57 more posts in this thread. [Missing image file: Brothers-Karamazov,-The---Fyodor-Do(...).jpg]
Is there a term for a weeaboo-like person, who, instead of loving Japanese culture, loves Russian culture? There ought to be.
I'm talking about the motherfuckers who read Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, who play Metro 2033 and Red Orchestra, and watch Stalker and Come and See. Hell, they may even own a Mosin-Nagant
There's gotta be enough of them out there for a label to exist
44 more posts in this thread. [Missing image file: sterne.jpg]
I have a distrust of the word "hobby". I'm British with a mild feeling of superiority over and contempt for America. I feel like "hobby" is one of those plebeian American words, like "proactive".
I'm not sure why I dislike it though, for reasons other than my bigotry.
Please don't back with, "hurr it's because you don't have hobbies and you are jelly of people who do." It's not the "hobbies" themselves that I dislike, it's the way the word hobby is used to try and reduce every passion you might have in life to some sort of impersonal "activity" that can be listed on a "personal profile" on your dating website page, or on your "resumé".
Any one else have similar feelings about this word?
Did Schopenhauer browse /r9k/?
8 more posts in this thread. [Missing image file: arthur-schopenhauer_CfETG.jpg]
Man reaches the maturity of his reasoning and mental faculties scarcely before he is eight-and-twenty; woman when she is eighteen; but hers is reason of very narrow limitations. This is why women remain children all their lives, for they always see only what is near at hand, cling to the present, take the appearance of a thing for reality, and prefer trifling matters to the most important. It is by virtue of man’s reasoning powers that he does not live in the present only, like the brute, but observes and ponders over the past and future; and from this spring discretion, care, and that anxiety which we so frequently notice in people. The advantages, as well as the disadvantages, that this entails, make woman, in consequence of her weaker reasoning powers, less of a partaker in them. Moreover, she is intellectually short-sighted, for although her intuitive understanding quickly perceives what is near to her, on the other hand her circle of vision is limited and does not embrace anything that is remote; hence everything that is absent or past, or in the future, affects women in a less degree than men. This is why they have greater inclination for extravagance, which sometimes borders on madness. Women in their hearts think that men are intended to earn money so that they may spend it, if possible during their husband’s lifetime, but at any rate after his death.
Is this acceptable or unacceptable?
2 more posts in this thread. [Missing image file: girlinlibrary.jpg]
Okay. Short story collections. Sometimes, collections from the same author re-use material. Maybe there's a collection with 70% new material, and 30% old material from a previous collection. Often, a collection is entirely new, except for stuff from magazines or whatever.
My question is this: is re-using material okay with you, to any extent? I personally think that there should never be repeaties. I mean, Asimov did quite a lot of reprints, and Borges is fucking terrible for it: maybe 50% of Ficciones and Labyrinths crossover.
Thoughts on this? I can't recall ever seeing a discussion about this on /lit/.