'>>23359504
It's quite puzzling as to why he isn't recognised to be among the Western canon, he was massively influential during the 19th century, and above all, he was one of the greatest writers of all time; his prose was simply impeccable, really, I mean so. It seems that he was vaporised after World War two for his seemingly fascistic sensibilities. Publishers will not touch his work, despite its quality; it's very hard to find his entire corpus without having to resort to old, smelly, decrepit tomes.';

'>>23359828
He'll probably be totally forgotten in 150 or 200 years. Heartbreaking.';

'>>23359828
His prose sucks. He's rightfully being forgotten.';

'>>23359833
Not even that, actually.';

'>>23359833
Heartwarming*';

'>>23359842
Bro, fuck off; he was good.';

'>>23359843
ok';

'>>23359828
>It's quite puzzling as to why he isn't recognised to be among the Western canon
He was in Bloom's canon for Sartor Resartus and 'Selected Prose'. You can find paperback editions of Sartor Resartus and eg. the Penguin Selected Writings quite easily from second hand bookshops and online bookstores. For nicher tomes like the Frederick the Great biography you probably do have to resort to decrepit hardbacks but that's the case with a lot of non-canonical books.
https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/33959/selected-writings-by-carlyle-thomas/9780141396767';

'>>23359833
Not so, despite where the popular culture goes, Carlyle will never be forgotten. On the contrary I predict a turning around of popular culture by that date.';

'>>23359853
>He was in Bloom's canon for Sartor Resartus and 'Selected Prose'.
like that matters lol he disavowed the long list anyway';

'>>23359828
> really, I mean so';

'>>23359828
>>23359833
Then let's not doompost and instead fight to keep him alive.';

'>>23359504
Plebs seem to have a particular difficulty appreciating him. It's not even a logical difficulty, they just react with fiery outbursts to what they know of him and his face.';

'>>23359504
>difficult to read
>reactionary
>hated blacks and jews (the two cardinal sins of liberal democracy)
>most of his long books are about history
yeah he's never going to be popular again';

'>>23360327
I do try, I really do try.';

'>>23360382
>difficult to read
More than difficult, it's boring.
>hated blacks
His defense for slavery is retarded.
>yeah he's never going to be popular again
and that's a good thing';

'>>23359504
>Sartor Resartus
>On Heroes and Hero Worship
>The French Revolution
What else to read by him?';

'>>23359504
I tried reading his French Revolution book. It's written in a retarded convoluted way of a schizo newspaper of the 19th century that mostly contemporaries would understand. It's not a book written for the ages, more like a pop history book of its day.';

'>>23360931
meme answer: Occasional Discourse on the Nigger Question
real answer: Chartism, then read Engel's review of Chartism';

'>>23359504
I've seen some pretty grim misanthropic excerpts from Carlyle plus Moldbug sucks him off which automatically makes me think he just appeals to some flavor of chud because he wants [extreme rightoid contrarianism] and to own the nigs or whatever.';

'>>23359828
The problem Carlyle faces beyond being edgy even in his time is that outside of Sartor, most of his writings are either historical or current events commentaries. The histories are not going to appeal to an average reader, even most historians if we're at it and the commentaries while having some perennial principles are going to have their references that are more and more alien. Sartor meanwhile was alien at the time of its publication.';

'>>23359828
Because Carlyle never wrote a single masterpiece, it was a series of small works that were very of their time.';

'>>23361261
>>23361267
On Heroes and Hero Worship is a perennial book. What he says about modernity in Past and Present and his shorter works like Sign of the Times is still relevant';

'>>23359828
Carlyle mostly worked as a historian and his pseudery at this discipline explains why he is rightfully forgotten as an intellectual.
The prose is fine but it's hard to take seriously when his Norway book is only one step removed from Thule society nordicist snowniggerism, his French Revolution is contemporary to the works of Tocqueville and Taine (hell, even M*chelet is better) and let's not talk about his biographies.
In addition he doesn't translate well despite being "non-fiction" prose, which combined with his Anglo supremacism (despite being Scottish and having identity issues around it), condemns him to literally who status outside the anglosphere.
Also Jews obviously, and being outright adamant pro-slavery was just edginess.';

'>>23359828
>Publishers will not touch his work, despite its quality
This is the saddest part of it all';

'>>23361420
110iq post';

'>>23361420
Germans worship, or at least worshipped, Carlyle. He was never a literally who there.';

'>>23360931
Past and Present
>>23360943
>I tried reading Homer's Iliad book. It's written in a retarded convoluted way of a schizo newspaper of the 8th century BC that mostly contemporaries would understand. It's not a book written for the ages, more like a pop history book of its day.
>>23361172
>grim misanthropic excerpts
He was a satirist in the Swiftian mold. Those passages have to be taken in context with not just himself but with the rest of the work';

'>>23359828
He is the best writer I’ve read, also French Revolution and Fritz are masterpieces.

Calling him fascist is retarded also.';

'>>23361261
>>23361267
This is true
>>23361277
This is cope';

'>>23361692
worshipped, maybe. He's irrelevant now.';

'>>23361926
What's even the point of your retarded greentext? The Iliad is a famous classic. Carlyle's FR is on the verge of being forgotten. Clearly one is eternal and the other is a work written for its day. False equivalence.';

'>>23362088
>He is the best writer I’ve read
Grim';

'>>23361261
>>23361267
>>23362105
>>23362113
>>23362126
>>23362131
That's a lot of plebs that got filtered. They're even trying to judge literature based on its popularity in contemporary society. Op was right.';

'>>23362197
When you compare some fag's 19th century pop politics to the Iliad, I know you're delusional. Carlylefags have an inflated sense of importance, maybe because of the hipster factor.';

'>>23362204
No one thinks Carlyle is as great as Homer, the anon was just showing how retarded your criticism was. I wouldn't say you're delusional for underrating Carlyle, a universally avowed genius of literature, I would say you're not very smart.';

'>>23362218
Then why compare apples to oranges in the first place? The "criticism" is baseless because Homer doesn't even read like that. Carlyle does. Caricature has to make sense, otherwise it's not effective. Not very smart? Carlyle's justification for slavery is what I would call not very smart. Not because it justifies slavery but because it's a retarded justification. As a thinker, he shouldn't be taken seriously. Only reason why some of you fags care is Moldbug.';

'Needs a good editor.';

'>>23361420
So is he worth reading or not?';

'>>23362309
No. Read Schopenhauer and Tocqueville instead';

'Reminds me a lot of GB Shaw. Enormously influential on everyone around him, but you read him now and it's a bit lacking. Shaw never really managed a truly great play like Wilde or Chekhov or O'Neill managed
Carlyle isn't quite an epochal philosophy like your Hegels, your Marxs. He can't spin a yarn like your Dickens, your Dumas.
Even as an essayist, wouldn't you rather read Hazlitt or Lamb or Pater?';

'>>23362354
Agree';

'>>23359504
Nietzche’s a pleb then? He said Carlyle was awful and boring, and called him the exact opposite of Ralph Waldo Emerson.';

'>>23362240
The criticism was that you just as little understand Carlyle as someone who knows nothing about poetry or ancient Greece understands Homer. You see the same criticism of Homer from plebs, 'this is just what people in ancient Greece had for entertainment, it's just a historical product of its times', etc., etc. It's a baseless criticism coming from ignorance and stupidity, not ignorance of the writer alone, but also of the entire history of that writer's reception.

Moldbug! You mention Moldbug, as if he has any influence on people's appraisal of Carlyle. That's the level of your intellect, e-celebs, and then you think you have any right to have an opinion on Carlyle.';

'>>23362309
As a stylist, yes, with the reserve already mentioned by some anon ITT that you need to be ready for heavy prose. Carlyle is a writer that highlights (by contrast) that less can truly be more. His attempts at philosophy and human/social sciences are at best anecdotical, you need to have a high tolerance for stupid moments.

>>23362354
I have a collection of GB Shaw from the 1940s and it's funny how absurdly grandiloquent the edition is when presenting him. You'd think a new gospel just dropped. Then he just faded away quite quickly and is at most remembered for writing the first version of My Fair Lady.';

'>>23362354
>>23362371
And yet Marx, and Dickens, Emerson, Schopenhauer, Goethe, etc. all praised Carlyle. Somehow you want to use these figures to depreciate Carlyle yet you don't want to believe what they have to say about Carlyle. The 'Nietzsche was a genius, how could a genius be wrong?' argument is so astoundingly stupid, not least because Nietzsche is infamous for his inflammatory views which clash with every other geniuses' views....';

'>>23362371
Nietzsche was right.
>the exact opposite of Ralph Waldo Emerson.
That's a good comparison.';

'>>23362375
>You'd think a new gospel just dropped.
kek';

'>>23362383
If you read as far as the second sentence you'll see I admit he was very influential on everyone around him. Much like Shaw.
I've got an old 50s penguin by him and it has some absurd guff on the back, something like
>if you don't read Shaw you are as behind the times as he as always been before them
But just because everyone liked him back then, doesn't mean that we have to like him now. The taste of the past does not bind us';

'Bernard Shaw's Caesar and Cleopatra is unironically better than the equivalent play by Shakespeare. Also Saint Joan is a good play and Shaw was a better playwright than Wilde.

kys';

'ITT filtered plebs

If you don't know, these Carlyle-haters appear every now and then, and have in the past admitted to having trouble understanding Carlyle's prose and then backtracking to just saying he's bloated when that sounded bad. They think they're smart for calling Carlyle's moral assertions illogical, yet they're never able to explain why much smarter people than them praise Carlyle. A curious dilemma. All in all it's the plebs liking their environment and reacting with animal resentment to anything foreign to that environment.';

'>>23362437
>The taste of the past does not bind us
This should be on the /lit/ sticky';

'>>23362460
>Look mum I posted "itt filtered" again!
No one cares about your meme words. Carlyle sucks';

'As always, Fred is right.

Ecce Homo
> Other learned cattle have suspected me of Darwinism on account of this word: even the "hero cult" of that great unconscious and involuntary swindler, Carlyle—a cult which I repudiated with such roguish malice—was recognised in my doctrine.

Twilight of the Idols
> Carlyle: or pessimism as a poorly digested dinner.

Twilight of the Idols
> I have been reading the life of Thomas Carlyle, this unconscious and involuntary farce, this heroic-moralistic interpretation of dyspeptic states. Carlyle: a man of strong words and attitudes, a rhetor from need, constantly lured by the craving for a strong faith and the feeling of his incapacity for it (in this respect, a typical romantic!). The craving for a strong faith is no proof of a strong faith, but quite the contrary. If one has such a faith, then one can afford the beautiful luxury of skepticism: one is sure enough, firm enough, has ties enough for that. Carlyle drugs something in himself with the fortissimo of his veneration of men of strong faith and with his rage against the less simple-minded: he requires noise. A constant passionate dishonesty against himself—that is his proprium; in this respect he is and remains interesting. Of course, in England he is admired precisely for his honesty. Well, that is English; and in view of the fact that the English are the people of consummate cant, it is even as it should be, and not only comprehensible. At bottom, Carlyle is an English atheist who makes it a point of honor not to be one.

Twilight of the Idols
>Emerson.—Much more enlightened, more roving, more manifold, subtler than Carlyle; above all, happier. One who instinctively nourishes himself only on ambrosia, leaving behind what is indigestible in things. Compared with Carlyle, a man of taste. Carlyle, who loved him very much, nevertheless said of him: "He does not give us enough to chew on"—which may be true, but is no reflection on Emerson.

Beyond Good and Evil
> What's lacking in England, and what has always been missing, that's something that semi-actor and rhetorician Carlyle understood well enough, the tasteless muddle-headed Carlyle, who tried to conceal under his passionate grimaces what he understood about himself, that is, what was lacking in Carlyle—a real power of spirituality, a real profundity of spiritual insight, in short, philosophy.';

'>>23362437
If you were intelligent enough to evaluate their praise for Carlyle you would see it is not superficial, which would be the necessary assumption were Carlyle really worthless yet so influential. You can't just pick up any random writer in history that was popular in his own day and not thereafter, and equate him with Carlyle. In this case Shaw was a great writer, but he did not have the domination of such cultural dignitaries as Carlyle did, and Shaw's influence might very well be said to be a superficial one, where Carlyle's is not. And the comparison becomes even more stupid when one realises that Carlyle didn't fall off, so to speak, after his own day, he had a consistent influence and praise until the second World War. That contemporary society, a culture that has long ceased to produce any great literature, thinks little of Carlyle, means absolutely nothing. For as long as there was a great literary culture, Carlyle was read and discussed. And even closer to our own day there are such figures as Borges who praise Carlyle.';

'I guess but there’s a tendency among online rightists right now to treat him as some sort of prophet and I dislike that.';

'>>23362484
All this did was convince me even more that Nietzsche was a resentful loser. The more I learn about him, the less interest I have. I actually don’t see how someone could be a Nietzschean after reading a handful of his books.';

'>>23362531
But his prophecies came true....';

'>>23362484
Also, you copied this from Reddit you enormous faggot';

'>>23362484
No one reveres Nietzsche's opinions about everything. He was purposefully confrontational and contradictory. If you agree with everything he says you're an embarrassment to his legacy.';

'>>23362522
>You can't just pick up any random writer in history that was popular in his own day and not thereafter, and equate him with Carlyle.
Yes, you can. Carlyle is not particularly special.
>and Shaw's influence might very well be said to be a superficial one, where Carlyle's is not.
Carlyle is the epitome of superficial influence.
>when one realises that Carlyle didn't fall off, so to speak, after his own day, he had a consistent influence and praise until the second World War.
If that's the metric, then this also applies to Shaw. Shaw is objectively more praised and popular. His plays are performed, there's a Shaw festival, most of his work is still in print. Shaw has celebrity status compared to Carlyle.
>as Borges who praise Carlyle.
He also liked Bertrand Russell. His opinion is questionable.';

'>>23362541
>>23362550
>>23362561
cope & seethe, carlylefags';

'I legitimately don't understand what's driving these autistic retards to hate Carlyle so much.';

'>>23362522
If anything, Shaw dominated his age more than Carlyle did his. He's the closest anyone has come to displacing Shakespeare from the top spot of English literature. Every major figure acknowledged him - Borges rated him too
But again, you are refusing to address the main point - popularity in the past is not an argument, its an appeal to authority. Though I can see why you think that us convincing if you think we have 'long ceased to produce great literature'.
Naturally you will defer to the past with that attitude. The rest of us don't need to.';

'I legitimately don't understand what's driving these autistic retards to worship Carlyle so much.';

'>>23362582
You never produced an argument. Every time someone explains Carlyle's literary genius, which has been done so many times, the response is just something smarmy and evasive.';

'>>23362569
>Yes, you can. Carlyle is not particularly special.
Jesus you are dumb. You understand that (supposed) outward resemblances do not determine whether a comparison is apt?

>Carlyle is the epitome of superficial influence.
He introduced an entirely new element into English prose. His influence is a fundamental one that can be found everywhere if you actually read. Take Moby Dick for example, so much of that, whether philosophically or stylistically, could have come straight out of Carlyle. Admittedly a more flattened out, measured Carlyle, but something nonexistent in English before Carlyle.

>If that's the metric, then this also applies to Shaw.
I would like to know what your 'metric' even was. Since your opinion on Shaw was bad enough, but on Carlyle it is just ridiculous. Do you routinely have difficulty appreciating literary classics?';

'>>23359504
Yes, he filters out the plebs by attracting them towards him';

'>>23362354
>Carlyle isn't quite an epochal philosophy like your Hegels, your Marxs.
That perception comes from a lack of understanding/awareness these days of things people used to take for granted. Go through the literature and you will see that he was once recognized as an important early existentialist and British idealist, as well as really the benchmark of anti-capitalism (along with Ruskin) before Marx. Not to mention the Great Man theory which is absolutely an epochal idea and movement in the history of philosophy and politics.';

'>>23362484
Based';

'>>23362588
They’re autistic lefties and Carlyle is somehow claimed by the Nazis and so he is bad automatically despite predating them by 100 years and likely wouldn’t have approved and would have dropped Hitler in with Napoleon as a faux Great';

'>>23362686
Carlyle is worshipped by autistic leftists? Interesting';

'>>23362738
Engels liked him';

'>>23362686
Why was Napoleon a faux great?';

'>>23362686
>Carlyle is somehow claimed by the Nazis
I wonder why an anti-capitalist, anti-individualist, nordicist racist, rabbid antisemitic (not just the kind that was widespread), strength worshipping, labor worshipping, ultranationalist man that extolled the state and the fuhrerprinzip could possibly be related to the nazis. Truly bewildering.';

'>>23362796
Sarcasm is gay and reddit. Do better.';

'>>23362802
I accept your concession.';

'>>23362796
Carlyle's comments about Anglo-Saxons and Jews are no different from the kind common to his era. He showed no interest in the racial science that was becoming popular towards the end of his life.
You might make a case that said comments were made in stronger terms but then that's the case with everything Carlyle had to say about anything. It's a matter of degree, not type--to incriminate Carlyle as a proto-Nazi on these sorts of terms would necessitate incriminating a lot of other people from the 19th-century.';

'>>23362806
This wasn't a debate, dummy.';

'>>23362786
Basically because (in his view) Napoleon was a Machiavellian guided by a principle of ambition rather than religion a la Cromwell, for example.';

'>>23362686
Carlyle explicitly says Napoleon was a great man, that he was our last great man, only that he wasted his greatness.';

'>>23362830
>He showed no interest in the racial science that was becoming popular towards the end of his life.
The majority opinion of the time was to mount revolutions and wars against black slavery, not making discourses promoting its maintenance and even later its reintroduction because the niggers were just congenitally built for slavery.
Carlyle was too luddite to care much about the specifics of the nascent biological theories (even though they were the one thing that led to a very different different kind of racism) but this was not then the historical standard of racism.
>Carlyle's comments about Anglo-Saxons and Jews are no different from the kind common to his era.
His era, you mean the Disraeli governments?
I mentioned rabbid because they were retarded and fierce, it is easy to write against Jews in a sensible manner (because, well, Jews), which Carlyle didn't do.
>to incriminate Carlyle as a proto-Nazi on these sorts of terms
You somehow missed all the others characteristics listed, the rants about Jews are really a superficial item here.';

'>>23362861
He thinks Cromwell was greater than Napoleon?? HAHAHAHAHAHA';

'>>23362895
He's a full on Cromwell apologist, who occupies a place near the top in his hero pantheon next to Muhammad, which should already tell you everything you need to know about the judgement of Carlyle.';

'>>23362885
>The majority opinion of the time was to mount revolutions and wars against black slavery
Carlyle's opinions were shared by Ruskin, Dickens, Tennyson, and Kingsley, who supported him in defending the suppression of Jamaican slave revolts. These were also Confederate sympathizers, and certainly not the only ones. Speaking for the US, the Lost Cause / Dunning School of history was extremely popular and influential.
>I mentioned rabbid because they were retarded and fierce
My previous post addresses this.
>You somehow missed all the others characteristics listed
>anti-capitalism, anti-individualism, pro-labor, supporter of stronger government
Right so every 19th century conservative is a proto-Nazi. My point still stands.
>strength-worshipping
Simply false though this is a common misconception about Carlyle. On Heroes puts it right out in the open that he is against 'might makes right,' it's not hidden in the weeds somewhere.';

'>>23362895
Not surprising. Carlyle was not just an anglophile but an anglo supremacist (the most pernicious kind).';

'>>23359504
Has a single person here read through his entire 5-volume Frederick the Great biography? If so, what did you think of it? I am interested in one day actually reading it through but I have yet to hear of the single person actually reading it completely. From a modern perspective Napoleon is definitely the more interesting historical figure but it’s not surprising Carlyle admired Frederick more, and plus maybe Napoleon was too recent history for him to remain unbiased about it. From the literary reputation standpoint though I think Carlyle kind of messed up though, because even if Frederick is interesting, I think for most people nowadays that wouldn’t justify reading a 5 volume bio of him written in difficult inaccessible 19th century prose. I know Carlyle wasn’t over concerned about his posthumous reputation but spending years of his life on this project did nothing it help it clearly';

'>>23363011
>Has a single person here read through his entire 5-volume Frederick the Great biography?
It is my life's ambition.';

'>>23362939
You've made your mind (being wrong). There is nothing to be gained from this post but
>On Heroes puts it right out in the open that he is against 'might makes right,' it's not hidden in the weeds somewhere.
Yes, only in... his journal.
>Right so every 19th century conservative is a proto-Nazi.
Literally none (0) of those points are true of, say, emperor Franz Joseph for a practical man. Few or none would apply to many actual conservatives writers (which is so vague a label it might as well mean nothing here). Even those that might share one of the above notions did it with considerable difference. There are good reasons that the works of Carlyle were incensed everywhere in Nazi Germany while the works of Joseph de Maistre were banned.';

'>>23363035
Sad.';

'>>23362895
Napoleon was the Hitler of his day (bc he was British) and doesn’t seriously consider him but rather kind of blows him off as an asshole. He makes a case for Cromwell because he changed an entire nation and you’d think he’d treat Napoleon as even bigger but he sort of refuses to actually consider it, at least in the published final lecture';

'To be clear, this is what Carlyle says about Napoleon:

>His notions of the world, as he expresses them there at St. Helena, are almost tragical to consider. He seems to feel the most unaffected surprise that it has all gone so; that he is flung out on the rock here, and the World is still moving on its axis. France is great, and all-great: and at bottom, he is France. England itself, he says, is by Nature only an appendage of France; "another Isle of Oleron to France." So it was by Nature, by Napoleon-Nature; and yet look how in fact—HERE AM I! He cannot understand it: inconceivable that the reality has not corresponded to his program of it; that France was not all-great, that he was not France. "Strong delusion," that he should believe the thing to be which is not! The compact, clear-seeing, decisive Italian nature of him, strong, genuine, which he once had, has enveloped itself, half-dissolved itself, in a turbid atmosphere of French fanfaronade. The world was not disposed to be trodden down underfoot; to be bound into masses, and built together, as he liked, for a pedestal to France and him: the world had quite other purposes in view! Napoleon's astonishment is extreme. But alas, what help now? He had gone that way of his; and Nature also had gone her way. Having once parted with Reality, he tumbles helpless in Vacuity; no rescue for him. He had to sink there, mournfully as man seldom did; and break his great heart, and die,—this poor Napoleon: a great implement too soon wasted, till it was useless: our last Great Man!';

'>>23363114
Unreadable melodramatic waffle. Why do pseuds like this fag?';

'>>23363126
>t. Iltered.';

'>>23363133
>!';

'>>23363126
How on earth is that unreadable? I think anons dislike of Carlyle may in fact just come down to low iq. You should easily be able to parse what is being said there.

Perhaps, if you are not that low iq, your problem is looking at it as words rather than speech. If you can HEAR it being spoken, with all its inflections, risings, lowerings, emphases, etc., then it should be easy to comprehend, but also to be moved by.';

'>>23363152
It isn't hard to understand. He just takes an entire paragraph to say very little of substance. All that purple prose is completely unnecessary and not worth wading through.';

'>>23363152
I don't mean unreadable as in difficult but as in stilted and written in a gay style. It's reminds me a bit of Henry James but more melodramatic and affected.';

'>>23363164
The POINT is the rhetoric, that he is speaking something, not to communicate a factoid. You sound like a bugman. Any kind of deeper emotion or reflection on life, life as it really is and not as you experience it in your mundane life, is seen as 'melodramatic'.';

'>>23363174
>is filtered by BOTH carlyle and james
Just embarrassing all around. Two of the greatest prose writers, and you think you're above them.';

'Carlyle haters lack a sensitive and intelligent soul. They feel passionately about nothing. They can't even put themselves into the position of an aesthetic experience that is foreign to them. SAD!';

'>>23363182
Makes sense that a carlylefag would also be a jamesfag. Both represent everything wrong with English prose and both are worshipped by pseuds.';

'>>23363075
>You've made your mind (being wrong). There is nothing to be gained from this post
Nice cope bud
>only in... his journal.
See the people ITT above mocking Carlyle for not worshipping Napoleon, who was superior in strength to Cromwell, because he believed N. to be immoral. Either he's a fool for not worshipping Napoleon's strength, or he's evil for worshipping strength (except not Napoleon's because he's a fool).
>Few or none would apply to many actual conservatives writers
It's basically Disraeli's entire platform of one-nation conservatism.';

'>>23363192
We simply like better prose writers and more interesting thinkers. Carlyle doesn't quite scratch any itch.';

'>>23363195
Maybe you're just not intelligent enough for literature? 'Everything wrong with English prose', maybe there is something wrong with you? The sheer hubris is exhausting.';

'>>23363201
That's how I feel as well. His ideas aren't very profound - even his 'big man' theory of history which is often sited on /his/. I have no hatred of his works.';

'>>23363011
For reference it’s about 3/4th the length of Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire despite covering (ostensibly) just 74 years of history';

'>>23363201
>>23363211
Please just stop trying to justify your extremely subjective and poor literary taste. What you criticise in Carlyle, everyone else can see, but they're intelligent enough to identify what these quirks of style are subordinate and contributing to. It is nothing but hubris to presume that Dickens didn't have any 'itch scratched' in reading Carlyle, and the same for everyone else who admires and enjoys his works. You have an outright inability to comprehend the nature and appeal of these author's work, and that is a sign of low intelligence.';

'>hubris
She likes that word so much. I wonder if she learned it from Carlyle.';

'>>23363114
>He had to sink there, mournfully as man seldom did; and break his great heart, and die,—this poor Napoleon: a great implement too soon wasted, till it was useless: our last Great Man!
Look at this, what turn of phrase, what imagery! 'Break his great heart', that is very good, and then the moral purity of a clean, exact metaphor, 'a great implement', which in another context could be insulting, is here made noble and perfectly expressive.

That people will never appreciate these wonders is very sad.';

'>>23363224
You're not helping you and your friends' circlejerk by looking like a smarmy faggot that avoids serious responses.';

'>>23363226
You are easily impressed.';

'>>23363232
It is nothing but hubris to presume that carlyfags haven't avoided serious and direct responses.';

'>>23363239
That's a ridiculous statement if you look through the thread. Do you think you can just lie? Your own response to my pointing out that you can't claim Carlyle didn't scratch the exact itches that Dickens, or anyone else, describes was smarmily implying that I was a tranny.';

'If Carlyle's words don't have the force of truth behind them for you then you have no eyes for truth at all.';

'>>23363211
Idk, his attitude toward social subordination is interesting';

'>>23363247
You're wrong. See these weasels:
>>23362577 #
>>23363192 #
>>23362460 #
>>23363251

I never mentioned Dickens btw. Nice strawman, carlylefag.';

'>>23363251
He was a fraud and was accurately described by Nietzsche.';

'>>23362374
>Moldbug! You mention Moldbug, as if he has any influence on people's appraisal of Carlyle.
In 4chan related circles, yes, he does. That's why you have all these freaks praising Carlyle for his supposedly proto-nazi views and slavery comments. Moldbug has contributed to a small raise in popularity in right leaning circles.';

'>>23363266
>I never mentioned Dickens
And I'm supposed to know that how? Dickens stands for all Carlyle admirers, which you or someone of your ilk has denied the right of really having a basis to their admiration. Perhaps look at the thread before posting in it?';

'>>23363287
>That's why you have all these freaks praising Carlyle for his supposedly proto-nazi views and slavery comments
That goes back to Carlyle's general influence on the right. If anyone is responsible for its presence on the internet it would be Jonathan Bowden not moldybug. No one who actually reads Carlyle gives a shit about moldybug.

Such close-minded morons, like apes, wondering how it is possible an extremely famous writer would be known of. It happens in every thread, stop bringing up faggot e-celebs.';

'>>23363324
Is that your question? How are you supposed to know that I never mentioned Dickens? Well, read the thread, Sherlock. I never brought up his name once. Only faggots bringing up Dickens are carlylefags appealing to authority (their favorite tactic due to their idol's current cultural irrelevance).';

'>>23363333
>Carlyle
>extremely famous writer
You carlylefags truly are delusional. I love watching you freaks essentially getting on your knees and suck a dead fraud's cock. Truly pathetic.';

'>>23363342
>Only faggots bringing up Dickens are carlylefags
Durrr durr >>23362354 durr

Why are you so retarded? How can you also not understand that you don't have ID? I can't see which anti-Carlyle retard is which, it's just one blob of anti-Carlyle retardation. Your attempts to escape any serious discussion, by any means, show just how lunatically obsessed you are with Carlyle.';

'>>23363359
Lol, yes, not even an argument here. If you're denying that Carlyle is famous then you don't belong on the literature board, because you just know nothing about literary culture.';

'>>23363382
That's a vague description of Dickens, a passing comment at best. It doesn't say anywhere there that Dickens didn't or couldn't like Carlyle. You're fighting phantoms, like every other delusional carlylefag. Now you're going full schizo because people don't like your little idol. Embarrassing.';

'>OP mentions plebs
>plebs come in to fling shit';

'>>23363384
Sorry but I can't have a serious argument with faggots who think Carlyle is an extremely famous writer. Most of his work is (rightfully) out of print and he doesn't even appear on /lit/'s top 100. Might as well argue with delusional trannies who think they're women lol stay seething carlylefag.';

'>>23363400
>It doesn't say anywhere there that Dickens didn't or couldn't like Carlyle
Once again you're too retarded to follow the chain of replies, see >>23362437 The whole point of mentioning Dickens is that his praise is substantial, it's not something that can just be dismissed unless you're a slave to hubris and can't admit that you have shit, or at least not objective, taste.

You're just proving that Carlyle haters are complete and utter retards with an irrational need to depreciate Carlyle.';

'>>23363418
If every writer in existence mentions Carlyle, and many of them credit him as a major influence, then yes he is an extremely famous writer. And you continual association of Carlyle with trannies is telling of your obsessive, borderline insane, mentality.';

'>>23363434
Dickens was Carlyle's friend. Am I supposed to think highly of his nepotistic praise? I don't even think that highly of Dickens as a prose stylist, which is also my main issue with Carlyle. Great characterization, engaging stories but always that affected and overly latinate Victorian prose. Sloppy writing, which is why even the plebs liked his work. A guy who wants to write a novel set in the French revolution likes his friend's contemporary French rev book. Big deal, fag.';

'>>23363451
You mistake influence with fame. Two different things. And no, not every writer in existence mentions Carlyle or cites him as an influence. The delusion of carlylefags seems to be infinite. They think he's Shakespeare lmao';

'>>23363457
>nepotistic praise
Hahahah, so after arguing as much as possible to deny the relevancy of Dickens, this is now how you're going to angle it? Since you clearly know nothing about the relationship, I can't but assume that you're presenting it that way because you're ridiculously biased against Carlyle. It's very obvious.

Well, since you don't know, Carlyle wanted nothing to do with Dickens for a long time, but Dickens admired Carlyle's writing so much (long before, and as the motivation for, meeting him) that he would follow him around looking for an opportunity to meet him. But look! already you're angling it a different way, in fact, Dickens isn't even that good. So Dickens praise for Carlyle doesn't mean all that much now.... except you'll have to do this with the countless other greats of literature that praise Carlyle. And by the end of it you'll only be confirming what we already know: you're a tasteless dilettante who (wrongly) thinks his opinions matter in the slightest.';

'>>23363462
>You mistake influence with fame.
Haha, okay anon, I'll be the most influential writer of all time but no one will know who I am. It doesn't matter how important I am to the canon and that everyone knowledgeable of the canon knows who I am, I'm still not famous!... It seems your idea of fame is if tiktok is talking about you.';

'>>23363177
But that's the point. There is no deeper emotion or reflection. Just empty rhetoric that goes on and on and says nothing. He has nothing to say but is in love with the sound of his own voice.';

'>>23363482
Dickens was a simp and fanboy. Okay? Who cares. All that matters is that Nietzsche shat on that fraud, that's an opinion I can take seriously. Everyone else is gay. Goodbye.

>!
lol lmao even';

'>>23363487
Carlyle is just not an extremely famous writer. Someone like Shakespeare is. Carlyle is arguably facing oblivion. Get over it, fag.';

'I would appreciate the attention that Carlyle is starting to get on this board if it wasn't for the fact this board is plagued with retards who don't actually fucking read. Carlyle is undoubtedly one of the greatest geniuses of all time and people who hated everything he stood for like John Stuart Mill thought as much as well. Genuinely dismissing Carlyle is a sign of peak contrarianism and an exemplar of having a middling intelligence at best';

'>>23363611
All the historical figures that claimed influence from Carlyle were simply wrong. His reputation declined immediately after his death. Cope. He was the contemporary equivalent of a Twitter shitposter who talked about politics';

'>>23363616
It's quite clear you're just looking for (you)s. I appreciate the effort though so I will give you one';

'>>23363611
Nietzsche was a bigger mind than Carlyle and he dismissed him. Wrong again, carlylefag.';

'>doesn't like jews and capitalism
>is a huge dicksucker and apologist for both Cromwell and Napoleon
???';

'are people in this thread aware that oxford university press published past and present last year? probably the highest profile publication of his work in decades. the book is extraordinarily influential, he had more of an impact on socialism than he did on nazism which all you fucking idiots don't understand. read engels' appraisal of the book, read how much dickens loved it';

'>>23363625
>Nietzsche
>A bigger mind
The same guy who changed his entire philosophy on artistry because Wagner went in a direction he didn't like? THAT Nietzsche?
>>23363628
Yes, I am fully aware. That's why I wrote in>>23363611 that retards here don't fucking read';

'>>23363627
Cromwell was a jew lover, yes. But Napoleon didn't like jews.';

'>>23363655
Napoleon learned to hate Jews. I don't know the English civil war in detail, did Cromwell have as much exposure to them as Napoleon did?';

'>>23363655
>Cromwell was a jew lover
Baseless myth btw.';

'>>23363490
retard';

'Nazism is a good thing btw';

'>>23363666
uhhh... cromwell sissies?';

'>>23363748
nooooooooo';

'>>23363748
Most Cromwell scholars agree that she was trans';

'>>23363765
this is so fxcking empowering... i just cant';

'>>23359833
Good';

'What you mean he is not on the list of approved and vetted authors by the rabbinic authority? Sounds like I need to read him.';

'>>23363765
makes sense. Xhe was very feisty and quirky';

'>>23363779
not like other revolutionaries';

'>>23359504
too based for globohomo to acknowledge him';

'My diagnosis of the thread is that woketards hate Carlyle. That the was friends with Dickens only makes him look better in my book.';

'>>23363804
>t. smartest carlylefag';

'>>23363655
Is that why he emancipated them everywhere and had his wars financed by jews from beginning to end, resulting in millions of europeans dying?';

'>>23363827
Also he reinstituted the Sanhedrin.';

'>>23363627
I know this is hard for tik tok brained zoomoid simpletons to understand, but one can respect and even admire someone while disagreeing with them on some things.';

'>>23363827
https://youtu.be/BGjSItPISd4?si=HmwtjrDcw0T9rvC9';

'>>23363827
He didn't emancipate them anywhere. This has zero evidence behind it, at most he let the already but unofficially present Jews in London build an *unofficial* synagogue, that is the very extremity of possibility, and even that is not certain. The fact is that all later monarchs are to blame for what happened, not Cromwell. And as for being financed, he made deals with the Dutch, that's a normal economic relation for a leader of a country at the time.';

'>>23363502
>Dickens was a simp and fanboy.
Once again trying to angle things with an unbelievable bias. The point is that, I repeat once again, Dickens, as representative of all the great Carlyle admirers, was a great writer whose praise for Carlyle was substantial and more valid than your own criticism, not that he was le heckin fanboy.

Just give up anon. With this amount of cope you look insane.';

'>>23364942
I would take Emerson, Thoreau, or Whitman as representative Carlyle admirers instead, each of whom wrote a substantial essay praising him in the highest terms.
A mere quibble but do look for those writings; they're enjoyable in themselves.';