/lit/ - Literature

Personally i like him, he is basically entry level pomo for kids.
He is a scifi writer that tricked people into thinking he was a literary writer like pynchon

>>19443660
Imagine getting filtered by SHF kek

As far as Vonnegut is concerned, I don't have an opinion.
But I have a hypothesis regarding authors of a certain category, to which Vonnegut belongs.

>be forced to read a handful of books while in school
>be mildly entertained by a couple of them
>never read any books again, because no external authority requires you to do so
>Forever use the books you were forced to read as a reference point when literature is discussed
>[mildly entertaining compulsory literature] is my all time favorite!

He predicted sjws.

>>19443686
This. He's a very good writer for young adults to get into postmodern literature. I think he has some great moments in Cat's Cradle, SHF, and Mothering Night. It's like 1984, Catcher in the Rye, and other books and authors you read in high school. He has literary value, but definitely not on the level of Pynchon, Barth, or Delillo.

>>19443686
This. He's a very good writer for young adults to get into postmodern literature. I think he has some great moments in Cat's Cradle, SHF, and Mother Night. It's like 1984, Catcher in the Rye, and other books and authors you read in high school. He has literary value, but definitely not on the level of Pynchon, Barth, or Delillo.

>>19443660
I didn't have to read him in school and really had no reason to pick up one of his books anyways. All I knew about the guy was the cameo in Back To School with Rodney Dangerfield. But I picked up a few of his books at the library because why not, enjoyed reading them, and took them back and moved on with my life. If you're picking up a book and you're worried about how it'll look to others that you're reading it, or if it'll taint your life reading list, maybe you need to re-evaluate your choices in life. I'm not sure you need to worry about whether we enjoyed the book or not.

SHF and Cats Cradle are based. SHF is secretly a based Quietism masterpiece.
Don’t listen to pseuds who write him off as YA/entry level, Vonnegut is a massive pseud filter.

Pseuds love to hate him because he wrote books that are easy to read.

>>19443725
It’s postmodern how young edgelords today think Orwell and Vonnegut are somehow lower than Pynchon and fucking Barth (lmao). Once you get older you realize that a books being 500+ pages for the sake of it and using extremely niche vocabulary are completely unnecessary to convey prose and ideas. It’s for this reason Orwell and Salinger have already outpaced Pynchon et al in the Western cannon. SHF will continue to be read and discussed for much longer than GR.

>>19443660
He pioneered a certain type of voice and structure.

>>19443696
That explains half of /lit/ top 100

>>19444074
Reading Guide to Galaxy because reading Moby Dick and Karamazov is frying my brain and I want a break. He's a less entertaining Brautigan but somewhat fun in the way he switches from topic to topic and you can tell this dude's just making up the story as he goes along

>>19444432
Read Sirens of Titan and The Third Policeman next, just to get Adams' influences. The Third Policeman is funnier and insanely well written, Sirens of Titan is kind of pulpy but well enough written for what it is. Adams is fun, sad some people can not enjoy him.
>he switches from topic to topic and you can tell this dude's just making up the story as he goes along
It was a radio series first and the structure strongly reflects that.

>>19443660
Good. I read this book when I was like 12 and thought it was complete trash. Naturally I assumed there was something I "didn't get" but I feel validated to see that many others think it is trash as well.

>>19444444

>>19444086
I have a special place in my heart for Vonnegut, but you're making the mistake of trying to out-contrarian the contrarians.
Pynchon is in a whole other league. If you think his appeal is some impossibly dense pomo mystique where he hides behind length and "extremely niche vocabulary," you haven't read him.
In fact, I get the impression that almost all the harsher criticism on this board of Pynchon is from people who just don't read his books. That's the only explanation for how the complaints are so commonly that he's pretentious or obscurantist or whatever. Really? THIS Pynchon, right here, who wrote this page?