/lit/ - Literature

you just want a wolfe thread but this isn't /v/, you can just say you like wolfe and post about something of his you read recently

>>23205339
No I want Wolfetards to remember how terrible they are. They don't get Wolfe beyond the superficial and can't defend him, despite Wolfe being legit good. I've never seen a Wolfe fan smart enough to successfully defend him on all ends.

>>23205349
ok

>>23205353
Example: You haven't even attempted so, even though I stated I realize Wolfe is good. In fact, I've never seen a Wolfe fan successfully defend him.

>>23205398
What makes you think I want to vindicate myself or an author I like to you? Do you think yourself so interesting that I should bother?

>>23205398
You sound miserable.

>>23205404
Not to me per se.

That you even consider me a factor in this shows your love for Wolfe isn't great enough to surmount it, making your enthusiasm for him mid. It also shows you aren't confident enough in Wolfe or yourself to pull it off. You are a coward.

Wolfe fans should be representing him on his terms alone, for the sake of Wolfe, his works, criticism for him, and his fans. But there are no successful examples of this.

>>23205528
I concur with the other anon who replied to you and add that you're also incredibly boring.

>>23205404
>>23205537
Limp/10, still not impressed by /lit/ Wolfe fans.

I have met a decent Wolfe fan in Discord who indeed is able to describe why he's good on multiple ends. He is the reason I realized Wolfe is legit good.

He has a cool name

>>23205685
sounds gay

>>23205398
Here's a (You) buddy.

We go through this every couple of years. There was a time when /lit/ was the best place for legit Wolfe discussion apart from the URTH list. You're a newfag and haven't been around here long enough to make this accusation credibly. Shit we used to have entire threads dedicated to Wolfe almost daily here.

>>23205759
I've been here for ages and know more about Wolfe than anyone here. Ask me a question about a section from BotNS and I will probably be able to answer it. I checked Wolfe threads on occasion but it was either irrelevant or people dunking on Wolfe and Wolfe "fans" being unable to explain why Wolfe is good.

>>23205305
>>23205339
>>23205349
>>23205695
>>23205759
>>23205786
>Overall, I found nothing unique in Wolfe. Perhaps it's because I've read quite a bit of odd fantasy; if all I read was mainstream stuff, then I'd surely find Wolfe unpredictable, since he is a step above them. But compared to Leiber, Howard, Dunsany, Eddison, Kipling, Haggard, Peake, Mieville, or Moorcock, Wolfe is nothing special.
>Perhaps I just got my hopes up too high. I imagined something that might evoke Peake or Leiber (at his best), perhaps with a complexity and depth gesturing toward Milton or Ariosto. I could hardly imagine a better book than that, but even a book half that good would be a delight--or a book that was nothing like that, but was unpredictable and seductive in some other way.
>I kept waiting for something to happen, but it never really did. It all plods along without much rise or fall, just the constant moving action to make us think something interesting is happening. I did find some promise, some moments that I would have loved to see the author explore, particularly those odd moments where Silver Age Sci Fi crept in, but each time he touched upon these, he would return immediately to the smallness of his plot and his annoying prick of a narrator. I never found the book to be difficult or complex, merely tiring. the unusual parts were evasive and vague, and the dull parts constant and repetitive.
>The whole structure (or lack of it) does leave things up to interpretation, and perhaps that's what some readers find appealing: that they can superimpose their own thoughts and values onto the narrator, and onto the plot itself. But at that point, they don't like the book Wolfe wrote, they like the book they are writing between his lines.
Wolfebros...

> they can superimpose their own thoughts and values onto the narrator, and onto the plot itself. But at that point, they don't like the book Wolfe wrote, they like the book they are writing between his lines.

That’s literally how anyone reads anything.

What a midwit.

>>23205799
OP here. Keely is a midwit faggot and a jawlet who doesn't look like his avatar.

>never found the book to be difficult or complex
This is bullshit. BotNS's style is ornate and difficult. Keely most certainly doesn't know all the words used.

>the unusual parts were evasive and vague
Most readers make this mistake, but Keely is a known critic, and to make peremptory judgments despite knowing Wolfe was praised by Asimov and LeGuin is very, very stupid.

>>23205799
>>23205890
You now remember the time Keely tried to shitpost about Wolfe here and got BTFO.

>>/lit/thread/S4926349#p4940019

>>23205786
But can you talk about Latro?

>>23205305
I like soldier of the mist more

>>23206036
The fact that he hasn't revised his criticism since makes me not care he showed up here.

Moreover /lit/ Wolfe detractors are able to point out Wolfe's shortcomings, yet Wolfe fans defend him like Harry Potter landwhales.

>>23205305
What's your point?

>>23206104
seconding this. Sounds like a lot of hot air.

>>23206104
That you don't have one. No one can even find a successful Wolfe defender in the lit archive.

Words, words and no substance.
OP, try putting in at least a little bit of effort and some of that extra chromosomes you’ve got next time. The thread is devoid of any value whatsoever.

>>23205305
>real literature
oh who gives a shit, are you some sort of academic trying to justify adding him to curriculum?

>>23207353
because its about wolfe

>>23205398
Reading is a purely social art borne of a society’s need to vindicate its own experience of the world by erecting these monuments to it that can be heralded as objectively worthy. This is why people love to speculate about what might constitute a country’s defining work. In this sense, articulating the value of something is useless, as a book’s worth is measured in its many believers, not the quality of their discourse.

>>23205305
I've read it and I enjoyed reading it. Felt like LOTR on magic mushrooms

Wolfe stock tanking as usual. Wolfe's fans are doing their best to make themselves look weak and their alt author as irrelevant as possible.

Now hear this,
OP is a faggot.
That is all.

>>23205305
I love living in the ghetto of real literature.

>>23205799
>waiting for something to happen, but it never really did

Defective Subjectivity: the plot fag.

Dan il-post huwa t-tojlit tiegħi issa.