/lit/ - Literature

>>20666985
>He’s all about that particular blend of cold war paranoia
Def not. The paranoia in lot 49 is justified and the paranoia in GR isn't paranoia, in the story it is all fake, he is being set up, and it's been going on his whole life.

>early post-war American culture
in the sense of gr being heavily influenced by war movies, sure, for example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8of3uhG1tCI

i don't think boomers are too familiar with black and white ww2 movies that's more of the silent generation's jam... lindy hopping and kenosha kidding and foxtrotting? DFW was a baby boomer, dawg.

it was ergot poisoning

>>13165913
>pretentious garbage you read when you're in that 'seeking the most complex and intellectual' phase
I believe most people have clear in their mind that GR is a goofy mess, and although it is complex due to lots of characters and stories crossing each other and going back and forward in time, it never feels pretentious.
>mostly find it painfully boring but convince yourself that the good parts were brilliant for the sake of feeling superior to the plebs.
there is literally not one boring page, I have never laughed as good and as often as I did reading GR.

you don't need to trash it just to feel better about not reading it, all right? and tom is a very cool guy, don't go disrespecting him like that

>>11647224

>>11384759

>>10421011

Do you believe that there are objective "good starting points" when getting into a particular author's work (assuming you aren't getting into a series) with the end goal of getting the most out of the experience?

I.e. do you agree with /lit/ charts?

Did that one dude ever get round to making a Faulkner one of these?

Also chart thread I guess

/lit/ charts thread. I'll start.

Are any of the author charts really necessary? Why can't I just start with AtD or Ulysses or Macbeth?

or here

Is it okay if I choose not to follow this?

>>8034105

>>7809467

>>7562465