/lit/ - Literature

>>10684032
http://www.english.txstate.edu/cohen_p/irish/O'Brien.html

>>10684032
i'm concerned that /lit/'s penchant for meme trilogies, having now spread like a virus to my natural habitat of /sffg/, is turning one of my favourite authors (gene "not a meme" wolfe) into a meme.

>>10684032
tbqh anyone with strong opinions of any kind about books, the physical object.

>>10684032
> implying it's not more autistic to give a shit about how your books look, getting self-conscious and nervous about trying to make a book last forever or getting this upset at the idea that someone might be criticising you

OP, you're the autist.

>>10684076
What is the gene wolfe meme trilogy, anon

Pepe the frog. I wish people got banned for posting it like people did for My Little Pony back in 2013. It's probably more cancerous than bronies were.

I don't like that meme where we pretend to like the tiger poem.

>>10684109
I don't give a shit about how my books look. It just pisses me off when I go into shelf threads and see comments like this:
>no spine cracks
>pseud I bet you never even read them!
Why? Why comment that?

>>10684113
he doesn't have one, but his botns is usually included in nominations of the /sffg/ meme trilogy as one part of the trilogy.

for reference, the original meme trilogy is infinite jest, ulysses and gravity's rainbow

>>10684131
They're probably right if those comments piss you off so much. To make such an effort to make sure there isn't any cracks in your books is immensely autistic.

>>10684138
no i know the original meme trilogy, but i just thought from your post gene wolfe had one too. what are the other books in the /sffg/ meme trilogy? I don't visit those threads. Is it lord of the rings and some Philip K Dick or something?

>>10684129
> pretend

I actually don't think people are pretending that much about that one. Some will be exaggerating praise for it but it's a genuinely sweet poem which reminds people of overcoming an obstacle and it's surprisingly written by a young kid.

>>10684140
Paperbacks don't get spinecracks after reading the book a few times. I bought a copy of Underworld second hand. It had no spinecracks when I bought it and after I read it, it still had none. Unless you fold your book in half like a woman, your paperbacks will hardly show any wear after reading it a few times. Fuck you for perpetuating the "paperbacks dissolve after one read" meme.

Getting antsy about the physical quality of books in general.

>>10684129
>pretend
its the most full of energy shit ive ever read. maybe ive read on par or better, but never so succintly. its a masterpiece.

>>10684131
That's what you get for posting in those self masturbatory threads in the first place

>>10684161
> Fuck you for perpetuating the "paperbacks dissolve after one read" meme.

I never fucking said that, you dumb cunt.

It genuinely comes down to the publisher and their spines. Golliancz, Vintage and Oxford (depending on the size of the book) have good spines. Penguin, larger Oxford editions, etc have spines that require very little pressure to crease. You don't literally need to fold the book in half and they'll still show some sign of creasing. It's inevitable depending on the size of the book and the spine.

The fact you're so pissy about all of this shows you're a fucking retard. Nobody gives a shit enough about the quality of your spines or not. Who gives a fuck if they're creased or not, as long as you know you've read them then it shouldn't fucking matter, but the fact you're so pissy about people making such comments seems to imply that you don't actually read your books.

Go eat a bag of dicks, faggot.

>>10684187
I don't post in them. Never have; never will. I just browse them to get recs based on other people's shelves. See what they read and see if it interests me.

>>10684131
Maybe if you read your books rather than collected them...

>>10684032
I'm the same way op i always wonder hoe these retards hold their books

>>10684129
Not liking the tiger poem is tellings of a hypocritical mind, since the poem itself is pretty nice and has a very humane message, disregarding that it was written by a literal kid. Of course it isn't a masterpiece.

>>10684145
funnily enough, LOTR is discussed more frequently out here in /outerlit/ than in /sffg/. the majority of people posting in /sffg/ have read tolkien and pretty much everyone likes him. PKD is discussed fairly often but he's not really meme status, i think because there's no "one" PKD book that everyone thinks is a masterpiece or is daunting or polarising. unlike botns, infinite jest, etc. however i can tell you that PKD is near universally acclaimed on /sffg/.

other potentential candidates for the /sffg/ meme trilogy are:

too like the lightning by ada palmer (meme: philosophy & awkward sex scene)
the name of the wind by rothfuss (meme: polarising)
the thing itself by adam roberts (meme: because it's "kant's wild ride: the sci-fi horror)
malazan by erkison (meme: daunting to get through)
and probably some sanderson book because he's a meme author

hope that helps

>>10684249
Thanks anon, pretty interesting. Might pop into /sffg/ next time I see it.

>>10684249
By setting BOTNS alongside Name of the Wind etc. are they trying to imply that it's garbage? Because Rothfuss is honestly horrible.