/lit/ - Literature

Stoner

>>11573427
not yet ruined, it will be officially ruined when the movie adaptation is released,

The Bible

Blood Meridian
Book of the New Sun
Moby Dick

>>11573446
>Blood Meridian
>Moby Dick
I think you're mistaking classics with what OP is asking for.

>>11573415
What's the point of this thread, anyway? Other than hipster circlejerk.

>>11573446
Who the fuck talks about book of the new sun?

>>11573415
I don’t think that 1984 is ruined, because 1/3 of the people who say they’ve read it haven’t actually read it at all.
t. QI episode I don’t remember

handmaiden's tale has been shit since the very beginning. pure redditcore to the bone.

Pynchon's novels since they were supposed to be supporting counter-culture but were almost immediately liked by the literary establishment.

>>11573415
>its popular/regarded as a classic and that makes it bad
Fucking christ, and I thought /mu/ was bad at this.

>>11573415
Brave New World was never good. Huxley is a great essayist, but his fiction is atrocious. Weak prose with too many adjectives & adverbs, and metaphors that fall completely flat.

>>11573829
>metaphors that fall completely flat.
I wish someone could provide an example, I thought the same

>>11573463
Even the term "Overexposure" in this context is fucking awful.

>>11573829
His writing style wasn't very good, I agree with you on that, but the content itself is very much worth the read, considering it's much closer to the world we live in now than 1984.

>>11573415

>book doesn't changed or get watered down in the slightest
>message remains the same
>more people read it so it's bad

really makes you think...

>>11573829
Delet this.
Huxley felt relatable, reading BNW felt very natural, all his characters felt like a good friend. Part of 1984's problem is you can't form any attachment to characters such as Winston, and everyone else in his hell-scape universe is just plain unlikable, even though Orwell was trying his hardest to make them appear human.

>>11573415
jesus christ 4chan is retarded, a work can't be ruined by overexposure. this is just "i want to feel smart": the thread

>>11573959
Not that anon, but I read it as more of a look into the life of a usual rebel. Not something that you really develop attachment to the character, but more of that the character is a channel for the inner workings of the ideas to come through. Julia did seem like a quick fling to throw in, but I think shes meant to be a representation of that rebellion, than a full on relatable character.

>>11573829
Kind of agree about the prose but not the rest. The world of BNW raises so many interesting questions about life and what place suffering has in it - the fact that people still can’t agree on if it’s a dystopia or not shows what a difficult topic it’s trying to explore, in my opinion.

>>11573829
Yes.

Image saved, thanks anon.

>>11573838
I thought the savages traditions and customs were a mixed bag.

>>11573881
Reading for content and not aesthetic value. Pigdisgusting

>>11573539
Uh, no they weren't he killed the Pulitzer

>>11573415
Sort of off topic but why isn’t We by Zamyatin more talken about when it comes to dystopians? It’s really good.

>>11574104
The title certainly doesn't help.

"ruined"
You're not reading hard enough

>>11573415
>implying The Handmaid's Tale was ever good

>>11573435
>when the movie adaptation is released
Please tell me this isn't a thing

>>11573979
This. Everyone ITT is a pretentious hack with a false sense of superiority.

>overexposure
>when a /tv/eddit crossposter realizes his DAE overrated?! thread needs to be a bit classier for lit

Satanic Verses. It's really a slightly edgy novel that does not compare to Midnight's Children. Not a big deal, and no reason for the major backlash.

>>11573464
/lit/ talks about it, which is enough to make people (mostly /lit/posters) embarrassed to read it.

>>11574245
it's in the works, Casey Affleck will be playing William Stoner and the guy who did Pan (2015) will be directing, and there's nothing we can do.

>>11573415
The Handmaid's Tale was always shit

>>11574740
Who else is hoping they cast a black actress to Katherine?

Is philosophy simply another kind of happiness-chasing? Is the pursuit of knowledge truly a higher pursuit, if only for its ability to grant the pursuer a "higher" sense of contentment with existence? Is the value of intelligence constructed? Is there anything beyond the wayward and clumsy pursuit of human happiness? Is God, when considered, best conceptualized as a "wall against the absurd", so to speak, the conferrer of meaning and cause to the world?

>>11573415
every book on your high school reading list

>>11573979
>>11574257
Obviously the work remains unchanged, but your perception of it can change. Just like you might read a novel that has been overhyped for you - you won't find it as good as you would have if you just stumbled onto it or didn't get so much BEST PROSE EVER PUT ON THE PAGE, LEVATHIAN OF THE XXX CENTURY AND ALL THE OTHER CENTURIES COMBINED cock up your ass before getting into it. same shit with overexposure. but please, go on pretending that it doesn't affect you one bit

>>11573436
Kek

>>11573415
What do you mean by ruined?
>inb4 "stop liking what I like"

>>11573979
Disagree. Both form and substance can become cliched, and popularity & influence are contributing causes. Obviously the work itself doesn't change, but perception of it definitely can.

>>11573435
fuck now i've got to actually read it so that i can be pretentious about having read the book before the movie came out not to mention the fucking movie cover