/lit/ - Literature

Read Reverent Insanity and I liked it. It is it technically Xian Xia, so I thought I would try out a Progression Fantasy novel.
I am reading Cradle and I am in book 2 and I am not liking it (due to some creative choices with power scaling).
Anyone has any suggestions, preferably not with Chinese/cultivator stuff.

Should the writer be visible or invisible?

A lot of writers have very noticeable styles: Cormac McCarthy, Hemingway, Krasznahorkai, Jelinek, Hilbig. You can read these writers and know who you are reading, and while you are reading the style, the author is always present through their styling.

And then there are authors whose writing is not stylish at all, not visibly, but instead more utilitarian. With these books you remember the plot and you feel engaged, but you may struggle to remember any striking passage itself, and you may find yourself not highlighting any beautiful passages, as there may not be any.

So, what are your thoughts on style? Do you like an author with idiosyncratic punctuation or syntax or vocabulary?

>>19175308
You know that wojak meme where the low IQ retard and the high IQ chad have the same opinion while the midwit in the middle is, well, a midwit? I feel something similar about that pic. Sheltered retards think life is live laugh love and that it's a gift. Blackpilled depressed pessimists think it's all fucking terrible and awful and oh so bad (but notice how they never kill themselves? It's all show). Then there's the truly lived and living individual who has seen true suffering and knows how to appreciate life in its every little ray of light, because if life manages to be beautiful sometimes (reason why 99% of pessimists don't kill themselves, except that hardcore 1% which I do respect) despite all the suffering down the road, then Life truly is a gift without equal.
In short, if you complain about your everyday life and can't cheer up by looking at a bee doing sweet work on a flower, the most suffering you've had is getting rejected in high school by a roastie. Grow up schlop.

>>19039147
thanks

Can't remember his name but heard a story about how after Heidegger read his works he said that this was what he has always been trying to say in his writings. I think the guy was Chinese maybe. Not sure if the story is authentic or not but I'm currently reading Aleksandr Dugin's book and I'm very intrigued by the idea of being.

Pic unrelated

TELL ME.

WHAT DO YOU SEE?

>>16868644
No it's a fucking intelligent take. What is the purpose of communication with oneself? Useless. Create ART for the AUDIENCE don't jerk off to yourself.
>>16868648
You're still supposed to use the language your audience will understand. Compare the writing styles of Tolkien to Shakespeare to Maya Angelou. Three completely different approaches to communicating ideas to their audience and all three are masters of their craft.

This thread is (like any other gathering of humans) full of retards and beneath me, therefore I am off.

what is nothingness?

What do you think makes literature 'good'?
Is it entirely subjective or is there a type of framework or a set of points you look out for while reading?

>>16631664
sure it is...

>>16448408>>16448344

going off what I said here >>16448512 I like bloodborn, but I feel that its main appeal is that it can facilitate a similar sense as you can get from an extistantialist book, but in a more instantly gratifying way. Now this in itself is not a critisism, in fact it is in some ways a plus for it, but personally I do not think it explores these things as thoroughly and deeply as some novels (like the ones i mentioned, moby dick, Scarlet Letter) do. Its greatest assent is that it gives an incaling of these sensations then leaves a good amount of mystery and vagueness to let the mind run. Compartmentalized mystification if you will. I belive that the books I mentioned do the same, and likewise leaves room for the reader's mind to wounder, but gives them a more compelling breadth of ideas to wade yourself into.

So imo, bloodborn is a good primer that more succinctly encapsulates these tones for a more casual audience (which is not bad), But books like the ones I mentioned are more breadthy, more requiring of committal, and fulfilling in its entirety. So its the difference between a solid short story and a more expansive work.

I dont want to be classified as one of those lame rightests who take it too far and go to the exact opisite extreme as a reaction, but i sympathise with the sentiment.

Its not so much about specific aftions, but its an implicit trend in lefty circles to take this synical half done contextual take on things, that feels just so much more dispicable than even the obvious fallacious idealization of right stuff. at least the later is trying to make something beutyful, while the former almost always intend to destroy or desecrate a strawman or a real concern. Something like:
>Although the classical narritive says x, in fact it is really y.
And its not that its necissarily false, but it often seems like its intending to create countermyths rather than a true post modernist take of trying to dispel all myths. its like they half bake something, questioning a traditional narritive, but then not questioning the narritive they themselves implicitly make by doing so. Its such a have your cake tendency that i find so repulsive and only really useful in a rather specific context.

I know this is vague, but i think the topic itself is as well.

Why does someone kill? What drives someone to routinely murder, methodically, as long as they get away with it?

I am fascinated by the evil of human nature, the difference from what is a societal normal life to a drive to destroy. I want to write a story about a police detective and a serial killer who become intertwined as one tries to catch the other. I've had an overwhelming sense of justice that drives one side of the story, but it's hard for me to create a compelling character as a killer. Hannibal Lecter killed for the sheer pleasure, as someone who believed they were better than their victims, but as alluring and captivating as that story turned out to be, to me it isn't entirely realistic for someone to do.

I've been looking into the caught killers of the world, and all the unsolved crimes listed that people are trying to solve, trying to think as to why someone would go out of their way to commit murder at random. History has proven that the human mind is capable of processing and reasoning killing. War has been the typical justification, as people have often demonstrated excessive violence on victims laying in the street. From the time of gladius' to the bullet.

What would someone think when they are so broken in the mind they want to set off to kill? It's to be reasoned that reason is not usually the functioning aspect. I don't think writing someone with an unreliable, fractured mind would be difficult, but I feel like until I can understand why someone would want to kill, I can't even begin. A good story to me starts with gripping action, and the motive of insanity is the core of it.

I guess I just need to read more about the reality of it, but someone's own angle is always a good consideration, especially with the construct of telling a story.

What do you think, anon? What drives a man to kill on repeat?

It seems to me that major developments in high philosophy kinda died out after the trifecta of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. I mean, it seems like stuff shifted to more self help how to live philosophies like stoicism and cynisism, which are more ways of cunducting yourself, then high questions of knowledge.

I mean, the hight of the classical world continued for like 500 years after these guys, so its not like there wasnt a society and infastructure to support it.

So I ask you, why was the next major development in higher conceptual western phil not until descarte? everything before is just a reinterpretation of either Plato or Aristotle. The neoplatonists, Agustine, all of them.

>>16056333
the way i keep quoting it/the way its been expressed to me on here: harder to find, more than meme-level, academic. things that seem hidden and locked up and the jurisdiction of some illuminatus but that aren't.

Here ya go, bud.

>>15335969
Essentially we're awash at sea right now. We're clinging to Western rationalism but it's a sinking ship in a void of meaninglessness.

We'll eventually come to the conclusion that even though truth is meaningless to the sea of Kaos, it still has value in relation to us, and that while imperfect our constructions have the value of at least keeping us afloat. Concretism is the search for solid, tangible pieces of truth in the sea of Kaos to construct a makeshift raft as we search for land that may not even exist.

Hi /lit/. Ok. I'm really sorry this might be difficult to read, but It's really hard to explain this thing, Still I'll try because this issue is getting more and more serious, strong, and uncontrollable. The experience of Existential collapse, not crisis, but collapse. It hits harder every time and becomes more and more pulpable, intruding into reality from the depth of absolute nothingness or I don't even know from where. It mostly happens after a short nap, or waking up in the middle of the night, or day, and main feelings, symptoms and experiences are the total and complete detachment from anything that appears in this ''freshly loaded'' reality, my body, the surroundings, house, people, things, and, the most important and disturbing of all, the shock and fear of reality and existence. What am I, what is this place, what are these things, where am I, I look at my body and it seems like something completely alien, those hands, legs, movements, breathing, what is this place, what is this ''body'' thing, what am I, what is this existence?'', and this last question is so intense, like I experience the very raw phenomena of existing, in this moment of ''now'', in this place, in this form, and the entire weight, that's the right word, the entire weight of existence and its complete ''unexplainability'', ''unknowness'', the shear horror of existence, space around, rooms, lights, things, this robotic body, all these things are pushing on me so heavily, so unbearably, I can't handle it, I have to do things forcibly, instinctively, walk, pee, wash, etc, and when I do I feel completely disintegrated, shattered, I touch my face and shockingly wonder what is this thing, the eyes, scull, mouth, holes, this skin? It feels like a nightmare coming into reality, everything is so frightening, and the feeling of a complete emptiness and squeezing depression is unbearable, I smoke, drink, take meds, in panic, just to stop it all, stop this nightmare. It takes hours to start to come back to normal perception of the world, start to take things as usual and feel like the life as anyone feels it probably, without getting freaked out by what it is and what am I. The aftertaste, shivers and memory of this experience lasts until the next day. Then on the next day I feel completely fine, happy, active, which is my normal state. All those scary things become insignificant and I just easily go with the flow, enjoying in life. So, I'd like to ask if anyone have experienced something like that, if yes, what is this thing and how can one deal with it? I don't do drugs, don't take pill, except sleeping ones in those extreme cases,drink a can of beer per week, do a lot of sport and outdoor activity, swimming, cycling, hiking, running, at work we regularly undergo medical examination and tests, including psychologists, nothing wrong was found, doctor blamed it on overtraining.

Do you guys believe in God?

>>15012832
>>15012832
>>15012832
this; based

I went too far bros. I should have been content finding the grail but I went and completed the metaphysical horseshoe.
Any books or authors that deal with overcoming enlightened post-nihilism?

What are some books that disprove solipsism?