/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15793921]

ITT: Masterpieces of the 21st century.

[Anonymous No.15794339]

>>15793921
Fate's part was my favorite. Felt Lynchean. Also the section in Amalfitano's part when he talks about this book ("O'Higgins es araucano", by Lonko Kilapan) that tries to argue that the Araucanians came from Greece and had telepathic abilities is probably the section that stood out the most to me. The fact that this book exists and was written by an art teacher legally called César Navarrete that worked in my town's (population of about 250 mil) main public school (Liceo Abate Molina de Talca). The fact that I held this book in my hands and read it from start to finish. It was a surreal experience, you really end up wondering if this teacher was just a cracknut and/or a Pinochet agent. Strange shit had to have happened in this country for that book to exist. It's like Bolaño just made it up but somehow in a schizophrenic frenzy or dream I've been able to read it. The copy I read was available at the Biblioteca Nacional de Chile, for anyone wondering. Pic related is not mine, but that's the book.

[Anonymous No.15794893]

>>15793921
Is 2666 really that gud?

[Anonymous No.15794908]

Ducks, Newburyport

[Anonymous No.15794979]

>>15794893
Yes it is. I usually forget a lot of details in books but vividly remember most parts of it. Highly recommended.

[Anonymous No.15795372]

[Anonymous No.15795424]

>>15794339
wena perra

[Anonymous No.15795556]

>>15793921
Easy.

[Anonymous No.15795579]

>>15794339
Do you have this saved to a text document? This must be the fourth time I've read it.

[Anonymous No.15795701]

my diary desu

[Anonymous No.15795717]

>>15793921
I preferred The Savage Detectives, which I think is less brave but more coherent. The Arcimboldi story at the end of 2666 isn't terrible, but it feels like something I've read before (something like Tournier's Erl King) and after the part about the killings that style of fantastical alternate history feels like pastiche. Also, on the level of concept, moving everything to wartime Europe doesn't work for me - it's too distant from the Mexican killings.

In general, there's this problem that I think a lot of movies etc also have with the "mystery box". That you have a figure or an event that you don't reveal. In shit films it's just a way to add mystique and transparent as such. In good novels it's a way to imply connections/correlations which, if you spelled them out, would seem either false or overly obvious. The actual poems in Savage Detectives are like this. You have a sense of them and what they might symbolise, but to give you a big chunk of poems wouldn't work. In 2666 Bolano has the mystery of the killings and the mystery of the artist figure in parallel, and the Arcimboldi biography makes the mistake of opening the second box.

[Anonymous No.15795723]

>>15793921
Is this a good book for a racist incel to read or is it leftist propaganda?

[Anonymous No.15795736]

>>15795723
Is this an ironic post or are you really this much of a partisan? If so, read it to expand your horizons.

[Anonymous No.15795750]

>>15795556
Is it really that good ?
My local bookstore sells the hardback for 12,40 euros .
Should i get it ?

[Anonymous No.15795765]

>>15795736
I'm not partisan. I don't identify with any particular political ideology. Nevertheless I am particularly repulsed by leftists. Being a racist misogynistic incel is nonpartisan.
>If so, read it to expand your horizons.
Does that mean it's leftist propaganda?

[Anonymous No.15795790]

>>15795765
>Does that mean it's leftist propaganda?
No, but you get exposed to some different mindsets and perspectives.

[Anonymous No.15795938]

>>15795765
>Being a racist ........... is nonpartisan

Lol.

Anyway, the first part of the novel is a bunch of clearly left wing literary academics who you will hate, but in the book they're all joke figures anyway. The biggest part of the book is a catalogue of rape/murder victims and the police bumbling around on the trail, based on the actual spate of Mexican murders. In so far as violence against women is a lefty theme you won't like it, but there's next to no authorial intrusion in that section and no real conclusion drawn. Catalogue of horrors mostly.

[Anonymous No.15795977]

>>15795938
>>Being a racist ........... is nonpartisan
based

[Anonymous No.15796270]

great work, although I had much more enjoyment with TSD

[Anonymous No.15796477]

>>15795765
"expanding your horizons" means reading feminist/tranny/nigger lit. The leftists that advocate for "expanding your horizons" are all dribbling retards. Don't listen to them. Stick to the classics. Enough quality lit has been written to last you a lifetime without needing to resort to anything """horizon extending""".

[Anonymous No.15796494]

>>15795765
>racist misogynistic
That's part of right-wing ideology to see a hiararchy in terms of racess and sexes. You're right-wing.

[Anonymous No.15796505]

>>15795938
>it's not lelftist propaganda but actually it is
Kill yourself and take your shitty book with you

[Anonymous No.15796512]

>>15796477
Dangerously based

[Anonymous No.15796620]

>>15793921

[Anonymous No.15796625]

>Oh, boy, a /lit/ thread about a well-known book instead of blogposts and trannies
>Maybe they'll be talking about the degree to which various parts are incomplete
>Maybe it'll be comparisons to other list-using novels
>Or the value of perfection versus the encyclopedic
>Or contrasts to other Latin American literature
>Or to other multi-voice modern novels
>Or the facts of the real Sonora situation
>Even criticism by people who have actually read the book and disliked it

Nope, just /pol/tards congratulating one another on their illiteracy

[Anonymous No.15796634]

>>15796625
holy based

[Anonymous No.15796644]

>>15796625
>or maybe you should go back to r*ddit

[Anonymous No.15796657]

>>15796625
>Or the value of perfection versus the encyclopedic
Literally what

[Anonymous No.15796660]

>>15796644

[Anonymous No.15796678]

>>15796660
Go back.

[Anonymous No.15796679]

>>15796660
You are literally looking for r*ddit discussions. Why are you wasting your time with us and not return to your friends? The have entire paragraphs masturbating about "the value of perfection versus the encyclopedic" so don't torture yourself anymore with our inferior intellect.

And take your shitty books with you; we only read classics here

[Anonymous No.15796682]

>>15796505
You need to be 18+ to post here.

[Anonymous No.15796685]

>>15793921
>Masterpiece
It's an unfinished work, pushed by editorials.

[Anonymous No.15796690]

>>15796657
you have not read the book, of course you don't udnerstand

[Anonymous No.15796695]

>>15796678
>>15796679
>t.

[Anonymous No.15796699]

>>15796690
What the fuck are you on about, I finished it just a few months ago. Is this some anglo mistranslation I am too spanish to understand?

[Anonymous No.15796730]

>>15793921
>over 1000 pages

[Anonymous No.15796746]

>>15796678
>>15796679

[Anonymous No.15796757]

>>15796746
>>15796695
>do i fit in yet :D

[Anonymous No.15796774]

>>15796679
I know the_donald is gone, but you don't have to take it out on us

[Anonymous No.15796801]

>>15796757
what you readin atm homie?

[Anonymous No.15796817]

>>15796730
>under 1000 pages

[Anonymous No.15796820]

>>15796774
We're here to stay.

[Anonymous No.15796826]

>>15796817

[Anonymous No.15796862]

>>15796826

[Anonymous No.15796879]

>>15796862

[Anonymous No.15796885]

>>15796879

[Anonymous No.15796940]

>>15796885
I can tell from your shitposting that you're well read. what U reading atm homie?

[Anonymous No.15796956]

>>15796940
>HIND00 B00MER 00MOR
any more where this comes from?

[Anonymous No.15796979]

>>15796757
> :D
go back

[Anonymous No.15796998]

>>15796956
of course. but this is a LITERARY board. i demand a discussion of books. I am reading Narcotics by Stanisław Ignacy Witkiewicz. Very good translation

[Anonymous No.15797013]

>>15796998
cool. very tastless. keep'em comin'. I too read a pole next. name is Conrad.

[Anonymous No.15797030]

>>15797013
don't say pole because it has conotatons with /pol/, which is ironic because pole is also a word for penis and pole are a bunch of penis. further to this, if you tell me that you're to read The Nigger of the 'Narcissus' i DEMAND photo verification such that i can assure you are not shit posting.

[Anonymous No.15797052]

>>15797013
Konrad Wallenrod is garbage btw

>>15796998
Absolutely based, did you too discover Witkiewicz through Milosz's gigachad book the captive mind?

[Anonymous No.15797061]

>>15796940
I'm reading The Good Soldier Svejk right now. It's a ripping good lauf.

[Anonymous No.15797064]

>>15795765
>Being a racist misogynistic incel is nonpartisan.
Nope those are all right wing positions bud

[Anonymous No.15797066]

>>15795717
I had the same issue with the transition between part 4 and 5. A complete break of scenery made it hard to keep a connection to a book i've just put 650 pages of reading into.

Also the transition of Reiter from awkward weird guy to writer felt a bit... underexplored and uncharacteristic. .

[Anonymous No.15797070]

>>15795750
it's a very good book, seems like the author is a one hit wonder tho, his follow ups have been a disappointment

[Anonymous No.15797083]

>>15797052
Wow. I am glad to see that the board is not dead after all. so much /pol/ brigading i did not think that people here read anymore. No I found him through Coetzee, as it happens .. what are you reading atm, may i ask ..?

[Anonymous No.15797087]

>>15796620
What an odd cover for it. I prefer mine

[Anonymous No.15797089]

>>15797061
WOW !. so much based in one thread

[Anonymous No.15797157]

[Anonymous No.15797477]

>>15797083
>i did not think that people here read
I think most don't, and even if they do, it is mostly burger mediocrities (see >>15797157 >>15794908) and classics they were supposed to have read 10 years ago. I have tried quitting this place like 10 times, but my dopamine imbalance is my worst feature.

>No I found him through Coetzee
Another chad writer, I wasn't aware he liked Witkievicz. Mind sharing the source?

>what are you reading atm
About to finish T Singer by Dag Solstad and Border Districts by Gerald Murnane (top notch writers, top notch books), midway through Judas by Amos Oz (been putting it on pause, haven't formed an opinion yet). I will probably try Magdalena Tulli next before taking a short break from contemporary stuff.

>>15797087
This style for a cover would work much better for something like To Live (it being a simple, very realist, rural novel). Brothers is a book dealing with themes (capitalism, sex, inequality) such that the neon, gaseous coloring works much better than having photos and flat colors. Still, somewhat rural and straightforward but distinctly contemporary at the same time. Note how his next novel breaks away from realism and agrarian life completely.

[Anonymous No.15797498]

>>15797087
I haven´t read this book, but the first review I read did make it sound sort of lurid and sensationalist.

>>15797066
I was more bothered by the way it follows that recent trend of making WW2 the suppressed trauma, the hidden truth, behind literally every story. European writers at least have an excuse for obsessing over Nazis, but when Bolano does it it´s like that cliche of every sufficiently long argument devolving into a Hitler reference.

[Anonymous No.15797617]

>>15793921
Unironically fantastic

[Anonymous No.15797630]

>>15797617
>>15793921

[Anonymous No.15797648]

>>15797617
>>15797630
>>15793921
BY FAR his best book

[Anonymous No.15797666]

>>15793921
I've never hated a book so much. Stopped reading with ~20 pages left. I just didnt care anymore

[Anonymous No.15797672]

>>15797648
>>15797630
>>15797617
>>15793921
Lots of anons were clamoring over it

[Anonymous No.15797682]

>>15797672
>>15797648
>>15797630
>>15797617
>>15793921
Fantstic even if The God of Small Things was better

[Anonymous No.15797703]

>>15797630
Meh. I devoured it pretty quickly and enjoyed reading it most of the way through, but by the end I couldn't help but laugh. It's like trauma porn. I stopped caring because it was just too awful. I also predicted that everyone was gay. Not saying it was brilliant foresight, but it kinda took away from everything. I'd call this one a literary soap opera. Not going to look down on anyone for reading it or enjoying it, but it sure as hell isn't a masterpiece.

[Anonymous No.15797789]

>>15797648
Why’d he do it, bros?

[Anonymous No.15797826]

>>15797617
>>15797630
>>15797648
>>15797672
>>15797682

[Anonymous No.15797963]

>>15797826
>>15797682
>>15797672
>>15797648
>>15797630
>>15797617
I have yet to personally read it

[Anonymous No.15797969]

>>15797648
If you out a bunch of the passages that are half-written, and some of the less brilliant character development extracts, you would have a collection of stories that was ahead of his other work. It's just annoying having to go through the redundant architecture of a not-finished novel around them.

[Anonymous No.15798035]

>>15797477
>burger mediocrities
why don't you like Vollmann?

[Anonymous No.15798217]

>>15798035
You and I both know he hasn’t read a single word of his.

[Anonymous No.15798297]

>>15797963
My mommy loved this book

[Anonymous No.15798388]

>>15798035
Bloated and unoriginal. The ice-shirt dream is the only one I liked and it still doesn't do anything truly impressive. Fun but absolutely not comparable to the likes of Handke, Coetzee and Nadas.

>>15798217
Seethe harder, illiterate mutt.

[Anonymous No.15798420]

>>15793921
Austerlitz is the only 21st century masterpiece in literature.

[Anonymous No.15798462]

>>15798420
This.

[Anonymous No.15798643]

>>15798388

>Handke
Really not sure about him. He's serious and he's clever, but he's the most navel-gazing writer imaginable and a lot of his energy went into stuff like recounting his mother being depressive or him being depressed in America or going on holiday to places. He just seems like a great talent in search of a subject matter that never arrives, a bit like Rachel Cusk in England right now, who has prose quality in spadeloads but mostly writes about being a writer and how she got divorced once.

[Anonymous No.15798747]

>>15798643
I sorta agree I suppose but is there really a need of captivating subject matter for someone to be considered a great writer? Most humans live simple lives and the grand concepts of the universe are something we see from the sidelines, rarely gaze at directly. I find the recounting of the mundane to be highly valuable if done well, and Handke certainly has a gift for describing human existence with great precision.
Consider Old Man and the Sea. Disregard allegorical readings and similar idiocy. What makes it so great? Certainly not the fishery. From the mundane, from the conceptually elementary rises something great, something which encapsulates the entirety of life. Anyways, I would surely enjoy Handke more if he wasn't such a dull cunt but I can still appreciate the quality of what he is doing. To be fair, I don't consider him Top 3 living, I just didn't want to namedrop someone obscure.

>Rachel Cusk
Never read her, I barely even hear anything about her. I will check her out.

[Anonymous No.15798837]

2666 is an instant classic, lmao at the fascists ITT crying "we only read classics here you guys". I guess that's one way to justify not reading it.

But of course you won't read the masterpiece of the 21th century. Because it's about fascism, and it's against fascism. That's just too much for you.

[Anonymous No.15798879]

>>15798837
Holy based.

[Anonymous No.15798897]

>>15795556
what's it about?
In your own words please, I don't want some vague publisher description

[Anonymous No.15798937]

>>15793921
Thought it was sci fi first time I saw the title

[Anonymous No.15799030]

>>15798747
> Handke
Mm. But then the life of a fisherman is unusual for most of us, and inherently more dramatic than the life Handke's had. Also -like you say- the Hemingway winds up standing for whatever the reader personally struggles against. But in Handke everything is so highly specified that he's set out to prevent exactly that kind of identification. I also quite like his books, but I feel like they're a sort of refuge from actual novels, somewhere to run off when I'm sick of what other people are doing.

There is, for example, a bit in an interview where he talks about disliking catchy, arresting openings, because he thinks of it as a journalistic technique. That sort of attitude makes him interesting, but I'll be fucked if I want to do without enticing beginnings in general.

>Cusk
The recent trilogy starting with Outline is representative. By all accounts the newer book is pretty bad.

[Anonymous No.15799086]

only good book i've read from this century is Austerlitz tbqh

[Anonymous No.15799110]

>>15799086
This.

[Black Cat No.15799138]

>>15793921
>>15794339
>>15794979
>>15797066
>>15797070
>>15797617

I've been burned too many times with books like this*. I read Infinite Jest three times trying to find the existential meaning people said was there and just kept coming up short. Still I've heard such good things about 2666 (shout out to Michael Judge of Death is Just Around the Corner) that I'm considering getting over getting burned by Pynchon and trying again.

*Meandering, parallel stories with cryptic and cute cross-connections meant to illuminate a theme or insight (usually about the chaotic nature of information in contemporary society and the violence it hides) by their triangulation/juxtaposition.

>>15795736
>>15795790
>>15795938
>>15796494
>>15796625
>>15796634
>>15796660
>>15796682
>>15796695
>>15797064
>>15797083

It's nice to see /lit/ is finally pushing back against the racists. Not only are they morally abhorrent etc. etc. it's also really fucking boring seeing them just post the same dead end shit over and over. Good on y'all.

>>15796699
I don't know why this is so fucking funny but it is. I love how much us anglos are viewed as sub-intellectual scum by especially the Spanish speaking world.

>>15796826
Camus rocks because he ignores the revolutionary parts of Existentialism (the powerful freedom created by Kant's Transcendental Idealism and the political realities it ushers in) to just write about you should be cool and fuck models, yet irl girls find that hot and will fuck guys who talk about it even if they are way out of their league. The second girl I ever fucked was a 9/10 who just got dumped by her boyfriend at the end of high school and fucked me because I introduced her to Camus (I was a 6/10 at absolute best). Even as an 18yo I knew he was a pseud but she just loved the aesthetic experience of imagining herself as a post-Vichy French existentialist chick who could be hedonistic with an intellectual veneer so spent a couple weeks hanging out with me--again, an abject loser--while coasting off of that.

>>15796885
Based

>>15797477
Lmao

>>15797498
Yeah if you're not European its extremely fucking weird to have WWII be the unique (or even pinnacle) evil of the 20th Century. Like I'm sorry but the Germans set up Death Camps in Africa 40+ years before the Final Solution. Seeing the Nazis as anything but one link a chain that goes from the New Imperialism (and before) to the mid-century CIA (and after) is extremely myopic.


>>15797648
Speaking of DFW, if I found the book that he got bored and wrote a different book during frustrating (hence the transition from the very interesting story of Hal and his family to the extremely not interesting story of Don Gately), I can't bring myself to read the book where even he couldn't even figure out what the point was.

>>15797666
Is it like Gravity's Rainbow or Infinite Jest where it thinks disorienting you and introducing so much shit makes it LitErArY?

>>15797789
b/c he went off his anti-depressants.

[Black Cat No.15799168]

[Cont.]

>>15797969
Yeah I bet. Did you find it easy to start skipping around them or was it basically just a slog?

>>15798420
>>15798462
Elaborate

>>15798837
Based

>>15798937
Yeah idk I've really turned hard on Year Titles, Vague Number/Letter Titles, and other sorts of stupid ephemeral (though I thought 'IQ84' was a funny title before I realized it was actually '1Q84')

>>15799086
>>15799110
What's good about it

[Anonymous No.15799480]

What is /lit/'s opinion on the Goldfinch? Also on my wife Donna Tartt?

[Anonymous No.15799503]

>>15794893
I was published posthumously. I think because of that, it is in bad need of an editor.

[Anonymous No.15799523]

>>15797826
not a chance. this is so full of tropes and stereotypes between the STEM masturbation, fun to read but no masterpiece.

[Anonymous No.15799683]

>>15799523
I hate STEM masturbation culture so much.
t. grad student in mathematics

[Black Cat No.15799727]

>>15799503
Oh that makes sense. Too bad. Editing tends to make the book as much as the original writing.

>>15799683
I'm a philosophy cuck that has always loved mathematics. I had to teach myself a course in meta-logic (I read book attached and ended up writing a proof of Gödel for reference) and it gave me the itch to keep going. Any advice for someone who stopped at Calculus and basic set theory? I'm especially interested in number theory but I just love learning new shit.

[Anonymous No.15799759]

>>15796477
Reading the classics is horizon expanding. It takes you out of the contemporary mindset.

[Anonymous No.15799840]

>>15799727
Surely you need a basic understanding of measure theory and a little bit of algebra just to ease your self into the abstraction at a lower level and then slowly get your self to a point where by ascosiation you understand naive set theory and formal , then begin with a textbook on logic and leave non standard logic systems and category theory for last

[Anonymous No.15799867]

>>15799727
I love philosophy, too, and I find there to be a great overlap between the two fields and I don't think it's surprising that the likes of Descartes and Leibniz are among both the greatest philosophers and mathematicians of all time.
Anyways, it depends on what you want to learn. If you're looking to get more into actual math, then you should get an intro book to proofs, and then from there you can go to things like algebra and number theory, but you should have a basic understanding of vector calculus and linear algebra, since they're such prevalent fields of mathematics.

[Anonymous No.15799870]

>tfw /lit/ is my university

[Anonymous No.15799889]

>>15799870
I know that feel.

[Anonymous No.15799947]

>>15799727
>Any advice for someone who stopped at Calculus and basic set theory? I'm especially interested in number theory but I just love learning new shit.

Not him, but number theory makes uses of basically all the resources of classical mathematics, and then some. So you need to get really well-rounded bases. It's indispensable to understand of real and complex analysis (the larger and more rigorous theory behind calculus) as well as being familiar with the standard algebraic structures and their properties (groups, rings, fields, vector spaces). With algebraic structure you can take linear algebra and matrix theory which is useful pretty much everywheree. Once you're capable at real and complex analysis as well as general and linear algebra you should take some time to understand topology, especially metric topology, then measure theory and integration. With integration and complex analysis you naturally get Fourier analysis (Riemann integration is a standard part of real analysis and you will come accross it rather early, the larger theory is Lebesgue integration which is much longer to learn).

All those are standards subject at undergrad level, but the important thing is being able to manipulate the language, for instance to write proofs and solve exercises. Just reading about the concept won't be enough for proper understanding.

Once you've covered your basis you can dwelve in any further topic especially modern number theory. G. Hardy's Introduction to Number Theory is a nearly 100 years old textbook and still relevant so you can start there, if you notice that you don't have some of the prerequisites it means your basis are not solid enough yet, so go back to them.

There's no bottom to that rabbit hole so enjoy.

[Anonymous No.15799966]

>>15798388
Interesting to see Nadas mentioned. Which of his works have you read?

[Anonymous No.15799967]

>>15799947
>With algebraic structure you can take linear algebra and matrix theory which is useful pretty much everywhere.
Based and Liepilled.

[Anonymous No.15800563]

>>15797477
>I have tried quitting this place like 10 times, but my dopamine imbalance is my worst feature.
I know it all to well, my friend.

>Mind sharing the source?
it was a .. personal conversation. sorry

>T Singer by Dag Solstad and Border Districts by Gerald Murnane
Thank you I have added these to my reading list. Border Districts looks particularly intriguing

[Black Cat No.15800970]

>>15799867
Awesome. I've heard really good things about The Book of Proofs (https://www.people.vcu.edu/~rhammack/BookOfProof/)) but I just feel like an asshole doing homework on my own without anyone to talk to about it/get help from/compare with.

How should I evaluate myself on some of the more algorithmic (for lack of a better term) aspects of math? Like I can watch a video on 3blue1brown about linear algebra and be like "okay I get the gist" without really showing mastery. I guess I could just study and then pass an exam I find online, but it feels aimless if I am just doing it to feel like I am allowed to move onto the next, more interesting thing.

idk if you know that feeling.

>>15799947
Extremely helpful response. Thank you so much. Please let me know if you ever need resources on history or philosophy and I would love to reciprocate. I have always found Riemann's work really interesting, and would love to learn how to do analysis.

It sounds like this is my rough to-do list before attempting Hardy's book (which I think I actually picked up a copy of at a yard sale):
*Make sure I can still ace a Calculus final
*Make sure I can pass a final on Linear Algebra
*Book of Proofs (or should I do this later?)
*Algebraic structures (I'm aware this is a huge field so I dont know really how to approach it in an effective way)
*Real Analysis
*Complex Analysis
*Topology
*Then the stuff I don't even know what it is, like Measure Theory, Integration, and Fourier Analysis.

I notice that the way these topics are broken up varies a lot by institution, just looking at random colleges I am familiar with. Is there any grouping you find most standard?

Also, anyone have specific book recommendations on any of these topics to help guide my study? I have access to a really good academic library and I'm pretty used to pirating things as well so don't be shy. Obviously I will supplement it with 3b1b and Khan Academy etc.

[Anonymous No.15801044]

>>15800970
3Blue1Brown's channel is good for building geometric intuition behind the underlying concepts of an introductory linear algebra course. In fact, after watching his series, you would probably have a better understanding of the subject than most people who take an LA course in college because in college lower level math courses, such as a first course in LA, are pretty geared exclusively towards engineering majors. As a result, these classes basically just go over rote memorization for solving problems algorithmically (compute the determinant of matrix A, find the eigenvectors for matrix B, use the Gram-Schmidt on vectors v_1,v_2,v_3,etc.) and that's not really math. If you want to test yourself on the algorithmic processes, then you just Google for question sets or you can get this book (https://www.amazon.com/3-000-Solved-Problems-in-Linear-Algebra/dp/0070380236/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8).).

[Black Cat No.15801085]

>>15801044
Thanks! Will do!

Any other tips?

[Anonymous No.15801140]

>>15801085
When it comes to math, I would prioritize conceptual understanding over rote computation because the former is the important part and the crux of math. Nowadays, all calculations are carried out by computers, so while you should be able to do basic calculations in a subject, it's not something I would focus on.

Also, if you're set on following the road map that you laid out in this post, >>15800970, then I would amend it a bit by adding in basic point set topology in conjunction with real analysis and going through a book on proofs should be a priority. As for algebra, learning the basics of group/ring/field theory will get you a long ways. Like you said, it's a huge field and not worth really going deep into, unless you're really interest in a particular topic. While Galois and Lie theory are two of the more interesting and beautiful areas of math, I wouldn't consider them to be absolutely essential (although, naïve Lie theory can be briefly covered for group theory). I'd also recommend getting into a bit of axiomatic set theory (ZFC), since that's the basis for a lot of modern mathematics. Discrete math is also interesting and worth getting into, since it'll cover some interesting areas of math such as combinatorics and graph theory.

Obviously, math is an absolutely massive field of study and you'll never know it all, but a good foundation in calculus, linear algebra, algebra (study of algebraic structures, not the stuff you learn in highschool), analysis, and topology are basically the "big" umbrellas.

Now, if you don't mind me asking you a question, where should I start with Kierkegaard?

[Anonymous No.15801163]

>>15793921
László Krasznahorkai -- Seiobo There Below
Claudio Magris -- Blindly
Olga Tokarczuk -- Primeval and Other Times

[Anonymous No.15801482]

>>15797617
>>15797630
>>15797648
>>15797672
>>15797682
>>15797826
>>15797963
Another one I have yet to read

[Anonymous No.15801508]

Best shit I've ever read. All you schizo posters will agree.

And the companion album "Haunted" by Poe is equally based.

[Anonymous No.15801547]

>>15801482
>>15797963
>>15797826
>>15797682
>>15797672
>>15797648
>>15797630
>>15797617
I have not read any of Radwa Ashour's other books so I read this one and it was a revelation.

I feel very strongly it is a masterpiece and one of the greatest books of the 21st century and I feel bad for anyone who cannot read arabic, and the fact that radwa ashour's popularity is concentrated only in the middle east combined with the lack of translations means it is unlikely non-arabic spekers will be able to read this book in a long time.

Reading this book makes it clear she is one of the greatest arabic writers of all time and sits next to the likes of Mahmoud Darwish, Ghassan Kanafani, Tayeb Salih, and Naguib Mahfouz. What a fantastic read.

[Anonymous No.15801549]

>>15801508
This is unironically a good book. No idea why /lit/ hates it.

[Anonymous No.15801581]

>>15801547
Where does one start with Arabic literature?

[Anonymous No.15801632]

[Black Cat No.15801644]

>>15801140
ZFC! That's my old friend from Set Theory (I decided to explain the failure of Logicism as an independent study). Good shit. Love all of your advice. Thank you so much.

re: Kierkegaard
Okay so this is a hard topic. In my university Existentialists class we read The Sickness Unto Death, which starts with, "Man is spirit. But what is spirit? Spirit is the self. But what is the self? The self is a relation which relates itself to its own self, or it is that in the relation that the relation relates itself to its own self; the self is not the relation but that the relation relates itself to its own self. Man is a synthesis of the infinite and the finite, of the temporal and the eternal, of freedom and necessity, in short it is a synthesis. A synthesis is a relation between two factors. So regarded, man is not yet a self," which I thought was literally gibberish the first time I read it.

I now think he is right: the self is the self-modifiying thing which is constantly adjusting aspects of itself in relation to each other, in a never ceasing process of self-correction. (See the bottom of this post for more*) Once you understand where he is coming into the conversation of philosophy (post-Kant), and what his general idea is (the lack of firm ground to orient oneself but how that does not absolve us of the need to self-create/self-improve), I think you can honestly jump into Sickness Unto Death and start taking notes. There is another difficulty to be aware of: he wrote under different names works from different perspectives. Most people think this was a way of him coming to terms with the dialectical nature of his ideas. I think his SEP page does a good job on touching on this and giving the background you will need to get started.
[Continued Below]

[Black Cat No.15801654]

>>15801644

Okay so I would put learning about Kierkegaard into these steps:
*This comment
*The SEP page (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kierkegaard/#Rhet))
*Maybe, if you care: get a general outline of the rationalist/empiricist debate, and Kant's attempt to synthesize the two ("Transcendental Idealism"). The part I think is important is that there are two broad ways of knowing things: the mathematical (rationalist one), which starts from indubitable premises and works through deduction to particular propositions, and a scientific (empiricist) way, which works from specific sensory experiences to general rules which explain the universe (like how Newton discovered gravity by noticing analogous activity in the heavenly and earthly realms). The problem is that these two sources of knowledge create two fundamentally different versions of the world (the mind-body problem, idealism/materialism, skepticism, relative/absolute space, etc.). Because neither side in the debate could adequately explain how we could be sure of the empirical world from mere induction (see: Descartes, Hume) nor how we could know metaphysical truths (again, Hume), we must still live our lives without the firm foundations of even knowing what sort of thing we are, nor what the metaphysical "rules of the game" might be (eternal souls? God? Principle of Sufficient Reason?). When you think Kant's Critical Philosophy failed (as Kierkegaard did), having any foundations for ethics, ethics which deeply resonate in your bones, becomes the overwhelming necessity for your life. This is what prompted Kierkegaard's investigation.
*Then read Sickness Unto Death, returning often to that opening claim I quoted up top. It's by far the hardest passage in the book.

*Some more explanation. Once you understand this opening line, everything in the book will hopefully snap into place. Again, this is a shitty 4chan comment but I'll do my best:

The problem is that we try to capture reasoning in a static syllogism, but human beings are constantly in flux. I picture the Kierkegaardian self as a solar system: with only two items, it is stable, but we have uncountably many sub-parts who are all chaotically influencing each other. In addition, Kierkegaard accounts for human freedom as our ability to, say, add force or mass to individual parts to change the whole composition indirectly; we do not actually get to start ourselves over from scratch as though we were a physics simulation (where we could theoretically achieve an infinite equilibrium with the exact spacing of items we want in orbit around each other), but we must merely modify the existing system as it plays out.
[Continued Once More]

[Anonymous No.15801666]

>>15798897
Cmon faggot tell me

[Black Cat No.15801667]

>>15801654

So if I act shitty to my sibling, I might increase the prominence of my empathy over my pride. The solar system analogy is breaking down because 'prominence' does not cleanly match to 'distance' or any other physical relation, but the relations between our psychological parts (I think of our parts as dispositions towards actions, for reference) is constantly changing in such ridiculously complicated ways, which is what I see as analogous to a solar system. But instead of 'The Moon exerts x times more gravity on the Earth than Mars does', the output of the system is like 'I will be more humble than kind when I am talking to people who remind me of people from my childhood' or even more infinitely specific dispositional behavior. Also akin to a solar system, our parts have inertia on their own; even with no input from my conscious self, I will be a fundamentally different person every moment of my life, as the free-flying bodies affect each other. In fact, the direction we're going at all times is towards sin and disaster: I am always going to be too kind or too cruel, too prideful or too humble. It is my job to self-correct towards perfection and moral action, but because I am determined by the imperfect composition of myself that I will always find myself in the moment, I will always be over or under-correcting. This is better than not correcting at all, but Kierkegaard admits that we are disposed to fall out of any equilibrium we are able to momentarily achieve; our momentum will always wreck our parts' relation, even if we get them the right distance relationally.

I hope this makes sense. I just came up with this analogy, but I think it gets at the heart of Kierkegaard's project, which is a description of the human condition as incomprehensibly complicated, always changing, and perpetually self-correcting towards an impossible equilibrium, made all the worse by our lack of a Cartesian Archimedean point. From that existential/psychological profile, he then allows himself the ability to create an ethics for what to do without any firm point of reference, an ethics of doing your best without absolving ourselves of responsibility for our failures. You can really see the impression this made on Sartre et al. a century later.

Please ask me any questions you have about this. Sorry if this was explained shittily; I'm trying to justify the use of dialectical reasoning with an appeal to mathematical intuitions, but it's too cute to just go one-for-one.

[Anonymous No.15801675]

>>15794893
Absolutely not. It's a good read but it isn't even close to a masterpiece. It's incomplete, ocasionally dithering, polished in places, unpolished in others, and does not transcend itself.

[Anonymous No.15801680]

>>15799138
huh?

[Black Cat No.15801989]

>>15801680
Elaborate

[Anonymous No.15802136]

>>15801644
>>15801654
>>15801667
Good stuff.

[Anonymous No.15802238]

>>15799870
>that anonymous imageboard was my Harvard and my Oxford

[Anonymous No.15802351]

>>15802238
>that anonymous imageboard was my Harvard and my Oxford

[Anonymous No.15802460]

>>15797682
KEK... i read it in one sitting (around 7 hours). FUCKING GARBAGE.

Absolutely nothing to offer except LGBT leftist propaganda. The only thing i remember is some ugy murderous tranny on a horse. Rest is just hot garbage.

[Anonymous No.15802594]

>>15802460
You need to be 18+ to post here.

[Anonymous No.15802919]

>>15801508
Good book. It also heavily inspired my favorite 2019 videogame, Control. You should play it if you liked the novel.

[Anonymous No.15802922]

>>15802594
And you need to read more.

[Anonymous No.15802999]

>>15799138
David, please rest in peace and stop shitposting.

[Anonymous No.15803154]

>>15801581
1001 Nights

[Anonymous No.15803205]

>>15802999
Based and checked.

[Black Cat No.15803335]

>>15802136
Thanks senpai. I felt extremely powerful typing that up. Happy to answer any questions to the best of my ability on Soren or anything else related to philosophy/history.

[Anonymous No.15803414]

>>15803335
Thoughts on Leibniz's philosophy?

[Anonymous No.15803580]

>>15801163
>Seiobo
I really feel like this is the worst Krasz going. Loads of good bits, but it's completely gratuitous and self-indulgent in its Asia fetish. His attempt to stick a (really well written) ending on it just shows the weakness of the overall design.

[Anonymous No.15803735]

>>15802238
Funny, the original quote was different in my memories.

[Black Cat No.15803767]

>>15803414
He's obviously one of the great geniuses of all time but he's also a fucking weirdo. Idealism, rationalism, and monads are all fun to think about, but I also think his writings have had one of the smallest impacts on me of any major philosopher I have spent so much time with. He is a really strong writer (at least in translation), and his letters are pretty accessible. He's also probably my favorite of the main six pre-Kant Early Moderns because he goes the distance with his ideas without seeming like a prick, though I mainly care about him because Kant is so important and he was influenced by Wolff-Leibniz.

The best book on Leibniz imo is Learning From Six Philosophers, by the great philosopher Jonathan Bennett. He spends 6 or 7 chapters (mostly in volume 1) really going through what the hell was going on and where Leibniz mis-stepped. The chapters are extremely clear and well-delineated (you can pirate the book on b-ok.org and skip to the relevant parts), with digestible ~1 page subsections on specific arguments from Leibniz. Honestly, I assume Bennett has some kind of old British guy autism because he has the most clear writing of any analytic philosopher I have read.

He also runs the site Early Modern Texts, which translate early modern texts into contemporary English. Definitely use those translations first before going onto more academic ones, unless you are actually planning to publish or something.

I also like Beck's sections on him in Early German Philosophy.

Finally, read the Clarke-Leibniz correspondence if you want an all-time great philosophical dialogue between Leibniz and Newton, via Newton's proxy Clarke.

[Anonymous No.15803987]

Does Min Kamp qualify? /Lit/ mostly hates it but memes aside, does it deserve to be one of the great works in literature? Also what about Alan Moore's Jerusalem?

[Anonymous No.15804056]

>>15798388
Cope!

[Anonymous No.15804142]

>>15803987
does lit hate it? I haven't gotten to it yet but I'll I've heard are tremendous things

[Anonymous No.15804309]

>>15803987
>>15804142
Mein Kampf was genuinely awful.

Fascists always try to maintain the book is actually a decent read and very insightful and that Hitler's mind (intellectually) was on the level of someone like Mao or Stalin, but it was awful.

Literally midwit core and pseudointellectual ramblings with absolutely nothing of value beyond that.

It acts as a midwit filter for those who genuinely enjoyed it, and I walked away with an even worse view of fascim.

[Anonymous No.15804314]

>>15801581
What do you want to read anon?

The obvious answer would probably be the quran desu

[Anonymous No.15804317]

>>15803987
>21st century
When are you gonna kill yourself?

[Anonymous No.15804338]

>>15804309
B A S E D

[Anonymous No.15804353]

>>15793921

[Anonymous No.15804355]

The Rings of Saturn is generally regarded as his masterpiece on /lit/, but Austerlitz stands out to me as his best.

[Anonymous No.15804391]

>>15804056
Sneed

[Anonymous No.15804496]

>>15804309
Easy mistake to make but this is a thread about 21st century lit. We're talking about Knousgaard.

I agree with what you said though.

[Anonymous No.15804506]

>>15804317
read a bok

[Anonymous No.15804509]

>>15803987
/lit/ doesn't mostly hate it. We have threads about it pretty often and there are always people praising it. They're some of my favorite books. Certainly my favorite contemporary books after Sebald's.

[Anonymous No.15805073]

>>15804317
Retard. I am talking about Ove Knausgaard's Min Kamp not Hitler. Fucking hang yourself Pseud.

[Anonymous No.15805083]

>>15804509
I remember /lit/izens shitting on it and Ove couple of years ago.

[Anonymous No.15805091]

>>15800970
sci wiki has good books.

I would advise picking a few good books and sticking with them for a while.

spivak calculus is a good start.
then you could try something like baby rudin or some algebra.

[Anonymous No.15805104]

>>15803767
Thanks, I'll check out that book for sure. While, like you said, his ideas are really out there, I always thought that Leibniz's system was better and more logically constructed (within the context of their respective axioms) than Descarte's. It's always surprised me how, relatively, little secondary literature there is on him given how prominent the Leibnizian-Wolffian philosophy was up until Kant (who was both heavily influenced by those two).

[KANYE No.15805108]

>>15795717
gay

[Anonymous No.15805113]

>>15796494
I know plenty of working class union blokes who vote left and are racist mysoginists

[Anonymous No.15805615]

>>15798837
>the fascists ITT
no fascists ITT

based schizo poster, I wouldn't be surprised if it was a woman

[Anonymous No.15805642]

>>15805615
Based schizo.

[Anonymous No.15806239]

>>15801667
have you read Heidegger - B&T?

[Anonymous No.15806752]

Bump

[Black Cat No.15806803]

>>15803987
>>15804142
>>15804309
>>15804317
>>15804496
>>15805073
Anyone who calls "My Struggle" "Min Kamp" is being an asshole and trying to bait people into scanning it wrong.

>>15804309
It's funny, I am a very well read in political philosophy, and while I fucking hate Stalin and Mao (my grandparents were Trotskyists), both of them were obviously geniuses; they just valued power over attempting to build communism. Hence how they ended up at the top of the heap after their respective revolutions died down. Their genius (if you read the book left you will see that Stalin would be a conventional prodigy in the U.S., getting a full ride to Harvard or some shit) meant nothing once it wandered out of their areas of expertise: bureaucratic maneuvering and public opinion. It's almost comforting that the closest thing we've had to übermenschen were complete amateurs at other pursuits (e.g. Mao at economics), if they did not get millions of people fucking killed. It is also reassuring to know that the economic plans of almost every other Soviet and PRC communist seem extremely reasonable and like they would have worked, but then we have to ask ourselves: is it possible for a party able to win the revolution to then have the structure to allow power to dissipate back down? I don't think it is a coincidence that the more promising (AKA democratic) forms of revolutionary socialism have always been defeated by those more ruthless and with less regard for human life (e.g. Council Communism is Germany, the Workers Opposition in USSR, the Communards in France). In the end, it seems like the Social Democrats descended from late Kautsky and Hilferding have done more good than everyone else.

This is a long way of saying that Mao and Stalin were geniuses but that doesn't mean that they were good leaders. It's also why when libs (Obama was president of the Harvard Law Review! Chuck Schumer got a perfect SAT score! Mayo Pete can """speak""" 7 languages!) and right-wingers (Shapiro went to Harvard!) talk about how smart their guys are as though the sort of conventional academic brilliance means anything more than being good at school, we can safely tell them to go fuck themselves. It's almost as though some people are not really born better than others and we need to understand that everyone has value and talents, and no one person can rule society as a philosopher king. Who would have thunk.

>>15806239
Yeah it fucking rocks. No clue how he became a Nazi because it's one of the greatest books of all time. Really makes me wish he finished it when he still cared instead of getting bored. I was into Sartre and co. for awhile but once I read Heidegger I realized (besides de Beauvoir) they are literally all pseuds who added nothing except a sexy French translation. There's a normie book called Existentialist Café my gf read during this time and she seemed to follow 90% of what I was doing with 1/20th the effort; would definitely recommend newbies start there

[Black Cat No.15806874]

>>15805104
Oh yeah for sure. I guess I just don't feel like he's had much impact on me because some of his assumptions just feel groundless, especially after reading Kant. So if I am not trying to patch together his eclectic number of starting positions, then his very clever arguments just don't feel relevant. His epistemology is very lucid, and his metaphysics are very clever; but I don't think any of it is *true*, just that it is very *consistent* if that makes sense. Because he just follows things logically from his starting points, I also think he has less to say on the human condition than most; at least Locke (who is by far the dumbest of the six Bennett talks about) is trying to explain our intuition that we experience things about objects that aren't innate in the objects, even though he is extremely dumb.

>>15805113
Ehh, I mean joining a union makes you statistically less racist and more likely to participate in anti-racist power structures. I feel like you have a lib conception of 'racism = having unwoke beliefs' as opposed to 'racism = participating in racist institutions'. Like obviously Britain is a fuck now because of de-industrialization, but are we going to pretend like the mid-century Labour Party platform was not much less racist than the mid-century Tory platform? That's the leftist understanding of how workers are brought into coalition with other marginalized groups to fight the ruling class together.

I do agree that the working-class doesn't really exist as much (in the Marxist sense of a self-conscious class with shared experiences at a place of exploitation), so they are fast moving away from the Labour Party b/c of cultural shit (racism and misogyny being the easy things to point to), but actual union members do overwhelmingly support Labour, and its much-less-racist-than-Tory-platform.

[Anonymous No.15807267]

>>15806803
I agree completely on your characterization of Mao and Stalin as geniuses and your disregard for the perceived intelligence of liberal leaders.

I also find it interesting those whom I would be absolutely confident in calling geniuses often appear to be marxists/socialists such as einstein, malcolm x, wittgenstein, joyce, kafka, turing, etc.
Although I don't think this has any significance beyond being a useless interesting fact.

I heavily disagree on your points about your general points on the perceived ruthlessness of communist regimes and the power of "undemocratic" revolutionary activity, but I feel like this would just devolve into typical marxist leninist against socialist sympathizer argument. The only thing I heavily disagree with you about is social democrats as I view them as failures especially those who do not properly engage with kautsky and seem to use him as an excuse to be comfortable in their opposition to most marxist developments after marx, like how white westerners latch unto the trot.

Also I agree most of the french existentialists are not what they are made up to be, but I wouldn't call them pseuds. Sartre and camus are obviously the most dissapointing but even then I think there is something to be learnt.


It felt fitting heidegger would end up a fascist if we look at his work AND himself as a person.

I'm not sure how to describe it, but it is very similar to gentile as in they both write as if they are very far detached from something like fascism, but once we combine our readings with a view of them beyond their philosophical work it feels obvious they would end up completely bending and forcing their "systems" for and towards fascism.

[Anonymous No.15807282]

>>15806874
>but I don't think any of it is *true*, just that it is very *consistent* if that makes sense.
That's my exact reading of Leibniz, too. Of the three major rationalists, I find myself aligning with Spinoza the most, but I always found Leibniz to be the most interesting and the way he constructed his metaphysics is very interesting (particularly that found in Monadology). You've probably already read it, but Deleuze's book on Leibniz is a very interesting interpretation of Leibniz. While he considers himself a Spinozaist, he says that Leibniz had one of the greatest impacts on him as a philosopher.

[Black Cat No.15807995]

>>15807267
>I also find it interesting those whom I would be absolutely confident in calling geniuses often appear to be marxists/socialists such as einstein, malcolm x, wittgenstein, joyce, kafka, turing, etc. Although I don't think this has any significance beyond being a useless interesting fact.
Completely agree. Wittgenstein or someone else equally funny allegedly said, "Marxism doesn't work in theory but it does in practice" which I love. I can't remember who it was though.

I definitely think there are many bad Soc-Dems (*cough* all of Germany since 1919), but I also think if we look at the Nordics they have had a tremendous amount of success; I think Finland can safely be considered one of the few countries to have transitioned from periphery to core during the 20th century, and while it is easy to say that they had white privilege etc., that is a remarkable achievement for class struggle Social Democracy (one not replicated in the Eastern Bloc, by and large). In addition, I notice that while people try to get epic about the Nordics benefiting from imperialism, they have had a remarkable history of anti-imperialism and anti-racism (with multiple leaders having to be assassinated by the imperialist powers). Obviously Sweden alone can't turn the tide in the world, especially given that the Right has been in power recently, but per capita I think Nordics Social Democrats have done more to raise the standard of living of workers both within and without their country in the past 100 years than anyone else.

I have nothing but respect for the various Communist revolutionaries, I just wonder if by their very nature a Kollontai or a Luxemburg will never come out on top; that is, since all revolutions are civil wars, what are the odds that the most effective civil war operator is also someone willing dissolve their own authority after. I'm not trying to insult Lenin, Trotsky, Lin Biao, etc., because I think the CCP's work stopping foreign imperialism has allowed China to finally start to catch up, but I also believe that there will have to be another revolution in that country once the economy is built up to full capitalist production.

Of course, my whole theory of change is predicated on the American Empire imploding without being replaced by someone else. It's not a coincidence that my hero, Evo Morales, got owned while a more """authoritarian""" (AKA willing to play power politics with his elite) Maduro has been able to fight off getting couped.

I'm guessing we don't really disagree that much, just wanted to share some more thoughts while I'm shouting into the void.

Yeah Sartre is obviously smart, it's just funny I can't name anything he added to the conversation.

[Black Cat No.15808012]

>>15807282
>>15807282
I've actually never read Deleuze--I was trained analytic and have been slowly re-working my way from Kant. Outside of anglo-philosophy I really only know politics and existentialism.

I'll be sure to check that out in, oh, 15 years or so. What do you like about Deleuze or his reading of Leibniz?

[Anonymous No.15808026]

>>15807995
This post has me wondering: What were Wittgenstein's religious and political beliefs?

[Anonymous No.15808052]

>>15808012
I particularly like Deleuze's interpretations of Leibniz's monads and how he places Leibniz in a similar category as Hegel as a philosopher who overcomes representation through by making it infinite. He also argues that Leibniz laid down the groundworks for the Baroque movement. It's certainly not an easy read, but if you have some familiarity with Leibniz and you're interested in another interpretation it's worth reading. Deleuze's commentary on other philosophers are always pretty good.

[Anonymous No.15808076]

>>15795723
Avoid anything written after 1945 or by a woman. There is only so much time in the world and we're forced to endure jews and females bitching enough outside of leisure time. Everything written after 1945 is good for HR staff.

[Anonymous No.15808085]

>>15808076
reddit moment

[Anonymous No.15808099]

>>15808076
bruh

[Anonymous No.15808108]

>>15808076
i wish i didnt waste my life reading your comment

[Anonymous No.15808291]

>>15808076
most based+redpilled comment ive ever seen, where can I read more like it

[pm No.15808306]

>>15808291
/pol/
where you belong

[Black Cat No.15808309]

>>15808026
The most important think to understand about Wittgenstein is that he is deeply, deeply autistic. And beyond that, his background makes it impossible for him to be normal:

He was severely mentally ill, gay, born into a literally crumbling Habsburg Empire, born into literally the second richest family in that crumbling empire (after the literal Rothschilds), born into literally the most fucked up family of all time (three of his four brothers killed themselves, and I think a fourth sibling attempted at least once; their parents and siblings were all cruel batshit geniuses), and was the only Jewish kid in Hitler's elementary school class (though I think he was actually raised Christian, like Marx). So like I don't know what the fuck going from feudal Austria to Social Democratic England over the course of the World Wars and holocaust would do it a gay jewish guy, but luckily his autism is so powerful it overwhelms all of that.

From what I understand, Wittgenstein experienced wild swings in professed religious belief, but was generally an eclectic Christian with little explicit influence from Judiasm but without any strong attachment to any specific institution. He definitely, at least later in life, resisted attempts by the Logical Positivists and others to either dismiss or naturalize religion.

Wittgenstein was not especially political, but most of his major influences and collaborators were socialists (Russell, the Vienna Circle, etc.), typically tending towards the British Fabian Socialist variety. From the scattered references I remember, I think that everything he says is completely in line with that sort of conservative liberal socialism (lmao typing that out; can't think of a better description), but with some random eclectic genius thrown in.

Someone feel free to correct me. It's been a minute.

>>15808052
Dope. Will check that out. Thanks for the suggestion.

>>15808076
Cringe

[Anonymous No.15808391]

>>15808309
Mills did nothing wrong.

[Anonymous No.15808600]

>>15795723
Read Flashback by Dan Simmons if you want some good uncucked scifi

[Anonymous No.15808664]

>>15808600
What about some cucked sci-fi?

[Anonymous No.15808839]

>>15808664
Why would you want to read cucked shit? The reason a scifi (or fantasy) novel is engaging is because it describes stuff from the real world through metaphor. Anyone enjoying lefty scifi must have a base layer of brainwashing. If it wasnt so, the novel would be boring to them.
All most people do is deepening their delusions by reading popular shit. They live out a false reality and it needs more and more energy and censorship to protect this collective delusion. But reality always finds a way, sadly most people have wasted their lives and poisoned countless other until they begin to see.

[Anonymous No.15808859]

>>15799138
>I read Infinite Jest three times trying to find the existential meaning people said was there and just kept coming up short
Three reads and you could not figure it out? Perhaps you are being too dependant upon plot for your interpretation? Would explain while you felt burned by Pychon as well, post modernist like to use the plots/structures of the novel to reflect the ideas of the work instead of using it to carry the story. What would be your interpretation of IJ?

[Anonymous No.15808880]

>>15808309
good account of wittgenstein desu

[Anonymous No.15808906]

>>15808309
saved that pic

[Anonymous No.15808919]

>>15806803
>Min Kamp
no, calling it My Struggle would be bait. you're a dum bumb~!!

[Black Cat No.15809059]

>>15808859
I sort of exaggerated because I wanted to bait people into telling me their opinions, but I was 16 at the time (I know I know, this was a decade ago) and I *was* very intent on the plot. Rather, I thought the strong fact that there were solvable mysteries in the book (that Lyle was a ghost, that the uncle killed the dad while fucking his sister, that they caused an international incident which precipitates the war alluded to in that first scene where Hal is being interviewed) would mean that when I got the central mystery "solved," what happened to Hal, that I would understand the key to what I was reading. But there was no key, no answer which was certain; and that wasn't a profound experience, but a frustrating one. Okay, sure, this is a childish way to read a book, I agree--however, all these years later, I still think about the fact that Hal claimed to be an expert of Byzantine erotic mozaics and then there is a erotic byzantine mozaic in the attaché's house: this seems exactly the sort of coincidence that should mean something, but I genuinely think that was just put in there for the sort of superficial connection that would allow a college freshman to point that out and get a good boy point in an intro class. There were some interesting anecdotes and bits in there (I love the Eschaton game, for example), but I don't really think that the theme of buttholes (see his love of the word 'annular') and shit really amounted to anything more than a motif. Again, I love the idea of the Infinite Jest V (I think, I did read this extensively but it's been over a decade and I gave away my copy) but it felt like he got 60% of the way through that story then gave up and got 60% through another story. I just feel like if he was writing this 50 years before he would have had to cut out 40% of the story, added another 10%, and would have ended with a really compelling book about addiction, technology, and isolation. But the structure fundamentally does not add to that theme.

Similarly, while I like hearing about Pynchon and interpretations of him (I just got out of plugging Death is Just Around the Corner's ongoing series on him in another thread), I just hate wading through a near infinite number of ongoing jokes and allusions to notice the few which are relevant for the plot so I can follow the damn story. The sheer density of obscure words and proper nouns and unexplained changes in scenes has not added to my experience of any book I can think of, and seem to be crutches in many cases (not saying it is impossible to be done right, but like not every damn book can be Mulholland Drive).

I don't really know what I'm talking about here so sorry if I am too obviously a pseud.

[Anonymous No.15809246]

>>15809059
What happened to Hal is a solvable mystery. All of the odd little connections are the novel reflecting its message and reflect Infinite Jest VI, V is not the entertainment, it was another failure, Molly Notkin relates the premise of V in her interview Joelle gives VI in hers. Got to run, perhaps I will explain further if tje thread is still going when i get home.

[Anonymous No.15809251]

>>15809246
>if tje thread is still going when i get home.
I'll make sure that it will.

[Black Cat No.15809570]

>>15809246
Sorry I didn't explain well. I had a solution which I liked and was very strongly supported by the text (I don't remember if it was IJ VI or Pemulis' DMZ or what), but I remember it did not help illustrate the theme or unlock the book.

Again, I was very young when I read it, but I think my frustration came from making the plot opaque without that reinforcing the theme. It misled young me into thinking that was the point, and that by solving it I could understand the point. But I don't think there are strong parallels between the kind of miscommunication mediated by technology and the miscommunication mediated by the literary structure unless you really stretch.

Again, I would not be surprised if I am wrong on this. Please try to convince me I didn't waste all that time. I liked huge parts of the book (Pemulis is based), especially Hal's family, but I did not think the book benefited from the structure, and it felt like it made a false promise to me.

[Anonymous No.15809618]

[Anonymous No.15809641]

>>15809618
This.

[Anonymous No.15809643]

>>15809641
>YE HAVEN'T BEEN A PART OF THIS FAMILY FOR 10 FOOKING YEARS

[Anonymous No.15809846]

>>15804355
why?

I've read Austerlitz and loved it. Was planning to buy RIngs of Saturn.

Thanks.

[Anonymous No.15810124]

>>15794339
>>15795424
¿Les gusta Donoso?

[Anonymous No.15810178]

>>15810124
Never read him but I've heard good things about him, especially about The obscene bird

[Anonymous No.15810328]

>>15809246
>What happened to Hal is a solvable mystery
I would love to hear your take on this.

[Anonymous No.15810369]

>>15801549

/lit/ hating House of Leaves has been a meme for literally a decade

[Anonymous No.15810407]

>>15810369
>meme

[Anonymous No.15810419]

>>15806803
>Not calling it Min Kamp
Shut the fuck up Pseud. You can't even read properly since Hitler's bio is Mein Kampf not Min Kamp which is the title in Norwegian.

[Anonymous No.15810450]

>>15799138
>read IJ three times and didn't like it
Oh my fucking god dude if you read a book one time and you don't like it then don't read it again jesus fucking christ you're like the people who say "I hated this album but after listening to it fifty times I tricked myself into liking it" just use your judgement you don't have to read something you don't like again and again

fuck

[Anonymous No.15810508]

>>15801666
Dense pomo writing in the vein of DFW or Joshua Cohen, probably closer to Cohen in that respect. High energy and constantly forward moving even when it's rambling about boxing for instance. As with any dense pomo book you should only read a little at a time unless you want to get burned out but if you like Book of Numbers or DFW then you'll probably like him. Just go on amazon read the first few sample pages if you like it then you'll like the rest

[Anonymous No.15811069]

>>15809059
I like IJ, and find this reasonable. The actual plot, stuff like the war / end of the system is all easter egg and no deeper meaning. At the risk of sounding like a complete apologist, that's intentional. The book is fairly explicit about its theme and the structure is a way to provide that theme, in a story that humanises it, without becoming an example of the thing it criticises.

>Pynchon
Some of the reference bombing reaches the point of just being annoying, and the dude reportedly uses researchers, so I doubt there is any reader anywhere who can really get all the jokes on first reading - but I think the hard vocab choices are such a pleasure. It's like being a kid again and feeling the exotic appeal of the part-understood.

[Anonymous No.15811080]

Ok, I am back. I am learning towards starting a thread come weekend with a good thurough OP instead of letting this get burried in another thread that will probably not make it through the night and if does, will hit its limit fairly soon. I will see how this thread is doing after I cook and eat some food, and decide my path.

>>15809570
We as the readers get to see Hal's issues begin to manifest at the Escheton, long before he learns of IJ or could have taken the DMZ, had the DMZ even been procured yet? I think so but can not recall. We also learn in various palces throughout the novel that Hal's issues go back years.

>>15810328
Hal simply ceased talking all together. Himself was right all along but no one believed him because he had ceased speaking long ago.

[Anonymous No.15811105]

>>15809059
Infinite Jest to me was the best book I've ever read about addiction and what addiction is and how it affects people. The plot seemed secondary to me

[Anonymous No.15811443]

>oh boy, this looks like a good thread!
>ah wait, nevermind

[Anonymous No.15811504]

[Anonymous No.15811587]

>>15811080
I think I shall start a thread come weekend, I always just piggy back on low effort threads, time to start my own. Watch for it, Saturday afternoon or evening. May start a thread tomorrow to allow people too sound in on what topics they would like adressed

[Anonymous No.15811897]

>>15811105
As an addict myself I completely agree. The way Gately describes it in his dream (the smiley face man) really resonated with me. I've even considered dropping by my local AA just to see how it compares to the book.

[Anonymous No.15811917]

>>15811587
Please do anon. I've got no one irl to talk to about IJ and it's for sure one of my favorites.

[Anonymous No.15811936]

[Anonymous No.15812311]

>>15803987
>Alan Moore's Jerusalem?
Has anyone ever actually finished it?

[Anonymous No.15812789]

>>15804506
>read a bok
Is the PIC real?

[Anonymous No.15812981]

>>15811936
agree. these are magnificent

[Anonymous No.15813008]

Infinite Jest - Game of the Year edition.

[Anonymous No.15813044]

>>15811936
I am not a woman so I will never read these

[Anonymous No.15813064]

>>15812789
yes, but as you can see from the bookmark, I assume she was just looking at what her parent was reading

[Anonymous No.15813070]

>>15811936
Look at those covers, the absolute state of airport /lit/erature

[Anonymous No.15813177]

>>15809059
Sounds like you just got filtered by the wraith.

>Similarly, while I like hearing about Pynchon and interpretations of him (I just got out of plugging Death is Just Around the Corner's ongoing series on him in another thread), I just hate wading through a near infinite number of ongoing jokes and allusions to notice the few which are relevant for the plot so I can follow the damn story.
You haven’t read Pynchon. This is a caricature, at best, of his writing style, unless you started with V. like an idiot. Even then, it’s not exactly jokes he’s after. You niggers need to read High Renaissance tomes more.

>>15810508
Cohen is almost distinctly antipomo, and I don’t mean in the doubled-up-irony way DFW is supposedly antipomo, I mean JC is closer to his own distinctly Jewish American lineage (Roth, Malmud, and Bellows) than any other writer since, well, Roth. Book of Numbers is written in a purposefully autistic style you may conflate with heady pomo but really that’s a conviction derived from JCs study of Sanskrit and binary. It has nothing to do with pomo aesthetics. Witz is probably the Jewish Modernist epic par excellence and shows a clear discipleship of Joyce. The only pomo JC may have swallowed is Pynchon (on thematic rather than stylistic grounds) and some of the oulipo guys if they can even be classified as such.

[Anonymous No.15814066]

Legacy of totalitarianism in a tundra

[Anonymous No.15814128]

>>15812311
A few anons here have. Reply guys if you read this post

[Anonymous No.15814758]

>>15811936
I'm judging these books by their covers and they look like pulp romance trash for women. Not gonna read lol

[Anonymous No.15815272]

>>15801140

[Anonymous No.15815368]

>roberto bolano
Is that you, Chespirito?

[Anonymous No.15815524]

>>15815272
Lagrange is in the top 10 mathematicians of all time.

[Black Cat No.15815921]

>>15797648
>>15797969
>>15799138
>>15809059
>>15809246
>>15809251
>>15809570
>>15810328
>>15810450
>>15811069
>>15811080
>>15811105
>>15811587
>>15811897
>>15811917
>>15813008
>>15813177

I started a DFW/IJ thread over here >>15815826 if people want to come bully me there instead

[Anonymous No.15815963]

>>15815921
Based Black Cat.

[Anonymous No.15815969]

>>15793921

Savage Detectives is better

[Anonymous No.15816096]

>>15815524
>t

[Anonymous No.15816141]

>>15813070
>>15814758
dont wanna cliche on you, but that's a mistake.
anyway there's other editions, those editions were the ones I could find with all 4 together

[Anonymous No.15816182]

>>15793921

[Black Cat No.15816253]

>>15815963
>Based Black Cat.
>realizes that I have just kept letting the name keep autofilling this whole time without really thinking about it
>realizing no one else except Butterfly has a name on this board
>don't know whether to back out now or keep going
>dont want to be that annoying guy but kinda like having people understand which other posts I made in the thread

SartreNoExit.jpeg

[Anonymous No.15816413]

>>15816253
Don't be a tripfag you seem like a cool dude but you'd be corrupted by it. Look at how annoying butterfly is. You really want to be like her?

[Anonymous No.15816474]

>>15816413
>her

[Anonymous No.15816508]

>>15816474
I used to think she was a tranny as well but I'm pretty sure she's a dyke butterface with GIGANTIC tits. You see that picture?

[Anonymous No.15816589]

>>15816508
There's a picture?

[Black Cat No.15816625]

>>15816413
Is it possible to have a name w/o a tripcode and be okay or does it inevitably make you a clout chaser?

[Anonymous No.15816638]

>>15816625
I'll always see Sartre as a midwit with a wonky eye.

[Anonymous No.15816639]

>>15816625
The amount of people who misinterpret this quote is infuriating.

[Anonymous No.15816669]

the only 21st century novelists (the "masterpiece" is an academic mania) comparable to those of the previous century are
> bolaño
> sebald
period. a personal favourite is ransmayr. all the rest is organic garbage.

[Anonymous No.15816692]

>>15797630
>>15797617
>>15797682
>>15797826
>>15797963
>>15801482
>>15801508

When did /lit/ become tumblr? Good god, what the hell happened?

[Anonymous No.15816699]

>>15816692
2016

[Anonymous No.15816726]

>>15793921
>Religion: Atheist
Into the trash it goes.

[Anonymous No.15816750]

>>15816726
You need to be 18+ to post here.

[Anonymous No.15816758]

>>15797682
I enjoyed The god of small things but I somehow feel the book was not that good, it felt to me a little messy, as if it couldn't really focus on anything. I know that is kind of what the book was going for but I just don't feel it was well executed.
Anyways, pic realted is my favorite of Mario Bellatin's works I've read.
Other really good works of 21th century latinamerican lit are Levrero's la novela luminosa and Nadie me verá llorar (translated as No one will see me cry), which was published in 1999 so it misses the mark by a little bit but it's definitely one of the best mexican novels and that says a lot.

[Anonymous No.15816795]

>>15816750
18+ is probably the number of years of readings that I have above you.

[Anonymous No.15816880]

>>15816795
Whatever you say, Goldstein.

[Anonymous No.15816923]

>>15816880
Sure, Ahmed.

[Anonymous No.15817055]

>>15816669
What sebald and ransmayr books would you recommend

[Anonymous No.15817065]

>>15817055
Not him and I know it's been mentioned quite a few times in this thread, but you can't go wrong with Austerlitz.

[Anonymous No.15817302]

>>15817055
sebald: austerlitz > vertigo > rings of saturn
ransmayr: the last world (for first, not 21st century though, it's written in 1988, but i deem the beginning of the 21st c. in 1990).
i have to add that after bolano, sebald , alvaro mutis, which i forgot before, and for me also ransmayr, there is not an absolute void. there is a group of good writers, including tabucchi, cartarescu, vollman, cercas, magris, vargas llosa, eco. but no one of these is a classic, to me.

[Anonymous No.15817335]

>>15817302
Are Austerlitz and 2666 the only canonized novels of the 21st century, so far?

[Anonymous No.15817401]

>>15817335
Pretty much, there's also the novel that I'm writing, which is 4400 pages long so far, which I believe will be a turning point in XXI century literature.

[Anonymous No.15817415]

>>15817335
i think they are the only 2 with an absolute critical unanimity, especially bolaño. it's quite symptomatic btw, since both of them tend to ignore their and our own present age. thinking about it, it's very rare for a novelist writing something worthy about the time we are living in. try re-reading he novels mentioned in this thread, you will find a preheminence of historical or somewhat historical novels.

[Anonymous No.15817427]

>>15817335
Kafka on the Shore, Murakami

[Anonymous No.15817746]

>>15796625
Based. Reditrannies btfo

[Anonymous No.15817756]

>>15816639
This guy is such a cringelord, all of his comics seem to be written from ten meters up his own ass

[Anonymous No.15817975]

>>15817415
>i think they are the only 2 with an absolute critical unanimity
This is not true desu, there are many other novels written since the 2000s that have gotten "absolute critical unanimity", the difference between a novel like 2666 and those other novels is that 2666 also became a huge commercial success among Anglos and not just spanish speakers like it would normally happen with most Latin-American novels. Even then, english-language novels have been written since the 2000s have also gotten unanimous praise among people. An example of this is Luiselli's work. I have not read the work she has written in english and it does not interest me that much, but her work in Spanish is really good, and she has also gotten a lot of praise and attention in recent years.
> since both of them tend to ignore their and our own present age
How is this true? I might not be as familiar with Bolaño, but isn't his work completely related to the works of other Latin-American authors of his time and before? How does 2666 ignore its own present age? Precisely one of the critics normally made towards Anglos and their obsession with Bolaño is how they try to disconnect him from his context, ignoring all the ties he has with Latin-American lit. and culture.

[Anonymous No.15818579]

>>15796644
reddit is great what's your problem?

[Anonymous No.15819211]

>>15817427
HAHAHAAHA what bullshit...Murakami is like sugared Kafka for normies and plebs with no trace of originality or any thematic depth. Please don't bring him up again.

I agree with 2666 and Austerlitz so far. Here's my submission.

[Anonymous No.15819330]

>>15819211
>Murakami is like sugared Kafka for normies and plebs with no trace of originality or any thematic depth. Please don't bring him up again.
You know that coming here to post that without showing any arguments to sustain those claims won't convince anyone, right? Instead it makes you look petty.

[Anonymous No.15819386]

>>15819211
That's high praise. Just put The Moravian Night on my backlog.

[Anonymous No.15819519]

>>15817975
huh?

[Anonymous No.15819806]

>>15819330
I am not trying be petty, man. Murakami is good, sure, but he certainly is not the greatest of our generation. His prose is mediocre and his themes are quite unoriginal. I've read him in English though, so i could be wrong.

Sorry didn't mean to be rude earlier.

[Anonymous No.15819835]

>>15803987
>>15812311
I didn't finish it because his prose is bad. The concept is amazing, the content was vivid. He's a good writer for his native medium, but he doesn't have the depth of prose style to carry a novel, especially one of that size.

[Anonymous No.15819932]

>>15816669
What about David Mitchell?

[Anonymous No.15819962]

>>15819835
Interesting. Most people who claimed to have read it praised his prose greatly. Care to tell Why is it bad anon?

[Anonymous No.15820586]

>>15817401
Post some of it

[Anonymous No.15820918]

>>15817335
They're the only canonised novels to also make /lit/ lists, aside from Houellebeqc, but if your measure is universal critical acclaim, enough sales that it's not just a few book reviewers back-scratching and signs of an enduring readership then you can say:

> Ferrante's Neaoplitan books
> McEwan, Atonement
> Carey, True History of the Kelly Gang
> Robinson, Gilead/Home
> Saramago, Death with Interruptions

Honourable mentions for Murakami, David Mitchell, Krasznohungarian, Paul Beatty.

[Anonymous No.15821100]

Middle C by William H Gass

[Anonymous No.15821112]

>>15821100
that has to be the worst book cover idea... like ever

[Anonymous No.15821117]

>>15820918
>Ferrante's Neaoplitan books
not really
they're midwit hodge podge

[Anonymous No.15822091]

269 posts in this thread and not a single person has mentioned Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro...

[Anonymous No.15822152]

>>15822091
Japanese lit will never be amongst the greatest, their prose is too poor, a limitation of their language, I suppose.

[Anonymous No.15822172]

>>15822152
This.

[Anonymous No.15822211]

>>15820918
>David Mitchell
Really, my nigga? That one will be forgotten in 50 years top, after his death

[Anonymous No.15822433]

>>15822152
>Japanese lit

It's English lit you retard, just because the author is of Japanese descent doesn't mean anything

[Anonymous No.15822495]

>>15822433
>author is of Japanese
If he's japanese then it's japanese lit, you're like the retards who think Dark Souls is not a JRPG.

[Anonymous No.15822523]

>>15822495
The book was written in English from an author who has lived in England since the age of five. Try harder.

[Anonymous No.15822714]

>>15822523
Retard, will you try to argue that Nabokov is english lit as well?

[Anonymous No.15822739]

>>15822152
>>15822495
???

[Anonymous No.15822788]

>>15822714
Of course I will. Lolita and Pale Fire are English lit. Invitation to a Beheading is not.

[Anonymous No.15822857]

>>15822211
I have Mitchell as an honourable mention, because he has several extremely well reviewed books and sells far better than most well-reviewed people do. Not personally a big fan, but he's still young-ish and in a position to secure a lasting readership.

>>15821117
Most canon books are not highbrow experimental works, and any definition of the canon which tries to cut out the Flaubert's, Trollope's, Updike's etc is disconnected from reality. Ferrante is a straight-edge realist whose themes and whose style are completely representative of the current moment. She's already embedded in academic settings in a way that, say, Franzen isn't.

I don't see the word canon as a value judgement (some canonised books are bad, bad and important). It's just a fact of who is and isn't recommended to serious readers.

[Anonymous No.15822871]

>>15822739
What exactly does Wikipedia prove? Are you being serious?
>>15822788
It's russian literature.

[Anonymous No.15822906]

>>15822871
Never Let Me Go is a novel written in the English language by an author who has lived in England from the age of 5. The main characters are white English teenagers who attend a quintessentially English boarding school in England. It's not Japanese lit. Fuck off.

[Anonymous No.15822964]

>>15822906
Sure, whatever you say, keep deceiving yourself.

[Anonymous No.15823006]

>>15819211
Bought this in NY, will start it tonight thanks to you anon.

[Anonymous No.15823024]

>>15822433
To be fair, he's of japanese descent with japanese parent(s), it's a mix.
>>15822495
What a terrible analogy

[Anonymous No.15823027]

>>15823006
You're truly believing a guy who says Murakami is trash? Seriously?

[Anonymous No.15823032]

>>15822906
i love you anon. never change.

[Anonymous No.15823072]

>>15822906
Did you really just spoiled parts of the book for several people here who didn't read it yet just to make a point in this retarded discussion? Holy shit...

[Anonymous No.15823105]

>>15823027
The circle of people who genuinely enjoy Murakami and the circle of people with bad taste in lit. have a huge overlap. The same cannot be said of Handke.

[Anonymous No.15823124]

>>15823072
No I didn't, you retard.

[Anonymous No.15823133]

>>15823105
Handke, the guy who supports fascist governments in east europe? Oh, yeah right...

[Anonymous No.15823135]

>>15823133
What does that have to do with literary merit?

[Anonymous No.15823145]

>>15823133
/lit/ is a fascist board newfriend

[Anonymous No.15823147]

>>15823135
You're really trying to argue literature is apolitical? Really?

[Anonymous No.15823156]

>>15823145
/lit/ has always been center-left

[Anonymous No.15823169]

>>15823147
No, but the final domain in which to evaluate literature is, after all, aesthetically and not politically. Hence why Peter Handke won the Nobel, at the support of a multitude of European writers willing to back his merit on those grounds alone.

>>15823156
You should start a thread with this as the opener.

[Anonymous No.15823234]

>>15823169
>final domain in which to evaluate literature is, after all, aesthetically and not politically.
Wrong, it should be a mix of both aspects, it matters not if one can master an innovative and beautiful writing style while defending imbecile ideas such as fascism in this day and age.

[Anonymous No.15823277]

>>15795765
>Does that mean it's leftist propaganda?
Always, without exception. They're the only ones that try to trick people into reading their shit by appealing to some fantasy about open mindedness. An open mindedness which they no doubt fail to live up to.

[Anonymous No.15823478]

>>15793921
Re:Zero

[Anonymous No.15823694]

>>15823277
You need to be 18+ to post here.

[Anonymous No.15823719]

>>15823478
based midwit

[Anonymous No.15823754]

>>15823719
Re:Zero is highwit.

[Anonymous No.15823796]

>>15823754
see >>15823754

[Anonymous No.15823864]

>>15823796
It's ok to admit that you got filtered, anon.

[Anonymous No.15823886]

>>15823864
You are losing your based points fast, anon, you were supposed to move on and come back with another midwit-yet-top-tier-pocorn weebshit a month later.

[Anonymous No.15823892]

>>15823719
What's midwit?

[Anonymous No.15823990]

>>15823234
>defending imbecile ideas
His books aren’t about this though. How dumb of a nigger are you? Haruki Murareddit fags get the rope.

[Anonymous No.15824036]

>>15823990
Murakami is reddit repellent.

[Anonymous No.15824520]

>>15824036
Yup, he's so bad not even Reddit likes him, Murakami is more of a Resetera writer.

[Anonymous No.15824527]

>>15823990
>nigger
Ask me why am I not surprised that you're defending a fascist?

[Anonymous No.15824587]

>>15824527
There's a difference between saying nigger and nigger.

[Anonymous No.15824900]

>>15824036
>>15824527
Absolute state of summer. Nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger

[Anonymous No.15824938]

>>15824900
Nice try, reddit.

[Anonymous No.15825199]

>>15824900
I don't think you're in the right board, kid...