Carlyle thread.

[Anonymous No.16147874]

Carlyle thread.

[Anonymous No.16147896]

>>16147874
N

[Anonymous No.16147905]

I

[Anonymous No.16147907]

G

[Anonymous No.16147924]

>>16147874
Emerson >>> Carlyle

[Anonymous No.16147925]

>>16147874
Is it true that he was impotent?

[Anonymous No.16147946]

>>16147925
Probably, but we don't know. It seems like there was not success in the marriage bed in the honeymoon.

[Anonymous No.16147958]

>>16147924
Emerson >>> most everyone
Carlyle's supposed to be fun and kind of YA

[Anonymous No.16147962]

>>16147874
How is his punctuation so good?

[Anonymous No.16147970]

>>16147962

[Anonymous No.16147973]

>>16147962
>3
Why are you collecting pics of Carlyle on steps?

[Anonymous No.16147979]

>>16147973
I only have two.

[Anonymous No.16147991]

>>16147973
I have urges.

[Anonymous No.16147996]

>>16147958
>Carlyle
>YA
You have to go back.

[Anonymous No.16147997]

>>16147979
It says three
>>16147991
Fair enough

[Anonymous No.16148006]

>>16147996
Oh come on kids love the French Revolution first person. Learn to have historically inaccurate fun.

[Anonymous No.16148011]

>>16147997
>It says three
I found a larger image of the first.

[Anonymous No.16148015]

Who‘s that iCarly guy?

[Anonymous No.16148069]

>>16148006
Maybe so, but Carlyle is not a Historian because he wanted to record analytics or statistics. And that's really just a misunderstanding of what type of writer he is. His uniqueness as he stands as a writer does not detract from his greatness as a thinker. And most people miss the value of the encompassing belief of the work through the brilliant style.

[Anonymous No.16148084]

Everything I know about Islam is from heroes and hero worship

[Anonymous No.16148106]

>>16148069
>Maybe so, but Carlyle is not a Historian because he wanted to record analytics or statistics.
I didn't say he was. I said he was historically inaccurate fun that teenagers like.

[Anonymous No.16148109]

>>16148084
Based.

>Mahomet had been wont to retire yearly, during the month Ramadhan, into solitude and silence; as indeed was the Arab custom; a praiseworthy custom, which such a man, above all, would find natural and useful. Communing with his own heart, in the silence of the mountains; himself silent; open to the "small still voices:" it was a right natural custom! Mahomet was in his fortieth year, when having withdrawn to a cavern in Mount Hara, near Mecca, during this Ramadhan, to pass the month in prayer, and meditation on those great questions, he one day told his wife Kadijah, who with his household was with him or near him this year, That by the unspeakable special favor of Heaven he had now found it all out; was in doubt and darkness no longer, but saw it all. That all these Idols and Formulas were nothing, miserable bits of wood; that there was One God in and over all; and we must leave all Idols, and look to Him. That God is great; and that there is nothing else great! He is the Reality. Wooden Idols are not real; He is real. He made us at first, sustains us yet; we and all things are but the shadow of Him; a transitory garment veiling the Eternal Splendor. "Allah akbar, God is great;"—and then also "Islam," That we must submit to God. That our whole strength lies in resigned submission to Him, whatsoever He do to us. For this world, and for the other! The thing He sends to us, were it death and worse than death, shall be good, shall be best; we resign ourselves to God.—"If this be Islam," says Goethe, "do we not all live in Islam?" Yes, all of us that have any moral life; we all live so.
>In Luther's Table-Talk, a posthumous Book of anecdotes and sayings collected by his friends, the most interesting now of all the Books proceeding from him, we have many beautiful unconscious displays of the man, and what sort of nature he had. His behavior at the death-bed of his little Daughter, so still, so great and loving, is among the most affecting things. He is resigned that his little Magdalene should die, yet longs inexpressibly that she might live;—follows, in awe-struck thought, the flight of her little soul through those unknown realms. Awe-struck; most heartfelt, we can see; and sincere,—for after all dogmatic creeds and articles, he feels what nothing it is that we know, or can know: His little Magdalene shall be with God, as God wills; for Luther too that is all; Islam is all.

[Anonymous No.16148118]

>>16148106
My point is, he is extracting a meaning out of history, and it is not dependent on exactness.

Was Carlyle's popularity, in his day and our own, dependent on teenagers reading him?

[Anonymous No.16148126]

>>16148118
>Was Carlyle's popularity, in his day and our own, dependent on teenagers reading him?
Yeah to a large extent. The Carlyle Hotel for instance is named after the owner's teenage daughter's love of reading him for an obvious example.

[Anonymous No.16148149]

>>16148126
>Yeah to a large extent.
Anon this is ridiculous, he is famous because pretty much everyone read him in the 19th century and early 20th, for example no one influenced Dickens stylistically as much as Carlyle, Liszt built his entire artist philosophy on Carlyle's great men lectures and the history of Frederick the Great was heralded as a masterpiece almost instantaneously in Germany after translation. As just a few examples.

[Anonymous No.16148182]

I haven't read Carlyle but Weininger cites him quite a bit in SEX AND CHARACTER, mostly positively, save for the following:

>Even such a deep person as Carlyle has highly esteemed them ["men of action"], yes, in the end, set "the hero as king" too high among heroes.

[Anonymous No.16148184]

>>16148149
Anon, stop being so uptight. Carlyle is popular with teenagers precisely because of his style of history; it's the same style that makes inaccurate Naziism or communism popular with teens, though of a better quality than the sources those teens get now.
>Dickens
His popularity rests on newspaper readers who like sensationalism and who often still believed in witchcraft and ghosts. I'm sure you'll have some judgment on that, but it's a basic fact of his popularity. Liszt likewise is built on screaming fans who would act like girls under Beatlemania. You seem uncomfortable with these realities, and I expect it's because you see yourself as dignified beyond those teenaged spasms, but you are not the major source of those writers or composers historic popularity.
It's okay that Carlyle is fun and appeals to a young audience who don't care for accuracy and are caught up in teenage feels. It could be much worse, because some authors in that market permanent stunt their audience, while Carlyle can at least be used as a stepping stone if you don't get bogged down in him being the be all and end all like a teen psychofan.

[Anonymous No.16148481]

>>16148109
Yes the chapter was very beautiful at times

[Anonymous No.16148572]

>>16148109
ESL here
>That our whole strength lies in resigned submission to Him, whatsoever He do to us.
Why is it "He DO to us" and not "He DOES to us" or some conditional form?

[Anonymous No.16148679]

>>16148182
Weininger seemed to place too little value on leaders throughout history, as if only the thinkers and poets were great men.

[Anonymous No.16148763]

>>16148184
>Carlyle is popular with teenagers precisely because of his style of history; it's the same style that makes inaccurate Naziism or communism popular with teens, though of a better quality than the sources those teens get now.
No, again, you've just completely misunderstood Carlyle because "muh it's just excitement". You think Borges was just an excitable teenage girl you oaf?

>one of England's most believed authors
>"His popularity rests on newspaper readers"
You've shown yourself to be a pseud by claiming Carlyle's fame rests on teenagers already, where that's just a ridiculous and stubborn statement. Practically every great thinker past Carlyle has acknowledged his greatness as a thinker in turn, even those who rejected his ideas such as Tolstoy. And the fact that you have called Dickens a sensationalist says it all, I don't think you've even read him.

>Liszt likewise is built on screaming fans who would act like girls under Beatlemania.
Anon, you're a moron. Since when did you get above ecstacy? Passion or a manifest of any strength to you? No, and if you understand anything about music, you would know that Liszt's fame stands as a Romantic genius who developed specifically piano and other such instruments to its furthest limits.


Take Nietzsche for an example, who has often been compared to Carlyle, he is an ecstatic and poetic writer with many similarity's in ideas to Carlyle, but no one would deny he has an ontologically positive philosophy which came from a genius and was not merely "excitement' though many teenagers read Nietzsche for his edginess and excitement.

Tell me what is it in Carlyle that is above you, what thought or style in it is "too pubescent" for you?

[Anonymous No.16148770]

>>16148572
Because I gather Carlyle is trying to bring it to the now, to reality for the individual, and he also just has a very unique prose.

[Anonymous No.16148930]

>>16148763
>No, again, you've just completely misunderstood Carlyle because "muh it's just excitement". You think Borges was just an excitable teenage girl you oaf?
I don't know where you're getting this from. Borges relation to history and the paradox of the author would apply, but Borges is not driven by an audience of teenagers, no. You seem upset that Carlyle attracted teenagers with excitement over accuracy, but that doesn't mean that Borges was doing the same thing. Dickens was a closer comparison.
>>16148763
>>one of England's most believed authors
>>"His popularity rests on newspaper readers"
>You've shown yourself to be a pseud by claiming Carlyle's fame rests on teenagers already, where that's just a ridiculous and stubborn statement
Dickens is incontestably based in the newspaper trade and its popularity. You seem to have a very strict prejudice about what makes a good author whereby they cannot be popular with people you feel are beneath you. This is a very flawed kind of snobbery because Dickens was not ashamed of his work, and his popularity could only be as broad as it was by picking up the same broad audience which would also make penny dreadfuls and other serialised stories a major part of Victorian literature. You seem to be really offended that he wrote on witchcraft trials for the newspapers, that he wrote serials designed to engage readers in the lower classes, that his audience by and preferred cheap sensationalism over dry and expensive nonserials. You are trying to defend Dickens from being what he was, a highly popular author of the lower classes, rather than seeing that as what makes him one of the trendsetters of an era with immense competition for any audience.
You seem to think that by liking these authors you have elevated yourself, and that history is wrong for saying fans of Liszt engaged in a phenomenon known as Lisztomania which prefigures Beatlemania.

I get that you want to be seen as not a teen and very serious, but Carlyle does not want to be seen as serious half the time, and his main audience due to his emotional grasp are teens. That isn't me saying he's a bad thing, but your need for him not to be buoyed by teen readers is not something which the history of his audience supports. It's inaccurate to say he is buoyed by passions beyond those of teenagers; Nietzsche is largely buoyed by those who don't read him, not those who experience ecstasy in his prose, so there at least Carlyle has the advantage because teenagers actually do read him with less difficulty and actually do derive their fedoras from his writing rather than simply the mainstream image as happens with Nietzsche now.

I don't see why you are so against teenagers having books which work on their emotional state to the expense of accuracy, apart from that you think any author with a teenaged audience must be somehow "bad" or beneath you. From your emotionality and denial of basic historic facts, I'd say Carlyle is rather apt for you.

[Anonymous No.16149010]

>>16148930
It's his first big boy author anon. You'd get the same kind of hysterical shrieking from half of /lit/ if you pointed out to them Gibbon's Decline and Fall was seen a schoolboy's book by the Edwardians, or pointed out its many biases. They don't have the range to know any better.

[Anonymous No.16149059]

>>16149010
Is this a Waugh joke?

[Anonymous No.16149078]

>>16148572
just wanna let you know that I've spent several minutes trying to figure this out and I don't know. but "whatsoever He do to us" feels grammatically correct

[Anonymous No.16149098]

>>16149059
>Waugh
Heh, no, he's probably not doing as badly as Peter. You should keep in mind how someone from the audience you outlined would react to being told they are part of that audience. Are you really going to get anything of benefit to anyone out of that reaction? If you're just doing it for the lulz, then by all means carry on writing essay post after essay post if you want. However, if you're doing it to discuss Carlyle, you should probably aim your comments at someone you could get something worthwhile from in return.

[Anonymous No.16149116]

>>16148572
Subjunctive/conditional.

It doesn't get used very often, and sounds a bit archaic. A more clear/modern phrasing might be 'whatsoever he may do to us'.

[Anonymous No.16149127]

>>16148930
No, Borges loved Carlyle and greatly admired him. He references him constantly.

Furthermore it's not that Carlyle "valued excitement over accuracy", again you seem to think the aim of an historian like Carlyle was recording scientific facts, wherein he is rather putting truth over history as it were. By no means as bad as Herodotus, but I'm sure you'd just call Herodotus the father of history a "sensationalist" too because he's not actually a recorder of strict events.

>Dickens is incontestably based in the newspaper trade and its popularity. You seem to have a very strict prejudice about what makes a good author whereby they cannot be popular with people you feel are beneath you. This is a very flawed kind of snobbery
No you fool, I am not against that, however you are saying that because for example a teenager reads Carlyle, or peasant reads Dickens, that automatically that "lowered" their work to as you put it "excitement over history" for Carlyle like a cheep sensationalist, and the similar for Dickens. Wherein I am saying both are beloved by teenagers and peasants(less so Carlyle because he is barely known today except among literary minded people) AS WELL as great thinkers and writers, or generally educated people--; That is where their fame has lasted from. There is no fame held as highly such as theirs, just because it was good entertainment in the day. Look at how much entertainment, cheap, is only known for its own day and forgotten the next.

You are putting words in my mouth, and you have a rather silly opinion.

[Anonymous No.16149138]

>>16148930
>apart from that you think any author with a teenaged audience must be somehow "bad" or beneath you.
Yes retard, that's why I don't read YA because I'm not a teenager. I also don't value the Hungry Hungry Caterpillar on the same level as Don Quixote because it's written on the level of children.

[Anonymous No.16149145]

>>16149010
What a pseud, you've obviously never read Carlyle.

[Anonymous No.16149193]

>>16149127
>No, Borges loved Carlyle and greatly admired him. He references him constantly
Borges however has a theory about how authors write their own influences and history, a paradox which precludes external authorship.
>Furthermore it's not that Carlyle "valued excitement over accuracy", again you seem to think the aim of an historian like Carlyle was recording scientific facts, wherein he is rather putting truth over history as it were. By no means as bad as Herodotus, but I'm sure you'd just call Herodotus the father of history a "sensationalist" too because he's not actually a recorder of strict events.
Herodotus doesn't make stuff up for emotional effect. Carlyle does. Herodotus was a collector of stories, but he faithfully relays those stories regardless of their implausibility. Carlyle on the other hand makes stuff up for dramatic effect and emotional engagement. He did value excitement over accuracy and he is much closer to historical fiction than Herodotus in method.
>>16149127
>example a teenager reads Carlyle, or peasant reads Dickens, that automatically that "lowered" their work to as you put it "excitement over history" for Carlyle like a cheep sensationalist, and the similar for Dickens
I did not say it lowered their work. I said you seem to have a problem with Dickens writing for newspapers and sensationalism because you objected to that. Like you objected to the idea that Carlyle writes historically inaccurate fun for teens. Those are two points you claimed were outrageous on my behalf and made me a pseud when they are basic fact. My only explanation for your outright denial of basic fact is that you feel lowered by an accurate representation of Dickens or Carlyle's popularity. I don't think Carlyle is lowered by being historically inaccurate fun YA. I think that's precisely where he's at. I think you want to elevate him and Dickens above what their position is because you are horrified by the thought of *you* being associated with such things. That's why you're willing to misrepresent that which you associate yourself with, because you can't cope with Carlyle having teen fans. I've already said repeatedly it's not bad YA, that it's good to have YA that gets teens emotions. You are the one trying to take Carlyle and dismiss his audience, and the only reason, as I have repeated speculated, that I can see for doing that is that you personally are scared of being associated with his audience.

[Anonymous No.16149204]

>>16149145
Heh, try the other guy. He'll write you an essay.

[Anonymous No.16149212]

>>16149138
>YA can only be read by teenagers
Stop being the same kind of idiot as the guy who thinks Carlyle can't be YA because he's too mature. Don Quixote is a mockery of YA of the era, so you're going to need to read a lot more YA to get half the jokes in it anyways.

[Anonymous No.16149254]

>>16149193
>Borges however has a theory about how authors write their own influences and history, a paradox which precludes external authorship.
That doesn't change my point however.

>Herodotus doesn't make stuff up for emotional effect.
What a lie, however lets say we ignore intent, we are still treated to these same books. Or do you think I could just publish any book and it would be instantly claimed a masterpiece if I had the intent for it? And again, it shows what an immature mind you have that Carlyle was for no other reason merely "making things up for excitement", the reason I am so surprised by it is because it would be like calling, as I said before, Nietzsche a bit of a useless philosopher who just likes exciting emotions and an aesthetic. Wherein you chose to ignore most of my post.

What Carlyle is saying in the French Revolution is not merely an "exciting portrayal of history" where he has to make up things a bit here or there for that, that is ridiculous! You're practically lying at this point. And it is the same fools like you that reject Carlyle because he is not a "neutral historian", where he brings thought into history. You are not worth talking to anymore where you are reducing Carlyle to a writer of "excitement". It's above all disingenuous, you haven't read Carlyle, and you said in the first post "supposed to be entertaining and ya" which shows to me that you have not read him.

>I did not say it lowered their work.
Yes you did, you are saying that Carlyle is ya, lowered to the level of a teenager, which is not bad, but is an insult when talking about Carlyle or any real thinker. Can you imagine if I said of Nietzsche that it is ya? Or to put it more obvious when you feign misunderstanding, if he were considered children's literature of exciting story's about a mysterious figure that meets various interesting characters.

>basic fact
They are, as you have said them and you do not recount yourself, the entire opposite of fact. Nothing could be further from standardly accepted truth. But I do not expect you to deal with any of the arguments here, and merely refer back to the same mistaken jargon.

[Anonymous No.16149261]

>>16149212
>Don Quixote is a mockery of YA
I don't understand how someone could be so wrong.

[Anonymous No.16149288]

>>16149193
Furthermore, young adult is something like Karl May. I don't know how you could see Carlyle as ya.

[Anonymous No.16149327]

>>16149254
>That doesn't change my point however.
It does, unless you think your opinion on Borges is greater than Borges'.
>What a lie, however lets say we ignore intent, we are still treated to these same books.
The only times that Herodotus has been accused of making stuff up for emotional effect, the entire community of historians have had to eat their collective hats when modern archaeology and medicine determined Herodotus to be accurate. Saying Herodotus made stuff up for emotional effect when time and time again we've had him trump thousands of years of denial just makes you look foolish. Anyone who knows about the lost army or the skull pits is probably yikesing for you right now.
>Or do you think I could just publish any book and it would be instantly claimed a masterpiece if I had the intent for it?
No, I have no faith in that whatsoever. However, Carlyle's historical inaccuracies for emotional effect, and the audiences of both Dickens and Carlyle's work are both well known and seemingly only disputed by you.
>What Carlyle is saying in the French Revolution is not merely an "exciting portrayal of history" where he has to make up things a bit here or there for that, that is ridiculous! You're practically lying at this point
I'm not lying. Anyone who's read Carlyle without teenage blinkers on know Carlyle made up the knitting for emotional effect. They know the many inaccuracies of the story, and why he chose the first person perspective. Carlyle is never praised for accuracy, and you want to deny what was truly revolutionary about him which is the emotional engagement of a first person perspective that allows things like historical accuracy to be secondary to the reader's investment in the story. >>16149254
>It's above all disingenuous, you haven't read Carlyle
Then how do I know about the knitting? I've seen no evidence you've read him or could spot historical inaccuracies in his work. A post or two ago you thought that you could contest Dickens being reliant on newspapers, so you'll probably not understand why I have no faith that you have read either with any comprehension.
>you said in the first post "supposed to be entertaining and ya" which shows to me that you have not read him.
Even if you want to deny the YA bit, he wrote obvious satires, so the idea he's not entertaining would probably be a bigger gut punch to him than any of your other fancies. It's a bit like saying Voltaire is not comic. You see why I have doubts you read him?
>you are saying that Carlyle is ya, lowered to the level of a teenager, which is not bad, but is an insult when talking about Carlyle or any real thinker.
No it isn't. Are we supposed to not read anything during adolescence and emerge fully formed with no stepping stones? I explicitly said that he could be beneficial so long as you don't take him as the be all and end all, because he can, but taking him as being definite is something you should grow out of since he's wildly inaccurate and emotional.

[Anonymous No.16149338]

>>16148770
Lol pseud doesn’t know about the subjunctive

[Anonymous No.16149343]

>>16149327
You could easily clear all this up by posting a source or two, you know.

[Anonymous No.16149347]

>>16149261
It's mockery full of love and appreciation for the genre though.
>>16149116
Thanks.

[Anonymous No.16149358]

>>16149254
>They are, as you have said them and you do not recount yourself, the entire opposite of fact. Nothing could be further from standardly accepted truth
I think trying to claim that Dickens wasn't driven by the lower class paper trade and that Lisztomania doesn't have parallels in the screaming teens of Beatlemania are definitely further from the standardly accepted set of facts.
>>16149261
It is. It's a satire of the knightly tales of the era which were geared towards adolescent male fantasy. It's like saying the Rape of the Lock isn't a satire of a similar phenomenon in later centuries.
>>16149288
I don't know who Karl May is, but YA includes authors like Goethe, Tolkien and CS Lewis, and that is never seen as an attack upon them like anon is taking Carlyle being placed alongside them.

[Anonymous No.16149370]

>>16149343
...Borges and Carlyle are the main sources in that. The bit on Dickens anyone can check up with google, an encyclopedia, a copy of Dickens with an intro, and so on. As they can with regards to Herodotus and the lost army since that made the news.

[Anonymous No.16149383]

>>16149370
You concluded that Carlyle's popularity was driven by teenagers by reading Carlyle himself?

[Anonymous No.16149405]

This thread makes me sad. Please stop.

[Anonymous No.16149428]

>>16149327
>It does, unless you think your opinion on Borges is greater than Borges'.
No, it does not, because Borges appreciation of Carlyle's literary merit is sincere.

>blahblah
Your ignored my point, that it is IRRESPECTIVE of the intent. We have a book by Carlyle, and we have a book by Herodotus, by your own admission they land in the same places for what we are talking about, intention does not change the fact of this matter.

>the audiences of both Dickens and Carlyle's work are both well known
I never disputed it, stop putting words in my mouth.

>Carlyle made up the knitting for emotional effect
When did I deny that? Again, you're functionally retarded. I never disagreed with this, but what I did say which YOU BELIEVED, is that Carlyle is not just writing an "exciting story" you fucking midwit bugman. Anyone who cannot see the complexity in such a work as the french revolution is truly a teenager.

>post or two ago you thought that you could contest Dickens being reliant on newspapers
Again, I never said this, I contested in fact your statement that they are "ya" writers. One could easily see Dickens as a children's writer, but again only a bugman moron could think he is only for children.

I never said he wasn't entertaining either, you CONTINUE to put words in my mouth. Because you have no argument.

>are we supposed to not read anything during adolescence
When did I deny teenage literature? See you keep putting words in my mouth, frankly you're a disgusting person for this alone that you cannot simply argue. I also never said he was the be all, but as an historian, he is of the finest class. A type of historian which lukewarm neoliberal bugmen such as yourself do not understand, again, you seem to think Carlyle is trying to "record" history in a purely statistical way. He is not only an accurate historian, but THE most accurate historian. I do not expect you to understand what I mean by this, or why he has been the favourite of so many great thinkers in his time and past.


I am not going to continue to argue any more, after your argument entirely depends on putting words in my mouth. Carlyle's use of first-person(for example) is genius, yet I can see how a shallow mind could only see the action as an irreconcillable difference to normal practice of history as a subject, which is really just the complaint that it is not "neutral"--; Yet that is your fault and not his.

Goodbye.

[Anonymous No.16149439]

>>16149358
And what of Goethe would you call "ya"?

[Anonymous No.16149448]

>>16149405
There have been 4 Carlyle threads in the past two weeks and all of them have been derailed by an argument.

I don't know why Carlyle attracts these people.

[Anonymous No.16149480]

>>16147874
Never knew he practiced ventriloquism. Was he any good?

[Anonymous No.16149486]

>>16149448
What kind of person do you think reads obscure reactionary thinkers from the middle of the 19th century that are recommended by Curtis Yarvin?

[Anonymous No.16149503]

>>16149486
I mean he isn't that obscure, he was very famous prior to WW2.

[Anonymous No.16149577]

>>16149503
Yeah, prior to WWII, when it was common to be openly reactionary.

[Anonymous No.16149582]

>>16149383
Oh sorry, I thought you were referring to the post you responded to. There are plenty of references for it, but Richard Graham's Masters of Victorian Literature from the 1890s speaks about how people blame him for being overly influential on the youth, and I've already talked about how one of the most famous edifices named after him was at the behest of a teenage girl. Commentary from his era onwards obviously places his influence on the young. So, again, you can research it independently of my say-so.
>>16149439
Young Werther did not start a trend for yellow trousers among the middle aged, anon. And many of his stories are aimed at an even younger audience than Carlyle's, like The Sorcerer's Apprentice which most kids know from a Disney adaptation.
>>16149428
>>It does, unless you think your opinion on Borges is greater than Borges'.
>No, it does not, because Borges appreciation of Carlyle's literary merit is sincere.
I am not saying Borges is insincere, I am however saying that your categorisation of how he viewed his influences (not limited to Carlyle) is not how you would pose it. He's famous for his paradox of how author's influences cease to be independent and the theory that authors write their own pre-history (i.e. their influences) so giving credit to Carlyle would violate one of Borges most obviously stated theories of influence.>>16149428
>We have a book by Carlyle, and we have a book by Herodotus, by your own admission they land in the same places for what we are talking about, intention does not change the fact of this matter.
No I never made such an admission. I pointedly said that Carlyle was much more historical fiction and that Herodotus employs an entirely different method, and with different ends. Heodotus is not writing divine inspiration as Carlyle claimed for himself. I do not know why you think I said the opposite, but I did not say Carlyle and Herodotus are coming from the same intention, method or even genre. I said they were NOT.
>>16149428
>>the audiences of both Dickens and Carlyle's work are both well known
>I never disputed it, stop putting words in my mouth
I think you'll find our entire back and forth has included a dispute on both of these, because otherwise you never intended to dispute that Carlyle is historically inaccurate YA. You also tried to take issue with Dickens being fuelled in popularity by the press and lower classes and any anon can check your posts to see that we did indeed dispute that over several posts.

[Anonymous No.16149606]

>>16149582
>carlyle is read by young people
>makes him young adult
>I've said this entire time that his intention was not for the youth, the works themselves are masterpieces which though appreciated by the youth, will never be so much as an adult and are not limited to the scope of youth most obviously
This is what you do not understand, and you have continually put words in my mouth, ignored what I have said that shows you are wrong, and stated things(often re-stated) which I have already answered.

Carlyle's influence on many is undoubted, as well as the serious consideration of his ideas. And by your account Socrates would be at the level of ya because he too, after all, was so popular among the youth. You do not understand that being for the youth, does not mean being for the youth alone.

Again, goodbye.

[Anonymous No.16149616]

>>16149577
Is that reactionary, or just conservative?

[Anonymous No.16149622]

>>16149428
>>Carlyle made up the knitting for emotional effect
>When did I deny that? Again, you're functionally retarded
You tried to tell me that Herodotus and Carlyle are the same, and this is an example of Carlyle doing something that Herodotus would not. Since you are claiming that I think they are the same, you cannot then ignore every case where I say they are diametrically opposed, such as the obvious case of Carlyle making shit up for emotional effect while Herodotus does no such thing. Those are Carlyle and Herodotus taking very very different paths.
>>16149428
>Again, I never said this, I contested in fact your statement that they are "ya" writers.
I never claimed Dickens was a YA writer. I claimed his popularity rests on newspaper circulation amongst lower classes who still believed in witchcraft and ghosts, but not that he was YA. Dickens is not at all a children's writer, because I don't think anyone reasonable would expose children to an unexpunged version of his works. The amount you have to take out to adapt even his tamer works for children means you might as well rewrite some characters as frogs and rats.
>>16149428
>When did I deny teenage literature? See you keep putting words in my mouth,
You just did above. And this whole dispute has been about if Carlyle is YA. Which he is.
>>16149428
>I am not going to continue to argue any more, after your argument entirely depends on putting words in my mouth
Any anon can check if I did this, or if you did this, by intelligently reading the thread. They can also check any claims against outside sources if they like reading.
>>16149448
I know, we could be having a much more fun thread but the anon I'm arguing with seems intent on focusing on the more bitter side of Carlyle. Carlyle is great fun in himself, but you really shouldn't take him as seriously as anon does. He's meant to be humourous and irreverent and all the things that makes good YA engaging, but anon seems intent on seeing him as srsbsns.

[Anonymous No.16149652]

Since those anons have stopped arguing, can we go back to comfy Carlyle thread?

[Anonymous No.16149657]

>>16149606
>Again, goodbye.
Kek
I think his intention was for the youth, even before he gets renown. He chose to translate works with immense youth appeal, he wrote comedy for those who are still being bored by their teachers' seriousness, and he infused history with a YA feel that was probably intended to garner interest from teens more than anyone established (as anyone established tended to point out he was making shit up to the point some claimed he was destroying young brains).
>And by your account Socrates would be at the level of ya because he too
Where are you getting that from? If I were to say any such thing I would immediately preface it by a far more astonishing claim that I'd read anything by Socrates. I have however read Plato, Xenophon, and Aristophanes. Which one(s) are you claiming to be written to inspire the youth?

[Anonymous No.16149697]

>>16149652
I'm sure if you rearrange the arguments in the thread, it's actually about what shoes to wear with yellow trousers.

[Anonymous No.16149712]

>>16149697
No it's about trousers for yellow shoes.

[Anonymous No.16149726]

>>16149712
I think that's an error from some of the pieces of the second bag being mixed in with the first. You remember the first draft where it seemed that they were claiming both feet go in the left leg of the trousers due to the oversupply of right footed shoes? Once we got that back in order it turned out they were merely arguing it was a man's right to dress to the left if he so chose.

[Anonymous No.16149740]

>>16149726
Well, that is just self evident. One would get cold otherwise, young grasshopper.

[Anonymous No.16149754]

>>16149740
>>16149726
This might give some readers pause, as the implication seems to be dressing to the right will result in some loss of heat retention, shoes or no shoes.

[Anonymous No.16149764]

>>16149754
I think the safest rendering is that we do not know where the basis of the human would go, but it is imperative that he is wearing clothes.

[Anonymous No.16149771]

>>16149764
Why not call this "a philosophy of clothes"?

[Anonymous No.16149774]

>>16149771
The editor wouldn't credit it.

[Anonymous No.16149786]

>>16149774
Ahh, I bet it would be an Anglo too. I've got an idea, how bout we call the work "Clothes: Their Origin and Influence"

[Anonymous No.16149789]

>>16149771
>that pic
Two left shoes, I'm telling you guys.

[Anonymous No.16149796]

>>16149789
Absurd. He'd walk like a duck.

[Anonymous No.16149806]

>He thinks Dr. Teufelsdröckh is a literary creation

[Anonymous No.16149834]

>>16149806
it's a translation error. The English tailor and tale teller are far too close.

[Anonymous No.16149841]

>>16149834
Damn Anglo's.

[Anonymous No.16150168]

>>16148572
archaic grammar
do unto thee

[Anonymous No.16150404]

>stealth moldbug thread

[Anonymous No.16150421]

>>16147874
I got his History of the French Revolution a couple days ago. Is it any good?

[Anonymous No.16150427]

>>16150404
>internet celeb
That explains the anon who keeps bugging out in these threads. Especially why he bugged out when the other anon said teenagers like Carlyle.

[Anonymous No.16150433]

>>16150421
>good?
It borders on swashbuckling.

[Anonymous No.16150488]

>>16150433
Every one of his histories are kino, especially Cromwell

[Anonymous No.16150511]

>>16150427
He didn't say teenagers like Carlyle. He said Carlyle was YA for teens, that his histories catered to the teenage sentiment. He was implying that Carlyle is not an adult author, which is patently absurd.

[Anonymous No.16150865]

>>16150511
I'm sure adults read him too, like adults read Tolkien. But his histories are definitely for the young. >>16150488 and >>16150433 are on the money, because they're supposed to be enjoyable, the same way that Horrible Histories are fun so kids don't drop them. It's not patently absurd, because if they're not designed for teens then the only way to explain their looseness with fact and style of writing is if they're designed for adult idiots. They're meant to be a kind of propaganda, and I mean that in the best sense. But if an adult told me they knew a lot about history because they read Carlyle, I'd openly laugh in their face. Anon claiming they're YA for teens I don't think went that far, but if you want patently absurd, it's an adult who can't or won't fact check. As intros for the young, they're great, but as reliable adult history, lol no not a fucking hope.

[Anonymous No.16151416]

>>16150865
cringe

[Anonymous No.16151450]

>>16150865
This is a very recent perspective on Carlyle, his contemporaries didn't view him this way

[Anonymous No.16151471]

>>16150865
>NOOO WHY ARE YOU WRITING FROM THE HEART
>YOU MUST WRITE IN A DRY ACADEMIC STYLE OTHERWISE YOURE YA
Literal bugperson

[Anonymous No.16151505]

>>16151450
Carlyle’s book on the French Revolution (I don’t know about his other books) is still considered reliable today. I think that anon just has some sort of grievance against Carlyle for some reason.

[Anonymous No.16151570]

>>16151450
Anon in the long back and forth gave a contemporary account with >>16149582 so I don't know how you're supporting your claim but I can see his. There are plenty of other contemporaries or near contemporaries who point out the lack of historical accuracy, so it's not a modern development to laugh at his history making. Most of the contemporary support like Lord Acton is because it is politically convenient, not because of any claim to accuracy. I assume you're thinking of a contemporary who thinks it's accurate but I can't name one, so give a ref.
>>16151505
>Carlyle’s book on the French Revolution (I don’t know about his other books) is still considered reliable today
Lol, no it's not. Carlyle's famous for starting loads of myths about the French Revolution because he's telling a story, and readers take it as fact. If you go in knowing it's more about the story than the facts, it's great fun. Like >>16150433 said it's good for those who like a bit of swashbuckling. But if you try to find pretty much any quote from it or a lot of the more vivid imagery from it supported by any source, it's a fucking sieve. You can't even find dubious sources for a lot of it. Still great fun though.
>>16151471
You can write from the heart, you just can't call it history.

[Anonymous No.16151604]

>>16151570
https://www.jstor.org/stable/27532548?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
There is really nothing about these reviews indicating it is not 'serious' or 'adult' history, they just found it very unique. They talk about its being like a poem but also its insight and genius.

[Anonymous No.16151629]

>>16151604
>s indicating it is not 'serious' or 'adult' history,
They're literally saying his originality comes from "university of Bedlam" and has no "justness of thought" and "pseudophilosophy" and "whimsical coxcombry" with "questionable qualities" and I'm not even a third through.

[Anonymous No.16151634]

>>16151629

[Anonymous No.16151644]

>>16151604
It now says "to treat it seriously is impractical" and I'm only on page four of fifteen. Did you even read this?

[Anonymous No.16151658]

>>16151634
There's no source on the positive reviews in this, it consists of a list of publications which chose to give it no press. Seriously, if you're not underage, learn how to fact check or risk being an absolute laughing stock.

[Anonymous No.16151669]

>>16151658
The text is full of quotations praising it, do you think they invented them?

[Anonymous No.16151675]

>>16151604
>There is really nothing about these reviews indicating it is not 'serious' or 'adult' history
>>16151644
>It now says "to treat it seriously is impractical" and I'm only on page four of fifteen. Did you even read this?
kek pottery

[Anonymous No.16151682]

>>16151669
It's praising a different author's French history, and the author of the review thinks that praise more fitting to Carlyle [the Scotchman] however, none of the praise is about any form of accuracy. Are you underage?

[Anonymous No.16151695]

>>16151682

[Anonymous No.16151723]

>>16151695
Yes that does make positive comments on the style but much like the comment on Pope's translation "It is a pretty poem, Mr. Pope, but you must not call it Homer." to say you should take it as a poem more than history is not a commendation of accuracy. I'm pretending you're ten years old and unable to understand the difference, which is why I'm not laughing loudly in your face. An adult would know how this doesn't support your point and how it would bottom out a fact check.

[Anonymous No.16151728]

>>16151723
It also praises its insight

[Anonymous No.16151738]

>>16151728
That is not historical accuracy, and to actually be placed in the minds of the people in question, he would have found it much easier to quote them correctly. Maybe you're nine years old.

[Anonymous No.16151744]

>>16151738
You have been confused by people saying that he wrote in a flamboyant style, they're not saying it's inaccurate.

[Anonymous No.16151762]

>>16151744
The other source you first provided claimed wild inaccuracies, and the only positive one you've provided literally says it's not history so much as poetry. So yes, they are saying it's inaccurate. Even if you're eight, I'm going to have to laugh my ass off at you right now.

[Anonymous No.16151764]

>>16151762
They say it is as much poetry as history, that it's insightful and profound in multiple ways. They don't say it's bad as history, some were just critical of the style of writing.

[Anonymous No.16151778]

>>16151764
You didn't read your first source which repeated bashes not just the style but the accuracy. There hasn't been one that says it's a serious work of history, and the best you can do is find defenses of the style, a style which I'd already commended as fun and swashbuckling. You're literally so retarded I've been laughing at you for three minutes straight. Learn to do basic fact checking because you're self sniping.

[Anonymous No.16151782]

>>16151778
*repeatedly

[Anonymous No.16151785]

>>16151778
I posted a page commending its insight

[Anonymous No.16151796]

>>16151785
It commends the ability to place one in its character's shoes, which is the closest to "insight" in the text. As I pointed out: if he had actual insight he wouldn't fuck the the quotes. He gives the false impression of insight which leads naive readers to assume because they feel immersion that he's not making shit up. However, he makes shit up all the time that never ever fucking happened, which is why your first source repeatedly bashes its accuracy.

[Anonymous No.16151801]

>>16151796
here is someone praising its accuracy
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/07/history-as-wisdom-thomas-carlyle-vs-the-perfectibilarians/
> Rosenberg praises Carlyle’s extraordinary historical accuracy and documentation in The French Revolution, but sees something else at work in Carlyle at his best — a comprehensive, just vision of things, which Carlyle tragically lost in the later years of his long life.

[Anonymous No.16151842]

>>16151801
Are you under the impression that the author from 2019 was a contemporary? Reading this review is kind of hilarious, since Kolakowski and Hobsbawm could probably only have a more biased and politicised description if you called them the Catholic and the Jew. I'm still laughing at your inability to fact check because of this obviously, along with your inability to follow your own argument re: contemporaries. Are you trying to prove Carlyle makes you dumb? Because this shit is making me laugh so hard I'm starting to suspect it's the false flag of someone who secretly hates Carlyle.

[Anonymous No.16151849]

>>16151842
There is no reason to be upset that some people disagree with you about Carlyle being accurate, during his time and now.

[Anonymous No.16151871]

>>16151849
You've yet to provide a contemporary who thinks he's accurate though you did provide pages upon pages of contemporaries calling him madly inaccurate and impossible to take seriously, for some strange reason. Your source for the modern support of his accuracy is so obviously politically biased that it's fucking hilarious to me how poor your fact check and bias detecting skills are. I'm not upset, I think you're the funniest retard I've seen all month. If you have gifs of you trying to tie shoelaces, I'd love a further laugh.

[Anonymous No.16151887]

>>16151871
They thought he had strange style of writing, not that he was inaccurate. There are multiple quotes calling him a genius with profound insight.

[Anonymous No.16151905]

>>16151887
>he still hasn't read his own source that blows his argument out of the water
You know I'm not even the only one laughing at that because >>16151675 stopped by to kek too. Pity you seem to have as much trouble finding an accurate quote as Carlyle did, because you keep saying words that aren't in the text you're citing like "insight". You're a genuine absurdity, it's fucking side splitting that you continue to dig.

[Anonymous No.16151913]

>>16151905
I posted a picture showing reviewers praising his insight

[Anonymous No.16151921]

>>16151913
>what is a quote and how is it any different to an inference or paraphrase
bahahahahahahahshshsha holy fuck

[Anonymous No.16151926]

>>16151921
I thought you would be able to understand the meaning of the quote

[Anonymous No.16151932]

>>16151913
>>16151921
I mean holy shit this is a lit board and you don't know that kekekekekekekekek one laugh wasn't long enough

[Anonymous No.16151940]

>>16151926
>no really you can just make up quotes that's totally legit
kekekekekekekekeke

[Anonymous No.16151944]

>>16151940
I described a quote

[Anonymous No.16151950]

>>16151944
No you inferred a paraphrase. Very different thing. Very very funny though

[Anonymous No.16151952]

>>16151950
That's the same thing

[Anonymous No.16151955]

>>16151952
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHSHAHSHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH oh shit, I think I just laughed myself back to Dryden's tenure as poet laureate

[Anonymous No.16151966]

>>16151955
you could just admit you were wrong about Carlyle being seen as a 'writer for teenagers'

[Anonymous No.16151980]

>>16151966
You provided evidence he was considered even less than that and didn't bother to read it before citing it. My sides are currently in orbit around alpha centauri you're so fucking dumb and bad at fact checking. You should think about defending people you don't like because holy fuck

[Anonymous No.16151992]

>>16151980
>The French Revolution cannot be said to have been met either with much adverse criticism or with neglect. On the contrary, it was rated very high, it was extolled as a book of extraordinary power and of high poetic merit, by several of the leading critical journals of the day.
It's fairly straightforward

[Anonymous No.16152008]

>>16151992
>>The French Revolution cannot be said to have been met either with much adverse criticism or with neglect
>>16151604
>>16151629
>>16151644
Do you have memory problems this bad retard? Lol even goldfish can remember tricks for six months and you're forgetting shit from the past hour hahahahahahahahsha

[Anonymous No.16152019]

>>16152008
>with much
It listed a couple examples of mild criticism and then showed very positive reviews. That sentence is basically the conclusion

[Anonymous No.16152046]

>>16152019
>>with much
>It listed a couple examples of mild criticism and then showed very positive reviews
Lololololol you do realise your source here >>16151634 complains outright about neglect, and how long it took you to find a positive review (still zero from contemporaries) of its accuracy while you provided a much longer review citing many inaccuracies and lack of seriousness, so you'll understand why I'm laughing at your inability to understand the word "much". Well. No you won't understand because you're the retard who provided support against his own argument as your first source because you don't read. But still, bahahahahahahaha man I think the best part about your retardation is that you think you can recover from that. That's some mindbogglingly risible shit

[Anonymous No.16152055]

>>16152046
The sentence there is an overview of the contemporary reviews

[Anonymous No.16152082]

>>16152055
And overview which mostly consists of listing publications which utterly neglected it, which kind of disproves that it didn't get "much neglect" especially as the author thinks it was neglected in favour of other histories with equivalent style. You might want to find something which doesn't mainly consist of incidences of neglect if you want the opening to hold to your point. Though knowing you, you'll probably find something which lists even more places which chose never to review it. Kind of looking forward to that.

[Anonymous No.16152091]

>>16152082
pages 7-12ish are mostly positive, i posted one of them

[Anonymous No.16152100]

>>16152091
>I posted the pages that don't support my point
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHSHAHSHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH fucking comedy gold is what you are m8

[Anonymous No.16152108]

>>16152100
they do support it. I think you were confused because the conclusion paragraph mentioned several publications that didn't review it in addition to noting the overall trend of praise.

[Anonymous No.16152122]

Some one keep this thread alive so I can see what the retard says next, I've got some shit to do
>>16152108
>No I posted a page that was all about the publications that never reviewed it because posting the pages that provide any support to my point is still beyond me
Kekekekekekekekekekekekekek

[Anonymous No.16152135]

>>16152122
Again, that paragraph starts out by saying 'overall it was praised', then it says in addition that several notable outlets didn't review it. These are separate ideas which you have put together by accident.

[Anonymous No.16152773]

>atheist Calvinist edgelord

into the trash he goes!

[Anonymous No.16154414]

>>16150865
You're literally the definition of a bugman, as I said earlier, you don't feel energised? Or ecstatic? No truth in this man I say! Being "Swashbuckling" is literally just a moderns connection of how he writes with pirates, you're literally a midwit that needs "muh neutral historic opinion" instead of religiously certain statements, and you make that childish connection(completely missing all of his genius style and ideas) of "swashbuckling".

[Anonymous No.16154425]

>>16151570
>There are plenty of other contemporaries or near contemporaries who point out the lack of historical accuracy
Yes, and almost every person of his time cited him. He is a philosopher as much an historian, it is this you cannot understand.

[Anonymous No.16154465]

Only lukewarm neoliberal modern's dislike Carlyle, and they try to hide the reason for it as much as they like because of how beloved he is, but the reason is always because of their modern politics. Too right wing, too traditional, to conservative, too radical, too religious, and too earnest about all of this too! So they hide it their seething contempt for his genius, the wish that there was no genius, behind a "he is not neutral, he is not history!".


Where as I said earlier:

CARLYLE IS NOT ONLY A FACTUAL HISTORIAN, IS THE MOST FACTUAL HISTORIAN.

Petty men of the shows of things will not understand.

[Anonymous No.16154725]

bump.

[Anonymous No.16155128]

This thread is hella gay.

[Anonymous No.16155366]

>>16154465
I dislike Carlyle not because he's too right-wing, it's just shitty right-wing. He's a less retarded Burke.

[Anonymous No.16155377]

>>16155366
>calling Carlyle dumb
>calling Burke dumb
Please, go back, you've shown yourself to be a redditor and you are not welcome in this fine thread.

[Anonymous No.16155379]

>>16147958
>>16147874
Just posting to admit that Carlyle's Past and Present was the first book I ever stopped reading because it was too difficult. The book still haunts my bookshelf, where it's sat for over twelve years now.

[Anonymous No.16155394]

>>16155379
Explain what ideas you found difficult anon.

[Anonymous No.16155415]

>>16155394
Did even get to the "recognizing the concepts" phase. Just couldn't make sense of how the sentences related to each other in any broader sense. If I read it today, I'd probably be able to answer your question.

[Anonymous No.16155459]

>>16155415
Lmao, haven't even read it myself but sounds like a fun read. When you say the sentences are difficult to understand together do you mean particularly in Carlyle's own style? As in it's his typical style just much more so unique.

[Anonymous No.16155500]

>>16155459
No, I think I just wasn't treating it like the coherent political work it was. I didn't follow the analogies ro references at all; didn't understand what he was trying to say at any instance; I would finish a paragraph and not be able to tell you anything that it covered; I skimmed it and tried to finish the homework on it and I'm sure my professor knew I hadn't read it. Then I went online and looked up a summary and found out there's some priests in a monastery or something and I realized even more starkly that I was a freshman brainlet.

But I have the book in my hand now and I think I might take another run at it after I finish the Houellebecq novel I'm reading.

[Anonymous No.16155517]

>>16155500
Could you read a select paragraph and tell me what you think now? Also what were you studying?

[Anonymous No.16155599]

>>16154465
Dryasdust BTFO

[Anonymous No.16155703]

>>16155377
Read de Maistre instead.

[Anonymous No.16156076]

>>16155703
I do read de Maistre, de Maistre, Burke and Carlyle create a superpowered understanding of the French revolution and modernity up until the 19th century.

[Anonymous No.16156107]

Beginning to think anons are right about the repeated fights and false flags being a Carlyle hater. Imagine reading Carlyle without a sense of humor, and purely for history.

[Anonymous No.16156155]

>>16155517
It was a 100-level English course.

Here's a paragraph selected at random. Let's see how I do:
pg. 81 [stuff in brackets are my own footnotes for this post]
>Accordingly our Prior assembles us in Chapter; and, we adjuring him before God to do justly, nominates, not by our selection, yet with our assent, Twelve Monks, moderately satisfactory. Of whom are Hugo Third-Prior, Brother Dennis(1) a venerable man, Walter the Medicus, Samson Subsacrista, of the red nose, too is one. These shall proceed straightway to Waltham; elect the Abbot as they may and can.(2) Monks are sworn to obedience must not speak too loud, under penalty of foot-gyves, limbo, and bread and water: yet monks too would know what it is they are obeying. The St. Edmundsbury Community has no hustings, ballot-box, indeed no open voting: yet by various vague manipulations, pulse-feelings, we struggled to ascertain what its virtual aim is, and succeed better or worse.(3)

(1) who knew Dennis was even a name back then?
(2) the monks are electing the abbot from amongst themselves?
(3) Jesus, did they hold the election or not?

[Anonymous No.16156170]

>>16156107
Are you actually retarded? He never said he read Carlyle purely for history, just that Carlyle isn't just a writer for teenagers entertainment you brainlet. This is the least of all things he is, and having a sense of humour does not equal literature written for teens.

How thick is your skull?

[Anonymous No.16156190]

>>16156155
Yep I've no clue exactly the point of what Carlyle's trying to say here, I have a few guesses such as this being part of the comparison of his modernity to medieval monks, the description here presenting them to be noble, but I think I'd have to read it in the context of the work to understand what he's saying about an election.

I don't blame you anon.

[Anonymous No.16156263]

>>16156190
>I don't blame you anon

I appreciate that...but until I read and comprehend this book, it will haunt me. My compliments to whomever amongst us successfully read, understood, and appreciated Past and Present.

[Anonymous No.16156279]

>>16156263
I'll definitely dive into it soon after this experience, let your compliments or hauntings come to me as they deserve!

I will talk to you again, farewell anon.

[Anonymous No.16156310]

>>16156170
You realize you're the worst kind of promotion? People are getting turned off by you being a total sperg who can't understand his own arguments. They're going to expect Carlyle to attract people like you.

[Anonymous No.16156342]

>>16156155
1) Saint Denis is a patron saint of Paris. He was a bishop who, according to legend, gave a sermon after his head was cut off
2) they have a panel of twelve monks to elect the leader
3) it's not so much an election as a group feel of those twelve

[Anonymous No.16156345]

>>16156342
Points 2 and 3 acknowledged, but Dennis was spelled with two Ns...Dennis, not "de-nee"

[Anonymous No.16156351]

>>16156345
The monks are English not French. They also don't pronounce Henry like Henri or Charles like the French.

[Anonymous No.16157039]

>>16156310
So retard tell me did he not say that Carlyle is ya? And did the anon not reply(they're not my arguments as I said) that this was a ridiculous assertion equivalent of calling Nietzsche for teens? But people like you having read nothing of Carlyle like to follow the cattle and especially when that cattle is making a statement which would allow you to be making a statement on something which you can now consider beneath you.

What you are is an idiot, "promotion", the anon was calling Carlyle ya and if you had not such a penis-lust for him you would see both of them equally responded in the same manor. It's like a joke, the thread would have been filled with gullible morons like you to an even larger extent if he had not pointed out Carlyle is NOT someone written for petty entertainment, for teenagers. You disgust, you're visibly an utter degenerate your entire persona how you have taken such a side, with no knowledge yourself, and have the gall to accuse me, one of the few defenders of Carlyle in the thread, a "bad promoter" of him? It is lukewarm autistic losers such as yourself that first characterised him as a "sensationalist". The anon along with myself have said nothing but this, and if you had but any eyes to see perhaps you would notice the hundreds of times the anon put words in that other anons mouth, ignored his statements and said the most absurd things, such as Carlyle being YA but Dickens not. He was arguing for selfishness, while I am arguing for truth.

[Anonymous No.16158694]

>>16157039
>acting this much like a teenage retard fan
Are you this self unaware? You sound like someone dissed your fav kpop idol. You are proving his point by spazzing out like a teenager. Most people who read Carlyle are not fucking spazzes like you, but you are making it seem like they are by doing this in every fucking thread about him.
Do you think Nietzsche fans who are not teenagers spazz out like this when people say he got some minor point wrong, or that he's liked by teenagers? No. They acknowledge the point and then move the fuck on. The ones that don't are invariably teenagers and generally have not read shit by Nietzsche. Your sperg attitude is making it seem like Carlyle fans are as immature as you, just like the teenage Nietzsche spazzes do. That is bad promotion if you don't want Carlyle to be known as "the author some sperg teen loves but doesn't understand and so fucks up every thread about him". People have repeatedly hoped you would fuck off so there could be a comfy Carlyle thread, but you're still spazzing out like a kpop tween who thinks someone didn't show BTS enough respect.