Dostoyevsky is in his top 5

Wrong. His Top 5:
Mike Lupica
John Cheever
Richard Yates
Tolstoy
Art Vandelay

Houellebecq is the most relevant author today

Attached: blackpill.jpg (1745x1123, 421K)

Based

Delete this, this picture makes me feel bad

>it's because he watches jordan peterson

Attached: 1537724115400.jpg (380x380, 50K)

Even the self-described "Anti-Christ" liked Dosto.

>Wodehouse isn’t in his top five

PG Wodehouse
Thomas Pynchon
Gene Wolfe
Will Durant
David McCullough

Honorary mention goes to Rudyard Kipling

Peterson doesn't even understand the themes and messages of dostoevskys works. I recall watching a video of him explaining the premise of Crime and Punishment and the motivations of the main character Raskolnikov and it was the most retarded and literally incorrect interpretation I have ever heard.

>incorrect interpretation of a fiction character

just because there isn't one right interpretation doesn't mean there aren't any wrong ones

Implying Hamlet can't be read as a transwoman because that's simply wrong

What was exactly wrong in the interpretation?
Raskolnjikov did kill her because he thought he could make his own rules about the world (atheist), only to get btfo'd back into realizing Christianity makes sense.

no, he killed her because of anger, hatred and fear

This is the result of new information technology

you didn't understand the book hahaha. what was the point of raskolnikovs article?

>Dostoyevsky isn't in his top 1

Attached: dont.png (235x236, 41K)

ironically, that's literally one of Peterson's main ideas

It was the narrative Raskolnikov convinced himself of to cope with the trauma of comitting murder. A retroactivrly construed persona ( for himself).

You're aware that the article was written long before the murder, right?

I hope you are trolling, boy.

He used his intellectual predilictions to reinforce his image as the supposed űbermensch. It corresponded neetly with his crime.

I suppose the real trolling is the fact you can't disprove my interpretation.

He killed the old hag as a manifestation of his reppressed oedipus-complex, the old hag was for him the reswmblance of his mother and her semi-slave was his sister. This resulted in a psychosis

His intellectualism was a result of the oedepal-complex, as widely observed, and he wrote multiple articles on manifold subjects one of which happened to correspond with his murder. And even if premeditation is true, it still doesn't disprove it as a result of reppression and not that of űbermensch.

It wasn't about making his "own rules", it was because he genuinely believed that certain individuals are exempt from the rules of morality which governs everyone else. Raskolnikov used Napoleon as an example to "prove" this as an objective fact, since Napoleon could commit any atrocity, no matter how heinous, and still be completely justified in his actions since it was serving a greater purpose.
Raskolnikov thought that he was that kind of extraordinary person who could rise above moral law and do what needs to be done to ultimately benefit society in the long run, but he couldn't cope with the isolation that inevitably follows when you exclude yourself from society in the way he did, on top of the guilt which directly challenged his application of his theory.

Jordan Peterson ignores everything about the theory and views the work through the lense of classical liberalism; Raskolnikov was simply a psychotic nihilist who didn't respect the inherent value of the individual, using it as a reason to murder someone for purely pragmatic reason. End of story.

Yes, the one's who can rise above are the one's who can create their own rules. Their own morality.

dosto > mccarthy, ballard IMO
even though they are all gr8

i agree, i love the palpable humanity

I've been doing this in an effort to get back into reading after college. Honestly, those lists are doing an impressive job of rekindling my interest for books.
I'm curious if you think that's a bad approach, and if you have alternative suggestions.

>re-reads Harry Potter in his thirties

A very good summary.
Yet, you have failed to consider the religious themes of the text; whether purposeful or not. While Raskolnikov was unrepentant, still believing he was above the average man, he'd separated himself from christianity and any sort of spiritualism. Lambasting christianity when speaking to Sonya and spitting in the face of Svidrigaïlov when he begins to mention the divine punishment he faces with the Ghost of his wife. Coincidentally, when Raskolnikov finally becomes repentant at the station, he does so through sonya, who may as well symbolize Mary or at the very least, the incarnation of faith.

The religious perspective of Raskolnikov changes the moment he sees Sonya. The moment he sees faith. The very existence of the epilogue in Siberia is to beat this point into the readers head.

Attached: crimeandpunishmentsonyasaviorfritzeichenberg1.jpg (404x512, 93K)

I cried like a baby in the middle of the night reading the depicted scene. Just remembered how much I adore this book.

I chose to focus on Raskolnikov's theory in my post, but I do see christianity as part of the greater theme in the book. After all, absence of faith is the reason Raskolnikov even ended up formulating his theory in the first place, since he lived and studied in the heart of socialist revolutionary thinking and was constantly surrounded by its godless followers.

>Dostoyevsky is in his top 5
>doesn't even know Russian.

>buys hundreds of books and downloads free epubs.
>can't be bothered to read anything, even the hundred page ones.

End my fucking life. This has been going on for years now.

How many books have you read this year?

>30% of young adult males are virgins
that's actually a really big problem

This is false. Humans cannot be trusted to reproduce and they have proven this time and time again. They produce like wild animals, despite being civlized. Look at horses, bred methodically and diligently to ensure the highest quality offspring.

People failing to have sex is nothing but beneficial to society, because this forces them to understand that an alternative must be found to natural wild random sex. This alternative is selective breeding. Without sex there are no births, pregnancy becomes a form of conscription, service to the state, rather than a natural phenomena. When pregnancy is conscripted, the child can be bred selectively in the same manner as any other domesticated animal.

Beyond that, the second women are conscripted/forced to become pregnant, they become indignant. This means we must now find an alternative to standard, natural replacement reproduction, where people produce enough offspring to replace themselves and their mate. The alternative to this is hive/queen based reproduction, as is seen in every other large-scale civilized/mutualistic animal with the exception of humans. We designate/conscript queens, the queens reproduce for the rest of society. Through selective breeding they produce higher quality offspring than random natural reproduction. Through selective breeding the queens become even more fertile, they can spawn 100,150,200 brood per lifetime. The workers become designed to be spawned from the queens. Queens become very large, workers become much smaller, one queen can reliably carry 5-8 children per term.

This is advantageous, because when one woman reproduces in place of 50, the 49 other women can work. There is no advantage to sacrificing valid and capable laborers to produce and rear children, when this task can be avoided.

This is not "sick" or "fetishistic", this is just an example of a specialized workforce. Just like you can work on a computer, but still get fed, without having to grow crops yourself. This argument is no different, and thankfully the profound degree of impotence in the West will hopefully lead to a more civilized manner of human production than pure, feral, random, replacement reproduction.

What a brilliant picture! Saved.

Lots of those books are great.