/lit/ - Literature

>>1279238

I never contended Moore's intent with "Watchmen". What I'm saying is "Watchmen" is by no means the masterpiece it is made out to be. Moore's lesser-known "Marvelman" does everything Watchmen is credited with, only it is done a lot better and, if this is of any importance to you, done earlier.
But then, you may ask, why is Watchmen championed and Marvelman almost completely unknown? The answer is quite simply that the rights to one of these books is owned by Time Warner and one is not. Can you guess which?

>>1251331

The Road is ok, but it's nowhere near as good as you may have been led to believe. The only way I can describe it is as reading like Mad Max fan-fiction in a realist mode. This would be ok I guess, apart from the fact that not a single fucking thing happens in the whole book. A bunch of things nearly happen, but not quite.
It's a purely subjective thing, but I think there are a bunch of authors who tackle similar themes in a much better ways. Just as an example, I'd say "Oryx and Crake" is a much more entertaining post-apocalyptic tale with no less of a damning opinion of human nature. If that is a bit too lighthearted for your taste, try "Life & Times of Michael K" instead; this one lays on the misery on a scale McCarthy could never dream of.

But anyway, back to the point, McCarthy isn't that bad but "The Road" is not really worth the effort. Read "Blood Meridian" or something instead.

>>1225589

Even if I had all week, I wouldn't be able to define what magical realism 'is'. There are so many conflicting academic opinions on the matter; some follow a strict code on placing things in the mode (I believe the current go-to book for a good introduction to the magical realism 'rules' is Maggie Ann Bowers' "Magic[al] Realism"), whereas an equal number of people see it as any blend of fantasy and realism.
For me, magical realism is one of those things, like the dreaded Postmodernism (which it shares a lot of ground with), in which the best option is to absorb some decent works and decide what the term means to you.

Personally, I don't really adhere to the rulebook definition, as I don't see the value in attempting to quantify those events which we consider 'magic' or supernatural (which I mean in the strictest sense; I'm not just talking about ghosts!). The key factor for me is that realism and the fantastic are placed on an equal footing upon the same stage, each holding an equal claim on truth. In this sense, I'm sure some of what I would class 'magical realism' would be labelled fantasy or surrealism by the academic purists, but I'm pretty sure Borges would be on my side, so that's all that matters! If you read a lot of criticism on the subject, you'll find yourself going around in circles arguing technicalities which I feel undermine the very essence of the mode (although the most important thing to remember is disregard the opinions of anyone who terms magical realism as a 'genre').

>>1197596

Where have you even got 'The first sexth' from?
Have you ever seen ANYONE use such a phrase ANYWHERE??

In my opinion, you'd better off not trying to split a century in sixths. To open, just use some turn of phrase to indicate which era you're writing about (e.g. "...at the beginning of the twentieth century"; "... in the opening years of the twentieth century"), then proceed to mark time which exact dates.

You really don't need to overthink it.

Is "Oryx and Crake" allowed in this category?
I thought it was a pretty fun piece of speculative fiction but I've heard a few people contest where this text lies genre-wise.

Similarly, can I include "The Infernal Desire Machines of Dr. Hoffman"? Damn, do I love that book, but pegging it into a particular genre is very difficult; I've heard it called surrealism, fantasy, sci-fantasy and SF (both kinds) amongst many other classifications.

So if you'll let those two slide, I'd add them to the list of decent SF.

>>1178716

There's nothing wrong with Cat in the Hat for young readers, though I do mean generally for early readers.

What age group are we talking about? That plays an important part in selecting texts.

>>1173075

What would you prefer to call it?
"Self-referential fiction" may be slightly more apt but you'd have to admit it doesn't quite have the same ring to it.

Personally I think "metafiction" is a good enough label, as far as we really need to label anything. I guess your issue with it is a concern towards how transcendental a text can actually be?

In terms of how I 'feel' about metafiction, I'd say it can be enjoyable as a narrative device but incredibly annoying as a crutch that props up a mediocre text. As an example...
Though I don't consider the entire text to be metafictional, I would say the ending of "One Hundred Years of Solitude" can definitely be labelled as such. In relation to everything which preceded it, the novel's conclusion is unquestionably a stroke of genius.

For an example of "I'm so meta it hurts" literature, I'd have to say House of Leaves is one that sticks out for me. Yes, I'm sure it's very clever piling narratives on top on narratives whilst constantly undermining all narrative, it's just a shame Danielewski forgot to write a decent book.

>>1165626
>whatever you feel like is probably okay.

Never a truer thing said.
+10 to you anon.

>>1162893

I think I can explain this one, old chum.
OP was attempting to appear intelligent and sophisticated via name-dropping (the same thing he always name-drops).

In posting works of actual intellect, which we can assume the OP has never heard of, you bruised his ego, leaving him with no recourse but to call you a troll.

I may have misjudged the situation but it is highly unlikely.

>>1160278

I feel kinda the same about it.
I once described Johnny Truant as reading like a teenage nihilist's wish fulfillment fantasy and some anon on /lit/ raged about it.
The Navidson record was good, if a little slow paced.
Truant's intrusions into the text were just.. urgh. If I was a miserable high-schooler I'd probably like it more but.. I'd already read Bret Easton Ellis' books which do the same thing but a lot better. The last 150-200 pages were completely unnecessary...

All in all, in my opinion, it's a 650 page book which a better writer would've done in a 100 page novella. So yeah, I'm with you on this one anon!

>>1154757
>are we reading the same book?

I thought you weren't reading this book at all because the library didn't have it?
Have a little consistency please.

>>1150483
>>1150485
>>1150490
>>1150492
>>1150499
>>1150500
>>1150505

These and everything that follows are exactly what I was talking about. Almost every casual discussion of Joyce boils down to "You don't get!"; "Yes I do!"; "No you don't!"; "Yes I do!".
The one thing you'll never see is anyone discussing what makes Joyce's texts so damn tricky.
It sometimes seems Joyce's literary weight is maintained more by his fearsome intellectual reputation than by his actual works themselves.

I don't doubt there are many people who read Joyce and actually understand, for the most part, what he was up to, but I wouldn't say these people were anywhere near the literary majority.