/lit/ - Literature

>>16183127
If you read those books, you're a pleb. Catcher in the Rye is entry-level and not serious literature. Donna Tart is pop fiction.
>>16183116
Personally I think they're good for prurient reasons, but apart from that, I don't take them seriously. I would simply take a dark academia gf and force her to read better books and to spend less money on clothes, and more on wine and tobacco. I would turn her into a Bohemian and apostate of the dark academia fad. And I would fill her with my semen as a nightly philter. Also I would teach her French so she can be justifiably pretentious and not just a Hermione cosplayer.

>>16180078
>I realized it's okay to live an ordinary life
Is that the conclusion you came to from the book? First of all, being a professor isn't ordinary in the first place; that's a bourgeois lower-middle class sort of job, not really your average Joe type of work. Second of all, Stoner makes no impact on the world, his life was mostly a futile gesturing towards a constantly fleeting sense of happiness, he never seems to act of of volition but out of passivity or casualness, and he dies estranged from his entire family with only one friend, who even on his deathbed seems very distant from him. How does any of that make you think "this is okay"? What a weak take. If the book's goal is to normalize mediocrity then 1. that's a stupid goal and 2. it fails.