/lit/ - Literature

I am new to lit and what is this?

>>1806922
I think he wants to read 100 books a year. He's doin a OK job so far

>>1806925
I've only read about 15 :|
Albeit mainly 700+ pages ones.

Are those books recommended reading on lit?

OP is a baby who can't handle Kafka.

belated congratulations sunhawk

>>1806938
We aren't /mu/. Chraisht.

>>1806913
I knew you could do it bro. I'll write your biography when the time comes. Until then, here's my tribute to you.

Thanks brownbear and VW00fy, your praise means a lot to me.

Oh, and only a few of them are recommended reading on this board. Some are hated, actually.

You are like a weightlifter showing me the weights he bought.

I don't care to see this shit. Neither does anyone else. Show me how you benefited from reading them.

>>1807564


I have become a lot more entertained, and to a lesser extent, become more knowledgeable. I also have a dark tan from sitting out in the garden, so that rocks. Anything else?

>>1807569
I said show me. Not tell me.

>>1807569

Cultural education!

the Dick, Bolano and Llosa are the only books worth reading, imo.

why so much shitty wallace, allende and yates?

arent you against reading books that aren't period pieces?

>>1806922
That's Sunhawk, he has the worst taste in literature of anyone on the board. See all those books, he hated all the good ones and loved the shitty ones.

>>1807588

Lol @ calling DFW shitty on this board and expecting to get away with it. Allende is okay, and Yates can be great when he's firing on all cylinders (which is half the time).

Oh well, at least you like Bolano. Thoughts on him?

>>1807628
>Lol @ calling DFW shitty on this board and expecting to get away with it

He will get away with it. All the DFW fan boys have been super butthurt though as of late anyway since Bloom called DFW a shitty writer. "No discernible talent." I love it, I hated that shitty author too.

>>1807643

Real big man, Bloom, insulting a writer who's DEAD and can't fight back.

>>1807643
>Lol @ calling DFW shitty on this board and expecting to get away with it

He will get away with it. Not because of that butthurt Bloom, but because of the apathy of this board.

Who the fuck is David Foster Wallace?

>>1807658
summerfag or troll?

does anyone else imagine sunhawk as abed from community

>>1807673

Summerfag or just idiot. He seems to agressive in his question to be a troll. Anyway, a troll would've just listed reasons why DFW apparently sucked.

>>1807649
>Real big man, Bloom, insulting a writer who's DEAD and can't fight back.
I'm pretty sure you can only really judge the body of work of an author once he's dead. Also, here's the quote

"You know, I don’t want to be offensive. But Infinite Jest is just awful. It seems ridiculous to have to say it. He can’t think, he can’t write. There’s no discernible talent.”

This is the first he's spoken about DFW publicly. He doesn't want ot be offensive but his job is to tell it like it is.

Deal with it...just don't an hero.

>>1807692
he's a pretty cool guy

>>1807741
x5!

I'm currently reading Man in the High Castle and enjiyoing it. how do you make your read, lists?

>>1807740
Until Bloom actually talks specifics on what is wrong with Infinite Jest, I don't see any reason to believe him.

>>1807772
>Until Bloom actually talks specifics on what is wrong with Infinite Jest, I don't see any reason to believe him.
Wow, that's quite demanding of you. If another professional in the field, say, a doctor, gives you his professional opinion that you've got lung cancer, do you not see any reason to believe him unless you see the x-ray scans?

>>1807740
starting with "i don't want to be X" is pretty much a warning that you're going to be X.

he's clearly still butthurt, 14 years on.

>>1807772
> lol im eating a bizillion oreos im so high
> tennis is a metaphor for life lol

It seems ridiculous to have to explain why DFW is bad. It's obvious.

>>1807772
> I don't believe that Harold Bloom can have that opinion

Yeah, it's really surprising considering /lit/ loves DFW. How could this be?

>>1807791
More like, he doesn't give a fuck enough to talk about DFW at all and prefers to ignore that he existed. He only brings him up when one interviewer asked him about it. Should he be giving reason as to why Stephen King is bad? WHERES MY CRITICAL ESSAY, BLOOM, PROVE IT!

> pic related
It's all the proof you need.

>>1807793

not that guy, but sure Bloom can have whatever opinions he wants. But he's expressing them as facts. Saying that someone has "no discernible talent" is not expressing an opinion about them, it's stating as fact that they're shit.

>>1807786
Not sure if trolling. But in the other guy's defense, your analogy is a bit off as one of those fields is more bullshit than the other (hint: it isn't the MD's).

The problem is that other critics have rated DFW very highly, yet /lit/ thinks Bloom is the only critic that matters.

>>1807811
/lit/ has to be the last place on earth that regards him as an infallible authority as opposed to an often-fun grandpa

>>1807811
i think it's more that Bloom is the one who didn't rate him, therefore he's the one that's best used to troll DFW fans. who are very easily trollable, it seems.

bro tip errbody: if you like a book, it's good.

>>1807807
>your analogy is a bit off as one of those fields is more bullshit than the other
Excuse me, I fail to see how English literature is any more "bullshit" than medical practice. Please enlighten me.

>>1807804
So next time we praise or dismiss something, we should say it like this:

Well, in my opinion, and I may be wrong, don't get mad at me if I'm wrong, which is possible, but I feel like maybe such and such isn't that good a writer. He may have been a good human being and a very nice person but I do not much care for his oeuvre.

Suck a dick. Bloom isn't against discourse and free speech but he's not a fucking pansy. Grow some balls.

>>1807829
Do you really fail to see that, or you're just trolling?

>>1807833
I can see how someone who had not spent a large amout of time studying literature would come to such a misguided conclusion.

Hate to break it to you, OP, but I read in an interview of DFW's and he practically dismissed all those novels of his that you've read. Seems like he was kinda butthurt about his writing.

>>1807839
I can see how someone who has spent a large amount of time studying literature would be prone to jumping to your conclusion as well. Lets just agree that you're a tripfag and therefore ugly.

>>1807828
or, y'know, "i didn't like it." That'd also work.

>>1807843
He said he didnt like it. He gave reasons for it too:
> no cognitive ability, poor thinking skills
> poor writing skills

Go back to your school of resentment.

>>1807850
>those things
>legitimate reasons

and this, ladies and gentlemen, is why nobody takes literary criticism seriously.

>>1807842
No, let's agree you don't know a lot about what you're talking about and you're just going to cry over being trolled when really it's because someone highlighted how ignorant you are.

Bloom isn't the only one. A.O Scott from NY Times wasn't thrilled.

"One of the critical commonplaces about Pynchon, Gaddis, et al.—a commonplace to which Wallace clearly subscribes—is that their stylistic and formal inventions were created under pressure of lived experience. What made realism untenable for these writers, according to the conventional wisdom Wallace has absorbed, was reality itself: Pynchon’s involuted, encrypted sentences, Barth’s blatant narrative intrusions, Coover’s self-consuming artifacts—all of these were designed to explode the hypocrisies and jar the complacencies of a monstrously complex society whose deepest workings could not be represented by traditional narrative means. But what these writers passed on to their students and followers was, for the most part, the habit of formal and stylistic invention for its own sake, an empty set of quotation marks, a self-consciousness without selves. In my opinion, a lot of Wallace’s earlier work, including much of Infinite Jest, slips back toward that abyss—an epistemological black hole as comfortable and familiar as a worn-out couch in a graduate student lounge."

He's written a pretty long review about it. Ironically, the review is titled "The Panic of Influence"

Go figure. Great minds really do think alike.

good to know /lit/ is realizing that DFW is shit

retards who want their book on shelves looking neat probably wont' like wallace. it's okay though. missing out all the fun.

>>1807786
yea i mean a legal professional would call nonlawyers hacks as well. you are confused something strong there.

>>>/b/330782705

THE REAL WORLD IS SO CRAZY THAT THE ONLY WAY I CAN DESCRIVE IT IS BY WRITING SENTENCES THAT DONT MAKE SENSE!!!

>>1808452
Richard Brautigan, is that you?

>>1807786
This is the dumbest thing you'v said so far.

>>1808492
get more buttconfused, anonyfart

3 Allende books?! Come on!

>>1807786

I'd believe a doctor over someone who says a book I enjoy is bad or a book I don't enjoy is good, yes.

>>1808558
I think the idea is that a doctor, much like Harold Bloom dedicates his entire life to studying something. While that might seem alienating to plebs like yourself who is forced to live in "the real world" when it comes to medical and literary matters, you can't dismiss their opinions easily.

I doubt you guys actually enjoyed much of Infinite Jest other than the parts about weed.

>No Hopscotch (Cortazar)
>No Nausea (Sartre)

Have the people who hate Allende read at least a couple of her books?

>>1809545
I think people would rather read books by people they like rather then read couple more by people they know they dislike.

>DFW is a shit author
I agree. Still thoroughly enjoy his work. Go fuck yourself for attempting to deny me that, it's as stupid as it is vain.