/lit/ - Literature

>this author
>well, dear reader,
>the protagonist of our story
>perhaps we will find why in the next chapter!

>>10782985
>Reddit and goodreads love this type of shit
As shitty as /lit/ is, there really is no better place to discuss literature.

>>10782985
>>well, dear reader,

>>10783028
You shouldn't let shitty dumb websites liking things deter you from also liking them.

>>10783028
thats a pretty low bar desu. in all my time on lit i honestly can't remember more than a handful of times when people actually discussed books instead of just talking around the books, or calling authors geniuses or idiots without any justification.

>>10782942
>too much description! I don't care about furnitures, architecture, landscape or heraldry!

and I love ekphraseis.

>>10782985
>You might be wondering how
>Well, read on
>words can't describe the x so I won't :))

I can't think of a single thing. It's all the other way - by general standards I'm absurdly picky and hate almost everything.

A MANY-TIMES-REPEATED STORY IN MY LIFE:
>Be me
>Watch film with other person/people
>Film ends
>Other person/people: Wow that was great, I/we am/are now happy
>Me: Hmmm I didn't like it because of <enumerates faults>
>Other person/people: You're so nitpicky you never like anything
>Me: I do, I like good things.

Having said that, I guess the only thing I tend to like in books (and films) which other people don't is a SAD ENDING.

Sad Endings FTW!!

>IJ
>There are too many stories going on!
Keeps things fresh IMO

>>10783142
So start a thread. My guess is you're just skipping over threads because you didn't read the book being discussed. Just yesterday we had a nice discussion between a couple of us about Han Kang.

>when you turn the page and there are a million deep sounding quotes, in italics, before the chapter begins

it's the literary equivalent of getting to the delicious solid chocolate section of a cornetto.

>>10783154
I wrote the prologue to my novel and the guy I showed it to said he found the descriptions lacking...
he might be your type

>>10783175
you are too much of a edgy underage redditor i want to die

>>10783175
>>Me: Hmmm I didn't like it because of <enumerates faults>
>>Other person/people: You're so nitpicky you never like anything
stop being nitpicky. you sound like a cunt to everyone except you.


>me + friend watch movie
>friend: I really liked it!
>me: what did you like?
>friend: explains
>me: Oh. I liked x and y was done well, but I didn't like it very much because z
>friend: hmm, you're right, z could have been done better.

Except I'm sort of famous among my friends for always pushing for the movies I want to watch because all three of us have such differing views. I like action/adventure movies, but quality ones. 2 friend thinks ALL action movies are trash, so trying to explain why Tremors is actually a fantastic example of breaking conventions and analog FX or why tarantino is famous for a stylistic implementation of trashy aesthetics is impossible, But I'm pretty sure they've got something mixed up, because they once commented about how they don't want to watch outdated FX like in Jurassic Park, which is... actually impossible, because JP is STILL one of the best FX movies. but my other friend also complains about how I force my movies, but they say that not only do all (or 90%) of movies I pick end up being good, great or their favorite every, when they pick a movie, they end up hating it.

Still, I pride myself in learning the preferred aesthetics of people I know and a successful recommendation is great.

tl;dr: if your friend really likes a movie, don't be a fucking wet blanket, and if you have to be, at least know what the fuck you're talking about.

>>10783225
I have started tried proper threads in the past, they die off with less than three replies.

>>10783345
Stop posting about books no one here has read then.

>>10783345
start replying to yourself very negatively to create debate

>>10783348
lmao what? you just had a thread about Han Kang, I've never once heard about her on lit. its completely impossible to know what people have really read on here, partially because so few actually take reading seriously. enough with crap advice please, lit is really not that good for real discussion.

>>10783350
this works to get replies but not actual discussion. it just becomes the usual shit flinging.

>>10783366
She literally won Man Booker International two years ago.

>>10783129
i don't
reddit is literally wrong and annoying about everything
it's an amazing phenomenon

>>10783390
>never once heard about her on lit
>on lit
she has never been mentioned here on any kind of regular basis

>>10783366
>>10783390
she pops up on /lit/ every once in awhile, but I haven't seen any extended discussion of her works seriously. Assuming that no one has read her, most of the comments have been criticism that 1) she's a woman and 2) anonymous posters don't like vegetarianism. This kind of discussion is what is to be expected from barely-literate cross-posters who have begun to frequent this board.

>>10783416
>have been criticism that 1) she's a woman
The fact that nobody can have a goddamn discussion about a female author without half the thread just being
>lmao wemins
proves that /lit/ is fully incapable of having a valid literary opinion, ever.

>>10783313
>me: Oh. I liked x and y was done well, but I didn't like it very much because z
fag. you should only speak to your mum like this. your friends sound like pussies and retards who need to be thrown in gas chambers. and you, you will be the one who is going to pull the lever. why? it is a final display of your worst vices. spineless midwit.

>>10783468
I haven't seen somebody this butthurt since 2007

>>10783489
I'm not the poster you told off, sir. just calling it as i see it

>>10783500
huh. that's even more pathetic.

>>10782942
When Anthony Kenny deals more or less fairly with every philosopher from presorcratics to contemporary philosophy but then just abrubtly calls Derrida a fraud.

>>10783175
you sound 15 and cringey
go back to r/books

>>10783154
yeah to be honest i agree, though i think people just have a very low threshold when it comes to long passages of non-narrative description. However one of only times i've found it egregious is in Ivanhoe where Scott, i think to show he'd done his research, felt the need to painstakingly describe every article of clothing every character wore.

>>10783175
Finding problems with everything and letting those problems ruin it for you is peak brainlet. Understanding positives and negatives is the only way to sounds smart when you talk about media, except in very rare cases.