Is Journey to the End of the Night too much philosophical?

Is Journey to the End of the Night too much philosophical?
I love fiction and historical accounts, but I'm not a fan of philosophy books. I want to read something from Céline, but only Castle to Castle and JttEotN were translated to my language.
Should I read CtC even without the other 2 books (Nord and Rigodon) with the whole story?

Attached: Louis-Ferdinand Céline.jpg (760x380, 43K)

He's racist. You shouldn't read him ever. I recommend Ta-Nehishi Coates Between the World and Me instead

No one is perfect and writers have defects too. Some are racists, other are Americans, a few of them are homos or people who read biographies (but I repeat myself). Everything is forgotten if the book is good, except their Judaism.

No.

To the first or the second question?

>not recommending based and redpilled john green

Neither one is particularly philosophical, 'Journey' is probably funnier, 'Castle to Castle' is my favorite book of his, he goes on about the publishing racket and fills in a lot of gaps in the story of France during WWII, it's fine to read on its own

Is Castle to Castle a full story or just one episode of the trilogy?

Keep reading Journey. Skip to the second part (when he arrives in New York), it gets easier for most!

the first

Journey to the End of the Night is not philosophical by any definition

>Some are racists, other are Americans, a few of them are homos or people who read biographies (but I repeat myself).
Everything in this line is borderline cliche, haven't the posters on this board any wit? I've met college undergrads with more.

It's part of the trilogy and a complete story in itself, it has the most lighthearted, optimistic conclusion of any of his books, if you read the other two books in the trilogy you'll find they read cyclically, Rigadoon's conclusion effectively leads back to Castle's beginning

Thank you.

>but only Castle to Castle and JttEotN were translated to my language.
Memes aside, literally why would you spend your time posting on a literature board and discussing literature if you're not even fluent in French?

>you're not even fluent in French?
because english has 10x the literature, brainlet

But if you can read and understand English, why not get it in English instead of your native language?

Some people can't even read greek and latin. This board is dead.

Maybe.

The French like quality, not quantity.

>responding to obvious bait
retarded soiboi newfag

>I'm not a fan of philosophy books
cringe

>Taking the contrabait
Ok cringe

Some people can't think too much and need fiction to suppress the voice in the head that keeps talking about how shit life is.
I'm one of them.

you just took the bait, my friend

Tenho vontade de ler ele algum dia tbm. Se vc curtir, posta a respeito aqui pq vejo Céline mais vezes em memes do que em discussões literárias

that's what you think fella, you took it better and more

>inb4 taking the bait again

Then it’s a shame they have neither

based
exactly why I read

>Skip to the second part (when he arrives in New York)
Why would you post this?

sorry but you can't get the essence of this masterpiece if not read in French

Attached: Voyage-au-bout-de-la-nuit.jpg (340x340, 41K)

...

Really?

Not him but I think this is mostly true, I'm french and I do not think his style can be transcribed in english.

Attached: 1535308285804.jpg (970x545, 96K)

Are you talking about the "musicality" of his writings?

I think it's more than that, i think that what he is trying to tell with his books, it's not the story itself (like all good books) but it's also not only the realisation of the characters etc... most of it is actually in the WAY it is said, which is heavely tied the langage which, in my opinion, cannot be translated accurately

Journey is not philosophical at all. It's an entertaining and well-written story with a really energetic and accessible style.

>clearly has never been to France or met a French person

Can you give me an example of this? It sounds very vague

What example do you need to understand that prose is about style? Look at English language classics.

I'll use Lolita's iconic opening paragraph as an example.

“Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul. Lo-lee-ta: the tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the palate to tap, at three, on the teeth. Lo. Lee. Ta. She was Lo, plain Lo, in the morning, standing four feet ten in one sock. She was Lola in slacks. She was Dolly at school. She was Dolores on the dotted line. But in my arms she was always Lolita."


The flow and feel of a sentence is intangible but it is inherently linked to the language, English. It's the rhythm, the wordplay, the alliteration, the combinations of dozens of effects that combine to make a work a classic, that define style. All this can be lost in translation.

Well I'll give you an easy exemple, one of his books is called "castle to castle" while the french title "D'un château l'autre" means litteraly "from one castle the other"

You can only translate céline (And many other writers i'm sure) at the cost of turning genius litterature into good litterature

This description of old age is in my opinion one of the great passage of the journey to the end of the night, it's toward the end, i found it in english

Attached: CELINE.png (899x342, 240K)

Funny how the faggots here translated the title "From Castle to Castle" (De castelo em castelo) when it could be closer to the original in French "Dum castelo a outro" or "De um castelo a outro".
Fuck Penguin and fuck Companhia das Letras.

Then why would you read Celine of all people?

Any other suggestion?