/lit/ - Literature

>>4612700
East of Eden was shit, and so is your 2nd year Eng Lit major parroting of a critique of it.

>>4612635
>>4612650
>has everything but Hobbits
>OMG GEORGE R.R. MARTIN TOTES NOT TRYIN TO BE J.R.R. TOLKEIN
k

Jesus wept /lit/, you're still making threads about this guy? He has to be the first writer in the history of literature who's career was utterly stillborn because of 4chan. No one is going to read someone who is so prominently (and repeatedly) featured here.

And that is so goddamn funny it hurts.

>>4612593
This.
To answer OP's question, anything by this guy. He's the fedorabard. Fucking Tolkein wannabe.

>>4611786
YFW Charley was just a prequel to Americans. Read it! You'll see!
(I did actually like Travels with Charley quite a lot, but there were times when he was SO overwrought)

>>4611700
>mfw your only "point" is tryhard satire which is more euphoric than a swimming pool full of trilbies and your shit just backfired so hard your neckbeard is flapping in the shockwave.

>>4611693
>hard mode engage
It's the way he makes my brain look like this when he's full-bore-tryhard-omg-humanity-so-beautiful-mode, which is is in FUCKING EVERYTHING he writes.

If pic related is the only John Steinbeck novel you own, congratulations. You have an acceptable judgment of what is worthwhile, lasting, interesting writing.

If you own ANYTHING ELSE by Steinbeck, you are either a middle school kid or just need to find something you're good at.

>>4611659
>mfw you have no face
>mfw it's manifest in my original post that this isn't about external appearance and you have reading comprehension problems so you should probably work on that before posting in /lit/ of all places anymore.

>What your soul looked like back when you thought John Steinbeck was great

Well. I hope when the anarchofascists take over they leave someone else in charge of teaching English and grammar.

>>2992539
Murphy.

>>2992497
Ah. So you're saying that you had nothing to add to the conversation, and just came in to shitpost and rage at a tripfag. Yes, that is that. Goodbye.

>>2992492
>ALL of his works are devoid of plot

>>2992489
So, you're basically saying that you feel that anyone with an opinion other than yours is a troll, and that you can't understand why people respond to this thread... in a post where you are responding to this thread?

If it's true that what we say about others is really what we're saying about ourselves, then if you're looking for pathology and autism, you should really have a look in the mirror.

>>2992454
So what you're telling me is that you're uncertain of the definition of 'notable artistic merit', and yet are steadfastly declaring that certain plotless novels have it?

Yes, you called it. I'm not going to do your work for you. Considering the difficulty I've had so far with making people like you understand even the simplest things, I'm confident that the task would simply be more effort than I'm willing to put up with just for your sake.

>>2992443
Oh dear. You are aware those awards are not associated with a specific novel, yes? I mean, you know that writers write several novels, and that things like the Nobel Prize are awarded for the overall impact of that writer's body of contribution to literature... and not, as you are apparently trying to insinuate, because of one (apparently plotless) novel they wrote?

Surely you're aware of that. If not.. dear. How embarrassing for you.

>>2992438
Please! Do tell me all about the noted artistic merits! I'm sure you've read all about it, so it should be no trouble for you.

Surely, you aren't just saying you believe something to be true and are unable to back it up! That would just be... Stupid. Obtuse. Oblivious. Etc.

>>2992399
>>2992409
>>2992410
>>2992412
I can sweep all these fails up with the same brush: Inability to demonstrate "noted artistic merit" of the plotless novels they are white-knighting.

You guys are too easy!

>>2992399
You're only right on one point-- people are naming books.

However, their inability to demonstrate that any of them have notable artistic merit absolutely does not give me a hard-on (it's difficult to obtain an erection while laughing), I haven't been doing this for hours (have gone for a jog, went to the store, and cooked dinner in between various posts... check the times), and you're clearly interested, otherwise you wouldn't have posted anything. So, looks like you need to either deal with it or go be mad somewhere else.

>your post thrown on the growing pile of failposts and shitposts in this thread.

>>2992376
You're terrible at detecting samefags. But do share that thread-- I love making fun of people's garbage poetry.

>>2992381
>The Unnameable
>noted artistic merit
You apparently believe that the combination of "French" and "old" equates to "noted artistic merit". How sad for you!

>>2992342
rangaha! Good to see you! The wife and kid are beautiful, kind and talented as always. I have no idea why either of them continue to put up with me. How have you been?

I agree with you on all points:
#2 is so arbitrary! If you can write for sour apples, you'll have a character the reader can "root for". If you write nothing but characters that everyone hates, you should take up knitting or chiropractic or something else besides writing. #5 is true in a general sense, but it's really just a donkey-bridge for reminding people to be concise and tight. #8 is for people who SUCK at writing suspense. Vonnegut himself admitted he was terrible at suspense-- maybe he threw that one in there to excuse himself. But to be fair, MOST writers are horrible at suspense-- they're better off not trying.

>>2992317
It's 9 volumes. There's not just one plot, there's many. If you're trying to describe it as "plotless", perhaps you'd better read it again.

>>2992106
Oh? Then I'm sure you'll have no trouble where the rest of /lit/ failed, to wit: Name one novel of noted artistic merit that does not have a plot.

I'm sure this will be no trouble. Ahem. Shoot!