[Hallasan]

While Roosh says to read books and even recommends specific books, I've recently been in a phase where reading has become a chore and seemingly a waste of time.

The following is from his blog post: http://www.rooshv.com/7-things-i-would-t...enage-self
"Read at least two books every month. You don’t know shit about life right now. Hell, you still won’t know a whole lot even when you turn 30. Keep yourself sharp by tapping into the brains of others through their work. Writers have spent hundreds of hours to create books that distills all their knowledge or experience in an easily digestible format. Take advantage of that, and watch your conversational skills increase as a result."

In my efforts to find inspiration to read more, I stumbled across this blog post from a person who clearly advocates reading: http://www.persistenceunlimited.com/2007...f-success/

What types/categories of books do you all consider valuable? Do you lean heavily towards biographies?

[FretDancer]

My kinds of books nowadays are Travel Memoirs, Business and Money books, Psychological-oriented, Human Behavior-related, Biographies, Sex, Entrepreneurship and many others.

I used to read a lot of fiction and horror novels when I was younger, I still like them but they don't offer much of real-life application. Much better to read than previously mentioned books if you are practicing English though.

[Ovid]

Biographies teach you about great men, how they became great, and how they screwed up.

Histories do the same, as well as giving you a more in-depth understanding of a culture than you can get from a Lonely Planet synopsis and a more nuanced and knowledgeable worldview.

Literature teaches timeless truths and "life lessons" and makes you more cultured, as well as improving your usage and grasp of language.

Non-fiction technical books teach you useful, concrete things about specific fields.

All these books will expand your mind, broaden your horizons, teach you things about yourself, human nature, God, women, the world, and more mundane day-to-day tricks to make life easier. In terms of women, they will also give you conversational fodder and allow you to find commonalities more easily with a greater variety of women outside your own culture. Your worldly status will be helped as well, because everyone can appreciate a learned and cultured man who obviously has knowledge beyond the sound bites of CNN and the reality television of MTV.

[guerrilla]

the only books I like are autobios that are well written and generally somewhat "pop," otherwise it's hard for me to fully commit to "how tos" or even literature at this point (although some lit is awesome)

I read Russell Brand's Booky Wook and was entertained with his stories of girls and triumph over drugs.

Before that I read half of the Arnold Schwarznegger autobio but it was pretty dull and homoerotic so I put it down.

Ted Turner's autobio was great - I listened to that on mp3 instead of reading it. It was actually read by Ted Turner.

I like short stories a lot, and most of the lessons that can be learned from lit, I can learn from short stories in a much more compact time frame. Favorite authors are Salinger (Nine Stories), Philip K Dick (short stories), TC Boyle's short stories are great too.

[Roosh]

Read whatever you like. There is no rule.

[Mersault]

(02-10-2013 05:28 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

Read whatever you like. There is no rule.

Right, there is no rule, just as with watching films or anything else besides, and yet there is an aesthetic standard that differentiates between that which is worthy, or worthwhile, and that which isn't.

Sure, I hear you. Cousins bang cousins and some Italian brothers might bang their sisters. It's all relative. Granted. Only, it isn't really quite like that.
Watching Charlie Chaplin or Andrey Tarkovsky > watching a Tom Cruise action flick or Universal Soldier. And the same, I'd imagine most folk wouldn't disagree, applies to reading.
Reading Ernesto Sabato > reading a biography of Steve Jobs.

I don't doubt some of you will disagree. And on that note, i don't imagine that many of you who do disagree will ever be sufficiently persuaded otherwise. After all for far simpler and more obvious ideas, than 'a 'somewhat' objective rating standard for books, have arguments of ample seduction yet to be formulated.

Indeed. Reading about Steve Jobs, for example, might allow for some small talk based on some knowledge you gathered about him that is more likely to interest a typical person you might interact with. It sure does do something. Just like me listening to the N-Sync song 'Gone' has some type of abstracted benefit but, really, well, I'd have been better off listening to something else. Sure, it's pretentious. Only that's exactly what the idea of I being better than you is based on. How more so to develop that idea, which in many ways is what game is, than by reading the classics?

Forget your empirical day by day histories of conflicts or the oft praised 'how to' type of books. Jump in the deep end. Read something 'worthy', or even, might we say, 'worthwhile'. Then the advantages of reading will really become obvious. And if they don't. Well, then, frankly, maybe go read 'How to' books...Oh, who knows? All i know is that if you have the time to read this lame abnormality that disguises itself in the snow covered cloak of a worthwhile post, then you have the time to read something better. Go buy Anna Karenina, don't read anything else until you have finished it. Develop tastes. Refine tastes.

[Therapsid]

Reading is one of the best ways to differentiate yourself.

Every (normal, straight) man wants to sleep with as many beautiful women as he can.

But do you prefer Tolstoy or Dostoevsky? Dickens or Thackeray? Do you like Joyce, Hemingway, Fitzgerald, or Faulkner?

I'm reading Michel Houellebecq right now, after seeing him mentioned by Heartiste. Reading La Possibilité d'une île (The Possibility of an Island).

So far I'd say, he's red pill and quite interesting but not a great novelist. You may differ. That's a reason to read - to establish who you distinctly are as a man. And who you want to be.

The bonus is that women love men who have boldly distinct personalities and personal preferences that are not easily swayed by their own whims and desires.

[NFallin]

(02-10-2013 09:53 PM)Mersault Wrote:  

(02-10-2013 05:28 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

Read whatever you like. There is no rule.

Right, there is no rule, just as with watching films or anything else besides, and yet there is an aesthetic standard that differentiates between that which is worthy, or worthwhile, and that which isn't.

Sure, I hear you. Cousins bang cousins and some Italian brothers might bang their sisters. It's all relative. Granted. Only, it isn't really quite like that.
Watching Charlie Chaplin or Andrey Tarkovsky > watching a Tom Cruise action flick or Universal Soldier. And the same, I'd imagine most folk wouldn't disagree, applies to reading.
Reading Ernesto Sabato > reading a biography of Steve Jobs.

I don't doubt some of you will disagree. And on that note, i don't imagine that many of you who do disagree will ever be sufficiently persuaded otherwise. After all for far simpler and more obvious ideas, than 'a 'somewhat' objective rating standard for books, have arguments of ample seduction yet to be formulated.

Indeed. Reading about Steve Jobs, for example, might allow for some small talk based on some knowledge you gathered about him that is more likely to interest a typical person you might interact with. It sure does do something. Just like me listening to the N-Sync song 'Gone' has some type of abstracted benefit but, really, well, I'd have been better off listening to something else. Sure, it's pretentious. Only that's exactly what the idea of I being better than you is based on. How more so to develop that idea, which in many ways is what game is, than by reading the classics?

Forget your empirical day by day histories of conflicts or the oft praised 'how to' type of books. Jump in the deep end. Read something 'worthy', or even, might we say, 'worthwhile'. Then the advantages of reading will really become obvious. And if they don't. Well, then, frankly, maybe go read 'How to' books...Oh, who knows? All i know is that if you have the time to read this lame abnormality that disguises itself in the snow covered cloak of a worthwhile post, then you have the time to read something better. Go buy Anna Karenina, don't read anything else until you have finished it. Develop tastes. Refine tastes.

Mersault/Therapsid could you recommend a starter reading list to ease into the classics? Is it really just great to start with a book like Anna Karenina and plow through it?

I've been guilty of reading thriller books all my life, fast paced, high action, but have wanted to appreciate the finer forms of literature.

[Mersault]

Take Ivan Turgenev's 'Fathers and Sons'. It is a classic. About 200 pages.
Or Kafka's 'The Metamorphosis'. It is even shorter.
Or Camus' The Rebel. It can be read in one sitting.

These are three classics by any generally recognised standard. I'm of the opinion that most people will have encountered, although perhaps not completed, one of the three, at least, at some stage of their teenage lives.

These stories are likely to stay with you, at some level, and influence you, at another, for most of your life.

I, like many, could reel off a list of classic books I think any enlightened mind would likely enjoy, only, why make the hill appear like a mountain?

If I might suggest, simply dive in to one of the shorter classics, like one of the three i mentioned, and see how you take to them, and how they take to you.
Still, you know what? I'm feeling rather less obnoxious towards humanity right now. I will elaborate.
If you find the classic canon isn't for you, alternatively, why not take up classic case studies? Freud - The Psychology of Love, for example. Amidst all the guff, and there is no doubt plenty of it, some of the insights are remarkable and the work of a type of genius. Likewise his work on 'The Uncanny' or the aptly titled 'Psychopathology of Everyday Life'. It's not always easily digested, at least it wasn't for me, and much of it is tedious, but the angles at which he approaches subjects, and resolves problems, offers a curious mind, and one which might not like to involve itself in classic literature, enough ingredient for thought for several winters. What's more, the insights pertain to game - in a very matter of fact, pragmatic way. That's to say....for example, Behaviour A is often a consequence of Action C which was also, at another time, Cause K for Behaviour B. Or, more politely put, you might see reasons why somebody 'forgot your name' beyond the conventional reasoning assumed by most (the person is stupid, the person is rude, the person didn't hear, the person is lying...etc) .... or you might see more reasons as to why somebody isn't 'attracted to you' beyond the conventional narrative (not blonde, not German looking, not well dressed enough) and understand that the reasons are likely to be way more complex.

Or you could just read Dostoevsky. The pinnacle, although not at all easily accessible and frequently misunderstood (blindly so, too) , of the classic canon. At least in my thoughts. The depth, and ambition, of the psychology involved in Dostoevsky has yet to be surpassed, and has only been matched by a couple of others that I know of. The insights you can gather, into, for example, the mind of a player, or a paedophile, or a holy fool, or a gambler, an alcoholic, an insecure aristocrat, a confident broke student etc etc..What's more, each is astonishingly accurate and, for whatever it is worth, way ahead of its time and yet timeless.....Anyway, I'm rambling. As usual. Only I'm not apologising. Why would I? My rambles > most posts.

[fortysix]

(02-10-2013 09:53 PM)Mersault Wrote:  

(02-10-2013 05:28 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

Read whatever you like. There is no rule.

Right, there is no rule, just as with watching films or anything else besides, and yet there is an aesthetic standard that differentiates between that which is worthy, or worthwhile, and that which isn't.

Sure, I hear you. Cousins bang cousins and some Italian brothers might bang their sisters. It's all relative. Granted. Only, it isn't really quite like that.
Watching Charlie Chaplin or Andrey Tarkovsky > watching a Tom Cruise action flick or Universal Soldier. And the same, I'd imagine most folk wouldn't disagree, applies to reading.
Reading Ernesto Sabato > reading a biography of Steve Jobs.

I don't doubt some of you will disagree. And on that note, i don't imagine that many of you who do disagree will ever be sufficiently persuaded otherwise. After all for far simpler and more obvious ideas, than 'a 'somewhat' objective rating standard for books, have arguments of ample seduction yet to be formulated.

Indeed. Reading about Steve Jobs, for example, might allow for some small talk based on some knowledge you gathered about him that is more likely to interest a typical person you might interact with. It sure does do something. Just like me listening to the N-Sync song 'Gone' has some type of abstracted benefit but, really, well, I'd have been better off listening to something else. Sure, it's pretentious. Only that's exactly what the idea of I being better than you is based on. How more so to develop that idea, which in many ways is what game is, than by reading the classics?

Forget your empirical day by day histories of conflicts or the oft praised 'how to' type of books. Jump in the deep end. Read something 'worthy', or even, might we say, 'worthwhile'. Then the advantages of reading will really become obvious. And if they don't. Well, then, frankly, maybe go read 'How to' books...Oh, who knows? All i know is that if you have the time to read this lame abnormality that disguises itself in the snow covered cloak of a worthwhile post, then you have the time to read something better. Go buy Anna Karenina, don't read anything else until you have finished it. Develop tastes. Refine tastes.

I agree with you in that there is a great advantage to reading the classics and I myself owe a lot of my personal and emotional development to reading a lot of Dostoevsky and other Russian authors when I was younger.

However, at this point in my life I see a greater need to read things just like the biography of Steve Jobs that you mentioned. Although, unfortunately, I have not gotten around to reading it I think I will skim through it one of these days - not for the purpose of entertaining people in small talk but for personal motivation. Its like Roosh's big ass book challenge. Im 100% with Roosh when he says that some of the times that he feels most motivated are when reading through a descriptive and detailed biography of somebody great. Reading about people who have acheived success in areas of life that you want to master tunes you into their thought processes and prepares you for some of the same obstacles you may eventually have to face. Plus, when you are reading about somebody who spearheaded modern innovation, or led some grand invasion, or made a lot of money, or changed a lot of peoples lives... its humbling... It also reminds you that you better start working on shit.

[johnwu]

Read. Period.

You have a brain, use it.

But your brain is apart of your body, so be sure to take care of your body and workout.

[liberman]

I generally like to read non-fiction over fiction books because they are great little nuggets of information that help you better understand the world.

I would also say that 97% of the books i read are authored by males. This isn't necessarily a deliberate choice on my part its just that women generally cant write good non-ficton, only terribly written fiction novels (50 shades of gray i once tried reading the book but could only finish the first chapter, nothing could have prepared me for how bad it was).

[JohnKreese]

I read a ton of classic, mostly French, literature as a teenager. It really helped me hone my writing style and made college writing a breeze.

Note: I write much more eloquently on papers than I do on message boards.

[cardguy]

I only read non-fiction. And I read hundreds of books a year.

So - let me tell you some things.

Firstly - reading is overrated. Seriously. For a start - if you don't re-read a book (which I never do) not much of it ever sticks in your brain. I only like to do it because it is relaxing and interesting. Whereas most acitivities are one or the other. Reading is both. So it is an excellent way for me to enjoy myself.

Don't get me wrong. I remember alot of what I read - but you will remember 5 times more if you re-read a book. So - if I were reading purely for knowledge - I would be re-reading more often. But I never do. Instead I prefer the enjoyment of moving on to something else.

Seondly - if I didn't enjoy reading. I wouldn't do it. The pleasure of reading is the only good reason to do so. If you don't enjoy it then do something else. Alot of great people are not readers. So it isn't the end of the world.

The only thing you can say about reading is that it is better than not reading. That is it. It won't make you wiser, richer or smarter. Still it is probably better than not reading. But - any claims beyond that are open to doubt.

Thirdly - a mistake I see alot of people make is the following. You get a guy who doesn't enjoy reading. Then they wake up one day and decide to read a book. So they ask around and eventually settle on a book to read. And since they don't actually enjoy reading they have low expectations in terms of enjoyment. So they decide to go read one of the 'classics' since the expectation of fun is not the main reason driving the decision to pick a book up.

Since they are not expecting to enjoy it. They figure they may as well tick some books off their mental list of classic books you are supposed to read before you die. So - you often you have the ironic situation where most of the people trudging through Joyce, Tolstoy and Dosyoyevsky are the very people who don't even enjoy reading in the first place.

And - when they eventually get to the end of it. They say that it wasn't too bad - at least I didn't literally die from boredom. And the sense of accomplishment now that the tedium is at an end is quite rewarding.

And then they wait another 6 months. And go tackle another 'classic' book, and repeat the process.

Now - THIS IS NOT READING. This is called doing time in the joint. If the book you are reading isn't the most enjoyable thing you can think of doing that day. Then fucking toss it. It is so sad that the people forcing themselves to digest heavy and imponderable books, are the people who don't even enjoy books in the first place. A book you are not enjoying is in the way from you starting a book you will enjoy. And since there is nothing more enjoyable than a book you love. Why are you denying yourself such a pleasure?

Books are about enjoyment. The guys who write novels are primarily trying to entertain. If they were not - they would have written a work of philosophy or a textbook. So - if you are not enjoying the book you are reading - you are doing a disservice to the author.

Please - whilst some 'classics' are entertaining. The majority are not. So - before you decide you don't enjoy reading. At least try some modern novels (the James Bond ones are apparently great fun) before you decide you hate reading.

Be aware as well. That the majority of people reading 'classics' are the non-readers who have being guilt tripped into doing so in their bi-annual attempt at reading a book. And people who have being set the books as part of their course at university or school.

So be wary of the 'classics'. And also. Decide for yourself if you even enjoy fiction?

I don't - I fucking hate fiction. I think novels are dumb as fuck and retarded. So - I long ago decided to kick out fiction altogether. And just stick to interesting books about ideas, history and facinating men. I suspect for most guys - these books will be more enjoyable than any novels.

I used to drudge through novels - secretly hating it. Thinking that this is how all readers felt about reading. As an activity like going to the gym. As something to be gotten through with the least pain as possible. Indeed - I could even rank the books I read. Some would be good (ie quite boring), some would be average (ie very boring) and some would be bad (ie days spent staring at the pages wishing I was dead.)

Then I discovered travel writing - and later non-fiction. And since then I have being an avid reader (mostly philosophy, history, business, science, politics, biographies and economics.) In fact - it now pisses me off that schools only push fiction on to their students. Since it alienates people like me. And it hides from people the fact that there is often as much brilliant and creative writing in non-fiction. As there is in fiction.

I could bang on alot more about this - but in the meantime. If anyone wants some good pointers for excellent and enjoyable non-fiction I am happy to provide some pointers below...

Also - I have an interesting philosophical reason as to why I think all novels are fucking stupid, which is interesting and original. I will probably post that up at some point as well.

Still - the most important thing is this. If I didn't enjoy reading I wouldn't do it. And I would feel zero guilt about it.

I don't even watch TV or films anymore. Since I don't enjoy them. And that is more important to me than anything else that I might gain from the experience.

And remember as well. That books have only being widely available to most people in the past two or three hundred years. So - throughout most of history - most smart, brilliant, heroic and great men never even read a single book. So - don't feel bad about it. And remember as well that even Socrates (the father of modern philosophy) actively hated and discouraged the reading of books. Same with Jesus since he (unlike that Muslim prophet guy - Muhammed) never bothered writing his shit down.

[cardguy]

I should mention as well that Ludwig Wittgenstein (possibly the greatest philosopher of the 20th century) hated books as well.

[Mersault]

(03-04-2013 11:29 PM)cardguy Wrote:  

I should mention as well that Ludwig Wittgenstein (possibly the greatest philosopher of the 20th century) hated books as well.

Hmm. Wittgenstein would be appalled at your logic.

Besides, Wittgenstein was gay, pretty much retarded at social interaction, a recluse and depressive. Is that really the type of dude whose behaviour you might advocate on a forum concerning game?
Probably not, right?

Anyway. He admired Catholic principles. I am sure he would forgive you.

ps. Should i mention that i have developed notes on a screenplay concerning the life of Wittgenstein?

[Nascimento]

If you are looking for some historical novels, check out Three Kingdoms, by Luo Guanzhong, unabridged edition by Moss Roberts.

It is about a 100 year period in China after the fall of the Han dynasty, where the country was divided and many warlords rose to fight for power and conquest.. Eventually, leaving 3 warlords and their kingdoms, dividing the country in three.

There is actually a lot you can learn from some of the big names in this novel.. A few in particular. One, the strongest and most powerful warlord, was a man who was considered greedy, selfish in his quest for power. But he achieved the most and had the greatest military power at one point. He was all about ambition. One of his famous lines when questioned about his greed and ways of betrayal 'I'd rather betray the world than let the world betray me.'

Another name in particular, a man of mind. The greatest mind in his time, he was the sole reason one of the small warlords and his brothers prospered and became one of the surviving kingdoms, and prospered for some time. A brilliant strategist, whose methods and intellect will literally make your jaw drop as you read.

That is my recommendation for a history novel. If you guys have any, I'd like to know. I'm particularly interested in greek-roman history and might delve into that once I catch up on my reading.

[TheBulldozer]

Read Frank Smith's "Understanding Reading." Reading is one of the most cognitively challenging and stimulating activities the mind can do.

[cardguy]

Hey Mersault - I seem to be the only fan of Wittgenstein who prefers the Tractaus to the Philosophical Investigations. Do you know if this is a common position?

And if you write up a film on Ludwig. Check out the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jew_of_Linz

Cheers! And good luck with the film. The Derek Jarman one was 50 shades of shit combined. But - I think the world of philosophy should have more films about them.

I always thought David Lynch could do a good film on Nietzsche. Personally i would open with the scene of Nietszche's breakdown where he throws himself on the horse which is being whipped.

[snoop]

(03-04-2013 10:08 PM)cardguy Wrote:  

I only read non-fiction. And I read hundreds of books a year.

So - let me tell you some things.

Firstly - reading is overrated. Seriously. For a start - if you don't re-read a book (which I never do) not much of it ever sticks in your brain. I only like to do it because it is relaxing and interesting. Whereas most acitivities are one or the other. Reading is both. So it is an excellent way for me to enjoy myself.

Don't get me wrong. I remember alot of what I read - but you will remember 5 times more if you re-read a book. So - if I were reading purely for knowledge - I would be re-reading more often. But I never do. Instead I prefer the enjoyment of moving on to something else.

You could take notes the first time through (the kindle makes this much easier since you can digitally mark any passage you want to have on hand later)

You could also use things like cliff notes to recall the broader strokes

[cardguy]

A few reasons why I fucking hate fiction. And think even bad non-fiction is better than 'good' fiction.

Firstly - I would rather read a book by a guy who has actually done something interesting with his life. As opposed to a sappy loser who has probably taken a few creative writing classes - he pondered remorsely like a dog trying to remember where he buried his bone.

Second - I cannot deal with the Theory of Mind which underpins most novels - he said in despair. The idea you can fix a single word to describe your state of mind is dumb - he said angrily.

Never once in my life was I even remotely sure about how I felt about anything - he cried in agony.

My brain - like everyone elses - is continually thinking of about 20 things at the same time. From how hungry I am, how tired I am, how fat I am, to how far it is until the weekend, to how boring the person I am talking to is, to how fucked my pension is, to how warm I am, to some song I recently heard - and another song I want to check out later. [Which reminds me to start listening to a GnR song I was thinking about earlier.] Oh - and I often find myself thinking about the holocaust a lot as well during most conversations. Not sure why... And on top of that - I keep reminding myself to not look bored and try think of a clever way to make the conversation shocking, interesting - or easy to escape from - he said in a wistful confused tone...

Thirdly - before I make my next point. I want to mention something. My cousin is a bit player in Hollywood. Anyway - I recently got a phone call from him saying his boss had invited him for a drink with him and George Clooney. They were discussing some future project. Anyway - my cousin said it would be cool for me to pop by and hang out. Fucking cool! Long story short. Stacy Keibler turned up later on - and me and her got hammered on shots of absinthe. And I ended up doing her doggy style in the toilets of a McDonalds - whilst George Clooney was in the stall next to us taking a dump. Cool story, huh?!

Oh - sorry - I just made that story up. But - it's still cool, right? I mean it is quite a fun story, no? The fact it never happened doesn't make it any less interesting than if actually it did happen? Right? OF COURSE NOT YOU FUCKING MORONS! MADE UP STORIES ARE ANNOYING AND DUMB. STOP WASTING MY TIME AND TELL ME SOMETHING THAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

Fourth - real life is an algorithm for producing interesting stories. You see there are 8 billion people on this planet - and the actions of each of them has an effect on each of the others. Whether it be directly or indirectly. And they are continually interacting 24 hours a day. 365 days a year. And the actions of them are also directly and indirectly affected by the billions of people who came before them. And for each person this goes on for about 80 years.

Now - the number of permutations in the above is too much for any computer to calculate. How do I know this? Well - take a deck of cards and shuffle it. The number of different orders for a deck of 52 playing cards is 52x51x50x49x48x47x46...x3x2x1 (otherwise known in mathematics as 52!) Now that number might not feel that big. But in fact it is greater then the number of atoms in the universe.

That is with 52 objects.

Imagine doing something similar with 30 billion people (a rough guess of total number of people ever born) who have each fed off each other (in ways large and small), and provide immensely complex and weird feedback loops in the transmission of ideas and happenstance.

Versus - a guy in a room for a few months - who thinks it would be fun to write a novel.

Ask yourself - which approach is going to throw up the most interesting stories? And the fact that they are real as well. Is just a massive bonus. I love that all non-fiction is in a sense related to all other non-fiction.

As opposed to novels which vary rarely have anything to offer when analaysing other novels.

Fifth - I should have used the word 'novel' and not 'fiction' in alot of the above. But I can't be bothered to change it. The reason is that I quite like fiction in the form of plays and film scripts. Or even poetry. But I fucking hate novels.

And let me explain why. The key difference between novels and plays is that plays are a real approximation of real life whereas novels are not.

You see - a play is just dialogue. And nothing else. No descriptions - no interior monlogues - no nothing. Just dialogue.

Guess what else is just dialogue? REAL LIFE! You will never know what goes on inside the mind of another when you interact with them. And watching (or reading) a play helps capture that. Since you can never be entirely sure what each character is thinking - or exactly what the thinking, emotion or reasoning is behind any of the words they say. Just like real life. As opposed to the imaginary bullshit conventions which take place in most novels. Indeed - most novels make so many assumptions and have so many stupid conventions they may as well be classed under science fiction for all that they come close to capturing daily life.

Lastly - guess who agrees with me? WILLIAM mothefucking SHAKESPEARE! He never wrote a novel in his life - and I am confident he would never have done so. Since any genius would see how retarded novels are in comparison to a play when trying to capture the true wonder and mystery of life.

[end scene]

[reino341]

I don't know about you but the few novels I've read – Ender's Game and Fight Club, and some others – were pretty good.

[Mersault]

(03-06-2013 11:24 AM)cardguy Wrote:  

Hey Mersault - I seem to be the only fan of Wittgenstein who prefers the Tractaus to the Philosophical Investigations. Do you know if this is a common position?

And if you write up a film on Ludwig. Check out the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jew_of_Linz

Cheers! And good luck with the film. The Derek Jarman one was 50 shades of shit combined. But - I think the world of philosophy should have more films about them.

I always thought David Lynch could do a good film on Nietzsche. Personally i would open with the scene of Nietszche's breakdown where he throws himself on the horse which is being whipped.

Hey!
I have never read either. I perused Tractatus and struggled with the logic. It is too ferociously rigid for me. It struck me as pedantic rationality. I'm not beyond obfuscation. Heidegger and all his dasein's, i can fathom. Derrida and his clauses, i'm half following. Abstract philosophy is fine. As soon as strict convoluted logic is on the scene however, i can't keep up.
I might explain to myself that i can't keep up because i'm not interested in it but that might just be a convenient excuse when in fact it might just be that my not being interested is simply a result of my not being able to keep up. Not interested or not capable. Either way, it amounts to the same thing. I haven't read it.

Same goes for the Philosophical Investigations, although i am familiar with Wittgenstein renouncing much of what he wrote in Tractatus. Perhaps i just realised Tractatus was a bunch of pretentious propositions in fancy avant garde style way before Ludwig did. Or maybe not. Either way. I haven't read Philosophical Investigations. So, sorry, i can't really comment on your point. Oh, wait. Your point was something else. You wanted to know if your stance on his work was a common position...i see. Well, i still can't help you buddy. I have no idea.
I know people swear by Tractatus. But i also know people are idiots. So, who knows?

Ha. The Jew of Linz. Yes, i'm familiar with the ideas in the book despite having never read it. It strikes me as a semi fictional exaggerated yet disguised as a true story type that you might see made into a film for daytime television with matter of fact text about what happened to each character following the end of the film but preceding the credits. You know, 'Sheila was found guilty of kidnap and sentenced to 14 months in prison. After prison Sheila married her former school teacher James Vodkaface. They moved to Arizona and had 3 children. One of those children was named John, just like John Akinfeyev, her co-kidnapper.' Eh.

And about David Lynch, hmm. I'm not that big a fan. Warped b-movies with over-affected psychological symbolism. Neitzsche, somebody i have read repeatedly, is a master psychologist and moralist. His abstracted deductions leave me in wonder at his genius. He, should i be allowed to guess what he would think, would be none too pleased at the thought of Lynch directing a film about him. Ha...by the by, did you see David Lynch in Louis (by Louis CK) season 3? Hilarious performance in a delightfully absurd show.

About your opening scene. Yes, i'd agree. That would work. Engaging the audience and presenting the state of mind of a tortured genius. What always struck me about that scenario is the precise similarity it shared with Dostoevsky's Raskolnikoff's dream about the horse being beaten. I mean, the two masters of modern psychology (analysis) - (Freud being the distant but still relevant third) - one of them wrote in detail about a tortured mind brought to frenzy and overload by a dream of a whipped and flogged horse, while the other actually encountered his overload, his breakdown, whilst witnessing a horse being whipped and flogged. Both were aware of the other but as far as i know neither had read the others work. It is nothing more than coincidence (although only a fool sees coincidence where a genius sees the hand of destiny) but yet it is incredibly interesting. To me, anyhow.

This was also referenced in the Sopranos, the greatest morality tale of depth and courage i have ever seen on tv, with Tony Soprano, the main character, compromising himself, his position and identifying himself to the audience as a sociopath, much like Raskolnikoff and Neitzsche, in the episodes where 1. The jockey was instructed to go heavy on the whip and beat the horse by Ralph - which led to Tony's evident disapproval and 2. where the horse is burnt to death and Tony overreacts, overstating some facts and over looking others. Despite his tyranical ways and evident narcissism Tony couldn't cope with the horse being beaten or killed. Anyways, this was another by the way.

[_GQ_]

Lord of the Flies is my all-time fave. They need to do a new film.

[Kitsune]

(03-06-2013 06:04 PM)cardguy Wrote:  

A few reasons why I fucking hate fiction. And think even bad non-fiction is better than 'good' fiction.

Firstly - I would rather read a book by a guy who has actually done something interesting with his life. As opposed to a sappy loser who has probably taken a few creative writing classes - he pondered remorsely like a dog trying to remember where he buried his bone.

Second - I cannot deal with the Theory of Mind which underpins most novels - he said in despair. The idea you can fix a single word to describe your state of mind is dumb - he said angrily.

Never once in my life was I even remotely sure about how I felt about anything - he cried in agony.

My brain - like everyone elses - is continually thinking of about 20 things at the same time. From how hungry I am, how tired I am, how fat I am, to how far it is until the weekend, to how boring the person I am talking to is, to how fucked my pension is, to how warm I am, to some song I recently heard - and another song I want to check out later. [Which reminds me to start listening to a GnR song I was thinking about earlier.] Oh - and I often find myself thinking about the holocaust a lot as well during most conversations. Not sure why... And on top of that - I keep reminding myself to not look bored and try think of a clever way to make the conversation shocking, interesting - or easy to escape from - he said in a wistful confused tone...

You sound like a woman (writing on her non-fiction blog.) I've never read a novel that is anything remotely like that.

Quote:

Thirdly - before I make my next point. I want to mention something. My cousin is a bit player in Hollywood. Anyway - I recently got a phone call from him saying his boss had invited him for a drink with him and George Clooney. They were discussing some future project. Anyway - my cousin said it would be cool for me to pop by and hang out. Fucking cool! Long story short. Stacy Keibler turned up later on - and me and her got hammered on shots of absinthe. And I ended up doing her doggy style in the toilets of a McDonalds - whilst George Clooney was in the stall next to us taking a dump. Cool story, huh?!

Oh - sorry - I just made that story up. But - it's still cool, right? I mean it is quite a fun story, no? The fact it never happened doesn't make it any less interesting than if actually it did happen? Right? OF COURSE NOT YOU FUCKING MORONS! MADE UP STORIES ARE ANNOYING AND DUMB. STOP WASTING MY TIME AND TELL ME SOMETHING THAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

Again, this is like a bit of dialogue from a Sex in the City episode. we know your story is fake because it's written like shit. Even if it were a true story we'd all believe it was fake because of the way you've written it. As opposed to well written fiction which is exactly the opposite - you know it was made up but you read anyway to find out what happens.

I imagine from your writing style that you don't really pay attention to how paragraphs are structured and stories are told. That's including non-fiction.

Quote:

Fourth - real life is an algorithm for producing interesting stories. You see there are 8 billion people on this planet - and the actions of each of them has an effect on each of the others. Whether it be directly or indirectly. And they are continually interacting 24 hours a day. 365 days a year. And the actions of them are also directly and indirectly affected by the billions of people who came before them. And for each person this goes on for about 80 years.

Now - the number of permutations in the above is too much for any computer to calculate. How do I know this? Well - take a deck of cards and shuffle it. The number of different orders for a deck of 52 playing cards is 52x51x50x49x48x47x46...x3x2x1 (otherwise known in mathematics as 52!) Now that number might not feel that big. But in fact it is greater then the number of atoms in the universe.

That is with 52 objects.

Imagine doing something similar with 30 billion people (a rough guess of total number of people ever born) who have each fed off each other (in ways large and small), and provide immensely complex and weird feedback loops in the transmission of ideas and happenstance.

Versus - a guy in a room for a few months - who thinks it would be fun to write a novel.

Yeah. I'd much rather read 300 million permutations of "Hey. I got up and had my breakfast and went to the office. I did absolute fucking bullshit sat at a PC for eight hours, then I went home and walked my dog. After that, I had dinner and watched TV. Then I went to sleep."

Real life is much more interesting in all cases.

Quote:

Ask yourself - which approach is going to throw up the most interesting stories? And the fact that they are real as well. Is just a massive bonus. I love that all non-fiction is in a sense related to all other non-fiction.

Most non-fiction you read isn't 'real' anyway. It's synthesised into one point of view from the vantage point of a centralised protagonist. All opinions and recollections are entirely unreliable. And non-fiction about Tutankhamen has about as much in common with a book on how to grow your own vegetables as most fiction.

Quote:

As opposed to novels which vary rarely have anything to offer when analaysing other novels.

Yeah, because there is no way that Joyce's Ulysses might have parallels with Greek Mythology or something.

Quote:

Fifth - I should have used the word 'novel' and not 'fiction' in alot of the above. But I can't be bothered to change it. The reason is that I quite like fiction in the form of plays and film scripts. Or even poetry. But I fucking hate novels.

And let me explain why. The key difference between novels and plays is that plays are a real approximation of real life whereas novels are not.

You see - a play is just dialogue. And nothing else. No descriptions - no interior monlogues - no nothing. Just dialogue.

Guess what else is just dialogue? REAL LIFE! You will never know what goes on inside the mind of another when you interact with them. And watching (or reading) a play helps capture that. Since you can never be entirely sure what each character is thinking - or exactly what the thinking, emotion or reasoning is behind any of the words they say. Just like real life. As opposed to the imaginary bullshit conventions which take place in most novels. Indeed - most novels make so many assumptions and have so many stupid conventions they may as well be classed under science fiction for all that they come close to capturing daily life.

Lastly - guess who agrees with me? WILLIAM mothefucking SHAKESPEARE! He never wrote a novel in his life - and I am confident he would never have done so. Since any genius would see how retarded novels are in comparison to a play when trying to capture the true wonder and mystery of life.

[end scene]

What you've just written is retarded.
Poetry and plays don't mimic real life, they are fiction. They do exactly the same as a novel, but in a different format. Plays and poetry aren't only dialogue, which you suggest, and neither is real life. William Shakespeare didn't write novels because the novel hadn't been invented: You know who agrees with me that machine guns are shit for warfare? ALEXANDER THE FUCKING GREAT. He never used a machine gun and I bet he never would have.

I think you just don't have the attention span for fiction, which is fair enough, a lot of people don't like it. But you should probably not try and criticise the novel form, because what you're saying is wrong.