Literature

...Because I only just read the first chapter, and I know it's gonna throw me for a loop, but come on. This whole sequence of events feels like a parody of Westerns– Specifically the "everyone in a bar gets into a fight" trope. I feel like it's playing out like a Three Stooges sketch.

Dude with a penchant for random acts of violence fights sailors because IDK he's a cowboy I guess. A freaky-looking judge lies about a priest and you get that moment where the music stops and everyone goes "git 'em!" before they all laugh about how they semi-accidentally murdered an innocent man, because violence funny, Mr. Judge just gave them a pretense and they're greatful.

A guy named Toadvine insists the kid's in his way. When the kid refuses to move his immediate reaction is an earnest attempt at murder. They flop around in the mud. When the kid wakes up Toadvine is concerned about the possibility that he broke the kid's neck because, well, that's not what he was tryin' to do. Just kill him. No bad blood between them, they trudge through the mud to hand each other their weapons and the kid wordlessly follows Toadvine (I guess they're friends now), who immediately goes to attack someone else because... who knows why. Pries their eye out.

It really is as if Blood Meridian is depicting the west as one giant stupid bar fight. I wonder if the punchline that it becomes escalatingly awful over time and how dare you glorify stupid random violence like this? or something?

I don't know, I'm just ranting. This is strange.

Fathers and Sons by Turgenev (Richard Freeborn translation) is an interesting character study of Bazarov, a self-proclaimed nihilist in the backdrop of the ideological differences between the “fathers” and “sons”. The “fathers” and “sons” in the title refer to the two different generations of the liberals and the nihilists, respectively. The ideological differences between the two generations, as depicted through the clash between Bazarov and Pavel, constitutes one of the major themes of the novel. It also looks at the inevitability of the generational gap between the sons (Bazarov and Arkady) and their respective fathers, and the futility of trying to reject emotions.

The book is short and has a very simple plot. It opens with Nikolai Petrovich awaiting his son Arkady's return from university, whom he receives accompanied by his friend, Bazarov who aspires to be a country doctor. It soon becomes clear that both youngsters subscribe to the philosophy of nihilism, in which Arkady considers himself to be Bazarov’s “pupil”. According to them “nihilist” is: “‘He is a nihilist,’ repeated Arkady. ‘A nihilist,’ said Nikolai Petrovich. ‘That’s from the Latin nihil, nothing, so far as I can judge. Therefore, the word denotes a man who … who doesn’t recognize anything?’ ‘Say, rather, who doesn’t respect anything,’ added Pavel Petrovich and once more busied himself with the butter. ‘Who approaches everything from a critical point of view,’ remarked Arkady.....nihilist is a man who doesn’t acknowledge any authorities, who doesn’t accept a single principle on faith, no matter how much that principle may be surrounded by respect.’" Frequent clashes ensue, especially between Bazarov and Arkady’s uncle, Pavel Petrovich, who finds Bazarov’s rejection of principles absolutely loathsome. Their exchanges regarding their philosophical differences were quite interesting to read. I especially found one of their exchanges, in which Bazarov was forced into a corner, quite thought-provoking:

""I see,’ interrupted Pavel Petrovich, ‘I see. Meaning you’re convinced of all this and have decided for yourselves not to do anything serious about anything.’ ‘And we’ve decided not to do anything about anything,’ Bazarov repeated sombrely. He had suddenly grown annoyed with himself for having talked so much in front of this lordly gentleman. ‘And just swear at everything?’ ‘And swear at everything.’ ‘And that’s called nihilism?’ ‘And that’s called nihilism,’ "

Bazarov rejects any form of emotions, art and philosophy as “romanticism” and hence just nonsense. Strangely, someone supposedly accepting only cold hard facts had this to say about science: "I’ve already told you that I don’t believe in anything. And what’s this thing called science, science in general? There are sciences as there are trades and vocations. But science in general doesn’t exist at all.’" About love and romance: “.... And what’s all this about the mysterious relationships between a man and a woman? We physiologists know all about these relationships. Just you study the anatomy of the eye—where’s all this enigmatic look, as you call it, come from? It’s all romanticism, nonsense, rubbish, artiness…” In this quarter, he is brought to his knees by Anna Sargeevna Odintsova, whom they first meet at a ball. Odintsova is a beautiful, self-possessed, intelligent woman, previously acquainted with Arkady’s parents, that Bazarov ends up falling in love with. According to Bazarov, "If you like a woman’, he was fond of saying, ‘then try and get what you can. If you can’t, well, no matter, give her up—there are plenty of fish in the sea.’ but then, “....he found he hadn’t the strength to ‘give her up’. His blood was set on fire as soon as he thought about her." He felt disgusted to recognise such romantic feelings in himself. In my opinion, Bazarov is just a very young man gifted with intelligence but afflicted with extreme intellectual arrogance. The characters of both Bazarov and Odintsova are quite well-drawn. Arkady initially comes across as Bazarov’s sidekick, looking up to and almost blindly following his teacher's philosophy. However, as the story progresses, he starts to think for himself. He also starts to see Bazarov’s self-conceit more clearly and moreover why he likes to keep Arkady around: "‘Look, mate, I see you’re still bloody silly. We need Sitnikovs. I—know what I mean?—I need such cretins. It’s not for the Gods, in fact, to bake the pots!’ Aha! thought Arkady—and it was only at this moment that the entire limitless depth of Bazarov’s conceit was revealed to him—So you and I are the Gods, are we? That’s to say, you’re the God and maybe I’m the cretin?"

One of the things I really liked about this book was how beautifully the father-son relationship from the father’s POV was depicted, in the case of Nikolai Petrovich and Arkady. This was Nikolai contemplating the generational gap he was observing between him and his son: "For the first time he was clearly aware of the rift between him and his son. He had a foreboding that with each passing day it would become greater and greater. It turned out that he’d spent days on end one winter in St Petersburg reading away at the latest works of fiction all for nothing; all for nothing had he listened to the conversations of the young men; all for nothing had he been overjoyed when he’d succeeded in inserting his own word into their bubbling talk…..He walked to and fro a great deal, almost to the point of exhaustion, but the sense of peril within him, a kind of searching, indefinite, melancholy disquiet, would not lessen. Oh, how Bazarov would have laughed at him if he’d known what was going on inside him at that moment! Arkady himself would have condemned him. Tears, pointless tears were forming in his eyes, in the eyes of a man of forty-four, an agronomist and landowner—and that was a hundred times worse than playing the cello!"

On the whole, this was a quick and pleasant read featuring interesting characters. My only gripe was not getting to read the internal monologues of characters in typical POV style because of which they felt more distant.

Not only literature, but this still seemed like the best community for it.

Seems like a cool thing to do if you are in or around London.

A question of Morality: A reflection on The Brothers Karamazov

I found that this book is philosophically dense, emotionally evocative and thought provoking. And it is a page turner in addition to being a whodunnit!. Now one of the things I love about this book and of other Dostoevsky books that I have read, is the brilliant characterisation. The brothers in the title refer to Dmitri Fyodorovich (Mitya, Mitka, Mitenka, Mitri Fyodorovich) the eldest, Ivan Fyodorovich (Vanya, Vanka, Vanechka), and Alexie Fyodorovich (Alyosha, Alyoshka, Alyoshechka, Alexeichik, Lyosha, Lyoshenka), the youngest. Alexie is frequently referred to as Alyosha and Alyoshka throughout the book. The major conflict in the book is the tension existing between Dmitri Fyodorovich and his father Fyodor Pavlovich as a result of a love triangle between them and Grushenka; and also due to money matters. There is also something of a love triangle involving Dmitri, Ivan and Dmitri’s fiance Katerina. Now Fyodor is somewhat of a colourful character, to say the least. He is a landowner with a particular reputation of being a “muddleheaded madcap” (but not stupid) and a sensualist. He was quite notorious as a husband and a father. His first wife got fed up and ran away with someone else, abandoning the three-year-old Mitya, while his second wife died soon after giving birth to Ivan and Alyosha. He was known to openly engage in orgies with other women in his home even when his wife was present. As a father, Fyodor promptly forgot about the existence of his sons, both after his first wife left him and when his second wife died. In fact, it was because of a faithful servant Grigory taking care of Mitya, that he didn't starve and had clothes on his body.. Ivan and Alyosha were also taken care of by Grigory, but they were later taken in by distant relatives of their mother’s benefactress. A few lines about the benefactress’ actions after their mom died: "They say that the moment she saw him, without any explanations, she at once delivered him two good, resounding slaps and jerked him three times by his forelock; then, without adding a word, she made straight for the cottage and the two boys. Seeing at a glance that they were unwashed and in dirty shirts, she gave one more slap to Grigory himself and announced to him that she was taking both children home with her, then carried them outside just as they were, wrapped them in a plaid, put them in the carriage, and took them to her own town." (just included these lines because I think it is hilarious). As a result, both Ivan and Alyosha received some amount of care and education, unlike Mitya who was transferred from one place to another with his education remaining incomplete. When the action starts, we come to know that Mitya is back in the village, demanding his father should give him his money left by his mother. Here it is to be noted that his first wife had money, while his second did not. Therefore, Mitya has grown up with expectations of getting his mother’s money. Now Ivan is also in town, visiting Fyodor, while Alyosha is a novice in the village monastery. There he has grown closer to the elder Zosima, who is his greatest friend and guide at this point. Zosima’s health is declining, and he may die soon. Now, Mitya has another complication in his life. He has fallen in love with a woman called Grushenka, who is known to be the merchant Samsonov’s kept woman while being engaged to another woman called Katerina. Mitya’s father Fyodor is also in love with Grushenka and is actively pursuing her for her hand in marriage. And Ivan is in love with Katerina. When Mitya is first introduced, he seems to be an irresponsible, passionate wastrel lacking impulse control. However, as I got to know him better, he came across as someone who is self aware enough to know his own faults and issues and wants to do better. Initially, he doesn't come across as someone I would be able to respect much, but he turns out to be a complex human being with his heart in the right place. In the first scene where Grushenka is introduced, she comes across as this typical “vampish” other woman who we later get to know as this wonderfully complex woman who has her own thoughts and agency. This is one of the things I love about this book: the characters feel like real living, breathing people I care about. Another character worth mentioning is the lackey Smerdyakov, who is rumoured to be the illegitimate son of Fyodor and lives as the cook in the house. He is sly, manipulative and always tries to make people believe he is a fool while trying to outsmart them in the meanwhile. As the action progresses, simmering tensions start to build up and slowly lead to a boiling point, culminating in a gruesome murder.

Some of the themes explored in the book are the conflict of faith (or a lack thereof) and the question of morality and free will. This is portrayed by the contrasting aspects of faith and unbelief in the persons of Alyosha and Ivan, Zosima and the Inquisitor. In the tavern conversation in the first half of the book, Ivan opens up to Alyosha and tries to explain to his “little brother” his beliefs. Very endearingly he tells him that "I want to get close to you, Alyosha, because I have no friends. I want to try." He explains that it’s impossible for him to believe a merciful, benevolent God can create this world with all its sufferings. Ivan refuses to accept that all sinners with their "villainy" and "animal cruelty" are ever redeemable. He says: "Tell me straight out, I call on you—answer me: imagine that you yourself are building the edifice of human destiny with the object of making people happy in the finale, of giving them peace and rest at last, but for that you must inevitably and unavoidably torture just one tiny creature, that same child who was beating her chest with her little fist, and raise your edifice on the foundation of her unrequited tears—would you agree to be the architect on such conditions? Tell me the truth.” He posits that the established religious order is corrupt and no longer serves God, but the devil, through the allegory of the Inquisitor (it is a long story that I am not repeating here). He further goes on to say that mankind in general cannot deal with free will and free conscience; they need someone to tell them what is right and what needs to be done, which is what established religions provide them with. So, as there is no God and no life after death, he says that, ‘If there is no immortality of the soul, then there is no virtue, and therefore everything is permitted.’ Now this tavern conversation has left quite an impression on me since I, too, do not believe in the existence of any God, singular or plural and a lot of what Ivan says also resonates with me. However, I have never thought that there is any connection between the existence of God, virtue and morality. I do understand Ivan’s point even though I do not agree with it. I wonder what do people who believe in God think of morality? Is morality contingent on the need for being virtuous? I believe morality should be unconditional and not dependent on the necessity of being virtuous. Anyways I loved that this book made me think so much.

The ending of the book is bittersweet to say the least. The book is well-paced right till the end. However, there are parts (just a few) of the book where it feels as if it's slightly going on a side track. To reiterate, I loved this book and it is now one of my favourites. I will definitely reread it in the future.

Extra info:

My iPhone is using dark mode and I have the blue light filter on roughly half.

My kindle is an old model e-ink with no light.

Anyone else have some spooky reads lined up for October? My bookclub is reading Frankenstein this month, which will be a nice change of pace from the usual fare. I’ve got Tender is the Flesh, Rouge, and Black Sheep lined up. I will probably get to The Haunting of Hill House as well, which I’m really excited to read! I just finished up Vampires of El Norte, which definitely needed more vampires!

this is one of the main newsletters i use to keep up with new sci-fi and speculative fiction releases. it's pretty good!

Hi, I read a lot of poetry in several different languages and for a while now I've been looking for poetry (preferably in Spanish) by contemporary uruguayan poets. I've read a lot of dead uruguayan poets, but I would like to get a better understanding for what is out there that is more current. I wonder if anybody has any recommendations.

The massive 10 book epic fantasy series is a classic of the genre. If you've been interested in the series at all, this is the cheapest price I've seen for the whole lot.

I am new to exploring philosophy and began reading a history of philosophy book. The author notes that most of the summary is of western philosophy but does touch on some East Asian/Persian/Arabian philosophy. Is there a book with a decently accurate portrayal, without adding too much commentary?

Writer George Penney (who also writes wonderful posts about house-sitting adventures with feline overlords in various countries and is an entertaining follow) just posted this on Mastodon:

"If you like the idea of a romcom centered around a geek bar featuring dnd, goths, furries, munches and drag queens, with a message that's even more relevant now than when I wrote it. My alter-ego Evie Snow has a book--"This Is Not A F*cking Romance"--out today for FREE in all stores (Yay!)"

https://books2read.com/u/mZKeQe

“The Digital Public Library of America (DPLA) is trying to fight back. It recently launched the Banned Book Program, granting free nationwide access to books restricted in schools or libraries.

“It functions through GPS-based geo-targeting; by typing in your zip code, you are shown the complete list of titles prohibited in your area. Once you download the Palace e-reader app, these books are available to download.”

Archived version: https://archive.ph/kBVee

The publishing industry has been mired in debate in recent years about editing older books to remove content that could be deemed offensive.

Even the prime minister became involved in February after the publisher Puffin Books hired sensitivity readers to rewrite parts of Roald Dahl’s books to ensure they “can continue to be enjoyed by all today”. The development prompted Rishi Sunak to say that publishers “shouldn’t gobblefunk around with words”.

Jacqueline Wilson waded into the conversation on Monday, saying that making changes to children’s books was sometimes justified and that she would not write one of her past novels today because of its controversial content. Below, we look at what other authors have said on the topic.

Margaret Atwood: ‘If you don’t like it, read something else’

Speaking to the BBC’s Newsnight in March, the Canadian author commented on the Dahl controversy: “Good luck with Roald Dahl. You’re just really going to have to replace the whole book if you want things to be nice.

“But this started a long time ago; it was the ‘Disneyfication’ of fairytales. What do I think of it? I’m with Chaucer, who said: ‘If you don’t like this tale, turn over the page and read something else.’”

Irvine Welsh: ‘I found it a positive experience’

The Trainspotting author said he had worked with a sensitivity reader for the first time when writing his 2022 novel The Long Knives, which deals with transgender issues. He wrote on Twitter: “I was initially very hostile, regarding this as censorship. However, my experience with the trans reader was highly positive.

“The reader was highly supportive of what I was trying to do: balanced, thoughtful and informative, and the book is infinitely better as a result. I found it a positive experience. Certainly, there was none of the crackpot vitriol you see on all sides of the debate on here.”

Charlie Higson: ‘Times and sensitivities change’

Higson, an author of young adult fiction including the first five Young Bond novels, said sensitivity reading is “nothing new”.

In March, he told the Guardian: “I don’t think it was a sensitivity reader who insisted on the change to the original title of Agatha Christie’s And Then There Were None.” The original title included a racial slur.

“Times change and sensitivities change, and thankfully, we now accept that some things in older books can be very upsetting to some modern readers and a more diverse readership,” he said.

Salman Rushdie: ‘This is absurd censorship’

Commenting on the Dahl debate in February, Rushdie described the editing of his books as “absurd censorship”. On Twitter, he wrote that Puffin and the late author’s estate “should be ashamed”.

Despite his defence of Dahl’s works, Rushdie said he was “no angel” and that he was “a self-confessed antisemite, with pronounced racist leanings.”

Philip Pullman: ‘Let him go out of print’

Pullman told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme in February: “If it does offend us, let him go out of print.

“What are you going to do about them? All these words are still there; are you going to round up all the books and cross them out with a big black pen?

“Read Phil Earle, SF Said, Frances Hardinge, Michael Morpurgo, Malorie Blackman. Read Mini Grey, Helen Cooper, Jacqueline Wilson, Beverley Naidoo.

“Read all these wonderful authors who are writing today who don’t get as much of a look-in because of the massive commercial gravity of people like Roald Dahl.”

Archived version: https://archive.ph/WYdpt

Jacqueline Wilson has said editing children’s books to remove inappropriate and dated language is sometimes justified because young people do not have “a sense of history”.

However, the bestselling children’s author told ITV’s Good Morning Britain that she was opposed to “meddling with adult classics”.

Children’s books by authors such as Enid Blyton and Roald Dahl have been rewritten by publishers to take out words and references that are deemed inappropriate or offensive today.

In February, Puffin Books hired sensitivity readers to review Dahl’s texts to make sure his books could “continue to be enjoyed by all today”.

Hundreds of changes included replacing the word “fat” with “enormous”, and changing “ugly and beastly” to “beastly”. “Old hag” in Dahl’s The Witches was changed to “old crow”.

Blyton’s books, including The Famous Five, Noddy and Malory Towers, dating back to the 1940s, have also undergone “sensitive text revisions”. Words such as “queer” or “gay” have been replaced because of their contemporary meanings relating to sexuality.

Blyton has also been criticised for racism and xenophobia in her books.

While some have welcomed the changes, others have criticised the rewriting of classics, saying it is a form of censorship.

Wilson said her view on such changes depended on “how it’s done”.

She added: “There are some things I think that would make us a bit worried if we returned to our old children’s favourites and read them with fresh eyes. We might be a little surprised.

“I think with children, they often absorb texts. They still haven’t got the power to sort things out and have a sense of history.”

Wilson has been involved in updating earlier works. Last year, she wrote The Magic Faraway Tree: A New Adventure, a reimagining of a Blyton novel.

Her version is without Blyton’s sexist stereotypes and “unfortunate references that were very ordinary in their times but nowadays don’t fit with the way we think”, she told the Irish News last year.

Wilson has admitted that she would not write one of her books, published in 2005, today.

Love Lessons is about a 14-year-old girl, Prue, who falls in love with an art teacher who partly reciprocates. They kiss and he admits that he loves her, too.

Wilson told the Guardian in a recent interview: “It’s so different now … Nowadays, you’d see Prue as a victim even if she had initiated it and the teacher as a paedophile because he responded to her.”

But she told Good Morning Britain on Monday: “I’m very against meddling with adult classics.

“I was just thinking about Jane Eyre the other day. I mean, with the mad woman in the attic and the way she’s depicted, you’d never find that sort of treatment of people with serious mental health problems.

“And yet, I would be absolutely at the forefront of people saying: ‘No, leave it alone. It’s my favourite book.’”

Wilson also criticised so-called cancel culture, saying that she felt conversations to solve differences would be more constructive.

“I’m of the old school, I think: ‘Why can’t everybody just talk things over? Discuss things.’ You don’t have to agree with someone,” she said.

“But I think it’s more helpful to actually get to the bottom of what’s making people so angry.

“But whether I’d feel that in the midst of a baying crowd or not, I don’t know.

“I mean, life’s changed so much. And I think it’s good that people can make it clear what they feel, but I do think a little bit of discussion [is necessary].

“There’s been a call recently for children to develop their oracy, to become more articulate, to be able to assemble their ideas, and I think that would be a good idea.”

Wilson, a former children’s laureate, has written more than 100 books, which have sold about 40m copies in the UK and been translated into 34 languages.

The Story of Tracy Beaker, about a girl growing up in a care home, was made into a television series. Her books deal with issues such as separation, stepfamilies, sibling rivalry, bullying and falling in love.

cross-posted from: https://literature.cafe/post/349464

I don't think this was posted here already, but this instance has been up and running for a bit. Apologies if this isn't the best place for it, feel free to remove if need be! The instance has been running for a few weeks now and has a few users already, but if there's people invested in that specific niche interest that wants to spread the load across instances it exists. It has some extra lemmy front end UIs available, and I am building up the local communities as I have time to.

Some policy stuff as to how it operates, for sake of transparency.

Although I am currently the "only admin" I do have a "break glass" admin account and will be giving it to a trusted point person just in case (life happens sometimes...) as well as scaling up the team as need be.

If the instance ever has to go down, at the very least a 30 day notice will be given in advance as well as an outlined explanation as to why and a good faith effort will be made to keep it up as well.

The de-federation policy might be slightly controversial, and I completely understand. It is currently temporarily defederated from lemmys pornographic instances, mainly because of just how much it spams c/all. I will refederate in time when there more granular federation options, but I just can't reasonably moderate that right now. I also do defederate from the "worst of the worst" fediverse instances (ie, known CP hosts, far right, nazis, etc) as a precaution despite how janky cross federation is for lemmy right now, hence why the instance blocklist is long.

The instance currently uses object storage, and I post monthly financial statements as to what the cost of the resources for it are.

I also use a community seeder bot that runs every 12 hours to diversify content in all. The local communities focus are mainly book related, but it federates with most other instances.

I also am currently taking manual secure database backups at least weekly and storing them remotely, but I will be automating that process as soon as I can. I value security greatly.

The link is https://literature.cafe