/lit/ - Literature

>>16917210

>>15767218

>Hesse - Narcissus and Goldmund
7/10. Great as most of Hesse. Didn't like the Ending though: Dude should've gotten divine punishment when he tried to bang Rebekkah. Instead, he keeps living the fuckboy life and gets a happy ending, wtf?

>Stefan Zweig - The Royal Game
8/10. I was expecting something completely different, but wasn't disappointed. Reminded me a little bit of Sartre's "No Exit". Would've liked if he won the game though.

>Friedrich Dürrenmatt - Suspicion
4/10. Off to a weak start with Dürrenmatt. Didn't like the message. Muh "nihilism bad, christianity good". Not to mention the author apparently did not get Nietzsche in the slightest. And seriously, why does he have to ruin the end with Gulliver killing the doctor? Idk man, I'll try something different from him but if "The Visit" doesn't cut it, I'll go back to reading Max Frisch.

>>15383993

>>11229787
>>11229792
>>11229805
>>11229838
>>11229852
>>11229859
>>11229875
>>11229891
>>11229921
>>11229923
>In the subjective sphere of the genres subsumed under the rubric of the epic poem, the satire is the more objective form, since its object is the real, objective element and, primarily at least, action. Let it suffice for me to draw your attention to its epic nature. Since it is not narrative, like the epic, and thus cannot introduce speaking characters in an epic fashion as does the epic itself, and yet must primarily portray characters and actions, it thus necessarily more closely resembles the drama, and must necessarily have a dramatic life of its own as regards the inner portrayal in order to do justice to its task. The concept of satire in the strict sense, of course, cannot include anything that is dramatic in an absolute fashion or in itself. It would be equally foolish or even more foolish yet—to consider the comedies of Aristophanes as belonging to the genre of satire, the way one often makes Don Quixote of Cervantes into a satire.
>The satire, by the way, constitutes a double genre: the serious and the comical. Both types require both the dignity of an ethical character of the sort expressed in the noble anger of Juvenal and Persius, as well as the superiority of a penetrating spirit that is able to view relationships and events in reference to the universal, since the most eminent effect of the satire is based precisely on the contrasting of the universal and the particular. The fact that in Germany those who themselves are the caricatures or creations of the age by and by feel the urge to scribble satirical sketches onto paper with a crude quill can surprise us no more, for example, than the fact that people who know neither the world nor anything in it believe themselves capable of poesy and its most noble genres.
>For comic satire the Greeks had their own representatives in the particular species of half-animal, half-human beings, from whom the satire itself most likely acquired its name. It is well known that Aeschylus and later Euripides also wrote satyr plays. The law of comic satire is expressed, in a sense, in its inception here.
If the serious satire chastised vice, particularly audacious vice coupled with power, then, in contrast, comic satire must remove as much guilt and responsibility as possible from its subjects and try to make them completely irresolute, as much like animals and as completely sensual as possible, like the satyrs and fauns. Crudeness combined with wickedness and baseness awakens only loathing and disgust, and can thus never be the subject of poetic humor. These traits become such only through the complete elimination of the human element and a total reversal in which they appear purely comical without insulting our feeling, and in which, on the other hand, they most deeply denigrate the subject.
(Schelling, Philosophy of Art 226-7)