/lit/ - Literature

And the award for "most overrated author of the 20th century" goes to...

What kind of person you imagine?

>>18448851
Check to see if I have wings.

>Carroll, Lewis. Have always been fond of him. One would like to have filmed his picnics. The greatest children's story writer of all time.
>Poe, Edgar Allan. A favorite between the ages of 10 and 15, but no longer. One would like to have filmed his wedding.*

What the fuck was Nabokov's problem?

* Poe married his 13 year-old cousin when he was 26.

>>8859493
seriously?

>the character narrating is a pretentious faggot, the writing is supposed to be purple and poorly wirtten!

Or, you know, it's just bad writing.

>We must distinguish between ‘sentimental’ and ‘sensitive’. A sentimentalist may be a perfect brute in his free time. A sensitive person is never a cruel person. Sentimental Rousseau, who could weep over a progressive idea, distributed his many natural children through various poorhouses and workhouses and never gave a hoot for them. A sentimental old maid may pamper her parrot and poison her niece. The sentimental politician may remember Mother’s Day and ruthlessly destroy a rival. Stalin loved babies. Lenin sobbed at the opera, especially at the Traviata.

Nabokov

His opinion of Dosto: Dostoevsky, Fyodor. Dislike him. A cheap sensationalist, clumsy and vulgar. A prophet, a claptrap journalist and a slapdash comedian. Some of his scenes are extraordinarily amusing. Nobody takes his reactionary journalism seriously.
The Double. His best work, though an obvious and shameless imitation of Gogol's "Nose."
The Brothers Karamazov. Dislike it intensely.
Crime and Punishment. Dislike it intensely. Ghastly rigmarole.

Of Hemming: Hemingway, Ernest. A writer of books for boys. Certainly better than Conrad. Has at least a voice of his own. Nothing I would care to have written myself. In mentality and emotion, hopelessly juvenile. Loathe his works about bells, balls, and bulls.

Of Camus: Camus, Albert. Dislike him. Second-rate, ephemeral, puffed-up. A nonentity, means absolutely nothing to me. Awful.

If you do not have such an elite taste in literature, stay away from this board please.

Imitate the writing style of any author and others guess the author based on the writing style.

I'll start:

What was his problem?

Prose. Prose prose prose prose, prose prose prose prose. Prose prose, prose prose. Pee-ro-se: prose prose prose prose prose prose prose prose prose prose prose prose prose prose prose prose, prose prose, prose prose prose. Pee. Ro. Se.

show me your proseful prose

Was Nabokov a pedo? How was he able to write is such beautiful detail such a taboo subject without experience?

How do I get better at writing metaphors?

How to get better at writing in English?

I'm a non-native English speaker somewhere at the advanced level. I guess that I have a near-native reading comprehension (of course I struggle to read authors like Pynchon or Melville a bit), but I feel like I can't express myself in writing creatively enough. Should I just read as much books as possible and hope that my brain will absorb everything subconsciously and thus my writing would get better?

What are the levels of understanding a work of literature?

I'll start:
1. Superficial, pleb tier:
>this was a boring/simple read
>he uses a lot bad words

2...

3...

tfw Nabokov got away with being a blatantly massive paedophile

>Thirty-six days of endless darkness.
Not an effective "hook" for the reader, at least on its own.
>It surrounded Valen Cortas in cell 377, twisting and turning itself into his bones until he and the darkness had become one.
Combine this sentence with the one that came before it. They'd sound better combined. "Thirty six days of endless darkness surrounded Valen Cortas..."
>Valen Cortas
trying too hard to be fantasy
>twisting and turning itself into his bones
I do not see a significant relationship between darkness and his bones. It would make more sense for this to be his brain, though I doubt the ability of the writer to pull off such a description.
>until he and the darkness had become one
I hate to use the word "edgy," but that's what this is. A cliche "oh no this guy is so troubled and sad" moment.

You can definitely tell that she has not read a good book in her life, or at least does not enjoy good literature. So I guess it's hard to blame her for writing like this without any good inspiration or basis. You can also tell that she is a woefully inexperienced writer who probably has never had a single good peer review session. I get that it's fun to write and I'm not telling her to stop, but please try to release a quality product if you're going to be charging money.

What the fuck was his problem?

>Dostoevsky, Fyodor. Dislike him. A cheap sensationalist, clumsy and vulgar. A prophet, a claptrap journalist and a slapdash comedian. Some of his scenes are extraordinarily amusing. Nobody takes his reactionary journalism seriously.

Considering his contributions to literature, do you think he was justified to make those scathing criticisms about authors like Conrad, Faulkner, and Dostoyevsky?

> my smug face when I skip the Anna and Vronsky chapters in Anna Karenina cause it was evidently written for children

>>8076450
>6' 2"

literally all of them