Beta gets rejected and friendzoned by oneitis...

How is this not beautiful as fuck

Attached: IMG_20190702_221658.jpg (4656x3492, 3.64M)

Brb turning into a woman

you will never pass

>books that women will never understand

Not even meming, imagine a woman writing something like this about a man.

it was written in pre-feminist times, so a man being in love with a woman was seen as beautiful and profound, rather than a pestilence.

For me it's Hyperion

Attached: 460px-IG_Nast_-_Friedrich_Hölderlin_(Pencil_1788).png (460x599, 174K)

>female gets rejected
>drowns her sadness in nigger semen

Threadly reminder Goethe himself grew to be ashamed of Werther and even advised against cultivating the kind of emotions depicted in the book in his later life.

This read like pretty typical (if well-written) tear-jerker core from a sensitive woman that has been used. I'm pretty sure a lot of thinkers in the 19th century would have labeled Werther androgynous and feminine.

>The book reputedly also led to some of the first known examples of copycat suicide.
>The men were often dressed in the same clothing "as Goethe's description of Werther and using similar pistols."
>Often the book was found at the scene of the suicide

The 19th century equivalent of incels shooting up schools

>19th century

sorry
*very late 18th and 19th century

>you have never lived if you're not an empiricist/materialist
deep, user.
goethe's book is literally:
>be me, Werther
>see girl
>why my pp hard >.she's married
>kill myself
Lacan gives 'love' one of the best definitions/explanations.
And this is clearly not coming from a an empiricist or materialist. Quite the opposite. 'Love' in the romantic sense is the cope of idiots who don't understand darwinism, hedonism and narcissism while having too weak of a will for celibacy.

How can you equate suicide to mass shootings? Also he didn't kill himself out of spite like incels tipically do.

Wow I hate Lacan now, thanks.

The adoration expressed, though. It doesn't sound like what a woman would say or feel about a man.

>using trp jargon as lit crit
lol what a fucking fag

You know you're not supposed to necessarily identify with Werther, right OP? You're supposed to appreciate his extreme emotions as an opposition to Enlightenment rationalism. If you want indulgent wish-fulfillment fantasy about Chads Who Fuck, go read Pat Rothfuss you cuck.

Not the one you replied to, but I resonate with the things you bring up. The frequency of the crying was a little too over-the-top for me as well, although I still managed to emphasize with Werther on the fact *why* he had a particular emotional breakdown in every mentioned instance, the actual action just doesn't sit well in the present or rather does not mirror the contemporary mindset satisfyingly, considering back then you actually had the present and influencing movement of sentimentalism.

This hyped up romanticism can be traced to Rousseau. Disgusted with bourgeois love (he saw it as an empty emotional center of restrained, law-bound societies), he wanted to replace it with something more passionate. Before (especially in aristocracy), the passion of people was set for truth, honor, and power.

"This is dangerous," said the Rousseau. "It must be replaced with something else. Something that is just as absorbing." Therefore: "Love will now be the soul-saving experience!

How did Rousseau get to this? His childhood as he describes: "To fall on my knees before a masterful mistress, to obey her commands, to have to beg for her forgiveness, have been to me the most delicate of pleasures." Thus, in love he is entirely passive; woman must make the first move. Paglia says, "Rousseau ends the sexual scheme of the great chain of being, where male was sovereign over female... Rousseau feminizes the European male persona" and "gives the ideal man a womanlike sensitivity."

Ever since Rousseau, the culture has become increasingly romanticized. Music revolves around 'love'. The highest grossing movies are romantic 'epics' like Gone with the Wind and Titanic (where the ship sinking provides merely a backdrop for the 'priority' of the movie: the romance). Hyped-Romanticism has ravaged religions; priests becoming 'servants of love' rather than pursuers and warriors of 'wisdom and truth'

thats never beautiful
and being in love like that book is always a pestilence

I'm not sure, it would be uncommon fr both genders, but I can see a bookish woman indulging in it. One of my first gf would often compare me to an angel and write poems about me, it was cringy in retrospect but it expressed the same sentiment.

It's true that males are more often the "eye" and females the "thing being seen". Consciously adopting the perspective of the worshipper is less usual for women. But very possible for the well-read ones, particularly when they are struggling with their own feminity.

>One of these, Friedrich Nicolai, decided to create a satirical piece with a happy ending, entitled Die Freuden des jungen Werthers ("The Joys of Young Werther"), in which Albert, having realized what Werther is up to, loaded chicken's blood into the pistol, thereby foiling Werther's suicide, and happily concedes Charlotte to him. After some initial difficulties, Werther sheds his passionate youthful side and reintegrates himself into society as a respectable citizen.

>Goethe, however, was not pleased with the Freuden and started a literary war with Nicolai that lasted all his life, writing a poem titled "Nicolai auf Werthers Grabe" ("Nicolai on Werther's grave"), in which Nicolai (here a passing nameless pedestrian) defecates on Werther's grave.

Interesting analysis but there are way too many historical precedents for what you describe.

For instance:
>Music revolves around 'love'.
What is troubadour culture?

> The highest grossing movies are romantic 'epics' like Gone with the Wind and Titanic
Doomed romance are a major plot point of many stories, think Romeo and Juliet (a Shakespeare, but inspired by an older tale), Tristan and Iseult (many retelling from the 12th to the 19th century), Lancelot and Guenievre.
The excessive love than makes one mad, submissive to his mistress, or even debase himself is a staple of chivalry novels (who were already derided by Cervantes). Think Yvan the Knight of the Lion as described by Christian of Troyes.

The whole "conflict between duty and love" is the main dramatic hinge of most French tragedies of the 17th century for instance (so a solid century before Rousseau). One of the longest novels ever written is l'Astrée, an adventure novel with as much pastoral romance as fights, if not more. Pastoral and romances were very common at the time.

All those narratives include a strong component of the strong warlike knights or noble being made into a meek servant by his love. That's even the root of gallantry, displaying gentleness and softness when you're the stronger member of the pair.

If you go even farther back, it has root in the role of the Middle Eastern goddess Inanna-Ishtar who was at the same time goddess of love, goddess of war and civilizator of man. In the Epic of Gilgamesh, when demigod Gilgamesh learns another, and more savage, demigod is roaming the outskirts of his city, he sends a prostitute to "tame" him and bring him within his walls. This nicely circles back to Shakespeare: Romeo was kind of a hotheaded ladies' boy, ever ready to court and fight, but when he first meet Juliet, he feel a kind of indescriptible weakness in his chest that evaporates all his willingness to shed blood.

You could argue of course that Rousseau pushes that trend even further. But even that is not so sure, the "Cherubino", the child-like effeminate boy of the operas was already a thing in the eigtheenth century before Rousseau got big. Meanwhile late 19th century masculinity was contemptful of such inversions (see the depiction of Maxime in Zola's La Curée, the effeminate boy described as a nearly repulsive thing).
The best heirs of that "submissiveness" tradition were the dandys, and they associated a fiercely ironic temper with their own special brand of refined, spiritual misoginy (see Baudelaire and Villiers for instance).

Likewise the priests becoming "servants of love" is cute, but stories about priests actually falling in love and eloping is everywhere in Middle Age folk tales.

Overall I'd see Rousseau more as one of many milestones in a millenia long development (and one that wasn't always linear and growing in strength, even in the past two centuries) rather than a definite progenitor.

Bear in mind that after all those people committed suicide Goethe rewrote werther to be more of a bitch and less likable.

There is nothing feminine about the way Werther talks about Lotte, nothing. It impossible for a woman to be in love, in a sense that man is capable of, so a scenario where a woman kills herself because she doesn't get the man she wants is not only unrealistic but absurd.

So let me get this straight, Jacques Lacan, a sex-crazed psychoanalyst was moralizing about sexual behaviour and considered celibacy to be a sign of strong will?

Yet sentimental reasons are the number one cause of suicide for women (the first cause for men is financial issues).

>inb4 but their love is not real, only their suicide is
With that kind of goalshifting you can "prove" or "disprove" anything, what's the point?

>he doesn't understand the message which is about as hamfisted as Lord of the Flies symbolism

Sentimentality and love are not the same thing. Whereas a woman might become extremely sentimental over her favourite boy band breaking up and killing herself because of that (the reasons why women become sentimental are trivial, they are sentimental just for the sake of it), a man's decision to kill himself is always more understandable and always has a cause.

What is the message according to you then?

>Why is this a classic again?
Why shouldn't it be?

I see this being claimed all the time but I’ve also heard that there was only one suicide that could be even loosely connected to the book. I’d love to see some evidence if anyone has any.

not mine, i took it from bookofpook.neocities.org/#ch-24

anyways maybe in the arts there were this romantic stuff like you say older than rousseau, but real people didnt behave that way, now we do, and is a reason of our unhappiness and oneitis syndrome.
this passiveness from the mans side is only recent, thats the most important thing, and thats why women turn into feminists, because there arent real man to make them happy, so they think that by being a feminist they can create their own happiness, but women NEED a man to be fulfilled.

Imagine having such talent as to be able to bring your readers to suicide because of a parody.

Not all mass shooters considered themselves “incels”, obviously. One might even ask why they are all grouped like this, while other killers are excluded?

It's what people gossip in media, and the stereotype about Werther copycats, some of which did/could copy even the suicide, became common soon after the book gained popularity.

the Yea Forums story

>romanticized to the point of parody
yeah that's the point. why do you think it ends the way it did? anti-romantic

when multiple incels who identify as incels go on rampages and write attached manifestos about being incels... then yes, I would say there is a pretty fucking good reason to group them like this.

Anti-romantic? No it isn't, it belongs to the "sturm und drang" movement in German literature. It's explicitly proto-Romantic.

>Werther
> beta

Lol

Let's be honest about who was to blame for this: The Eternal Anglo infected the Continent with this soppy melodramatic joke of a masculine ideal.

Attached: Bad play for betas.jpg (543x814, 74K)

you read literature for "ideals"? sounds less like you enjoy literature, more like you're looking for a replacement for the Bible

I can kinda see where you're coming from since the final line is pretty blunt and straight forward
>The steward and his sons followed the corpse to the grave. Albert was unable to accompany them. Charlotte's life was despaired of. The body was carried by labourers. No priest attended.
But Werther's death right before this is extremely romanticized. He's surrounded by weeping children, Charlotte, his one true love, is crying over his dying body and even Albert feels bad. Could not have had a better death.

lmao explain it then. I hate when people post shit like this but then don't bother to explain themselves.

sauce in these? Sounds interesting desu
>To his spirit and character you cannot refuse your admiration and love: to his fate you will not deny your tears. And thou, good soul, who sufferest the same distress as he endured once, draw comfort from his sorrows; and let this little book be thy friend, if, owing to fortune or through thine own fault, thou canst not find a dearer companion.
literally the preface, he wants you to connect with Werther.

This was one of Napoleon's favorite book. I just finished his biography. On his death bead he retrospected how he never fell in love.

>who identify as incels
You can't identify as a meme. The only exception is Kekistani citizenship.

Sounds like a good robot book. Any other books like this? I’ve read no longer human and notes from the underground.

I really appreciate these effortposts, this is why I still come to Yea Forums even after its decline. Very interesting, thanks.

Happened the same to me. I think you have to be a faggy aristocrat from hundreds of years ago to like this, and that the rest are just posing and performing adequacy by pretending to buy into this book.

are you a ghost?

Yes, we all are.

Bump

Bump