/lit/ - Literature

>>18187286
Lol that wasn't even me.

>>18187252
>living authors
What a midwit take. You gave your second-highest rating to a guy who included Rich Dad Poor Dad/Debt The First 3000 Years/Galileo's Middle Finger. What, you have a hard-on for Gene Wolfe because he isn't a "living writer?" He hasn't even been dead for 2 years (and if you'd consider him obscure you're very VERY lghtly read). Since you like to make blanket hipster statements, I'll make a blanket Chad one: Fantasy is for ugly girls and guys who can't get girlfriends (even ugly ones who read fantasy).

>Extremely popular
Hahaha. You make that criticism alongside the idea that only classics by deceased writers are worth reading (cognitive dissonance much). Besides, Surfacing is a deep-cut as far as Atwood is concerned (you might have been warranted had I read Handmaid or Oryx & Crake). I don't like Margaret Atwood, I chose Surfacing because it was an early novel where she tackled the themes that made her prominent (even if she had already won the GG). The whole thing with Atwood is the fact she jumps onto whatever aspects of the zeitgeist are most prominent and puts out a midwit take. (I don't like her, but I wanted to find some redeemable characteristics in her writing (it's clear/fluid) and thought Surfacing would be a key work to take a look at: it was).

>Not that there's anything wrong with Mo Yan
He's basically a shill for the CCP in the same way Gorky was for the Soviets (so I'd say there's a lot wrong there). In line with that thought, did it ever occur to you I might have picked Mo Yan specifically because he was hyped in the West? Uh oh! Do you take that statement as proving your hipster midwit read because no one should read anything acclaimed/popular (unless the writer is dead)? Maybe reading a writer who shills for the CCP, won a Nobel, and is relatively prominent in the West was the point. Or do you think the only thing you can learn from literature is empathy? Midwit.

>Yoko Ogawa and Mo Yan - not, for example, Jia Pingwa
Ogawa is Japanese (either you can't recognize a Japanese name or you don't know what a non sequitur when you make one). Besides, Ogawa was great. You're a moron.

>Martin and some jap thriller
Uh oh, you almost got me there. ASOIF has a big fanbase so I guess I'm a normie if I read it. Maybe it's just that a book over 700 pages isn't light reading for someone like you? As far as "jap thriller" goes--you ever think maybe someone wanted to read a contemporary Japanese author? That, just maybe, someone might want to see what constitutes a popular page-turner in another country? Oh, sorry -- I didn't choose Namo Obascuro.

>you are an idiot for not reflecting upon it
You're an idiot for assuming I chose the above books for the same reasons a midwit like yourself would. Fucking hipster...get some better reads on people if you want to become an author (seeing how pretentious you are, I'm assuming that's a goal you've set).

>>18109696
I only read books published before 1789; You've probably never heard of them.