/lit/ - Literature

Of Mice and Men

oh and curley`s wife dies.

INAFTER ATLUS SHRUGGED

y charles mingus read books now?

>>1106987
fuck you
>>1106989
and lennie tends the rabbits

I read this in high school you dipshits

y so mad?

>>1107015
cuz /lit/ fags always come in and shit on our parade whenever we discuss non alternative media

>>1107049

Who are you referring to when you say 'our' and 'we'?

What is 'non-alternative media'?

>>1107063
mostly
/co/
/v/
/a/ (but they're gay anyway)
/tv/
>alt media (to books)
>comics, cartoons, movies, video games

now hurry up and recommend something awesome

>>1107069
Starfish.

>>1107069

Based on your posts and the fact that you're reading for plot, I recommend something shitty. Probably with zombies.

You don't seem to have the taste or patience to appreciate good literature, based on your preferred media.

>>1107000
Fuck you too.

Seriously though, what did you expect, this board can't even put up a decent fight against a raid from the shittiest boards of 4chan.

I would suggest John Dies at the End since you're probably an ADD addled idiot like me.

>>1107069
To counteract the /lit/fags, I recommend Neil Gaiman. His stuff is fairly awesome plot-wise.

>>1107088

I like a guy that can take the piss out of himself. Want a beej?

>>1107078
classics are pretty shitty bro. i dont have time to read 300 pages of jane eyre describing the fucking weather. or atticus telling his kids to fuck off. of odysseus being a gigantic douchenuzzle. Sorry im not as refined as you are.
>>1107088
add riddled? I think not. I just appreciate the driving, story-moving elements of literature. I don't want plot to get shafted for 80 fucktons of symbolism

Dune

>best plotted fiction books ever
>This aint no place for 1000 page slice of life

You don't belong here.

>>1107115

>classics are pretty shitty bro.

That's a reflection of your poor taste. You need to understand that plot is worthless. And any book overly concerned with it will be shit.

So read some shit. You don't like good literature.

I'd start with Harry Potter, or Twilight. Maybe some Dan Brown.

>>1107147
>I'd start with Harry Potter, or Twilight. Maybe some Dan Brown.

low blow man, low blow

The Hunger Games

you say dan brown- I say Gramsci
you say jodi picoult- I say albert camus
you say stephen king – I say arthur rimbaud
you say bestselling fiction – I say french surrealism
you say dave eggers – I say jean genet
you say Chuck Klosterman – I say Anton Chekov
you say chuck palanuik – I scream roberto bolano
you say stephanie meyer – I rip your fucking head off
92% of teenagers have turned to new bestselling fiction and vampire romance, if ur part of the 8%, copy this message and past it to an other reply. DONT LET THE SPIRIT OF LITERATURE DIE!!!

>>1107151

It's what you're asking for. Come back when you're ready for something better than TV and the other pedestrian media you listed, what I've recommended is their literary equivalent.

>>1107174
alright then, bro
give me your best literature
change my mind
I, for one, am ashamed that any third rate author has the chance at awards for slopping out some plotless garbage with a moral message tagged in on the end

>>1107207

No.

As I've said before, you don't like, nor do you have the intellect or patience to appreciate, good literature.

>>1107214
this has nothing to do with intellect. patience i'll give you

there are plenty of fine nonfiction books ive read and i'll admit that they're good.

the big six
rise and fall of the third reich
the world is flat

harry potter and twilight are comparatively at the same side of the scale this slice of life literature is you preach to the high heavens. Both have shitty, poor excuses for plots.

You argue that the deeper points are the finer points of literature.

I've seen the same recycled themes and messages, symbolism and parallels over and over again as often as the same ineffective plot elements are thrown around time and again.

just give me something new and unique.

>this thread
>ask for books
>WHAT IS LITERATURE
>/lit/ tells you to fuck off
oh wow

but seriosuly try the divine comedy if you haven't already. atlas shrugged is pretty cool.

count of monte cristo is kind of gay

>>1107241

>this has nothing to do with intellect

Oh but it does, as your continuing to miss the point illustrates.

Go back to your cartoons and simple little doctor dramas, you're not made for literature, my friend.

Treason by Orson Scott Card.

>>1107256
you're simply eluding me like all english majors

you cant suggest anything because it would be torn to ribbons.

>simple little doctor dramas,
you're (implying) that prime time television isn't as complex as literature. I agree with that

What you arent doing, however, is proving your point in the slightest.

The mere fact that i'm agreeing with you about the trashiness of contemporary media on the whole shows that you too, my friend, are missing the fucking point.

So continue to address me as a commoner as you gallop upon your high horse

>>1107267

You won't like anything I suggest. That's why I'm not suggesting anything. You're prepared to shoot down anything of worth because you're incapable(or unwilling) to appreciate it.

Your attitude has been confrontational from the start. I'm not here to cater to you. I'm not here to prove literature's worth. If you can't appreciate good literature, that's your fucking problem.

Literature doesn't need you, it doesn't need proving to you. If you don't like "1000 page slice of life award winning faggot tier books", as you so intelligently put it, then either 1) Read the trash I've already suggested that will cater to your sub-human little mind, or 2) Don't fucking read.

"Kafka on the Shore" - Haruki Murakami

>>1107284
alright then, let's try this from a different angle then.
why is harry potter trash?
why is twilight trash?
what sets apart catcher in the rye from these two so-called plebeian works?

why is something considered for the masses automatically not literature?

it's bigots like you that dub shit as literature.

the only reason these works withstand time is because they are immortalized by people like you.

Resuscitation of a Hanged Man. Fucking read it you entry level English majors.

>>1106977
posting in an epic argument

mfw most activity /lit/ has got in awhile >_>

This kind of thread is the cancer that is killing /lit/.

>>1107314
Nawh. It's you that is killing /lit/ by sitting back and pointing fingers instead of posting what you deem "quality" threads.

>>1107316
who is*

>ask any other board on 4chan for recommendations
>they deliver
>ask /lit/
>3 legit replies
>fuck off peasant
never change, this shit is hilarious

Journey to the End of the Night.
I'm going to keep recommending this book anywhere it applies over and over because I just finished it and it was fucking amazing. And the plot is a huge part of the story, Ferdinand's (and Robinson's) journeys and experiences are the driving force of his musings.

Telling people they're idiots and don't have the intellect for literature is a fucking obscenity. Get off my /lit/.

That said, I agree with cuntface that 'plot' isn't necessarily very important - even in media where it's expected to be, like film. I mean watch Bringing Up Baby, that doesn't really have a plot - just an excuse for its antics. And it's brilliant, it's the coolest fucking thing I've ever seen.

But if you want books that ARE well-plotted, while achieving literary value, try
- Joseph Conrad. 'The Secret Agent' or 'Lord Jim' would be good starts; the former is shorter.
- Angela Carter's 'The Bloody Chamber'. If the first story tires you out with how ornate it is, skip to Puss in Boots. Shit made me a feminist.
- Iain Banks, and his doppelganger Iain M. One writes lit-fic, the other sci-fi, but both fulfil the criteria above. Try 'The Wasp Factory' or 'Whit' from the former category, 'The Player of Games', 'Use of Weapons' or 'Look To Windward' from the latter.
- Jekyll and Hyde. Best late-Victorian horror story, mops the floor with Stoker. See also Wilde's 'Picture of Dorian Gray', which could be seen as an extended riff on that genre.
- Virginia Woolf's 'Between The Acts'. Not a conventional plot but powers forward through a very short work. IIt is mostly the story of us, all of us (or, being 60 years old, all of them), rather than anyone in particular.
- Shakespeare. Well, kind of. His 'plots' aren't exactly all that important. But the strength of his characters is accessible enough to modern non-literary audiences. He's fucking worth it.

If you want to try books that are great but which don't much bother with plot:
- Christopher Marlowe. Silly plots. No character progression. Fucking wonderful. I'm serious! The same goes for the Thomas Middleton, although there is a major slang barrier for his London comedies.
- Henry Fielding. His big novels are picaresque so their plots go back and forth all over the place, but are always a lot of fun. Try 'Tom Jones' (which is enormous) if you feel up for it, or 'Joseph Andrews' (which is merely quite long) if not. From around the same time is Laurence Stern's mammoth, absurd 'Tristram Shandy', but it might not be for you. It was confusing enough for its learned contemporary audience two hundred and fifty years ago. Nevertheless "orgasmic, revolutionary" etc would be a pretty good way to describe it if you can hack it. Footnotes and a steady will can help.
- 'Catch 22'. The idea that anyone could not enjoy this book is really alien to me.

Protip for OP:

You probably shouldn't offend the medium if you're going to ask the radicals for suggestions.

Read:

2666
Infinite Jest
Gravity's Rainbow

And get over your phobia of near "1000 page slice of life award winning faggot tier books." You really don't know what you're missing until you try them.

>>1107301
catcher in the rye sucks too.

>>1107336
I got about a third into Catch 22 before I lost interest. It was really cool at first, I loved the first couple chapters but it just seemed to wallow in the mire.

halfway through Underworld by Don DeLillo he just goes "It has no plot." (the reference is to something else, but it's obvious what he means)

Did someone say plot??

>>1106977
Piers Anthony
The Xanth Novels
Go!

>>1107361

Whereas Shandy keeps on insisting he has a plot.

Jesus, you pretentious faggots.

The Maltese Falcon

One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest

Dracula

Cats Cradle

These are all excellent works that have a pretty tight narrative, although Dracula may fit the bill only loosely.

>>1107467

>Dracula may fit the bill only loosely

By being shit?

>>1107530

I don't understand the appeal of trolling people whose opinions are affirmed by decades of critical praise and cultural appreciation.

Perhaps you meant to inspire feelings of anger and resentment by your actions?

>>1107542

Dracula hasn't received "decades of critical praise" - at least not for, well, decades. Its fascinating neuroses and overloaded Victorian sexuality have instead provoked critical analysis, much of which claims it as bizarre, regressive, misogynist, racist, imperialist, whatever else (see Christopher Craft's 'Kiss Me With Those Red Lips'). Ken Gelder notes in 'Reading the Vampire' (an excellent wee book and one of the most accessible pieces of lit crit I've read, without sacrificing any theoretical depth) that Dracula has been so attractive to critics because it is so absolutely stuffed with suggestive sexual freakiness. Hell, it works itself into a froth over every hot-button fin-de-siecle issue you can shake a skull-headed stick at. As a result you can analyse it in a million different ways, many of them equally valid. But just because it's undoubtedly worth studying that doesn't mean its feverish overdetermination should be mistaken for genuine artistic achievement.

>>1107606

Meanwhile, by criteria of plot and pace that academics don't necessarily give a shit about, it still falls flat. The opening is pretty good, but I'm not sold on the transition to the main story - at which point Harker demonstrates sudden and intimate knowledge of how Dracula 'works' that seems to come from nowhere. It comes of as a clumsy way to build tension by telling us the stakes. Talking of stakes (ho ho), they never really get raised. The climax of the book is in the middle, after which it peters out; even China Meiville's sometimes ponderous 'Perdido Street Station' does this better. Dracula's threat is chased out of the country a little too quickl (now if he'd run for prime minister...), and the only real collateral is Mina Harker. That'd be fine if we were induced to care about her, or any of the other members of what Gelder calls the 'Gang of Light'. But they're all flat, bloodless creatures, often with only an accent to define them.

>>1107609

And what accents! A footnote in the first copy I read informed me that Stoker thought a lot of his skill at accents. He considered himself a master of representing the varieties of human speech in language. The same footnote wryly marks his apparently earnest use of the word 'belly-timber' (for the old Yorkshiremen), which expired from casual usage round about 1750. The cockneys, Van Helsing and that stupid yank are just as bad. It's like ol' Bram took a book of "cliches not to use" and boiled it into a concentrated black mulch. It's fun to read, but try watching a faithful theatrical production. Without all that hyperactive sexuality in the language, there's nothing to get excited about. Even Dracula is kind of a ponce. Stoker was a hack. Read 'Lair of the White Worm' and tell me I'm wrong.

>>1107467

Have you read other Hammett? I adore Hammett and Chandler.

>>1106977
Dracula by Bram Stoker
Daniel Deronda by George Eliot
The Sound and Fury by William Faulkner
Under the Volcano by Malcolm Lowry
The Razor's Edge by W. Somerset Maugham
Siddhartha by Hermann Hesse
Infinite Jest by David Foster Wallace
V. by Thomas Pynchon
The Magic Mountain by Thomas Mann
The Castle by Franz Kafka
Invitation to a Beheading by Vladimir Nabokov
A Happy Death by Albert Camus

>>1106977

Red Harvest by Dashiell Hammett inspired (but is better than) several movies. It's an awesome bloodbath of a book.

The Big Sleep by Raymond Chandler is a more philosophical version of a hard-boiled detective book. The narrator is the definition of bad ass.

Both of those books were, in fact, revolutionary within the detective genre. And they're really fuckin' fun reads.

>Infinite Jest by David Foster Wallace
>V. by Thomas Pynchon

are these really appropriate considering the OP's approach?

All The Pretty Horses by Cormac McCarthy. If the first line doesn't captivate you; all hope is lost.

excession iain m banks

>>1107615

I've only read the Maltese Falcon by Hammet. Should really get his other books.

I love Chandler though. I love how he's very loose with his style, but he still makes every sentence golden. I have a collection of the Marlowe books, should really get it repaired.

>>1107615


I've only read Maltese Falcon by Hammet, should really get his other works.

Fuckin love Chandler though. Got a collection of Marlowe stories which I really need to repair. I love how loose he makes his writing seem while still making every sentence golden. Probably among my favourite authors.

The Dream of Perpetual Motion by Dexter Palmer. If you're confused or stumbling around in life, I think it will be very relatable, in a non-faggotty non-religious bullshit kind of way.

>>1107758

I've already talked it up in this thread, but I'll do it again: get Red Harvest. That book is just amazing. The Continental Op is, as a character, a bit less interesting than Sam Spade, but the plot of the book is great fun. The Maltese Falcon is quite tame by comparison.

Although I love Hammett, Chandler is definitely the best. I've been slowly reading through the Marlowe books this summer and it's my dearest wish to write a hard-boiled novel. But then again, as a writing teacher once told me, it's basically impossible to write hard-boiled now without sounding like a parody of Chandler.

Have you ever read Mickey Spillane? I haven't, but U understand he's the other major hard-boiled detective writer.

>>1107845

*but I understand

>>1107796
>The Dream of Perpetual Motion by Dexter Palmer. If you're confused or stumbling around in life, I think it will be very relatable, in a non-faggotty non-religious bullshit kind of way.

Stop plugging this book of fail. Srsly. Maybe the reason it isn't selling is because you treat your audience with the same patronising contempt.

moar

Posted it in another thread, but it's appropriate here: American Tabloid by James Ellroy

american taliban, great book

Cormac McCarthy? I really liked no country for old men

>>1107207
>>1106977

Based on what you've said in this thread, I've got a couple of suggestions for you OP. For something relatively contemporary, you could have a stab at:
One Hundred Years of Solitude
Midnight's Children
Nights at the Circus

This, of course, comes down to personal opinion, but I often find novels which fall into the 'magic realism' catagory are often strong in terms of plotting. If none of those novels touch some nerve then I would wonder if literature is really for you; I've no doubt you'll love at least one of those though.

As far as the classics go, just choose something that seems interesting to you and don't be afraid of particular texts because of some stigma you may have attached to them. How about try stuff like:
Frankenstein
The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym of Nantucket
The Return of the Native
A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man
News From Nowhere
Little Dorrit
The Picture of Dorian Gray

Honestly, the best thing to do is decide what interests you most, then read novels related to this area.

op here after some 5 hours of sleep.
just wanted to say thanks for the recommendations; I'll try some out.
i was confrontational and more than a little bit of an asshole.

>>1108014

>Nights at the Circus

FUCKYEAR.jpg

>>1108020

FUCKYEAR indeed, anon, FUCKYEAR indeed...
I don't know how popular Angela Carter is in the USA, but judging by how little her name is mentioned here I'd say she doesn't get the recognition she deserves.
I was going to suggest 'The Infernal Desire Machines of Doctor Hoffman', but I think 'Nights at the Circus' is an easier read for someone not used to Carter's baroque prose style. In my opinion, Carter was a modern master of prose and should be required reading for everyone (though I can appreciate, at times, her novels are probably too rude/bawdy/sexualised for younger readers).

OP should have posted in one of the fantasy/scifi peasant threads.

>>1108022

I wouldn't know, because I am a britfag on 'vacation', but yeah nobody seems to have heard of it. By coincidence I was reading Nights at the Circus over my girlfriend's shoulder tonight, and was blown away all over again by that prose. Yeah, Carter needs to be on more high school reading lists. She is one of the very few authors who I feel reaches a height of formal mastery equal to that of her conceptual depth. She's like Nabokov if he had proper fucking ideology.