/lit/ - Literature

>>5212289

>>4163740
Some anon arrived and saying: I'm a huge Orson Wells; 1985 is my favorite book. rec me something.

And a mey-mey was born, the thread is on the chan archive but its down.

>>4148126
>GG&S
pants on head retarded, read Why Nations Fail instead

My favourite ever book, 1985

>>3617707

Did /lit/ forgot about the huge Orson Wells?

>>3111732
Father, Orson Wells and Holy Ghost.

i have read the complete eye of argon

i actually felt my mind damaging on the process

>>2063727
It's not sort of a meme, it is a meme.

>>1744623
>>1744631
>>1744670

>>1495929
>New Clancy
>Ludlum died in 2001

>>1307581
This is something that I've been stewing over for a week or two now. Just some meandering here; anyone with something better to do should feel free to disregard.

Even the best recommendation is nowhere near as effective as a good description or promotion of a book (my knee-jerk PC tendencies want to change this to 'work of literature' to make it sound more inclusive to the philosophy readers). What makes the literary suggestion dicey is that while we have a lot of the same authors / books cropping up many of us are still pretty localized: We haven't read them. There's a thrill in finding a new author, a new voice, ESPECIALLY if we relate and love this new work. Alternately there’s a fear we’re going to get a chestnut: some of the greatest writers have flops, works that are flat-out too much of an investment to be of literary worth to people who don’t take a rabid interest, works that degrade in worth when removed from their era. And so on.

On the other hand over-promotion stales the incentive to read the work (I'm thinking of that guy who was in here a while ago doing daily threads on Lautréamont [Maldoror itself not being a bad novel at all, but switching me off from the topic by way of over-hype]), and there’s the idea that some of these suggestions may be too specialized to even stay alive on here long enough for someone it‘d be valuable to to get to reading it.

Semi-related: (>>1307558) noted a desire to read Sorovin and Pelevin, both authors I've never heard of. I intend to look into them and see if any of this writing looks interesting.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that it’s not fair to disregard the obvious suggestions, or ignore something that isn't directly pointed at your post. They’re obvious because it makes sense to read one in following the incentive for suggestion.

>>1216051
love it!

Anon has inspired. I love this meme.