedia Britannicas exactly because they’re pre-60s and, apart from there being something lovely about old encyclopedias of themselves, I do enjoy having a reference point for old knowledge that isn’t edited with the influence of modern ideology. I look forward to getting them out when my kids are old enough to ask “What is…?” and hopefully when they’re older they can spot the difference when looking at Wikipedia.

My own introduction to economic history has been an odd course and I could definitely use some suggestions of good books that outline the core concepts without oversimplifying.

I’m interested in all the building blocks of an insightful worldview, so recommendations across all those areas are great. I'm always open to philosophical suggestions, but especially if the writing style isn't overcomplicated — call me a pleb, but I don’t think good philosophical thinking needs to be overly ambiguous or obscure. Save that for the sophists.

The other thing I had in mind was, since this is an exercise for the future, my first child still being in the womb (and like I said, this is a kick in the pants for my reading habits), books that are geared for or at least suitable for younger minds and reading levels. I didn’t read a lot of stuff like Gulliver’s Travels etc. myself and wonder what people who have would suggest.

>>15336

> Marcus Aurelius's Meditations

>bro like just be chaste and moral and accept living in abject poverty even though i am the literal emperor

get fucked

>>15336

>Paul F. Kennedy's 'The Rise and Fall of Great Powers,' and to a lesser extent his works regarding naval power, are fantastic books to get started with geopolitics. They are well-researched, the author focuses on an impartial (completely untainted by identity politics) analysis of the material capabilities of great powers & their dominance or decline, starting from the Hapsburgs and ending with musings on US power in a multipolar world. Most importantly, each chapter offers enough depth for you to springboard into more serious analyses of certain time periods or nations - so you can better understand why Britain dominated the world one day and collapsed in the next, why Nazi Germany opted for war against the USSR instead of keeping a stalemate, why the US continues to intervene in the affairs of foreign nations at great cost to itself.

I have to look this one up

>>15389

My own introduction to economic history has been an odd course and I could definitely use some suggestions of good books that outline the core concepts without oversimplifying.

depends on what you're looking for. will check back later….there's many different economic concepts.

>>15404

It's the quintessential delusion of the modern disaffected white male.

>>15409

I swear to Christ who do /lit/, /his/, and /philosophy/ keep getting shitposts like these not even fucking /leftypol/ has them. Get the fuck out of 8chan or better yet get the fuck out of the internet in general.

>got

>>>/reddit/

>urantia

God-tier, anon.

>Windows

>>15377

Hey faggot, he's clearly using Arch with a Windows skin

>>15390

That's even worse. Like sucking dick while straight.