/lit/ - Literature

grow up or show up ... at the anal cannon testing facility

>>2147098

i don't even know what's goiing on here

what do you think is good, like, what interests you. what does not interest you about literary fiction. tell me more about yourself, i sincerely want to hear your positions on books and talk to you about them and maybe recommend something. preliminary rec for Little, Big because i fucking love that book.

Fucking hell! If there isn't any fantasy/sci-fi that you'd like to read, then write your own! Write the sort of story that you want to experience, and then after it's done, you can sell it so other people can experience it too. Meanwhile, you get to move on to another adventure.

The Prince of Nothing Trilogy. Fantasy, horror and intellectual stimulation. You'll love it.

Have you read Ursula K. Le Guin? Mervyn Peake? R. Scott Bakker?

>>2147098
Roger. Received. Target fifteen.

>>2147103
well, mostly I just want something new

it seems like all speculative fiction is the same old shit, even though it's supposed to be the "creative" side of fiction. it's always "ZOMG what if technology was so advanced that we had THIS threat?! let's see how the character deals with it!" or "700 hundred years of peace have passed in the kingdom of Shu-Far`Kel Musba, but a great evil awakens, with political intrigue and westaboo fetishism"

anything that doesn't fall under those two categories seems to always be some kind of vague dreamy bullshit that attempts to get by on atmosphere alone, "the sky was purple and my daughter is a squidfish, it's surrealism I don't have to explain SHIT"

I just want something different, but not something so fucking tryhard different, like you can tell they're intentionally trying to be "outrageous", "zany" or "whacky" or "weird"

like maybe a story about a car that has a human brain a few decades from now, then one night the owner is driving around and finds an alien who says it didn't come to earth on purpose, because space travel is impossible, but every now and then a person or object might get instantly teleported across the galaxy due to some scientific anomaly and his people have known this for quite a while but now he's stuck here, and the car is butthurt because its owner is spending more time with his new alien friend... fuck I don't know

>>2147104
actually I do write and consider myself quite good at it, but the thing is, I have to read a lot to keep writing, because reading keeps you "in touch" with the written word. if I haven't read anything in a while, I just don't feel comfortable writing because I only think about writing when I've been reading, if that makes sense. but since I'm no longer interested in the genre I write in, it makes it kind of hard

Cordwainer Smith
Iain M. Banks
The Anal Cannon Guy

John C. Wright -
Golden Age Trilogy
or
Orphans Trilogy

one's heady sci-fi and the other is heady fantasy

>>2147136
>anal cannon guy

why do I keep seeing this? is this a new forced meme?

>>2147156
that's a fucking one man army, that's what it is

>>2147108
tried it, feels too game of thronesy, trying to be gritty in a time when everybody was a religious moralfag even when they fought in wars and there were no brooding anti-heroes, just feels insincere and modern

>>2147136
both of those are shit by my reckoning

>>2147138
will look into these in the next few minutes, although calling something calling your trilogy a trilogy doesn't bode well...

>>2147112

le guin is alright if you're into the traditional tolkien paradigm but without fantasy races, plus lol wimminism

mervyn peake falls under the atmosphere-but-no-substance I was talking about

haven't tried scott baker, will look into it, and I know I'll get shit for this but it's almost like I can tell a writer's quality just by their name, scott baker sound uncreative and generic, maybe I've seen him before

ah well, checking out scott baker and orphans now

>>2147172

>in a time when everybody was a religious moralfag even when they fought in wars

What does this mean?

>no brooding anti-heroes
>PoN
>no anti-heroes

whatthefuckamireading.jpg

>haven't tried scott baker

R. Scott Bakker is the author of Prince of Nothing.

>>2147131
I don't know, man. James Tiptree Jr? Michael Bishop? Tim Powers? James Blaylock? Peter S Beagle? Brian W Aldiss? Ted Sturgeon (short stories only)? Jeffrey Barlough?

I do get your complaints, but it's hard to quantify tryhard/zany/overly outre. Like, is Gene Wolfe overly tryhard? I don't know. His books are certainly difficult, there's an element of obscurantism, but I also think they're legitimately good. What about Little, Big? Gormenghast? I don't know, man. It's hard to say. So to some extent that handcuffs my recs. But these are, in general, books that I've enjoyed, that I think differ from the usual pulp sf&f without straying too far into surrealism or weird-for-sake-of-weird. Especially Barlough, he's ridiculously obscure but I absolutely love his stuff so at least google him and see if it interests you.

(by the way a good site to go to for info on science fiction authors is http://www.sf-encyclopedia.com/ so check that shit out)

Black Company.

>>2147181
I was saying that the concept of the anti-hero didn't exist in medieval times, so trying to bastardize the period with western fetishism while keeping modern secularist attitude feels contrived

serfs did not call people "fucking assholes" etc.

>>2147172
>trying to be gritty in a time when everybody was a religious moralfag even when they fought in wars and there were no brooding anti-heroes

ignoring for a second your literary opinions, that is tremendously historically inaccurate. turns out people in crusade times could be incredibly brutal to each other. even though they were religious (and this applies to christian-on-christian as much as the crusades, although it still wasn't as bad as the stuff you got in the religious wars of the 17th century). anyway the point is, whether or not you think it's good, it's not tremendously unrealistic

>>2147183
thanks for the legit post, I haven't heard of some of those so that's good, and I've seen that link before but no time to try like now

>>2147184
>black company

oh lawd, naw

>dat prose

plus I'm in the army and no... just no

why the god damn fuck would anybdoy call not liking literary fiction "elitist"

learn what words mean
stop writing
stop posting
cut off your dick

>>2147196
>thanks for the legit post, I haven't heard of some of those so that's good, and I've seen that link before but no time to try like now

yeah. for reference, i don't know whether all of those authors are on there - i suspect most of them aren't, and they probably don't mention my favorite brian aldiss book (the malacia tapestry).

oh shit, have you read jg ballard? i'd assume you have, but if not, right up your alley.

>>2147191
it is unrealistic, and I never said people weren't brutal to each other. quite the opposite, christianity's history is a swath of violence and terrorism. my point was that if you're going to try and capture the time, you'd be hard pressed to write a realistic character who didn't rationalize his actions to make himself look good in the name of god or some moral hangup, this whole idea of "morals are ambiguous and I can do what I want because there are no consequences" is a relatively new and secular concept

even in more recent writings like treasure island, the pirates all concede that they are most likely going to hell and they should probably change their ways to settle down and become family men

I'm sure there were people with this "I don't give a fuck" attitude back then, I just haven't seen anybody write one realistically yet, because surely the religious implicationso and status quo of the time would still be on such a person's mind

>>2147198
I meant "elitist" as in fantasy neckbeard elitist

lrn2readingcomprehension before you start talking shit, faggot

OP read the Dresden Files. First few books are meh but it gets amazing later

>>2147213

ah, shit, you're right

desperately wrogn about litfic though!

>>2147213
Meh.

>>2147196
It's the best dark Fantasy I've ever read. But okay. I'm ashamed that I clearly wasted my time.

>>2147215
>dresden files
>implying everybody and his mother hasn't at least heard of this "urban wizard" bullshit and doesn't know what it's about

A Voyage to Arcturus

>A Voyage to Arcturus is a novel by Scottish writer David Lindsay, first published in 1920. It combines fantasy, philosophy, and science fiction in an exploration of the nature of good and evil and their relationship with existence. It has been described by critic and philosopher Colin Wilson as the "greatest novel of the twentieth century"[1] and was a central influence on C. S. Lewis's Space Trilogy[2]. Also Tolkien said he read the book "with avidity", and praised it as a work of philosophy, religion, and morality.[3] It was made widely available in paperback form when published as one of the precursor volumes to the Ballantine Adult Fantasy series in 1968, featuring a cover by illustrator Bob Pepper. Lindsay's choice of title (and therefore the setting of Arcturus) may have been influenced by the nonfictional A Voyage to the Arctic in the Whaler Aurora published in 1911 by identically-named David Moore Lindsay.

>c.s. lewis

funny, a soon as I saw it was published in 1920 and about a space journey, I immediately thought of lewis. this will probably be like space trilogy but I'll have to check this one out

>>2147210

Wait, so which PoN character are you talking about here? Anasurimbor Kellhus? Because he's clearly not supposed to be a realistic character. He's more of the vehicle that drives the story and reveals things about the people around him.

>>2147245
Unlike the Space Trilogy, it's actually pretty good, but the prose can get a bit tiresome

>Anasurimbor Kellhus
>dat ridiculous name

I don't know it's been a few years but I don't I read that much of the book, if the first few chapters of a book are rife cliches and just plain bad writing I usually give up on it

>>2147131
Have you tried looking into short stories?

http://www.amazon.com/50-Short-Science-Fiction-Tales/dp/0684842963/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=131899
8385&sr=8-1

While it's admittedly pretty old, it's worth having a look.

>I don't know it's been a few years but I don't I read that much of the book, if the first few chapters of a book are rife cliches and just plain bad writing I usually give up on it

I went so full retard in this sentence that its meaning was entirely obscured, my bad, am sleepy

Skeleton Crew, King
Just upshat it.
Will delete it in 30 minutes.

http://www.mediafire.com/?681wcxtiad78b46

If someone wants cthulhurotica, I have that too.

it's a shame the two or three other people who actually know their fucking shit wrt sf&f aren't posting itt (i already gave my recs for reference). utterly shameful. recommending dresden files. smh. this is seriously depressing.

>>2147274
I downloaded this even though I hate stephen king

mevermind I didn't too lazy to spoiler

>but since literary fiction is boring
>literary fiction is boring

go watch michael bay films if you want explosions and shit, you faggot.

>>2147296
>explosions and shit
inb4 anal cannon

Ever read any of Greg Egan's stuff?

The Culture series? Iain M. Banks?

>>2147296
I openly admit that I'm not learned in lit theory, this is why literary fiction is boring to me

and I'm not interested in learning it either, the current "literary industrail complex" is pointless beyond the most basic understanding of literary devices and tropes in hero with a thousand faces

an understanding of literary theory, which you probably don't have either, doesn't really make a person particularly intelligent, and has a very limited use to the point that nowadays a person can be an intellectual ie mathematician, researcher, etc. without being well read

there are plenty of literary elite and even nobel laureate who don't know shit about how the world works

tl'dr liking old books doesn't make you any smarter, just like knowing a lot about antiques and how they correlate with modern technology doesn't make you particularly smart, so shut the fuck up and stop insulting my intelligence by implying that I like transformers man you massive hipster

>>2147334
This is literally the most idiotic thing I've ever seen on /lit/

>>2147334
Feeling inferior?

>>2147341
>>2147343
great points, never looked at things this way, I totally didn't see that coming, etc.

>call something dumb
>can't explain how it's dumb, because it's not
>you're just dumb yourself
>2011

I seriously hope you guys don't do this

also
>literally
>mfw

have I just been trolled?

>>2147334
>>2147348
Man seriously this is a real stupid position to take. you don't have to know shit about literary theory to enjoy good books. also you are real hostile + i'm not sure why.

It's funny, but this thread reminds me about this funnel placed into an asshole, and the 2nd whore pukes into it. After the ass is filled with puke, a cock then fucks it until the pressure is all built up. After the Asshole has been fucked hard enough, the cock is pulled out and the anal cannon explodes! To top it all off, ass to mouth occurs, with both ladies licking off the fresh mix of vomit and ass for the ultimate anal dessert!

>>2147349
if you do not understand literary theory, you are very unlikely to enjoy high brow fiction, or at least unlikely to enjoy it with a traditional understanding

as for the "u mad" statement, I aint even mad. somebody called me an idiot, I told them to shut the fuck up, this is 4chan not real life

>>2147358
own up, you're d&e w/o the trip aren't you

>>2147348
If literary form puts you off, read postmodern fiction

>>2147356
1. tao lin
2. ayn rand
3. fart fucking
4. infinite jest
5. /lit/ writes a story
6. hating homework

...
...
...
...
...
9000. lucifer niggerbastard
90000001. anal cannon
9,000,000,000,000,000,001 that copypasta

>>2147361
nope

I somewhat know this feel I can no longer really enjoy forgotten realms books or warhammer novels etc because I find they lack in complexity.

ALASTAIR REYNOLDS

fun fact: people only reply to my threads when I post pictures of attractive females

>>2147372
a women with out tits is still a woman. the cunt is the place of beauty, hope, love and respect.... without getting into male reproductive rights..... respect your self whores, control that box.

Can't you have good memories of your past favourites or did they just turn into turds overnight?

But it's pretty hard to give good recs since I obviously enjoy a lot of things you wouldn't, and even with your additional description I'm still not entirely sure what you'd like to read.

So blergh, I'll just regurgitate names: Catherynne Valente (F), Barry Hughart (F), Ernest Bramah (F), Jonathan Carroll (F), Graham Joyce (F), Olaf Stapledon (SF), John Brunner (F/SF), Samuel Delany (F/SF), Christopher Priest (SF), Glen Cook (F/SF) and Jack Vance (F/SF). Oh, and I re-rec Powers and provisionally Aldiss from thatguy's post.

(and I'd like to rec Donaldson but I'm not sure that'd go over well) I think that's too many names for a good rec post but nothing

>>2147395
any unheard of names are appreciated at this point, and some of those names are unheard of by me

2011 OFFICIAL ANAL CANNON CANDIDATES POWER RANKINGS:

#1: ANAL CANNON

>literary fiction is boring

>>2147404
>404
>laughingmantids.jpg

>>2147409
B-But... Someone just gave me a Pulitzer yesterday?

Roger Zelazny's "Amber" Series. Beautifully written, quite engaging, humorous in a subtle manner.

>>2147407
>didn't read the rest of the thread

but, let's do this:

LIT SURVEY QUESTION: is it possible to appreciate literary fiction with no understanding of literary theory? if yes, how so?

>>2147414
Some people just don't understand true art.

>just imagine a cold, shriveled, trembling hand reaching from a hole in the ground. that's my hand, and it's making one final grasp for a good genre novel

And nobody has posted this yet?

polite sage for not contributing

>>2147416
Meh.

>>2147423
I'll be back.

>>2147415
read it, liked it, now too many imitators

it's not so much that I hate ALL fantasy/sci-fi, it's just that there only seem to be very few good ones, like the shit/good ratio in these genres is worse than any other section of fiction

if you like harry potter, I recommend elsewhere by will shetterly. it came out in 91 and I'm pretty sure j k rowling plagiarized the fuck out of that dude, but at this point he's probably like "I'm just some guy who wrote some unknown book in the early 90s, rowling's super lawyers would crush me"

I dunno, whatever, it's uncanny though. there's even a professor trelawney in elsewhere.

let's go ahead and get this out of the way:

>liking harry potter
>implying your opinion matters

One fairly search engine heavy method would be to use Gollancz's Fantasy and SF Masterworks lines and Lin Carter's Ballantine Adult fantasy line as reference material for ferreting out new interests.

>>2147416
Do you need to study films to make a judgement on them? Do you need to study visual arts to appreciate paintings? Of course not, and literature is the same.
Obviously it helps to further appreciate and understand the medium, but it is not a necessity for those who read for pleasure.
Whether you read for pleasure, academia, or a mixture of both it still boils down to reading and enjoying a (presumably) well told story.

be an adult. wince as you feel your fingers wrap around the spine and it nearly slips. Squeeze harder and pull it out awkwardly - books of blood.

>>2147395
thatguy here and i mad endorse these recommendations. except graham joyce who i haven't heard of and will now check out

I recommend The Count of Monte Cristo or Sir Gawain and the Green Knight

>>2147492
David is the Count of Monet Cristo?

>>2147334
>liking old books doesn't make you any smarter
well...no of course not, but reading old books can make you smarter.

>>2147505
It can also make you "Out of Your Time". Later literary critiques noted that it was important to live in one's own time. Sometimes reading and acquiring old vocabulary makes you less effective.

For example, there is a vocab test. I'd argue that knowing the word tatterdemalion, is more harmful to a writer or a communicator than not knowing it. The word has absolutely no meaning or purpose in our time to our audience. It disconnects. It's a sign post with illegible writing. It's weak. It's pathetic. It's for faggots.

Combing dead trees for fruit is the providence of retards and maggots.

My advice would be to really analyze some of the more popular fiction works of our time and try to understand them.

For example, "what does Harry Potter do to Genre?"

Book 1 contains fantasy, a solvable mystery, a comedy, an adventure, and the inklings of romance. Throughout the series the genre elements come into play-- genre is increasingly becoming an irrelevant system of categorization.

>>2147545
so your argument against older literature is that it might increase your vocabulary?

really?

>>2147561

You're retarded.

There is useful vocabulary, and then there is trash. There are words that are dead. When you write them, it's much like dragging up an unpleasant carcass and hauling it before your audience. It's repulsive, confusing, and in poor taste.

Some words are dead. They should remain so. Never learn them. Never know them. They will make you a worse writer and disconnect you from what is powerful and compelling and your time. Unicorns missed Noah's arc. Hottentot has no place in our time.

Beyond that, you are missing the point of critically engaging with the real people who are alive in your time. This is what reads to real maturation as an author and a person.

>>2147577
Your head is stuck up your ass.

>>2147577
you sound like a lexicon fascist, the hitler of our times.

>>2147577
Firstly, I'm not a writer, so I wouldn't use those words in writing anyways, secondly, no one's suggesting that you be a presumptuous asshole with the way you communicate to other people. Lastly, what does any of this have to do with appreciating older literature?

>>2147585
Do... you even know what facism is or what it means? Seriously?

I know it gets tossed around in High School a lot, and in third tier state colleges, but you may want to check into the meaning of that word.

I am, in fact, fascist. But you are not applying that word at all in the right sense, or in one that even could work in the context of my argument.

>>2147592
jesus fukcng christ, you're the real fucking deal, ain't ya? fucking prick

>>2147592
no, the word "fascism" has no place in our time

>>2147604
Well played.

Possibly because of its misuse (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-fascism.htm)) it actually doesn't have a place in our time anymore. It simply became associated with the Nazi rhetoric, and then the moral sinkhole of "NEVER AGAIN!" that emerged after the atrocity of the holocaust damned that word to have no real meaning.

It's a word that hints at the witch-hunt of our time. A world that we call the world of "tolerance" but is actually a world of "the intolerance of intolerance". A politically induced aporia that stems from the realization that we are capable of bringing about great evil.

So, we will not allow ourselves to commit these evils. We will resolve ourselves to this world:

No Hate and No Truth.

That is what Liberal Democracy IS. An infinite deliberation created so that we NEVER AGAIN repeat the horrors that we are now well aware we can inflict on one another.

Anyways, yes, fascism should be dead probably and you are sort of an admirable smartass.

>>2147621
you are literally so fucking dumb

>>2147621
>"the intolerance of intolerance"
Get the fuck out.

>>2147640

If you do not understand that the phrase used there perfectly captures our time... you're completely fucking retarded and should just read shit like 1984 and Animal Farm and feel like an adult.

The intolerance of intolerance is the witch-hunt lead by liberal societies, in which, works, people, and politics are viciously pursued, to see if there is any hint of anything that may be possibly against the supposed liberal value of Tolerance.

Those that are not "tolerant" are immediately compared to Hitler. When equated to Hitler they may be killed or crushed without mercy.

This is the real of our politics. Try to make the other guy look like Hitler as much as you can, because Hitler represents a person that is dehumanized. You can do anything to the Enemy (Hitler) so, as soon as you make that connection, you are free to abuse as you wish.

This is why Fox News, CNN, etc, the last ditch of any rhetorician of our age is to make a Hitler comparison (see Carl Schmiddt)

>>2147644
I understand your point of view and I want you to answer me whether or not I am allowed to disagree with you and consider something else to be true and valid as opposed to what you consider to be true and valid.

>>2147644
So you're saying people should be intolerant? You support bigotry?
Also, nobody is comparing you to Hitler. Don't kid yourself into believing that your petty little hate-mongering is of any real importance.

>>2147653
he is just stating that there is a difference from being tolerant and being intolerance of intolerance.

I.E a tolerant person living next to a bigot, goes fine whatever, where as some one who is intolerance of intolerance is acting as a bigot to the bigot next door over the fact that his neighbor is a bigot

>>2147659
I don't see it as a case of being bigoted towards the bigots. Imagine if you have two neighbors, one of which is a racist and the other is outside of the ethnic majority. If the bigot starts abusing your other neighbor what are you going to do? Do you do nothing? Maybe when your ethnic neighbor moves out the bigot will notice that you're gay and begin acting against you.
People who are intolerant of others can not fit into today's society, and I'm glad of that.

Same situation...

Actually turns out that Shakespeare, Homer and friends aren't that far from fantasy either. You should give them a shot (I recommend by starting with the Epic of Gilgamesh, dude was badass).

>>2147695
Second recommendation for The Epic of Gilgamesh.
Giglamesh is a pretty cool guy who doesn't need to smoke to look cool and doesn't afraid of anything.

1/10 because I'm replying

I don't know what authors you read from fantasy to call everything the genre bad

I gotta say I'm seriously disturbed by the worldview that divides all fiction into 'genre' or 'literary' and implies that you need specialist knowledge to understand a good book about imaginary people who live in the real, modern world.

>>2147334
>>2147088

I am seriously having considerable trouble expressing how depressing I find these posts.

>>2147088
>hasn't read Book Of The New Sun

So basically OP's a cockgargling niggerfaggot who thinks because he's gotten older, magically the things he clearly loved are now too juvenile him for him to continue loving.

Dear OP,

Go climb a wall of dicks you candlesniffing fuckfence.

speculative fiction is like the /b/ of literature

you start out there but later realize how shit it is and move on to better things

OK OP, First things first, The Gormenghast books were brilliant, with atmosphere and incredibly vivid characters, but also an incredible plot. Steerpike is one of the strongest and most compelling protagonists in literature.
Now, onto business. Kraken by China Meilville is genius, as are his Baslag novels. The City and The City is spec-fic rather than sci-fi but still should tick all your boxes.

You don’t mention crime/detective fiction but I never miss an opportunity to plug Yiddish Policeman’s Union by Chabon. Genre bending perfection.

This happens to music too, you are just jaded. Open your mind that something you've written off as sucking, is actually good in a way you didn't appreciate.

>>2147088

The Dark Tower

do it faggot

>>2147887

>>2147425
>just imagine a cold, shriveled, trembling hand reaching from a hole in the ground. that's my hand, and it's making one final grasp for a good genre novel
That's what he said.

Someone probably already recommended R. Scott Bakker's Prince of Nothing trilogy and shot him down, but whatever, I'll still recommend for a few reasons:

Interesting deconstruction of the fantasy genre, similar in a way to how McCarthy deconstructs the classic western. Strong worldbuilding and historical foundation: believable portrayal of a pre-industrial society.
Cool metaphysical and philosophical jargon.
This is a plus for me (but may not be for you): I found the names in the book to be fun... I can't stand it when fantasies have stupid, cobbled-together Anglo-derivatives like Sparrowhawk or Tattersail or Crumbledcock and stuff like that.

Movement of the plot is a bit bogged down by character introspection, which is one of the biggest complaints against it, but if you can stomach it its a pretty great read.