|
On August 24 2013 05:52 Prog455 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2013 05:50 sam!zdat wrote:
tolstoy is not difficult to read in the slightest To be honest i never read anything by Tolstoy but i believe that most people would not even attempt to read a +1000 page book at all.
Why ? People read Harry Potter and GoT, I don't see why they wouldn't read Anna Karenine.
Also I don't think Le Mythe de Sisyphe is a difficult book, it might even be one of the easiest philosophical book I've ever read.
Edit: also I've decided to reread Philosophy in the Bedroom, as I'm lucky to live in a time where it is easily found.
|
On August 24 2013 05:52 Prog455 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2013 05:50 sam!zdat wrote:
tolstoy is not difficult to read in the slightest To be honest i never read anything by Tolstoy but i believe that most people would not even attempt to read a +1000 page book at all.
why not? They read 100000 page epic fantasy novels.
|
On August 24 2013 05:49 Prog455 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2013 05:33 corumjhaelen wrote:
More seriously, I think the biggest divide in this thread is between people who read mainly fantasy and people who don't. We could be much worse off. I think you are very right. But you have to admit that it is a bit strange that every other person in this thread seems to find great joy in reading litterature that is incomprehensive for the vast majority of society. I don't think i have seen anyone in this thread who read Dostojevskij or Tolstoj and not praising them as the greatest thing that has happened to humanity. Just like a few months ago where apparently Ulysses was the greatest literary work. I really liked that quote by Nietzsche: "Whoever knows he is deep, strives for clarity; whoever would like to appear deep to the crowd, strives for obscurity. For the crowd considers anything deep if only it cannot see to the bottom" I just finished The Myth of Sisyphus by Albert Camus yesterday, and while i think that his ideas on the absurd is interesting, i don't think it adds anything to the work that that is written in a way that is hard to understand. Admittetly that could be the result of poor translation, but i prefer books with more than three to four sentences per page.
I heartily disagree. The Myth of Sisyphus is one of the best introductions to absurdism and existentialism out there, and I've found that it tends to be received nicely in the classroom setting.
That Nietzsche quote was already posted by the way. Perhaps you've another anti-obscurant quote?
|
I'm reading 'A Wild Sheep Chase' by Haruki Murakami. It's quirky but very good.
|
I also would like to add that writing short sentence is not synonymous with clarity or good writing, unless you have troubles to focus I guess.
|
On August 24 2013 05:49 Prog455 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2013 05:33 corumjhaelen wrote:
More seriously, I think the biggest divide in this thread is between people who read mainly fantasy and people who don't. We could be much worse off. I think you are very right. But you have to admit that it is a bit strange that every other person in this thread seems to find great joy in reading litterature that is incomprehensive for the vast majority of society. I don't think i have seen anyone in this thread who read Dostojevskij or Tolstoj and not praising them as the greatest thing that has happened to humanity. Just like a few months ago where apparently Ulysses was the greatest literary work. I really liked that quote by Nietzsche: "Whoever knows he is deep, strives for clarity; whoever would like to appear deep to the crowd, strives for obscurity. For the crowd considers anything deep if only it cannot see to the bottom" I just finished The Myth of Sisyphus by Albert Camus yesterday, and while i think that his ideas on the absurd is interesting, i don't think it adds anything to the work that that is written in a way that is hard to understand. Admittetly that could be the result of poor translation, but i prefer books with more than three to four sentences per page.
Because Dostoyevsky IS one of the greatest things that has happened to humanity (in the field of literature). And, personally, I find him much easier to read than, well.. Dan Brown. 
The frenchies are, as mentioned, assholes (although Camus was about as clear as you can get, really; I mostly meant the post-structuralists etc.), but just because a book is celebrated by the literary world doesn't mean it is written "hard" just for the sake of it - the fact of the matter is that Dostoyevsky or Kafka are so fucking great because they e.g. more acutely describe the human psychological condition than e.g. Dan Brown. And obviously, acutely describing the human condition CANNOT BE DONE IN AN EASY MANNER, because it is not an easy thing! 
|
On August 24 2013 05:54 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2013 05:52 Prog455 wrote:On August 24 2013 05:50 sam!zdat wrote:
tolstoy is not difficult to read in the slightest To be honest i never read anything by Tolstoy but i believe that most people would not even attempt to read a +1000 page book at all. Why ? People read Harry Potter and GoT, I don't see why they wouldn't read Anna Karenine. Also I don't think Le Mythe de Sisyphe is a difficult book, it might even be one of the easiest philosophical book I've ever read. Edit: also I've decided to reread Philosophy in the Bedroom, as I'm lucky to live in a time where it is easily found.
A book can be hard to read for different reasons, and something being poorly written can certainly be a nuisance. And while i assume that you never had to deal with a poor translation of Camus, you've probably had to deal with a poor translation at some point.
|
On August 24 2013 06:00 Prog455 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2013 05:54 corumjhaelen wrote:On August 24 2013 05:52 Prog455 wrote:On August 24 2013 05:50 sam!zdat wrote:
tolstoy is not difficult to read in the slightest To be honest i never read anything by Tolstoy but i believe that most people would not even attempt to read a +1000 page book at all. Why ? People read Harry Potter and GoT, I don't see why they wouldn't read Anna Karenine. Also I don't think Le Mythe de Sisyphe is a difficult book, it might even be one of the easiest philosophical book I've ever read. Edit: also I've decided to reread Philosophy in the Bedroom, as I'm lucky to live in a time where it is easily found. A book can be hard to read for different reasons, and something being poorly written can certainly be a nuisance. And while i assume that you never had to deal with a poor translation of Camus, you've probably had to deal with a poor translation at some point.
Yes, I once read a very poor translation of Kafka, and I bought another one. I had to read LoTR in English to fully enjoy it. I think that's all, nowadays I skim through amazon commentary to get an idea of the translations' quality.
Also I have trouble understanding how Camus can be considered a worse writer than most fantasy author oO
|
On August 24 2013 05:57 farvacola wrote:
That Nietzsche quote was already posted by the way. Perhaps you've another anti-obscurant quote?
I thought it to be self-evident that i copy-pasted the quote from a previous page as i was speaking in past tense.
On August 24 2013 06:04 corumjhaelen wrote:
Also I have trouble understanding how Camus can be considered a worse writer than most fantasy author oO
I think you got me all wrong. I don't think Camus is a worse writer than most fantasy authors by any means. I quite enjoyed The Stranger and The Fall actually. I merely said that i don't think unclarity makes a good author.
|
On August 24 2013 06:04 Prog455 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2013 05:57 farvacola wrote:
That Nietzsche quote was already posted by the way. Perhaps you've another anti-obscurant quote? I thought it to be self-evident that i copy-pasted the quote from a previous page as i was speaking in past tense.
And farva quoted another passage of Nietzsche which is an evidence to whoever has readen Zarathoustra. A very hard to understand book, that is also very well-written.
Edit : but I do have another one for farva :p
"Ce que l'on conçoit bien s'énonce clairement,
Et les mots pour le dire arrivent aisément."
Nicolas Boileau
|
I apologize prog, it's only that I've run into that quote many, many times, and more often than not it is offered forth by those who not only have read very little "difficult" literature, but also are unaware of how silly and hypocritical Nietzsche can be. The dude was a self-professed lover of Larochefoucauld, fhe famous aphorist who once said, "Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue.".
Take from that what you will 
|
On August 24 2013 06:12 farvacola wrote:I apologize prog, it's only that I've run into that quote many, many times, and more often than not it is offered forth by those who not only have read very little "difficult" literature, but also are unaware of how silly and hypocritical Nietzsche can be. The dude was a self-professed lover of Larochefoucauld, fhe famous aphorist who once said, "Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue.". Take from that what you will
I do not know what the context of the quote is, but Nietzsche can also be very ironic. And it's La Rochefoucauld, a great man indeed
|
The above is why every English speaking lover of literature needs to know a French guy
|
What I hate about Nietzsche is his philosophy. What I hate even more is that you cannot have modern philosophy without Nietzsche because he writes good philosophy imo. But what is the very worst is his armies of adolescent/young college fanboys.
|
On August 24 2013 05:57 Bigtony wrote:
I'm reading 'A Wild Sheep Chase' by Haruki Murakami. It's quirky but very good.
yes it's maybe my favorite by him
On August 24 2013 05:58 corumjhaelen wrote:
I also would like to add that writing short sentence is not synonymous with clarity or good writing, unless you have troubles to focus I guess.
to be fair, your entire language is one big run-on sentence. but the germans in here need to get off their high horses, their philosophers are just as bad. for every run-on sentence in a french book, a german book has four or five run-on words.
whereas english philosophers have very clear language, but no philosophy
|
On August 24 2013 06:12 farvacola wrote:I apologize prog, it's only that I've run into that quote many, many times, and more often than not it is offered forth by those who not only have read very little "difficult" literature, but also are unaware of how silly and hypocritical Nietzsche can be. The dude was a self-professed lover of Larochefoucauld, fhe famous aphorist who once said, "Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue.". Take from that what you will
No harm done. As someone studying law i have just come to hate anything that is not written clearly, as it tends to screw up everything. I guess that is an attitude that i have to part with if i am to enjoy some of the more difficult philosophy.
Also if that is true about Nietzsche that would explain why people always seem to manage to reference him regardless of what they are talking about.
|
Canada5565 Posts
Dostoyevsky was a great writer but I think his ideas could have been better expressed in academic papers. Philosopher, psychologist, sociologist...Whatever he was, I don't think he was much of a storyteller. Literati enjoy lauding him because he expressed his ideas through fiction.
|
On August 24 2013 06:24 Shiragaku wrote:
What I hate about Nietzsche is his philosophy. What I hate even more is that you cannot have modern philosophy without Nietzsche because he writes good philosophy imo. But what is the very worst is his armies of adolescent/young college fanboys.
I was always hoping I'd run into a Nietzsche fan in college, never did though. Either I didn't go to a pretentious enough school, or they were all hiding in their rooms, reading Nietzsche.
Just very odd to me when people talk about "armies of Nietzsche fanboys" when I struggle to find people IRL who read any literature at all. I get the impression that reading in general is slowly dying off.
|
On August 24 2013 05:57 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2013 05:52 Prog455 wrote:On August 24 2013 05:50 sam!zdat wrote:
tolstoy is not difficult to read in the slightest To be honest i never read anything by Tolstoy but i believe that most people would not even attempt to read a +1000 page book at all. why not? They read 100000 page epic fantasy novels.
Those are like the soap operas of literature. It's a lot of escapism, and it's easy to get sucked into that.
edit: not saying they're bad or frivolous
|
On August 24 2013 07:08 Xxio wrote:
Dostoyevsky was a great writer but I think his ideas could have been better expressed in academic papers. Philosopher, psychologist, sociologist...Whatever he was, I don't think he was much of a storyteller. Literati enjoy lauding him because he expressed his ideas through fiction.
I disagree completely. TBK/The Idiot/C&P are three of the best stories ever told.
Also, Dostoyevsky has a book that is almost an academic paper: Demons. And it's generally considered to be the weakest of his four great novels. Also, it's not his ideas that are mostly celebrated; it's his characters(and yes, some of them express ideas), that are probably the most complex ones in literature history.
Lastly some of his humour would be lost if he wrote academic papers. Kolya from TBK for example is a hilarious jab at the western values that some were trying to apply to Russia.
On August 24 2013 05:52 Prog455 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2013 05:50 sam!zdat wrote:
tolstoy is not difficult to read in the slightest To be honest i never read anything by Tolstoy but i believe that most people would not even attempt to read a +1000 page book at all.
Tolstoy doesn't only have War and Peace and Anna Karenina. The Death of Ivan Ilyich and Hadji-Murat for example are both short and amazing. Same goes for Dostoyevsky(The Gambler, Notes From Undergound). And they're not hard to read in the slighest; they write in very simple language.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
