/lit/ - Literature

Who is George Orwell?

>>2490637
He's a writer who wrote 1984 and Animal Farm.

>>2490636
>>2490637
>>2490639
lollllll

James Joyce (Dubliners)

Who is Tucker Max?

>>2490637
You seriously think that don't you.

>>2490643
Pleb detected

Brahm Stoker or JD Salinger?

Who is J.D. Salinger?
Who is Stephen King?
Who is Toni Morrison?

>>2490647

Fucking hell yes. Portrait of the Artist and Ulysses are two of the best novels I have ever read. And then there's his letters to his wife...

Joseph Heller is the only correct answer.

>>2490645
You don't?

Kafka

Who is John Steinbeck?
Who is Dan Simmons?

>>2490659
Oh my god. Let me laugh at you for a few minutes.

>>2490645

Yes. It's the truth.

>>2490639

Animal Farm was a short story.

>>2490650
>Who is Stephen King?
>arguably the most prolific author of all-time

>>2490663
to be quite honest i'd be skeptical about the claim that there's even one

it's not really fair to count "collected essays" and all his other shit kinda sucks

but then i'm obviously much more anti-orwell than you are

Vladimir Nabokov?

>>2490671
Obviously never read enough Nabokov

>>2490669

In the same way that Henry Ford was arguably the most prolific juggler?

Who is Cervantes?

>>2490669
Prolific because he keeps publishing the same book with minor changes.

Harper Lee, maybe.

>>2490665
>>2490670

Well, since it says book, I think you can include all of Orwell's published texts. Considering this, I'd say 1984 is amongst his weakest work, which is indicative of the quality of his writing. Coming Up for Air is one of the finest examples of the 'condition of England' novel. The Road to Wigan Pier is a wonderful journalistic essay, the prose brings across such an alien and degenerating landscape, and his mixture of empathy and disgust is honest and very powerful. And then there's Homage to Catalonia, which shows his journalistic integrity in his questioning of subservience to political dogma, no matter which side one is fighting for. I recommend that you read these, and if you have, I can only assume that what you value in literature is something entirely other than what I do.

>>2490689
I think Homage to Catalonia is certainly his strongest book but on the whole I don't care for Orwell as a writer or thinker. But it may be more of an intellectual dislike, to be honest, than a disparagement of his skill as an arranger of the words into the order.

>>2490704

This is entirely acceptable, I just can't understand a person who could claim he wrote one 'great' book, and then 'never wrote a book worth a shit for the rest of his life'.

I mean, there's quite a few writers that I disagree with in terms of ideology, but I can still appreciate their writing, and would never condemn it as shit. Taking that in mind, I have no idea what I'm even doing posting in this thread.

>>2490650
>Salinger
>9 Stories
>Franny and Zooey
>Catcher in the Rye

>>2490685

fucking this

Seconding Joe Heller, though personally I wouldn't call Catch-22 'great'.

>>2490685
>>2490728

>Never wrote a book worth a shit for the rest of his life
>the rest of his life
>his
>Harper Lee

Harper Lee

>>2490736

MYSOGINYSITC PIG!

>>2490728
you have to write ONE good book to qualify

harper lee didn't write ANY good books.

>>2490743

so edgy! To Kill a Mockingbird aint a good book, man! wow, can I be in your gang?

>>2490743
>>2490736

Good fucking joke

>>2490748
Shit tier prose filled with buzzwords. Damn near Law & Order tier.

Fuck you.

>>2490743
To Kill a Mocking Bird. DUH

Lessee. Male, one good book... No DFW, no Hunter Thompson...

>>2490752
have you actually read the book in question

honest question, i'm really just kind of puzzled here

they ddin't even kill any mockingbirds such bullshit god i hate english :\

>>2490752

It's written from the perspective of a pre-pubescent southern girl. If she was spouting Milton the world would cry bullshit.

>>2490761
the book was nonsense tho, who ever heard of an innocent negro?

What they should have done is get him off scotfree, and then he gets killed doing an armed robbery like 2 weeks later.

>>2490752

Just to ask, do you know what 'buzzword' means?

And if so, do please paste some quotations from the text - since you claim it's filled with them, it won't take too much effort.

>>2490764
m
u
r
d
e
r

y
o
u
r
s
e
l
f

r
a
c
i
s
t

>>2490764

Richard Littlejohn's on /lit?

>>2490764
Is TKAMB's status as canon literature because of white guilt?

Hmm?

>>2490768
that's just the facts ok

look at that duke lacrosse case, some negress made up lies, the media goes crazy but drops it when they find out shes a liar.
And now she's in prison for killing her boyfriend.

etc, more then a third of all blacks will go to prison at some point in their lives, they are a rampantly criminal race.

Fuck the traitor leftists

>>2490774

Oh look, an essentialist!

anyway, let's get back to the point: that guy who said that "to kill a mockingbird" was full of buzzwords. did he not know what buzzwords are? had he never read tkamb? just an idiot? all of the above?

>>2490779
>Oh look, an essentialist!

Oh look, a meaningless pseudointellectual derogatory term!

>>2490800
oh christ not this fucking shit again

>>2490789

you're forgetting the part where atticus talks about how busting up chiffarobes has gone viral

>>2490685
>>2490743
To Kill A Mockingbird was good, but Harper Lee didn't write it. Truman Capote wrote it for her.

>>2490800

What in the fuck!?

Who is John Kennedy Toole?

kurt vonnegut

Who is Roald Dahl?

>>2490813

out

>>2490796

Nope.

Straight out of the dictionary:

Essentialism - the practice of regarding something (as a presumed human trait) as having innate existence or universal validity rather than as being a social, ideological, or intellectual construct.

Attaching 'pseudo-intellectual' to concepts you perhaps don't really understand is anti-intellectual, which is almost as bad as believing that evolutionary variation in skin pigments has any other meaning than a trade-off between rickets and melanoma.

Fitzgerald.

>>2490835
What's 'pseudo-intellectual' is assuming that you can disprove a view by sticking it with a derogatory label.

>>2490843

It was clearly tongue-in-cheek. I do find it humorous that someone who has no problem in making abject discriminatory accusations totally reliant on skin colour should be so offended to be given a 'derogatory label', if indeed you are the same poster as >>2490774

>>2490772

>>2490861

quoting yourself is uncouth have some class

>>2490853
yes because race is totally and only skin color huh?

>>2490867
If you're even half serious, I like you.

>>2490853
Two wrongs don't make a right, niggerlover.

>>2490662

>Steinbeck

Ever read Cannery Row? The Grapes of Wrath? Of Mice and Men? East of Eden? That nigga was one of the greatest American authors of the Depression era.

>>2490872

In biological terms yes. There are social constructs built upon race that attach value to it one way or another. This is an incredibly complex phenomenon that doesn't hold up to any statements that wish to universalise and homogenise. To condemn an entire race as 'criminal' is to attach one overarching value to them, which is entirely idiotic.

>>2490904
Everything is a "social construct" doesn't mean that race doesn't exist.
And hell, even if it didn't, the fact everyone believes in it means that for all intents and sourpusses it DOES exist.

And since the non-whites will always believe in race, and help their kin before a white/other non-white, then we TOO must help our kin or be destroyed!

>>2490915

>sourpusses

Oh dear, that just makes you sound like an adorable English grandma.

But seriously. Race war? Really?

>>2490925
How do you think the world operates, idiot?
Do you think there will never be war anymore?

What do you think will happen when whites no longer control the government and are a minority?
Just fucking look at south africa and rhodesia for what will happen, white genocide.

>>2490662
>>2490661
>>2490650
>>2490648
>>2490643
>>2490637

>>2490934

I'm not entirely sure how the world operates. If that makes me an idiot I'm pretty certain everyone is, unless of course you happen to be an omniscient God.

Well, I guess South Africa is quite a complex issue, considering the years of apartheid and the difficulty for those who had been repressed to comprehend the notion of justice that defined the Truth and Reconciliation process. I'm not an apologist for any of the examples of black on white crime that you may throw at me, finding all hatred and violence entirely reprehensible, but I might point to its very complex past as one of the reasons for this. I very much doubt that the farm attacks are government sponsored, although I am sure there are those in government that may sympathise. I lived with two Afrikaners for three years at university, and went from complete ignorance to what I would say is a general although still unfortunately superficial understanding of some of the points of view on this issue that you talk of. What I would say is that even amongst these two friends of mine, there were diametrical opinions, sympathies, and ideas. I would suggest that essentialist notions of white or black identity and shared ideology as homogenous is highly reductionist and unhelpful when both looking for reasons and searching for ways forward in policy and relations.

>>2490978
uh, da fuq? What do you even think apartheid was?
There was no "repression".
These were communist militants funded by the soviet union who were waging war against whites and white countries, based in nearby countries.

And you have traitors filling the west who aided the niggers against fellow whites.

>I very much doubt that the farm attacks are government sponsored
Well then you are fucking clueless, like i said.

>I would suggest that essentialist notions of white or black identity and shared ideology as homogenous is highly reductionist and unhelpful when both looking for reasons and searching for ways forward in policy and relations.

Why don't you pull your head out of your ass and stop spouting worthless rhetoric?

Who is Tobias Smollett?

>>2490989

I'm more intelligent than you are. Give up. You have a 9 volt battery for a brain. You're fighting a losing battle.

>>2490995
Sorry, i guess i have to take philosophy classes so i can write worthless walls of text.

>>2490996
>not attacking him for resorting to ad hominem

Throw a debate class in there as well, ol' chap.

>>2490999
I don't have time to do all this, maybe I'll just remain stupid and ignorant.

But I've learned that if i find a home invader in my house, i need to engage him in a conversation about how unhelpful and reductionist this life of crime is.

>>2490643
u mena finnegan awake o__0

jd salinger

Who is Ayn Rand?

Mark Z. Danielewski.

>>2490989

(pt. 1)

Okay, I'm going to cede the ground to you and say that your habit of dividing the world into neat little groups that you can construct historical good vs evil battles with has entirely outwitted me. I can't compete with your historical revisionism because it is so entirely other from what I can ascertain through traditional methods of research, like reading books and peer-reviewed papers, or discussing the matter with people who give their lives over to the subjects. I have attended two seminars on the Truth and Reconciliation process in my life, not many I know, but, although there was representation across the political spectrum, I did not hear once of apartheid as a perfectly reasonable defence of national sovereignty against a communist conspiracy. I have a feeling this might be a slight simplification of the issue, or a thoughtless acceptance of purposeful misdirection by the ruling party, of the type normally encountered by those who believe the Gleiwitz incident to be a genuine attack by Polish belligerents, or that the Reichstag was burnt down by those damn pesky communists.

>>2490978
'essentialist', 'reductionist'

More derogatory buzzwords instead of reasoning.

>>2491013

(part two)

You'll see that the colonisation of South Africa and many of the repressive laws against the rights of blacks for suffrage, property or land, came quite a long time before communist ideology could have been introduced by Soviet Russia. Apartheid built on these, and was perhaps more like to be a classic case of a rich minority using systematic discrimination to maintain the status quo.

You may take umbrage with my rhetoric, I have a reasonably formal writing style but I try at all times to refrain from ad hominem attacks or racial pejoratives. This is one time that I can't resist, hence my admitting that you perhaps just aren't ready to develop a more nuanced worldview.

As the cliche goes, and yes I'm sorry for repeating it: 'never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience'.

>>2490995

Also, this is not me. There's a saboteur amongst the ranks!

>>2490636

>God (Bible)
>Mohamed (Koran)
>Joseph Smith (book of romney)

>implying these are good books

Who is Anne Frank?

>>2491008

Regurgitating Borges hardly qualifies House of Leaves as good.

>>2491017

I'm relinquishing my anon status to stop this kind of nonsense.

>>2491032
>Borges
wat

Is this a misspelling of Burgess, as in Anthony Burgess?

>>2491036

Definite troll.

>>2491013
>by those who believe the Gleiwitz incident to be a genuine attack by Polish belligerents, or that the Reichstag was burnt down by those damn pesky communists.
Wait so you think they weren't?
Forced confessions at Nuremberg show trials isn't much evidence.
I bet you are one of those who yells "TINFOIL HAT" at people who question 9/11 too.

>I have attended two seminars on the Truth and Reconciliation process in my life

Ah SEMINARS, you must know all now!
>although there was representation across the political spectrum
I highly doubt that.
>a communist conspiracy
da fuq? Are you denying that the soviets were the ones funding and supplying and training these marxist guerrilla's? Do you deny the all their murders and attacks and so on? You know that nelson mandela was a convicted communist terrorist?

>>2491016
>repressive laws against the rights of blacks for suffrage, property or land
Since when is suffrage a "right", why are the whites in south africa required to hand over the country they built to the blacks? Since when were the blacks unable to own property or land?
>came quite a long time before communist ideology could have been introduced by Soviet Russia.
More nonsense, perhaps you should learn some history of south africa before you start preaching?

You are aware that the whites were in south africa before the blacks, yes?

>>2491014

These terms can be thought of as derogatory, namely because yes I disagree with the processes behind them, but they stand for a clear and identifiable method of thinking within an appropriate context, and so I don't think they can be described as 'buzzwords'. There also nothing like the pejoratives being thrown around in posts such as this >>2490989

>>2491060
The derogatories are all in your mind and the connotations you attach to certain words.

>>2491014

These terms can be thought of as derogatory, namely because yes I disagree with the processes behind them, but they stand for a clear and identifiable method of thinking within an appropriate context, and so I don't think they can be described as 'buzzwords'. They're also nothing like the pejoratives being thrown around in posts such as this >>2490989

>>2491063

Sorry, was correcting there / they're mistake at the end.

Moses

>>2491066
Do you have a problem with reducing thermodynamics to statistical mechanics? Is that too reductionist?

>>2490804
Correct!

>>2491051

No I definitely don't think of 9/11 as an inside job.

I'm afraid to say that I tend to inhabit rather central ground in my reading of history. This is a result of my wish to rely on studies that have been peer-reviewed. This, undoubtably, makes me a blind follower of an anarcho-zionist-communist world view, and would explain my 'niggerlover' status, as first exposed here >>2490877

The beginnings of South Africa's colonisation was by the dutch in the 17th century. They had a rather fractious approach to the indigenous people, the Khoikhoi, and then imported slaves from the West Indies when they embarked on a land-grabbing expansion to increase their agricultural land. The whites were not their first, but they came in numbers, and brought thousands of blacks with them, as slaves.

I didn't claim that going to seminars made me an expert, in fact I pointed that out, but the fact that I spend my days reading and researching history does at least give me a small understanding of this matter, albeit imperfect and, as I said, too superficial for my liking.

Who is Bret Easton Ellis?

/thread

>>2491108
Less Than Zero
Rules Of Attraction
Imperial Bedroom
(American Psycho)

>>2491100
So you can't grasp the difference between the bantu people who run south africa now, and the bushmen who they genocided and happened to squat around the general area?

This slavery shit in south africa is irrelevant, ended 200 years ago and never was significant numbers.

Apparently blacks conquering land is a-ok and just to you, but whites doing the same is wrong?
Anyways, you can't be a fence sitter all your life, you have to pick sides, from your post you are clearly picking the side of the negros, hence you are a traitor.

gary jennings

:_;

>>2491087

Yes reductionism is a term used in science, philosophy, and literature. Language is a wonderful thing, in which a word can have multiple meanings, it is ideally suited to the heterogeneous world. (Heterogeneous is a word often encountered in science too isn't it? And if you take off the last e, it becomes a biological term. Fascinating.)

>>2491116

Is there a term for how jealous I am of your intellect and ability to express yourself eloquently?

>>2491116
So what do you mean when you call things 'reductionist'? Anything more than 'bad'?

>>2491112
Also: didn't mention, funny how during this so called "repression" things were vastly better in every way for the blacks.

Strange how they ignore that the "liberation" involved handing the country to communist dictators.

Oscar Wilde, technically.

>>2491152

Heard this argument very recently at a party. An Afrikaner who had moved to the UK with the fall of apartheid was advancing the paternalistic defence of repression - 'they never had it so good / we civilised them / without us they'd still be shoving bones in their noses'. Of course, this notion of civilising has been bandied about a lot as a defence of colonialism, especially since the Victorian age, with the 'Scramble for Africa' and so on. You can see it brilliantly taken to pieces by Conrad in everyone's favourite novella, 'Heart of Darkness'.

It's problematic because this notion of civility that we value is culturally specific. I have no idea why people believe we have the right to justify the outrages of colonisation through some kind of 'make them in our own image' process of westernisation. It's also just rank hypocrisy, just like the 'war on terror' being masked under some kind of self-righteous mission to 'democratise' Iraq or Afghanistan. If it's civil to invade a nation, enslave, rape and murder its inhabitants, plunder its natural resources, and then initiate a process of divide and rule to maintain power, I think I'd rather be running around naked, chucking spears and playing the bongos and whatever else we say they did before we arrived.

>>2491187

PS Yes, I go to awful parties.

Herman Melville...I win.

No wait...Moby Dick was complete nonsense and about as much a literary masterpiece as the piece of toilet paper you wipe your shitty anus with.

Gabriel Garcia Marquez

because he hasn't been mentioned

>>2491187
> repression
keep using buzzwords, i'm sure it helps your argument. Have to laugh at your assertion civilization is "culturally specific" while using all sorts of culturally specific terminology/thinking to call apartheid wrong.

Not sure why you are comparing south africa to american behavior.
You are aware that it was american threats of war which is why rhodesia fell and then south africa let the niggers take control?

Ralph Ellision

>>2491187
>It's also just rank hypocrisy

No, it seems pretty consistent and principled. Maybe you think the principles are no good, but there's no hypocrisy I can see.

>>2491204

I know absolutely nothing about Rhodesia and, although I'll be at the library in a few hours time, I unfortunately have other work to be getting on with and won't have the time to learn about just how nuanced and intelligent your version of events is.

The way you're arguing, I think you're clasping at straws, trying to say that because I use words like 'repression' that I must be some kind of fool. Also, I can't see any instances in which claiming that the ideas that underpin the process of civilising are culturally specific contradicts with my reading of apartheid. Unless you are talking about where I complained of the denial of suffrage, land and property rights? Are you saying that the Afrikaners and other white South Africans don't value these things? Or that the Africans have no right to them because they didn't exist in their society before we spent 300 years shipping them all over the globe and forcing these notions down their throat?

>>2491211

No hypocrisy between the grand title of 'civilising' and the brutal reality? Really?

>clasping at straws

You mean GRASPING at straws.

>>2491238

Both carry same meaning, only grasp I suppose is more common.

>>2491238

Also, common, I meant that in the most British of fashions, for your ridiculous attempt to undermine me by picking at my words, and hilariously getting it wrong.

>>2491234
>because I use words like 'repression' that I must be some kind of fool.

That's exactly right, you follow some sort of left wing anti-white anti-colonial narrative which is standard of ivory tower sorts.

If civilization is something culturally specific, then so are things like human rights or what is repression.

>Or that the Africans have no right to them because they didn't exist in their society

da fuq? The africans had their own countries in which they governed themselves inside of south africa. If they didn't like how things were, they were free to fucking leave and live among their fellow blacks.
Of course, they don't want to do that because niggers are dumb and violent animals. Same with why any black old enough to remember when the whites still ran things will tell you it was better then.

Pic related: Good thing they ended that evil repression.

>>2491270

(pt.1)

You know, I only came on here to defend George Orwell, and now look at this fucking mess.

>you follow some sort of left wing anti-white anti-colonial narrative which is standard of ivory tower sorts

Why do you insist on categorising people in these little ideological boxes? Does it make it easier to reduce what I believe to a simple set of stereotypes that you can get all fired up about? Left wing, yes, although firmly centre-left. Anti-white? Maybe - I don't believing in attaching value to race, as I believe it is a social construct that should be neglected. Although I allow others their right to place value on the colour of their skin, I never judge or make assumptions about people I meet because of this, and never will. Anti-colonial. Yes absolutely. I have learnt a lot about Britain's colonial past and find it reprehensible. This does not mean that I labour under some notion of liberal guilt which I am sure you'd like to attach to me; firstly because I feel little guilt about anything, I very rarely commit ills against others, and my non-judgemental approach keeps me clear from hate; secondly, if I needed to fall back on the 'sins of the fathers' nonsense then I could, coming from a family of Hungarian Jews, who were hardly prevalent amongst the colonial slavemasters of the past. Ivory tower. I like this. Is this more of you criticising me for my educational pursuits?

>>2491346

(pt.2)

>If civilization is something culturally specific, then so are things like human rights or what is repression.

Only if they're extended without prejudice. Pretty certain those that benefitted from apartheid enjoyed their human rights and freedoms. Shame they didn't extend that right to others because of their reprehensible and violent racist ideology.

>Of course, they don't want to do that because niggers are dumb and violent animals

Typical piece of demonisation. You bestialise that which threatens you, then you attack it. This rhetoric is so reminiscent of a certain person that I'd have you howling Godwin's Law if I mentioned him.

Your picture, correlation does not prove causation. I would suggest AIDS as being the biggest threat to life expectancy across the African continent, and the reasons for this would be an entirely other, and just as depressing, debate.

>>2491249
>hilariously getting it wrong

Um, no. You got it wrong. Admit it like an adult.

>>2491354

Nope. Clasping is fine. The meaning is clear. Clasping and grasping and clutching, they're all just fine. Look at how inclusive my world is.

Who is Orson Scott Card?

No one liked any of his other books besides Ender's Game true fact

>>2491367
Sure thing, Mrs. Malaprop. Your world is just broad open.

>>2491346
>Hungarian Jews, who were hardly prevalent amongst the colonial slavemasters of the past.

It's almost as if you know nothing about history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%A9la_Kun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A1ty%C3%A1s_R%C3%A1kosi

>Is this more of you criticising me for my educational pursuits?
It's me criticizing you for being an uptight faggot who posts like a queer while using a trip.

>Why do you insist on categorising people in these little ideological boxes?
It's called using all available information to judge people, it's "discrimination" and it is a good thing, sign of an intelligent sentient working mind.

>>2491351
So civilization is something culturally specific, but "human rights" are not? Libs gonna lib, i suppose.
>Shame they didn't extend that right to others because of their reprehensible and violent racist ideology.
So the canadians are repressing the americans by not extending the right to their glorious free health care, yes? Same logic. How does a nigger have a "right" to all these things just because he happens to live in the country?

>Your picture, correlation does not prove causation.
Ya hey, just a coincidence that things fall apart when the whites are removed from power.
Wonder why AIDS is so common among niggers, couldn't have anything to do with their behavior and stupidity?

F. SCOTT FITZGERALD!!!!

how has he not been mentioned?

Gatsby was GOAT, but the rest of his work paled in comparison.

>>2490650

>Stephen King

Perhaps you'd like you name the one great book? I can think of four that were awesome (the first four Dark Tower books).

>>2491393

Hang on, wait wait wait. How is you sending me to the wikipedia page of two prevalent Hungarian communists of the 20th century in any way related to what I said? Yes there were some Hungarian communists. How does this relate? What is with your logic?

>>2491405
Are you really this fucking stupid?

The commies were mostly kikes. Kinda shits all over your "oh my ancesters were all nice people!"
Lets not even get into all the other shit the jews have done all throughout the ages.

Do you seriously think slavery only existed in the colonies?
Strange how you focus on white nations conducting this "repression" and ignore niggers enslaving other niggers, or the arabs, etc.

>>2491410

In this instance, it was clear exactly what I meant, and if you can't see that then your reading comprehension is absolutely dire. We were discussing specifics, which you then decided to interpret as general. I did not say 'Hungarian Jews have never done anything controversial or likely to be read as repressive'. Fuck.

You know I'm currently working on a paper about the Barbary Corsairs and their enslavement and conversion of Europeans. There were also many instances of English pirates voluntarily converting. Are you going to tell me that this means I'm some sort of homosexual anarcho-zionist?

hrm let me guess, this thread is a whole bunch of retards who have no idea what they're talking about

*reads thread*

yup

>>2491429
WHAT ELSE IS EXPECTED ON THIS TERRIFIC BOARD?

>>2491427
the fact you are a jew explains things.

>>2491427
you are so trolled.

>>2491440

Yes quite. I don't know how you can go about hating just about all of the categorisations you place people in. Blacks; Jews; left-wingers; academics; communists; and, I'm guessing, just about everyone else that isn't whatever you are. It must be exhausting.

Good bye.

>>2491451
Why do you continue to go on and on with your mindless rhetoric?

>complain about me categorizing you
>call anyone who disagrees a "racist bigot"
>pull out all this shit straight out of your ass

liberal logic, i suppose.

>>2491467
>complains logic is left-biased

>>2491470
you have trouble reading?
He has no logic, he's just repeating meaningless rhetoric.

>>2491472
>tries to hide the pointlessness of his pointless posts

>>2490636
Who is Adolf Hitler?

Who is Ralph Ellison?

>>2490636
Who is Pynchon?

>>2490840
>>2491396
This.

Walter M. Miller Jr.

Aren't some of Fitzgerald's short stories supposed to be among the best of the 20th century or something

>>2490989
wait, I forget, was it white people who colonized a black nation or black people who colonized a white nation?

oh, now I remember, white people took the black people's land. commies gave the blacks weapons so they could get their land back? why the hell shouldn't they have taken them? wouldn't you have taken them, regardless of politics? oh, and what color were the soviets again?

try again, dipshit.

Who is Orson Scott Card?

Hey stormfriend, if you're still here, two questions...

1. Are you the same /lit/ stormfriend who turned out to be Polish? That was some hilarious shit.
2. Do you like books? I mean, do you actually discuss authors and things on /lit/, or are you all about your agenda?

>>2491559
1. no im from misisipi
2. no i dont reed, get out, or bathe much

>>2491547
First of all, the commies did things for themselves.
It wasn't "getting their land back", it was "installing a communist dictatorship so the soviets would have access to the land"
And they succeeded, most of africa fell to communism.

Are you white? what is your excuse for supporting the negro against your kin?
Do you fail to grasp how the world works? It isn't "good guys and bad guys", where the evil colonialists are the bad guys and the poor suffering negroids are the good guys.

J.D SALINGER

Who is David Foster Wallace.

Who is Jean Toomer

>>2491007
>>2490810

Woah, they wrote a hell of a lot that was good in my opinion.

Who is Jonathan Swift?

Who is Philip K. Dick?

Who is Harper Lee?

>>2490813
That's sacrilege, his kid's books blew my seven year old mind.

Who is Ray Bradbury?

>>2497454
>>2495828
>>2495823
Who is Samefag?

>>2495832
Didn't Truman Capote write Harper's To Kill A Mockingbird?

>>2497454

You're talking about The Martian Chronicles, right? Right?!

John Kennedy Toole.

In b4 buttmad "Neon Bible" fans.

Who is Lao Tzu?

Who is Stephenie Meyer

Who is Nathanael West?

Not really his fault, though, guy died in a car crash in his mid-thirties.