/lit/ - Literature

Frenchfag detected.

>>1679839

How clever.

I find it adorable that you think anyone can give a novel a rating out of ten.

>>1679830

>Books I read in 2011.

And what do you want? A fucking biscuit?

The list shows that you've basically just started reading, and now you think you're something special.

PROTIP: Most people have done with Dostoevsky and Celine before they start boasting about their erudition. Actually, that's not true all the time: it only applies to people who aren't pretentious cunts.

Welcome to /lit/, fuck-knuckle. You'll fit right in.

I don't understand. Are 6 books impressive? Most people here have read more than that.

Seems like I wasn't clear enough, lets fix that.

''Books I read in 2011'' was supposed to be the ''title'' of the thread. I expected people to do the same, ratings being there so we had something to discuss.

>>1679845

As if everyone had to start with Russians. I'm French, I read my French litterature before. Have you read Hugo, Stendhal, Flaubert, Zola, Camus, Moliere, Dumas, Balzac, etc.?

>>1679892

>Thinks the number of books one have read in 3 months is actually something worth being impressed of.
> But yeah, I'm pretentious and I feel insulted, so I'll reply : The Kindly Ones, TBK, Crime and Punishment and Hope are all >900 pages. I also read The Kreutzer Sonata, Der wiedergefundene Freund and philosophy, I just didn't think they were worth rating and/or discussing. It's decent.

The only impressive thing about this list is that you managed to finish Littell's turgid, offensive, asinine and terrible novel The Kindly Ones.

This topic is of inferior quality.

>>1679922

I'm a WWII history fan. I loved it for the historical precision, for the way he recreated the WWII athmosphere with a significative precision. Plus, I discovered great music (Monteverdi, Khachaturian) whilst reading it.

That being said, I also hated the ''offensive'' part, but that's a detail in the general portrait, isn't it?

>>1679928

Your mom is of inferior quality.

>>1679935
From what I managed to force myself to read, Littell's fidelity to history was suspect and shaky at best. But good on you, OP.

>Hugo, Stendhal, Flaubert, Zola, Camus, Moliere, Dumas, Balzac

I'm willing to best that most posters on here have read at least half of these, if not all. I have read all but Zola and Stendhal

>>1679921

>Have you read Hugo, Stendhal, Flaubert, Zola, Camus, Moliere, Dumas, Balzac

Of course - I read Dumas when I was a teenager, and Zola and Hugo when I did my 'A' Levels, Camus when I was being a pretentious twat and trying to impress hipster chicks, and Stendhal when I'd finally given up on life.

I wouldn't boast about any of them though - as I said, these are the kinds of books which form the basis of the "average" literate person, they're the axiomatic books that we all assume everyone has read.

>I'm French

Pauvre con

>>1679943

I wrote that for the ''image''. Assuming I just started reading because I didn't read Dostoevsky first is dumb as fuck.

And for Littell: exception made for the German (that was sloppy), everything seemed correct to me.

>>1679949

Well seems like we have something worth to be to discussed instead of trying to prove superiority besed on what we read.

What have you read of Stendhal's work? Of Camus'? Did you read Crime and Punisment? TBK?

>>1679951

Daaaw, baby all sad?

ITT: stereotypical /lit/ discussion

lol u read classics good for u, most ppl here have ALREADY READ them!!!

Bitching and enumerating books/authors you've read while never actually discussing the damn books... Ah, stay classy /lit/.

>>1679960

>Stendhal when I'd finally given up on life.


I think that answers how I felt about Stendhal. Camus was probably a genius, but I think his work has now been reflected and traduced through the opinions of so many people that it is genuinely impossible to formulate any kind of genuine feeling towards his work. He's a writer that people "tick off" and move on from, or who other people hold up for all eternity as a badge of how edgy and intellectual they are. This may be a shame, but there you have it, literary fame is a cunt, eh?

>>1679966

Well I truly am disappointed. I came here to discuss litterature and obviously that doesn't happen very often. Every try turns into an ego battle that can be resumed to : ''I've read that, you haven't, I'm superior to you'' and not a single word on the books themselves.

>>1679984

Don't you like history? I don't know how well Stendhal got translated, but his works (The Charterhouse of Parma and The Red and the Black, the only two I've read) are a magnificent portrait of his times. You'll learn more about those times by reading those books than by reading history books, seriously.

I don't know how to translate that expression in English, but he had ''une très belle plume'' (he mastered language, wrote very well).

For Camus. Since I just read Dostoevsky, I would have agreed with you before (''he's a genious'', specially after having read The Rebel) but now that I do have read Dostoevsky, I'm a bit disappointed by Camus. He didn't think of anything new, he just rewrote Dostoevsky's ideas in a contemporary manner. I almost feel as if I could be Camus too (exagerating a bit, but just a bit)...

>>1679984
i read camus for my french A level at 17 years old, and loved it more than anything else i'd read except oedipus the kind for my english a level. i'd never heard of camus before and i thought learning french was boring as fuck. i just recently read la peste and although it's not mind-altering i enjoyed every single rat. is it genuine?

Sunhawk topic?

Nah, even I can read more than one book in 2 weeks.