Can I get a Derrida reading guide /lit/?
Should I try to teach myself creative writing the "proper" way or just read a metric fuckton and try to learn that way?
I am a NEET who will kill himself if he doesn't write something he's happy with soon so I have plenty of time for either I just was wondering which you think is better
He meant what are you referring to when you ask if you should learn the "proper" way?
Writing a lot is the most important part. Getting honest feedback from other people is the other most important part. Also read a lot.
If you can find a good teacher that will help too but the other things are necessary.
Read it an loved it.
It has nice prose, even if it is a bit gaudy at times. The analysis focusses more on the geography of domination than in the first volume, and it has really neat insight on the concept of networks.
I need some secondary sources about Critique of pure reason. Especially video, that treats the matter more approfonditely.
Also, Kant general I guess.
>"He walked out in the gray light and stood and he saw for a brief moment the absolute truth of the world. The cold relentless circling of the intestate earth. Darkness implacable. The blind dogs of the sun in their running. The crushing black vacuum of the universe. And somewhere two hunted animals trembling like ground-foxes in their cover. Borrowed time and borrowed world and borrowed eyes with which to sorrow it."
How does he do it /lit/? How does he wield his description with such paralyzing accuracy? I feel like Cormac McCarthy...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Why was he so right?
When to tackle the holy GOAT?
What to read beforehand?
These are the very rough essentials imo. There's more but it all depends on how much you want to read beforehand I guess
Beowulf, Song of Roland, etc.
A good chunk of Shakespeare
What traits define literary genius? In my opinion, literary geniuses are people with acute observational skills, a powerful ability to introspect, and a heightened sensitivity to human emotions. (Of course, there will be outliers that fuck up this definition, but I overall think it's relatively accurate) What does /lit think?
i think it involves having a vast vision of being human which is independent of historical circumstances and then developing language to capture it, bending and forcing language in new ways in the process
don't see it discussed on /lit
thoughts, thinking of picking it up even though it costs like 30€ where im at
Has anyone here written a piece of dialogue or a joke that sounds brilliant when read but sounds terrible when actually said out loud?
Can anyone else relate?
What's the consensus on this?
Are you familiar with the works of Morimi Tomihiko?
Have you read any of them?
So Tatami was basically, 'What, if some day or night a demon were to steal after you into your loneliest loneliness and say to you: 'This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more' ... Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus? Or have you once experienced a tremendous moment when you would have answered him: 'You are a god and never have I heard anything more divine.'?
You got it.
A simple story done well. Same with Ping Pong.
How do I get into linguistics, /lit/?
Is there a better book about human behavior and influence that this?
I see a lot of advice here about reading a lot to diversify your writing style. The more you read the better you can write. I think this is true, and besides reading a lot is always going to be better than not reading at all, but is there any merit in the imitation of a particular author? With enough practice can your imitation be as good, or even better, as the real thing?
Do any of the writers here practice imitation in this way?
>It works about as long as it takes for people to figure out which authors I'm ripping off
I think there is a huge difference between a stylistic imitation and ripping off. You could imitate michaelangelo and, if you were really good at it, I don't think people wouldn't be thinking about you being a plagiarist. I think they would be marveling at the art.
Imitation of style is the "natural" way of learning about writing. Of course to be better it comes down to the balance of content.
Looking at examples though the most famous of the imitations are the ones that adds to the style and develop it beyond the original.