>The Crying of Lot 49
>White Noise or Dubliners
One of these threads
>I swear... 9/11 was just a coincidence
>tfw you finally make it to a Levin chapter
Is he underrated in modern academia?
Merry third day of Christmas, /lit/. Why don't you come join us in our chat and have a comfy time with some fellow patricians? We talk about all kinds of things, from literature to everyday life matters. We're also starting a book club soon.
That's #/lit/ @ irc.rizon.net
Don't have a client? Use http://chat.mibbit.com/?channel=%23/lit/&server=irc.rizon.net
Pic related; there are /lit/erary grills in here, but we don't let that distract us from our books.
Why not, though?
We sometimes have tinychat chats that people seem to enjoy.
The IRC channel is just a more permanent version of it really. Lots of people idle there all the time and just check the window when they feel like reading/talking.
You're not committing to anything by dropping by.
An overrated classic?
A work of imagination and charm?
ITT: funny books. No rules, really.
I'll start with Apuleius's Golden Ass. It's a story about a young man who plays with magic and gets metamorphosed into a donkey. The whole thing is hilarious. Lots of lewdness.
Anyone know if I should get this version translated by Mannheim with the intro by D Cameron watt ,pic related. Or the one with the black cover just by Mannheim. Is there a big difference between the 2 editions? Btw I'm not a nazi just getting a lot of autobiographies and I felt this is an important addition to the list.
Thanks /lit/ !
Also the one in this pic with black cover is just the Mannheim with no DC Watt intro.
The first is cheaper but I want to know if the one with no watt intro is a better version or is altered or updated in any way?
Don't forget to read the Zweites Buch, and Hitler's Table Talk. They're better. Mein Kampf doesn't really get the real Hitler across.
Thanks I have table talk written down to remind me to get it. I'll definitely look into zweites buch.
So do you think that the 2 MK versions are basically the same?
I'm just afraid the DC one has different footnotes or is altered from the Mannheim version.
I paid 2€ for this secondhand edition of Ulysses. Printed in 1986.
Does it worth?
>PS: I'm really surprised with the printing quality, seems better than a lot of 2015 books.
Has Sam Harris ever been wrong?
It appears to me, clearly and distinctively, that the majority (or a half, at least) of modern and postmodern literature relies heavily on the literary device of intertextuality, which is - in brief - 'building your text on the basis of another, rather significant, text'. For example - Ulysses by James Joyce exemplifies the use of a classic text (in this case - Odyssey) in order to create a brand new work of art by changing the context and, supposedly, fragmenting the meaning of the whole text.
Another example of this is the implementation of the medieval romance...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>tfw you want to say "textual field" so badly
>tfw you want to make an entire shitty pretentious post just so you can include the phrase "textual field" somewhere in it like a big gaudy gem in a carolingian crown
>tfw the above reference was intertextual
BUMPING THIS THREAD LIKE DURIEL IN ACT 2
a big part of this is simply that original ideas dont really exist
the entire canon is like one big conversation in which people continuously step on the heads of those who came before, and i definitely don't think this is new. the only reason we can call Homer original, is because we cant see what inspired him
Look at this reddit writing, and how well praised it is.
I mean, it's mediocre at best.
>Main character has literally nothing to do with the plot
>the whole story is basically told from a side-character's view
How can one man be so devoid of talent?