/lit/ - Literature

Isn't so much nowadays?

many books were best selling genre books until they retroactively became "literary"

>>17459733
>Has to invent categories to pass on a book
>Has to inform everyone/make everyone feel bad for liking something they themselves haven’t read.

>>17459774
>the autistic narcissistic lesbian feels she must rush to defend The Secret History the moment someone says something bad
At least you’re predictable

>>17459847
She’s a cutie, but this applies to any book.
Sick of this pissy threads. Come back with something you liked or loved.

>>17459733
And that's a good thing.

>>17459733
the one hit wonder lauded by angsty teenagers

>>17459733
Still a masterpiece idc

>>17459733
Jesuit psy-op

>>17459864
>Sick of this pissy threads. Come back with something you liked or loved.
normally I agree but it's expected to make a thread about a book after reading it and sometimes you just don't like it.

>>17459733
Duh. Doesnt mean it's not good though

>>17459733
No way.
The audible is done by Tartt too.
She was some sort of child prodigy, that’s all.

>>17459864
Sadly is lesb1an, looks like his son ha ha ha

>>17459768
Name 5.

>>17460116
any 5 of the many books by Charles Dickens and Robert Louis Stevenson

>>17460116
almost everything from the 19th century which magically became "literary" when it was old enough, even though the most popular genre was historical fiction, something everyone thumbs their nose at today.
see >>17460149

>>17460115
I have no respect for rich people who have teeth that bad.

>>17460149
Charles Dickens was always respected as a major novelist in his time. Stevenson less so; but more because he mostly wrote short stories and novellas.

There's more artistry in Bleak House than in Donna Tart's entire being.

>>17460207
his stuff ran in the newspapers, was bundles in cheap paperbacks (a first, huzzah) was popular among the working class, and commonly received mixed reviews. his most acclaimed work was the children's classic Christmas Carol which he made his most money from including public recitals. he only became the literary giant you see him as after his death, which is almost always the case.

>>17460243
>his stuff ran in the newspapers, was bundles in cheap paperbacks (a first, huzzah) was popular among the working class, and commonly received mixed reviews

And? He was still very much respected. Novelists were much more popular in that era. I don't personally consider someone being published in a magazine or popular with normal people as being a knock against the "status" of literature.

>his most acclaimed work was the children's classic Christmas Carol

He had many acclaimed works.

>he only became the literary giant you see him as after his death

He was so popular he spent a decade of his life just doing recitals - even in America.

>>17460115
>Sadly

>>17460262
the point is you consider dickens "high literature" but that is only true after the fact. hoity toity litizens would have been reading what for them was the classics, the romantics and goethe and all that shit. they would have looked at dickens the same way you look at stephen king.

you can think Dickens is better than modern genre fiction, and I absolutely agree, but he is still what you snidely refer to as "pop fiction" within his own time

>>17460274
>"high literature" but that is only true after the fact.

That's simply wrong. You seem to think that popularity disqualifies someone for literature and that is not the case. Hawthorne was popular in his day; as was Poe, Goethe, and many others in their era. The lone obscure author is simply an archetype.

>they would have looked at dickens the same way you look at stephen king.

All one must do is to read Bleak House side-to-side with Carrie to see the massive difference between the two. I think trying to say that all artistic value is subjective has done the most to ruin Literature.

>pop fiction

Never said anything about, I'm not OP.

>>17460289
>Never said anything about, I'm not OP.
whether or not, you still seem to defend a distinction between "literary" and "genre". my point is that these are total contrivances and prevent people from fully engaging with works. many people on /lit/ won't even read a book that qualifies as genre fiction, unbeknownst to the fact that much of what they do enjoy was the genre fiction of its day.

>>17460300
>defend a distinction between "literary" and "genre".

Since you have yet to ask me, allow me to tell you: I see no particular distinction between genre and literature. Genre fiction can definitely be literature as long as it is not limiting itself to genre conventions. Shakespeare wrote a sort of genre fiction, as did many other great writers.

>>17460318
well, then we don't really have a problem with each other. consider my arguments directed at OP instead.

>>17460274
>they would have looked at dickens the same way you look at stephen king.
If anything they look at dickens like modern good authors such as DFW or that dude who wrote 2066. There were plenty of schlock writers like stephen king in dicken’s time, they are not remembered and dickens was not one of them

>>17460243
Are you retarded, most major novels were serialised right up until very recently
The children of fucking Gebelawi was serialised
Does that make it pop lit?
Also, your view of Dickens is completely retarded
Dickens was very popular and respected, he appealed to both literary and pop crowds and was considered by far the best in his own times in the UK
His relationship with other literary figures of the time is also indicative

>>17459733
duh. what, you want a cookie?

>>17460094
>it's expected to make a thread about a book after reading it
Is it? I don't try to discuss most of the stuff I read here because there would be no interest, you guys are only interested in shitposting about the same dozen books

>>17460346
Stephen King will absolutely be remembered though

>>17460534
i can only speak for myself (I am not OP).
I make a thread for every book I finish.

>>17460189
Based
>>17460269
What a lost cutie :(

>>17460544
The same way Agatha Christie is

I don’t give a fuck it’s an entertaining page turner. Just because it has a lot of literary references doesn’t mean it’s pretending to be highbrow.

>>17460017
>one hit wonder
>also wrote the Goldfinch

>>17459733
It's beloved by so many people that I finally tried it. What a bunch of fucking airhead kids the main characters are. It was like reading an excruciatingly long YA book, so I had to drop it.

I did give Tartt a second chance and read The Goldfinch. That one I really liked. Guess I should try The Little Friend in time for her next once-a-decade novel.