[  3  /  a  /  adv  /  an  /  c  /  cgl  /  ck  /  cm  /  co  /  diy  /  fa  /  fit  /  g  /  i  /  ic  /  jp  /  k  /  lit  /  m  /  mlp  /  mu  /  n  /  o  /  p  /  po  /  q  /  sci  /  sp  /  tg  /  toy  /  trv  /  tv  /  v  /  vg  /  vp  /  w  /  wg  /  wsg  /  x  ]

/lit/ Literature

Warning: All the content of this page originally come from 4chan.org. This is only a partial archive made to avoid destruction. Some posts and images may be missing. All the messages below have been posted by anonymous users and we do not guarantee any truth of what they said.
For any illegal content, please contact me so that I can immediatly destroy it!

Anonymous 2015-05-21 02:28:45 No.6568459

[Missing image file: ]

Here's a question, if Rand had the prose and human insight of a Woolf or a Joyce or a Pynchon would you still write her off for her philosophy?


>>
Anonymous 2015-05-21 02:31:47 No.6568480
>>6568459
style is substance so i would change my views of her philosophy

>>
Anonymous 2015-05-21 02:32:33 No.6568484
>>6568459
No, because the human insight is the flaw of her philosophy.

>>
Anonymous 2015-05-21 02:39:49 No.6568521
If she had the human insight of Woolf or Joyce her philosophy would probably be a lot more thought out and nuanced.

>>
Anonymous 2015-05-21 02:40:48 No.6568527
>>6568521
But for the sake of discussion, say it's not.

Really what I'm trying to determine here is how much people hate her for being a bad writer and how much for being a bad thinker.

>>
Anonymous 2015-05-21 02:51:44 No.6568591
>>6568527
That is not how this works.

>>
Anonymous 2015-05-21 03:01:30 No.6568651
>>6568459

Her novels could never be like the novels of Woolf or Joyce because of her philosophy. She lacks the fundamental human insight that her own way of thinking isn't transparently rational to everybody else, as it is to her, that every objection to it is somehow an irrationality, some selfishness or resentment. Woolf and Joyce, not just because of their texture, but their substance, are beautiful: their streams of consciousness all flow into the great river of shared humanity. If Rand was a great stylist, we would read her for a very vivid portrait of very narrow minds. Her novels would always still smack of some hollowness, though, because the style, even on the sentence level, is based on a straw-version of psychology.

>>
Anonymous 2015-05-21 03:04:12 No.6568669
>>6568484
Underrated post

>>
Anonymous 2015-05-21 03:08:55 No.6568690
>>6568459
human insight and prose are her strongest suite, it s everything else that's the problem. some of her descriptions of human interaction and scenery are absolutely brilliant.

>>
Anonymuos 2015-05-21 03:14:55 No.6568720
>>6568459
Yes.

>>
Anonymous 2015-05-21 03:15:00 No.6568721
>>6568459
>prose
Who is Celine
>human insight
As anons said.

>>
Anonymous 2015-05-21 03:19:00 No.6568740
>>6568690
>human insight and prose are her strongest suite,

Surely you're joking

>>
Anonymous 2015-05-21 04:32:37 No.6568950
>>6568527
For the sake of discussion, say is very good but also very bad. is she good or bad

>>
Anonymous 2015-05-21 04:35:34 No.6568958
>>6568950
bad

>>
Anonymous 2015-05-21 04:38:28 No.6568969
>>6568958
agreed. anyway what's bad about her is her desire to shoehorn her politics into every single character, scene and plotline. she doesn't even have to change prose or insight (neither great nor embarassing) to become a decent writer, she just has to change her overall approach to storytelling.

>>
Anonymous 2015-05-21 04:41:42 No.6568984
no duh

>>
Anonymous 2015-05-21 04:46:24 No.6569006
>>6568969
And it's not just her approach to storytelling or propaganda, but her stance. She is so rigidly defiant and self-righteous. For example, her "Romantic Manifesto," in the introduction she (I'm paraphrasing) says," art today is terrible and if art becomes better, it is because I wrote this book"

>>
Anonymous 2015-05-21 05:37:38 No.6569144
>>6568527
Both. Definitely both. DEFINITELY both.

>>
Anonymous 2015-05-21 05:41:18 No.6569155
>>6568459
If she had any of those things her philosophy would be radically different so who knows. It is what is now because she had no insight.

>>
Anonymous 2015-05-21 05:46:27 No.6569175
>>6568459
>>6568459
Yes, because her philosophy is so flawed anyway. She fucking hates Kant but then misunderstands him so much that the 'Kant' she rails against is misconstrued, so that in the end she makes a Kantian argument without even knowing it because she's too much of a hack.

>>
Anonymous 2015-05-21 05:48:26 No.6569180
>>6568721
Did you say Celine? Louis-Ferdinand?

>>
Anonymous 2015-05-21 05:48:34 No.6569181
She's far-right, no?

Is that the reason why most pwople on /lit/ don't like her, or is her writinf really that shitty?

>>
Anonymous 2015-05-21 05:51:47 No.6569191
>>6569181
She's not far right, she's a liberal capitalist. They don't really fit in to left/right.

>>
Anonymous 2015-05-21 05:56:17 No.6569207
>>6569191
Wait, l thought she was a libertarian. Aren't they right-wing?

Man, the American political spectrum is really confusing to us third-worlders.

>>
Anonymous 2015-05-21 05:57:26 No.6569211
>>6569207
No, I guess Americans call her libertarian, but that means something else outside of America. Liberals aren't really right wing, maybe right leaning at best.







[  3  /  a  /  adv  /  an  /  c  /  cgl  /  ck  /  cm  /  co  /  diy  /  fa  /  fit  /  g  /  i  /  ic  /  jp  /  k  /  lit  /  m  /  mlp  /  mu  /  n  /  o  /  p  /  po  /  q  /  sci  /  sp  /  tg  /  toy  /  trv  /  tv  /  v  /  vg  /  vp  /  w  /  wg  /  wsg  /  x  ]

Contact me | All the content on this website come from 4chan.org. All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.

Dofus quêtes

Page loaded in 0.021308 seconds.