Disappointing classics

[Anonymous No.16087917]

Heart of Darkness wasn't bad by any means but I feel like it lacked something.

[Anonymous No.16087930]

HOT SPERM SHOOTING UP YOUR STOMACH FOR DAYS ON END

[Anonymous No.16087933]

A BIG BLACK COCK TO FIT IN YOUR MILF OF A MOTHER

[Anonymous No.16087937]

>>16087933
ew that’s gross

[Anonymous No.16087962]

>>16087917
It felt like a lot of buildup and foreshadowing without a meaningful conclusion. Kurtz seemed underdeveloped. It was like Conrad dropped a few pages on the way to the publisher.

[Anonymous No.16087967]

Anything by those hysterical English virgins - Jane Austen, the Brontes - was just novelizations of fucking Lifetime movies.

[Anonymous No.16087979]

>>16087917
Bro I couldn’t make out a word he was saying in the first page. He’s on a boat, it’s dark, he’s on the dock, he’s telling me some random, why do I care, I don’t, look at that I have a huge fucking erection where thebFUCK is my cumslut

[Anonymous No.16087983]

>>16087917
I liked it, though I admit that Kurtz did feel underdeveloped like >>16087962 said. But the chaotic quality adds on to the whole theme of darkness: uncertainty, ignorance, etc.

[Anonymous No.16088002]

>>16087917
It's pretty desolate, but it does have probably the most iconic "final words" of a character.
>"The horror, the horror!"
I thought it was pretty disappointing on my first read, but on my second read I found it to be much more satisfying.
Conrad's catalog is worth taking a dive into if you're interested.

>>16087967
You just admitted you probably haven't read any of those authors. Austen/Brontes and Conrad are incomparable.

[Anonymous No.16088062]

>>16087917
According to some experts, it needed more yams.
>>16087967
Guaranteed Austen and the Brontës were better writers than half of that Top 100 chart this place shits out every year.

[Anonymous No.16088157]

>>16088062
I don’t see how a man could read anything like Jane Eyre and not throw that inky diarrhea in the garbage where it belongs

[Anonymous No.16088176]

The Stranger. The man wasn't an example of anything of the absurd; he was an emotionally stunted autist who unquestionably murdered a man in cold blood and was rightfully found guilty

[Anonymous No.16088195]

>>16088176
>t. Missed the point entirely
Every time someone judges mersault like that they reveal how dumb they are

[Anonymous No.16088229]

>>16087967
>he got filtered by Austen

[Anonymous No.16088233]

>>16088195
Rather than just call me dumb, why don't you tell me why you think differently? Perhaps we could have an actual interesting discussion rather than just dismissing me as an imbecile because my opinion differs from yours

[Anonymous No.16088260]

>>16088195
He shot the Arab guy for no reason. That's murder, right? Mersault's girlfriend told him she loved him and he said he didn't love her without being able to comprehend how that would upset her. He didn't care that his mother died, he openly said that it didn't bother him, yet he had no reason to dislike her. That isn't normal. He was the emotionless monster that the prosecution made him out to be. He really did murder a man without reason or provocation.

[Anonymous No.16088283]

>>16088195
Every time somebody blindly supports the traditional view of classic literature against an alternate take with no support whatsoever, saying nothing but 'you're wrong' then insulting the other's intelligence, one can assume that such a person probably either didn't read or didn't understand the book to begin with and is merely parroting conventional opinion to hide this fact

[Anonymous No.16088286]

>>16088229
Of course I got filtered by Austen, I’m not an undersexed spinster who would actually enjoy her fairy tale gibberish

[Anonymous No.16088289]

>>16088233
>The man wasn't an example of anything of the absurd
For Camus the absurd is a phenomena that lies in the disconnect between our thought and reality. So if you go take a reread of the thoughts in the head of Mersault when he’s on the beach and the consequences thereafter you can see the absurd. If you see how casually he treats Marie and how she reacts you see the absurd. If you look at how he’s just somewhat neighborly with another tenant and ends up being executed you see the absurd. Additionally, Mersault is quite clearly a character that’s not autistic, look at his actions and thoughts of his mother. In French the book begins with Maman died today, which is like saying mommy died today, it’s a term of endearment children use toward their mothers.
>>16088260
Again, you’re also a retard. My entire point is that if you manage to read the book and draw the conclusions you’ve drawn, you’re an idiot. Mersault clearly shows emotion despite it not being spoon fed to you by purple prose. Perhaps you’d enjoy some Murakami instead, probably more your speed.

[Anonymous No.16088298]

>>16088283
If someone reads The Stranger and says
>the man wasn’t an example of anything of the absurd
They have no idea what they’re talking about.

[Anonymous No.16088362]

>>16088289
That isn't in the book. He flat out says 'I feel nothing for her', then tells her so. He flat-out says 'mother dying didn't bother me', then tells his lawyer the same and acts accordingly. On the beach he contemplates shooting the Arab then he does. Where's the disconnect?
The first line of the book I read is 'maman died today', by the way. That seems to me to be more proof of an underdeveloped mind than actual affection, especially given his declaration that did not care about her dying les s than a page later.

Can I ask, why are you on this site if you just call people retards for professing a different opinion to yours? Isn't the point that we have a discussion? Why is your first response to me an insult? What is the point?

[Anonymous No.16088367]

>>16088289
this last bit is almost verbatim from the introduction of my copy of the stranger lol

[Anonymous No.16088372]

>>16088367
sorry, first bit about maman I mean

[Anonymous No.16088386]

>>16088289
>>16088372
Yeah, I've just checked and most of this is from the introduction to the book. Who are you calling retard then? That's a bit weird, man

[Anonymous No.16088755]

>>16088362
>what characters say is always an accurate reflection of there internal states
Jesus Christ dude. It’s also not a different opinion, you can find Camus discussing the text of The Stranger and see how you’re wrong. The author was saying something, and you didn’t get it. I’m here to make fun of you.

[Anonymous No.16088773]

>>16088386
>>16088372
>>16088367
Then how did you not realize the implication of him having an affectionate relationship with his mother based on the way he refers to her? One of the recurrent themes in Camus is the relationship between a son and an aging mother, from his earliest essays to the manuscript he had on him when he died.

[Anonymous No.16088786]

>>16087967
unbridled plotfag detected

[Anonymous No.16088902]

>>16088755
It is what he says as an internal monologue. It is literally what he is thinking not what he is saying, not a disconnect between speech and feeling.
I'm not disputing what Camus intended, that's ridiculous. I'm saying that he was not successful in portraying a man who had any affection for his mother given that this man thought (thought, not said) 'I do not care about mother's death. I completely understand what Camus was trying to say. I completely 'got it'. Doesn't mean he was successful

[Anonymous No.16088914]

>>16088773
what the fuck? I'm not that other guy I'm just saying that you lifted what you said from the intro of the book so it was funny that you are calling him out for not understand when you can only define what you took from the book by masquerading another person's words as your own

[Anonymous No.16088998]

>>16088755
Wait, so you're saying that because Camus meant something it must come across perfectly in the text? So the possibility for an author to mean to portray something and fail to do so is nonexistent? That's fucking dumb. I ain't imagine anyone is arguing with you about what Xamus meant, everyone knows that without even reading it, it's one of the most famous books in the world. You surely acknowledge the possibility that although Camus obviously meant something he might not have successfully represented it?

[Anonymous No.16089099]

>>16088998
Except they didn’t fail to portray it, you failed to grasp it. Those are two totally different things.
>>16088914
Fun fact: that’s the way facts work.

[Anonymous No.16089120]

>>16089099
I agree with the fact my man, just thought it was funny you couldn't think for yourself

[Anonymous No.16089181]

>>16089099
I'm not the guy you're arguing with, I was just saying that you can't say as a fact 'this book portrayed x'. Authorial intent does not equal end result. If that other guy got what the author was going for but didn't think it came through then you pretty much can't argue the point. Nobody in existence doesn't know what Camus meant for fuck sake, anyone reading it knows exactly what it's about going in. If it didn't come through then the book just didn't work for everyone

[Anonymous No.16089206]

>>16089120
For sure man, glad that of all the things I pointed out of my own volition your sticking point is me discussing other people’s ideas.
>>16089181
>I was just saying that you can't say as a fact 'this book portrayed x'
Yes, you absolutely can. From their you can say whether or not you were able to grasp it. That’s fundamentally how representation works, there is no representation (prose, painting, poetry) that doesn’t act as mediated access to the represented. If it did, there wouldn’t be a representational medium, only pure experience.

[Anonymous No.16089207]

>he has expectations when experiencing something for the first time

Top jej m8

[Anonymous No.16089279]

>>16089206
That doesn't make sense. From that, I could write 80000 words of utter bullshit and claim they were about anything I wanted then just say that people failed to grasp it when it was dissected and found to be hollow. Just because an author tries to put something in a book it doesn't mean it is there. It is so weird that you think if you can't see what the author intended despite knowing what it was beforehand then you just didn't grasp the book. How can you not acknowledge the potential that some authors just don't get stuff right, or that maybe the translation of the stranger that the other guy read was just a shit translation?

[Anonymous No.16089309]

>>16089279
>From that, I could write 80000 words of utter bullshit and claim they were about anything I wanted then just say that people failed to grasp it when it was dissected and found to be hollow
Are you fucking retarded? Making gibberish then claiming it’s something else than that is a lie. Having a well crafted novel that acts as art is completely different. If you’re not being willfully obstinate at this point i unironically know you’re an absolute idiot.

[Anonymous No.16089313]

>>16087917
Yeah, I was like what the fuck, this isn't even about Vietnam.

[Anonymous No.16089316]

>>16089279
>this is your brain on post modernism

[Anonymous No.16089321]

>>16089206
Mate, that other guy took the highroad and made you look like a dick for calling him a retard but whilst calling him a retard you copied another guy's words and pretended they were yours. I agree with your take on the book, just thought it was funny that's all

[Anonymous No.16089328]

>>16089316
r/wooosh

[Anonymous No.16089334]

>>16089321
Would love for you to point out where I said that’s my idea.

[Anonymous No.16089353]

>>16089309
no no, I mean me attempting to craft a novel that utterly fails in its objectives then just saying people failed to grasp it, not just pulling bullshit out of thin air and claiming it to be something it isn't. That's what I'm claiming about the stranger: it failed in its objectives. You seem to be saying that a novel cannot fail in its objectives, just that the reader fails to understand what was meant or the didn't

[Anonymous No.16089365]

moby dick. i don't care about who draw the best whale painting. literally half the book is filler

[Anonymous No.16089369]

>>16089353
Sorry, ignore the last three words

[Anonymous No.16089377]

>>16089334
come on dude, you clearly did. It would have supported your argument if you provided a source and you didn't. You're quoting textbooks and the other 2 guys are actually thinking about the text. I'm embarrassed to agree with you

[Anonymous No.16089379]

>>16089353
>That's what I'm claiming about the stranger: it failed in its objectives

[Anonymous No.16089387]

>>16089379
>phoneposter
not worth my precious time

[Anonymous No.16089388]

>>16089377
Again, where?

[Anonymous No.16089424]

>>16089377
>>16089388
Look, I'm the guy that keeps getting called a retard, who thinks the stranger didn't really work. Can you fuck off mate? Who gives a fuck if he quoted the intro to the book or whatever, the point he was making still stands. We're trying to have an actual discussion, and amidst the random insults I'm enjoying it, so could you stop?

[Anonymous No.16089536]

>>16089379
Care to say why I'm wrong, or are you the guy I'm already discussing with?

[Anonymous No.16089597]

Mersault was deranged and emotionally isolated. Cold and callous, he never spiraled out of the oblique existence he continually summarized as dull and uneventful, taking a stance of disassociation and indifference. Is this morally, ethically, ontologically incorrect? I don't know and I don't care. The trial was a sham and they hadn't the appropriate capabilities, especially when made into a social case, to make the judgment, it, effectively, is not our place to demonize those who have ''checked out'', still, and still, again, the crime Mersault committed was abhorrent and blatant enough to merit the decision. A "mentally defective'' line of thinking draws no separation from absurd and realistically disconnected, they are one of the same - an ostensibly lunatical mind - the decision, though, predicated on a misinterpretation of character, was fitting and ethical... so it all evened out.

[Anonymous No.16089619]

>>16089597
That's what I've been trying to say. Thank you

[Anonymous No.16089621]

>>16089313
Based

[Anonymous No.16089646]

loved tale of two cities but this was ass

[Anonymous No.16089647]

>>16089597
>>16089619
So retard was right then? The book failed in its objectives if that is how Mersault came across. 100% agree

[Anonymous No.16089692]

>>16089646
I felt very similar. Things felt predictable. Oh, the cool jock turns out to be self focused? Oh, the teenage crush you had wasn't a great wife? Also, the theme of David's story seems to be rising above your station and improving yourself on very little.
Except this only applies to David. Everyone else dies in the same exact position they were in when you opened the book.

[Anonymous No.16089807]

>>16087917
I can understand why you say that. The whole novella feels as though it is building up to something—great or terrible, I can't say—and then it ends without filling in a lot of the details. The ending is so very strong that it feels almost complete, as though the reader missed a critical aspect of the narrative. Perhaps this is intentional—the reader is hearing fragments of a whispered and exotic tale told by a sailor at night, and it all took place so far from civilization that we don't get the luxury of the full story.

With that said, I'm still very fond of it. I frequently have fits of mania that are nearly impossible to verbalize, and everything about the character of Kurtz deeply resonated with how I feel in those episodes. His sort of desperate longing towards something that is greater than himself to such a degree that he can no longer explain it is one of the few times I've ever seen this idea in fiction. You never truly know what it was or could have been, other than a numinous feeling of greatness.

TL;DR I thought it was purposeful but I'm severely mentally ill, so you're probably right.

[Anonymous No.16089811]

>>16089597
>>16089619
>>16089647
In January 1955, Camus wrote: “In our society any man who does not weep at his mother’s funeral runs the risk of being sentenced to death. I only meant that the hero of my book is condemned because he does not play the game.”
So all of you that think something is wrong with Mersault prove Camus’ point that society condemns Mersault for not being like them. Your view of Mersault as anything other than Other means you’ve missed the point.

[Anonymous No.16089870]

>>16089811
My contention this entire time is that Mersault deserved to be found guilty because he murdered a man. The other anon said he was found guilty because he didn't fit into society. I think if that was the point of the novel then the novel failed because how society perceived him is not relevant give that he murdered a man in cold blood. Sure, the trial was ridiculous, but he was and should have been found guilty

[Anonymous No.16089971]

>>16089870
Sure, I get that, but the point is that he’s found guilty of murder for being himself. He deserved to be found guilty, but not for what happened in the court room. He was never on trial for murder, he was only arrested for it. Have you read the brothers karamzov? Camus was heavily influenced by the courtroom scenes toward the end of that book. in TBK an innocent man is found guilty of murder, while the evidence presented was evidence about his character. The man found guilty knew he was a bad man, but was innocent of murder. the stranger is an inversion where a man who isn’t good or bad, he just is, is found guilty for existing outside of societal norms, when he should have been found guilty for being a murderer the relationship of justice and freedom are topics that are omnipresent in Camus’ work, including his speeches, philosophy, and non fiction.

[Anonymous No.16089988]

>>16089870
>>16089971
To add on to my comment The Stranger is about criminal guilt, it presents itself as being about about criminal guilt while Mersault is condemned for being his self.

[Anonymous No.16089999]

>>16089988
*Isn’t about criminal guilt

[Anonymous No.16090019]

>>16087962
It's been at least 5 years since I read but I thought part of the point of Kurtz is that he was a false idol? Like it foreshadows what a warlord he is and then he just lays down and dies.

[Anonymous No.16090074]

Charles Dickens is a very boring author desu

[Anonymous No.16090091]

>>16089811
Yes, that is correct.

[Anonymous No.16090110]

>>16089999
>>16089988
>>16089811
Jesus Christ

[Anonymous No.16090320]

>>16089971
Right, I completely see what you mean now. I've been thinking about it entirely as ' he was guilty and he was found guilty, so what's the problem?' I see qhat you're saying, I hadn't considered it like that at all.

I have read Karamazov, I'd argue that did a better job of getting that idea across though.

I do think that whatvi said about authorial intent not coming through is still a valid point, however I hadn't thought about it in the way you just described at all so thanks a lot for that, that's really interesting. I might have to re read it

[Anonymous No.16090321]

>>16088176
My take on it was that he was just desperate nihilist trying to feel something. He didnt feel grief when mom died, didnt feel love for his gf etc. So he killed arab because life was meaningless to him and wanted to see what would happen if he were to take it. It also makes sense if you take in account Camus other work which adresses same problem

[Anonymous No.16090371]

>>16090321
I'd never thought of it like that either, that's really interesting. Thanks guys, think I'll definitely re read

[Anonymous No.16090412]

>>16090320
>I have read Karamazov, I'd argue that did a better job of getting that idea across though.
Oh for sure, but imo Dostoevsky is untouchable, and Camus was working from a different angle.
>I do think that whatvi said about authorial intent not coming through is still a valid point, however I hadn't thought about it in the way you just described at all so thanks a lot for that, that's really interesting. I might have to re read it
One of the issues I find with discussing authorial intent is cultural context that surrounded the given work. Without having a solid idea of Camus’ direct relation to WW2 at the time, as well as his relationship at the time with the Parisian existentialist scene you can’t really grasp much of what he’s saying unless you’re very good at reading between the lines. He also meant for this book to be read with an accompanying essay and play, which most people don’t even know. One of Camus’ friends, Merleau-Ponty discusses this problem in a letter to Sartre titled Indirect Language and the Voices of Silence. It would be like reading Nietzsche and not knowing about Christianity. And you’re welcome.

[Anonymous No.16090500]

>>16090412
Are you the guy I've been talking to this entire time? If so I'm sorry about the bell end giving you shit for quoting the book's introduction, I don't know what that was about, thats why I told him to fuck off. Really interesting talk, thanks a lot

[Anonymous No.16090850]

>filtered by Conrad
Stfu, that book is based. I aspire to be that clowny Russian twinkbro

[Anonymous No.16091217]

>>16088002
where do i resume with conrad after heart of darkness?

[Anonymous No.16091456]

>>16087967
amazing bait

[Anonymous No.16091934]

>>16090500
Yeah man no problem.

[Anonymous No.16092105]

moby dick, everything by dostoevsky, clockwork orange, blood meridian, the old man and the sea.

[Anonymous No.16092158]

>>16092105
Moby Dick good

[Anonymous No.16092167]

>>16092158
not for me

[Anonymous No.16092597]

>>16087917
Metamorphosis (Kafka) one of the few times I’ve been genuinely pissed off by an ending

[Anonymous No.16093651]

>>16089365
pleb

[Anonymous No.16093874]

>>16087917
it lacked being good

[Anonymous No.16094067]

I really did not care for East of Eden.

I read grapes of wrath and Cannery Row back in highschool and absolutely loved them. I still enjoy Cannery Row. But then I picked up EoE this year and I was so underwhelmed I had to put the book down. I kept waiting for it to get good and then there would be a good sentence or two and then I'd be back to being underwhelmed. The first portion of the book with Adam and his brother was really enjoyable but after that I just couldn't do it anymore.

I don't know if my taste has changed or what but to put it controversially it felt sophomoric. I feel like I need to reread grapes to see if I still love it as much.