/lit/ - Literature

>>17333928
All The Sex We Don't Have by Anon

>>17333928
It had stuck in my head for over ten years because of the cover pretty much and resurfacing now and then. Just got around to reading it right now. It wasn't that good but it wasn't boring either.

>>17333989
>reading femoid writter

>>17333928
This genuinely wasn't bad. The writing has an airy and ethereal quality to it. I was sad when Werner blew up.

>>17334044
Yes, better than I expected. Nice story, pulls on the heartstrings a bit. Quick read.

Not good

>>17334500
what's /lit/ concensus on this?

>>17334500
Isn’t that the guy that write eragon?

>>17334567
It's a good casual fiction read. Like those hardy boys and nancy drews but with popes and shit. Or was that Angels and Demons?

what is with lit's superiority complex and not wanting to read books read by the masses? who gives a fuck how popular a book is? in my mind that has no bearing on it's quality, good or bad

>>17335465
yes, but in fairness he was like 13 when he wrote it

>>17335615
for real. i'm so sick of the pseuds on this board. like, we all read wuthering heights in high school bro, you're not better than anyone else for having read it

>>17335615
>>17335951
because people on /lit/ don't actually read or form their own opinions of books. reading isn't about enjoyment it's about feeling superior to others.

>>17335615
Because in an age where people barely read, what is popular is tripe and has been specifically created for that indiscriminate barely-literate crowd.
How can you be so naive? It’s not that we don’t embrace books because they’re not popular, it’s because what is popular is based on what is not only insulting-accessible to a mollycoddling degree, but it is also a mouthpiece for the latest social virtues or fads or crazes (look at all those solipsistic self-help books with all the swearing in the titles). Sorry to burst your bubble but people that read seriously don’t want to waste their time sifting through new mass-market fodder, when there’s a ton of books that not only are edifying in their own right, but have a ton of criticism to engage with.
Enjoy being at the bottom of the barrel for absolutely no reason.

>>17335615
OP here. I don't mean it in a negative way which is why I asked what you thought of the book. You know what kind of books I mean so get the stick out your ass

>>17335615
kys lol

>>17333928
My mom gifts me books like these all the time, which I do enjoy. I got her "In the Garden of Beasts," which I don't think she ever read, despite it being just the sort of thing she evidently enjoys.

>>17335615
>posting in a thread about the normie books we've read
>"reeee why won't you read normie books."

>>17336139
>finds thread about normie books people have read
>"THIS IS WHY I DON'T READ NORMIE BOOKS"

This is essentially Louis revisiting a lot of the participants of his "Weird Weekends" series. It's vaguely interesting as a fan of him but in reality it's a little boring

Favourite moment is Louis hanging with Ike Turner, and using the word "anabolic". Ike misheard it was "Anna Bullock", Tina Turner's real name, and went off the rails.

>>17333928
The first 10 pages of Normal People a year ago. The worst 10 pages I have ever read. been staying away from media publicized garbage since then.

>>17335615
>>17335951
go back

>>17333989
I wanted to like this but the ‘genociding Turkroaches is bad’ nonsense left a bad taste in my mouth.

>>17336302
Eh why? I liked Normal People, made me realize I missed out on teen love tho

Artie Lange, Too Fat to Fish.

Funny as hell, interesting characters embedded in good anecdotes (eg, the old Italian guy who never went to high who beats the smart management guy at chess). Surprisingly moving in parts (eg, when his old man has a catastrophic injury). A very enjoyable book.

>>17336415
*never went to high school

>>17334476
What did you think of it? I could not finish it because of the annoying way he ended every chapter

>>17336470
filtered

>>17336385
Different guy but I hated Normal People. After about 1/3rd of the way in, it just seemed totally contrived how dumb shit kept happening so Connell and Marianne wouldn't actually date each other.

>>17336385
>prose reads like shredded paper
>literally a story about normies doing normie things while giving an air of quirkiness
>absolutely no redeeming features unless you like the idea of indoctrinating more people into the contemporary neoliberal lifestyle

I also read the Witcher recently. Not a fan of fantasy so it didn’t jive

It was garbage. Prose so basic you can chunk whole paragraphs at a glance because they are just strings of clichés.
Characters were all 2 dimensional 'lol this lady is a bitch, this man le strong silent type, this girl is le quirky activist'
Plot predictable from the first five pages, and never developed enough to become involving

>>17337563
Same with mine, I sped read it and don’t think I missed anything. Kind of a cool feeling to tear thru a 500 pager in a day tho

This was pretty good, except for the weird normcore contemporary fiction thing where every chapter has to have some depressing and traumatic event happening to one of the characters. Why does every popular book have to make you want to slit your wrists? Like there's some regurgitate cycle with the pop science self help market

>>17337479
speaking as a fan of fantasy, the witcher books are trash. maybe it's fine in polish, but the translation's prose felt kinda awkward

>>17338187
What would you recommend? I have LOTR was gonna give it a try one day, but a lot of ppl shit on it

>>17338217
LOTR is okay, kind of dry. my personal favorite fantasy series is the orphan's tales by catherynne m valente. it's a duology; the first part is better but they're both good. it's basically a love letter to arabian nights. you might be able to get good recs from /sffg/

>>17338217
also discworld by terry pratchett is fun. it's not high literature or anything, but it's enjoyable to read. i would recommend skipping the rincewind storyline initially though

It bounces between being insufferable and actually pretty good. Ultimately, it's a book by a mediocre writer with a fantastic idea.

>>17336139
What's the best way to find criticism on books you read?

>>17335465
Yes but eragon was good. Maybe the problem is that I’m an adult now. /s/testing spoilers because I haven’t done it in a long time/s/

>>17340154
test
test [\spoiler]

>>17335465
>>17340154
The ending was absolutely ridiculous and utterly atrocious

>>17338315
I was looking at picking this up just the other day. Can you go into more detail? I really like the setup, but I was lukewarm on the other book I read by the author

>>17336208
I enjoyed your pic related a lot.

>>17333928
I read that when 15 or 16 reminded me of the book thief, I liked them both. I wonder what I would think of them now. All the light we cannot see was pretty good though.

>>17333928
My middle school crush said she liked this books so when I read it I was very disappointed

>>17336139
well said anon

>>17334567
This fucking jackass talks bad about nuclear power and im fucking heated about.it.

>>17333928
I loved this book, I thought it was gorgeous.

>>17336139
>look at all those solipsistic self-help books with all the swearing in the titles
Just out of interest, have you read any of them? I'd be interested to hear what you don't like about, say, the subtle art of not giving a fuck.

Nice light reading. Could have had more flappers, though.

>>17340213
It was good, wasn't it? Have you read any of Philbrick's other work?

>>17333928
I read this trash because my girlfriend started marathoning the tv show. I needed to know if the books were as bad as the show. I put it down for a bit after reading the first couple of pages. It's an absolute abortion. The writing is so stiff and stilted, I've read fanfiction with more flow.

>>17334476
he can write cliffhangers, i'll give him that

>>17334476
I enjoyed when I read as a kid. Read The Lost Symbol as an adult and whew that was a bad book

>>17336139
bazinga

>>17336264
They feel unconsciously guilty about it, they know they can be reading proper literature but they deliberately choose the most bland and uninteresting books because they're popular and don't have to find something for themselves.

>>17335615
kys fag. elitism is good. popular stuff is bad.

>>17339131
He doesn't know because he has never tried.

>>17336139
Based. We need to bring back snobbery. Literature is not for the plebs to pursue.

Pbuh

>>17340203
This is the only book I've read by her, so I can't comment on how it might compare, but if you're interested in the premise, I think it's worth a read. It's just a little disappointing because the author never takes it to its full potential and it often takes a turn to smutty romance. I would say the first 50 pages and the last 50 pages are a slog to get through, but there's a lot of great scenes tucked in the middle of the book as long as you can handle the smut and the author's occasional endulgence in ( what I can only describe as) "facebook quotable" style writing.

>>17333928
I read this book in my freshman year of college a few years back, it's pretty average I was shocked by some people who had trouble following the format with the deuteragonists.

>>17335615
It really isn't its just that the books that often get mainstream appeal do so by appealing to either a mass trend, being pushed by the media or just being basic enough that everyone can access it which just means it can be too simple for people if they want something more meaningful to read. Even books that are made to have a wide appeal like Bad Blood by Ashlee Vance don't see as much exposure as I would expect because people don't want to read a 300-page book on a psychopathic founder because of reasons. (I do recommend Bad Blood tho)
I also read pic related in my freshman year of college, it's a more interesting read than All The Light but it depends on how much you see yourself in the protagonist I guess.