Do You Even Lit?

We've been making eyes at the postmodernists for a while, but up until this point have lacked the stones to go take a ride on daddy Pynchon's rocket ship. Now that we have a little experience we thought we were ready for a mature and sophisticated lover like Gravity's Rainbow (1973): 800 pages long, and widely considered to be one of the greatest novels of all time. ...we were not ready. It's right back to clumsy virginal fumblings as we attempt to decipher the first 100 pages. A shameful and frankly demoralising experience for the boys. Does it get easier? Please dear god let it get easier. CHAPTERS: (00:00:00) introductory fumblings (00:06:19) Rocket warfare (00:12:40) Pirate, ACHTUNG, and the Firm (00:17:14) Slothrop’s psychic schlong (00:22:58) Roger Mexico the statistician (00:30:12) Reverse causality (00:36:16) I didn't get that reference   WRITE US: We love listener feedback. Send us a note at [email protected] to correct our hot takes, add your own, or ask a question.   NEXT ON THE READING LIST: ???

In 1987, Japanese novelist Haruki Murakami set himself a challenge: to set aside his magical realism schtick and try to write one 'straight' novel in the realist tradition. The result was Norwegian Wood, in which the author-insert protagonist is transported back to his college days, breaking free of ennui and depression just long enough to sleep with a string of hot but crazy chicks (and giving each of them the greatest sexual experience of their life). Naturally it was a smash hit among the youth. Murakami was propelled to fame and had to move to Italy, hounded from his home country by a mob of shrieking Japanese girls intrigued by his magical but sad penis. But is the book actually any good? The boys are divided on this. We talk about Murakami's treatment of suicide, his portrayal of female characters, use of memory and nostalgia as a writing device, in which ways we relate to Toru Watanabe, which demographic this book aimed at, and in general whether this is a work of great art or should be relegated to r/iam14andthisisdeep. If you're a Murakami fan, please write in and tell us what we got wrong, and especially which other book of his you'd most recommend we read. CHAPTERS: (00:00:00) blather (00:05:06) On memory as a writing device (00:11:15) Portrayal of suicide (00:24:15) Toru Watanabe character analysis (00:36:03) Norwegian Wood as a teenage boy fantasy (00:49:20) A profound and deeply moving ending (00:54:30) Final judgments (00:58:25) Next book announcement + One Battle After Another argument   WRITE US: We love listener feedback. Send us a note at [email protected] to correct our hot takes, add your own, or ask a question.   NEXT ON THE READING LIST: Guillermo del Toro's Frankenstein Gravity's Rainbow — Thomas Pynchon

This week we're reading James Joyce's semi-autobiographical novel A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, published in 1916. Moments of adolescent significance: on heated dinner-time conversations, a child's keen sense of injustice,  the fear of burning in Hellfire, contemplating eternity, sexual guilt, and teenage rebellion. Which did we relate to the most?  Theory of aesthetics: why are evo psych explanations distasteful? Do Aquinas' three criteria give us an objective description of art? How about Stephen's 'impelled action' theory? can we tell propaganda, pornography and sermonising apart from the real deal? Does Joyce's novel kinda fail by its own lights? Overall vibes: What did we think of the prose style evolving in line with Stephen's maturation? Is Joyce fully sincere here or kinda making fun of himself? Is Stephen Dedalus a romantic hero or a teenage blowhard? Dare we tackle Ulysses or Finnegan's Wake?   CHAPTERS: (00:00:00) intro (00:05:54) Baby tuckoo and the moocow (00:14:35) Dinner time convos and unjust punishments (00:23:18) Hell and the true nature of eternity (00:33:38) Epiphany (seeing a hot girl at the beach) (00:40:15) Stephen’s theory of beauty and aesthetics (00:56:40) Did we like the book? WRITE US: We love listener feedback. Send us a note at [email protected] to correct our hot takes, add your own, or ask a question. NEXT ON THE READING LIST: Haruki Murakami - Norwegian Wood Guillermo del Toro's Frankenstein Gravity's Rainbow — Thomas Pynchon

This week we're discussing C.P. Snow's influential 1959 lecture 'The Two Cultures', on the growing division between literary and scientific intellectuals: "So the great edifice of modern physics goes up, and the majority of the cleverest people in the western world have about as much insight into it as their neolithic ancestors would have had." Why do literary types tend to be Luddites? Is it kinda good that hubristic tech bros refuse to read the classics? Has the gap narrowed or widened in recent decades? How closely does The Two Cultures map onto the stemcels vs shape rotators meme? And of course Cam analyses the various status dynamics at play. Trickling out episodes atm while Rich is on paternity leave. Normal service will resume shortly WRITE US: We love listener feedback. Send us a note at [email protected] to correct our hot takes, add your own, or ask a question. NEXT ON THE READING LIST: James Joyce - A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man Haruki Murakami - Norwegian Wood

Back to the novels. This week, the DYEL boys decide to try Butcher's Crossing, the first novel from John Williams, the author famous for writing the so-underrated-it-might-be-overrated-but-probably-is-now-just-correctly-rated novel Stoner. As to be expected, it's not on the same level of Stoner but we still enjoy it.  Decline of the buffalo: Rich reminds Cam that we already had this discussion in our episode of Blood Meridian but Cam forgot it and found himself in new disbelief on the staggering decline of the North American Bison.  Emerson and finding yourself: It turns out Rich went through an Emerson phase. Well, actually more of a Thoreau phase but the both had three names and wrote around the same time so it counts. We discuss Emerson's idea of transcendence and whether this novel is meant as a refutation or embodiment of it.  Miller: Not on the level of the Judge in Blood Meridian but a memorable character in his own right. Rich has some small gripes with his characterisation. CHAPTERS (00:00:01) Intro (00:06:10) Summary (00:07:53) Emerson's transcendentalism (00:17:30) American Buffalo: Decline, hunting, skinning (00:26:02) Miller's stoicism and characterisation (00:34:24) Schneider's empty (Chekhov's) gun (00:41:18) Does Miller's motive make sense? (00:46:26) Lesser work to Stoner (00:48:54) Anti-Emerson (00:53:02) Ending and nihilism (01:00:15) Outro and next picks WRITE US: We love listener feedback. Send us a note at [email protected] to correct our hot takes, add your own, or ask a question. NEXT ON THE READING LIST: James Joyce - A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man Haruki Murakami - Norwegian Wood  

The Do You Even Lit boys put down the heavy tomes and choose a short story. Well, we're not sure if it counts as a story. Maybe a thought experiment? This week we’re talking about one of our favourite authors: Jorge Luis Borges. We read The Library of Babel, Borges’s classic meditation on infinity (well, not infinity exactly — but an almost-might-as-well-be infinity). There are a lot of books. Nonsense: Not to complain about pLoT hOlEz, but we take slight issue with the fact that it's no feasible for a librarian to find any coherent passages, even if the library contains everything collectively. How would you know? We worry about the metaphysical horror of not being able to know you found the book with all the codes in it even if you found it. We're reassured by reminding ourselves that we won't stumble across The library: How are the hexagons actually connected? Can you piss off the railing? Was it designed to be pissed off? And if you jumped, which book would you bring on the way down? CHAPTERS (0:11) Banter and boners (2:13) Thought experiments vs short stories (4:28) Summary (06:07) How many books is it really? (08:23) It'd all be nonsense, practically speaking (10:23) Metaphysical layers 1 and 2 (18:06) the real world website (21:10) Falling down the shaft (27:06) No author doesn't quite hit the same (39:06) How do they have history? (44:30) What does the library look like? (47:25) Multiverse (59:03) Wrap up WRITE US: We love listener feedback. Send us a note at [email protected] to correct our hot takes, add your own, or ask a question. NEXT ON THE READING LIST: Butcher's Crossing - John Williams James Joyce...

What an absolutely dogshit ending to an otherwise incredible book. We made it through 800 pages for this?? I still love you Tolstoy but seriously wtf bro. This discussion covers parts 6, 7, and 8 of Leo Tolstoy's Anna Karenina.  Anna's unhappy ending: Look how they massacred my girl. Is this a tale of a wanton harlot who got what was coming to her, or a good woman driven mad by society's strictures? What is it exactly that Tolstoy disapproves of about Anna's actions? How much would he hate her revival as a feminist icon? Is Aella the modern Anna K? Levin's leap of faith: Is there any way this isn't totally unredeemable bullshit that ruins the end of the book? Sadly, no. Nevertheless we explore Levin's 'undefined but significant ideas'. Should we turn our brains off, and disregard reason and philosophy in favour of tradition? Is Christianity the final word in moral progress? Cam is more sympathetic to the leap of faith: if we replace religion, what do we replace it with? Final thoughts: Jordan Peterson has a line about Dostoevsky being the great psychologist of the 20th century and Tolstoy being the great sociologist. Is he right? Where do we land on this book overall? Would we recommend it wholeheartedly? What are our favourite things about Tolstoy? Do we have to read War and Peace now?  ...and, if you can believe it, more CHAPTERS (00:00:00) hot takes (00:05:30) Anna’s unhappy ending (00:24:26) the feminist reading of Anna vs society (00:29:55) Parallels with the Kitty/Levin arc (00:44:05) Vronsky’s teeth discourse (00:49:35) Levin’s depression and rejection of reason (01:05:40) Cam makes the case for the leap of faith (01:11:43) Dostoevsky vs Tolstoy: who’s the better psychologist? (01:19:12) Would we recommend this book?   WRITE US: We love listener feedback. Send us a note at [email protected] to correct our hot takes, add your own, or ask a question. NEXT ON THE READING LIST: The Library of Babel - Jorge Luis Borges Butcher's Crossing - John Williams

Levin is a turbo nerd who runs away from social awkwardness to theorise on agrarian economics or whatever. Sound like anyone you know?? Anyway he finally touches grass and gets the girl.  Meanwhile we are falling out of love with Anna. It feels like something bad is gonna happen? The foreshadowing is very subtle, only experts in Media Literacy will be able to catch it. On Levin's journey away from intellectualism: Is the peasant life really that appealing? Does doing good need to come from the heart, not from the mind? Rich gets mad about Tolstoy basically shitting on effective altruism; benny offers a partial defence.  Nikolai's gruesome death: Kitty steps up and shows her worth. Is she meant to be the paragon a good Christian, or a good woman? Rich is now terrified of dying and wants to be euthanised. Anna & Vronsky's empty self-gratification: Tolstoy literally accuses Vronsky of jerking himself off with the whole 'amateur artist in Italy' pose. Anna gives in to passion, abandoning her 8yo child in the process. Seems bad. We notice we are falling out of love with Anna. Karenin's emotional repression cracks: First he gets big mad and is on the verge of joining the manosphere. Then he has a proper Christian moment and forgives both Anna and Vronsky; a move so powerful that Vronsky attempts to kill himself in shame. Then he backslides a little but it's progress. We are warming up this cold fish. This discussion covers parts 3, 4, and 5 of the book.  Tune in next week for the finale. Can't wait to see how this ends. CHAPTERS (00:00:00) yes I'm mad (00:02:35) Levin's journey from cerebral dork to touching grass (00:11:32) Leave effective altruism alone! (00:22:45) Trouble in paradise for the newlyweds (00:27:45) Nikolai's gruesome death as an argument for euthanasia (00:37:18) Karenin finally gets in touch with his emotions (00:51:48) Anna and Vronsky empty self-gratification spiral (01:03:51) Listener mail: Dawkins on Kafka redux   WRITE US: We love listener feedback. Send us a note at [email protected] to correct our hot takes, add your own, or ask a question. NEXT ON THE READING LIST: Anna Karenina finale: parts 6-8 The Library of Babel - Jorge Luis Borges

Benny decided it was time for the boys to read Leo Tolstoy's 800 page whopper Anna Karenina. Today we discuss parts 1 and 2 of the novel. Rich immediately fell in love with all the characters. He wants be Levin, be with Anna, and be... something with that majestic horse Frou Frou.  On the famous opening line: Are happy families alike? Are any of Tolstoy's families happy? Rich argues the line is actually about statistical mechanics.  On Stepan and Dolly: We meet our first unhappy family. Are they meant to be nodes who connect everyone else? Will they stick in there and make the marriage work? On Levin: Rich identifies with Levin, warts and all. Is this Tolstoy's mary-sue character? How did he fumble the bag so hard with Kitty? Speaking of, why can't Benny bowl without the gutters up? On Anna: Rich falls in love with Anna almost as quick as a Tolstoy character. Her elegance, intelligence, and her black dress. He loves her even more than Levin but Frou-Frou the horse gives her a run for her money. How does Tolstoy write such likeable characters? Is Anna's burgeoning relationship with Vronsky love? What to think of her cucked bureaucrat husband Alexei Karenin, who's obsessed with propriety? On fiery passion vs duty. CHAPTERS (00:00:00) AI rates our podcasting skills   (00:05:00) Opening line: are all happy families alike?   (00:11:58) Benny history snippet: Freeing the serfs   (00:13:44) Stepan and Dolly (00:20:10) Meeting the famous Anna Karenina   (00:27:15) Levin crushing on the Schchchcherbatskys   (00:36:15) Anna and Vronsky   (00:50:23) Alexei Karenin in denial (01:01:23) Where's all the sex?   (01:14:00) Tolstoy's writing   WRITE US: We love listener feedback. Send us a note at [email protected] to correct our hot takes, add your own, or ask a question. NEXT ON THE READING LIST: Anna Karenina - parts 3-5 Anna Karenina - parts 6-8 A new book!  

Everyone loves Gabriel García Márquez' 1967 genre-defining classic One Hundred Years of Solitude. At first we were charmed. But after trying to track a complex web of births and deaths and affairs and inc*stuous unions all taking place in the first 100 pages we found ourselves mired deep in the swamp. When we reached the halfway mark we recorded an episode so hopelessly confused that we had to junk it. As we trudged through the second half, we fantasised about the devastating critiques we would unleash. then right on the very cusp of recording this pod, we all sheepishly admitted we were kinda back on board again?? Come on a journey with us to Macondo: often maddening but always magical. The elephant in the room is magical realism: have we found our kryptonite? Rich accepts that we're meant to soak up the vibe rather than spergily analyse it, but still has problems with the genre. How can characters have meaningful stakes in an arbitrary world? is it even possible to write a non-fatalistic work? Can fiction be in some sense 'truer than true'? Cam advances the bold thesis that magic is cool, actually. On the cyclicality of human decline: do the characters matter as individuals, or are they fractals of Macondo itsef? Is this a biblical post-eden loss of innocence story? A nod to Spengler's theory of cyclical civilizational collapse? Is historical determinism total bullshit? We're not sure but we don't love the fatalism here. On the solipsism of the Buendia family: seriously, what's with all the inc*st?? why is there so little true love or tenderness? why couldn't they have called their kids Pedro or Juan or something? This book is supposedly critical of colonialism and material progress but Cam and Rich can't help coming away with a straussian reading in which GGM is mostly mocking his stupid inbred countrymen. On the belovedness of this book, and why it missed the mark for us: Is there something here that only Latin American people can understand? Do you need to be familiar with the history of Colombia? Is the book better in the original Spanish? Is it a dose-dependent thing? Plus: new book announcement. it's a big one   CHAPTERS (00:00:00) first impressions (00:06:40) The case against magical realism (00:26:08) Fiction is ‘truer’ than real life (Baudrillard redux) (00:31:45) Macondo as a fractal set of human failures (00:38:37) Spengler’s theory of cyclical history (00:43:00) biblical parallels: post-Eden loss of innocence (00:44:53) A Straussian reading contra the anti-progress themes (00:50:48) Back to Spengler: is historical determinism bullshit? (01:01:34) ‘The optimal amount of inc*st is non-zero’ (01:10:55) Solipsism and lack of true connection amongst the Buendías (01:16:34) Do we like this book? Would we recommend it? (01:27:45) BIG SUMMER BOOK ANNOUNCEMENT   WRITE US: We love listener feedback. Send us a note at [email protected] to correct our hot takes, add your own, or ask a question. NEXT ON THE READING LIST: Anna Karenina - Leo Tolstoy