/lit/ - Literature

>>19105294
Nope, it is just Proto-DFW

>>19105299
So, because it was written by a woman.

>>19105335
>t.proto dfw

>>19105294
It is shilled on /lit/, more than Flan at this point.

>>19105362
DFW is endlessly shilled here. A similar book and an older one (lits favorite kind of book) is there, but ignored. What do you not understand?

>>19105501
Flannery has a few fanboys that have shilled louder, but not by much, than any Carson shilling.

>>19105294
I have nothing against woman authors, but I only read to escape reality.

>>19105335
If this is such a problem for you, why don’t you go to a woman-dominated place to talk about literature?
What’s that? You can’t? Most women only read YA? Only men are truly interested in art? Fuck off.

>>19105501
I mean more that it is not on any of the lists and there is only an occasional post about it. I am just surprised because it seems like perfect book for the demographic of /lit/.

>>19105548
The proto dfw stuff is a joke from another thread, some idiot said it and everyone laughed at him

>>19105294
Got it on my shelf. Haven't read it yet. I will, I promise.

>>19105583
OP made the accusation. Why didn’t you ask him?
I merely agree with it. Does it bother you that it just might be true? You act as though it does.

>>19105586
Oh okay.
Another book, The Red and the Black, has a main character I thought anonymous would love, and so few of them do. Very odd.

>>19105583
Seething

>>19105583
Based.

>>19105623
based

>>19105647
cringe

>>19105586
>perfect book for the demographic of /lit/.
you clearly don't understand /lit/. go back to wherever you came from

>>19106257
You clearly have never read the book and you probably don't read at all so you fit right in here!

>>19106271
I have read it. It was fine but the ending was melodramatic. McCullers improved in her other works. You have retarded and disdainful assumptions about /lit/ and a simplistic reading of the novel. Now fuck off back to Twitter.

>>19106298
Damn it took me baiting you to tell me why I was wrong lol!

I think my assessment of the novel being appropriate for /lit/ users was correct then because it seems like people here, including you, have trouble with communication. I haven't even given you my full opinion of the novel but you are so ready to dismiss me for some reason and tell me I don't belong here. Maybe if you read the novel properly and understood it you wouldn't find it so difficult to express yourself properly.

>McCullers improved in her other works.

Incorrect. The premise and execution of The Heart is a Lonely Hunter miles ahead of her other novels. The only other one that compares is The Member of the Wedding but it lacks the scope and range that she wrote with in THIALH.

>>19105294
Post2015/lit/ doesn't read literature, newfag

>Is it because it was written by a woman?

Yes.

>>19105294
It's 350 pages long and I want to read Stoner instead, okay?

It gets talked about all the fucking time. It's her most famous book but not her best, it's good.

>>19106637
Cringe.

>>19106646
Well promise me you'll read it after!

>>19106659
>all the fucking time.

Not enough.

>>19106646
average /lit/ poster

>proto DFW
Did I kill any chance of discussion of McCullers with that one?

>>19106355
> I haven't even given you my full opinion of the novel but you are so ready to dismiss me for some reason and tell me I don't belong here
well, you have said nothing of substance and attacked everyone, you should fit right in.

>>19107192
I didn't attack anyone, it was self defence and im trying to have a discussion but people are proving my point that they have not read this book because they are incapable of expressing themselves without prefacing everything they say with an insult.

>proto DFW

were you the proto anon then lol?

>>19107349
>self defence
there is no reason to defend yourself, if your ideas can not stand on their own, they are probably poor ideas.
>were you the proto anon then lol?
seems that way.

>>19107462
>proto anon

Hello we meet again lol I was the one arguing with you most of the last thread but i was attacked by this faggot >>19106257 and i retaliated with an insult and (imo) btfo'd him for being an idiot

>>19107497
Yes, I know who you are, your language use and tactics are a dead giveaway.

>>19107515
well you never properly replied to my last post anyway i was disappointed when it got archived and i did win the argument as well for the record

It's cause she's proto DFW

>>19107543
You were so fixated on winning and being right that you could not see past it and largely ignored everything said, hence my asking if you identified more with Blount or Copeland. I attempted to engage you in actual discussion but you were far more concerned with your empty anonymous victory. It is all yours, enjoy.

>>19107812
>my asking if you identified more with Blount or Copeland.

lol you stuck that at the end of one of your points randomly I assumed it was a mistake or something but if you want an answer it would be blount over copeland because im not black and I didnt directly relate to the race issues with copeland.

>It is all yours, enjoy.

very based i'll add it to the list

>>19105294
>Mom, can I get Flannery O'Conner?
>We have Flannery O'Conner at home!
>Flannery O'Conner at home: (pic)

>>19105294
>Mom, can I get Flannery O'Connor?
>We have Flannery O'Connor at home!
>Flannery O'Connor at home: (pic)

Because it’s impossible to overthrow this book at this point.

>>19108795
True. There have been ads for this for an entire year.

>>19108795
>>19108807
Not funny. Didn't laugh.

>>19105548
your like 40 years old fully aware of intricacies involving specific posters on an imageboard that is usually 90% garbage

>>19108831
It wasn’t supposed to be funny genius

>>19108863
>your

>>19109051
hi
how r u
what r u reading lately v_v