/lit/ - Literature

>>8812588
Here you go mate...

>>8455436
Tolkien because he actually finished his fucking series.

Okay, so what's the deal with dust jackets? Are they really necessary? I think books look much better without them, but I'm curious if they really help to protect your hardcovers.

Thoughts, anon?

>>7796512
I do the same, although I tend to use a waiting period between drafting and editing. I have to take a week off between each so I can edit with fresh eyes.

>>7428740
I'm not sure you'd have to go to such great extremes.

>>7353206
No, it's not over. /lit/ isn't just about finding and recommending books. It's about discussion and opinion. opinions can change and discussion can always be fresh because there are will always be different opinions.

I've been visiting /lit/ for years and, despite some repetition, I almost always find something new...whether it be another book to add to my reading list or an interesting discussion that makes me see a topic from another angle.

>>7259868
Dead Souls by Gogol.

Very funny, but unfinished.

Except for the big names, why is reading classic lit summaries and commentaries not more efficient than reading the books themselves? After all, the aesthetic aspect of it all is almost always entirely useless.
I'm talking books a hundred, two hundred pages long max.