/lit/ - Literature

Off-topic.

/tv/ is your man

I think you should read about something more direct, like the grip of a cunt.

GRIP of a CUNT

Carry on. It gets better.

How many pages is Foundation?

ANSWER, YOU FUCK, HOW MANY PAGES?

COME ON, FUCKA, HOW MANY? SHOULDN'T TAKE YOU LONG, IT'S RIGHT THERE ON YOUR DICK

>>2598912
Calm the fuck down, which book are you asking about? the prelude has 512

LOOK AT THAT FAGGOT WITH THE GREASEPAINT ON HIS FACE.

NOW, HOW MAAAAANY PAGES MOTHERFUCKER?

>>2598919

Right, okay, cool, so this is a 512-page book. It seems fair to say, then, that in the time you take to read this, you could have read The Portrait of a Lady, or at least gotten well into it. So do that instead.

You shouldn't read the Prelude books because they suck. Start with Foundation instead. Or don't, really. What you should check out is his short story "Nightfall." It's pretty good.

And, yeah, I love genre fiction a whole bunch.

When you get to a certain age, saying "I'll try [X] series" has a certain weariness about it, because you know you should be onto big-boy-books by now. It's like saying "think I'll give that new brand of incontinence pants a whirl".

>>2598928
Are you a retard or something?

>>2598941

No dude, I think the math bears out.

Glad we could help you with your problem.

genre fiction is fine by me, for a break from more serious works. i would never make it my main course, though, so to speak.

>>2598967

Yeah, it's great for those occasions when you don't want to read but want to use your eyes for some reason.

god damn /lit/ is so schizo some times

one week people are cool with genre, the next genre is the worst thing and everyone hates it

jesus, people

>>2598975

Well it's gonna be like this from now on, so there's going to be a level of consistency.

>>2598977
is it? is it really? are you committed enough to do this in every thread that mentions genre? not just today, but next week? and the week after that? all the time?

and if you are, what the hell is wrong with you that you're that committed

>>2598978

It's not just me, man. Also, we can tell it's only certain scumfucks who try this, so what the hell is wrong with you, that you're that committed?

>>2598981
>Also, we can tell it's only certain scumfucks who try this,

You say "we." Is this a group endeavor? Do you have a headquarters? Do you have a name for this group? And how do you know it's "only certain scumfucks who try this"? I mean, most posters on this board are anonymous, so it seems strange to assume that there's a concerted effort to stop it. Almost like you're a crazy paranoid fucker. And what do you mean "try this"? Talk about books they like? How nefarious!

>so what the hell is wrong with you, that you're that committed?

I post on this board because I like it. I talk about genre because I like it. It is not a complicated equation here.

What's wrong with genre fiction?

>>2598992

It's not a conspiracy, it's just that increasingly, /lit/izens are trying to flush out your poison. You like talking about genre, fine. Then continue. Enjoy.

You have to be committed in this life, otherwise you're just taking up space.

>>2598993
Listen, it's not even worth asking. They don't have any reason for saying it. They'll just say that it's not literature, and that it's obvious to everyone that genre fiction is worse than literature, and that all people who like genre fiction are pedophiles (I am not even exaggerating).

>>2598994
You know what you sound like? Extreme right wing nationalists. Except for /lit/, instead of a real nation or race. It's crazy how you could be making the exact some posts on /pol/ except substituting "Jews" or "multiculturalism" for "genre fiction" and "Europe" or "America" for "/lit/".

genre fiction raus!

>>2598894
i used to love it now i can't read any after being on /lit, cause i recognize the shitty prose.

Read what you want, even if it's something as terrible as Twilight. Note that I am in no way comparing Foundation to Twilight. Just don't let these hipsters tell you what you should be doing for some imaginary book cred. It really doesn't matter in the end.

And personally I think you should try a few chapters of Foundation just to make sure it's what you want. If it's not then drop it. You should try out I, Robot. Has absolutely NOTHING to do with the movie.

>>2599004
>>2598967
>2598972
In all honesty though, it appals me how ironic it is for seemingly well read /lit/erati to claim such generalized ignorance. There are quite a handful of gems, you just have to see beyond your shortsighted assumptions.

>>2599004
>>2598967
>>2598972
In all honesty though, it appals me how ironic it is for seemingly well read /lit/erati to claim such generalized ignorance. There are quite a handful of gems, you just have to see beyond your shortsighted assumptions.

>>2599002

No we don't. You've just spent your whole life being told the customer is always right. We all have, in this society. Then someone draws a line and says "No. This far and no further." and your jimmies get rustled, because you thought amorality was simply the way of the world. The shock is understandable, but don't shoot the messenger. We're here to help.


>>2599037

No there aren't.

>>2599057
>No we don't. You've just spent your whole life being told the customer is always right. We all have, in this society. Then someone draws a line and says "No. This far and no further." and your jimmies get rustled, because you thought amorality was simply the way of the world. The shock is understandable, but don't shoot the messenger. We're here to help.

Well, actually, you're the one refusing to consider books as books and apply standards to them. Literature is no less a category for sales than fantasy or science fiction. Books are sold on the basis of the category of "literature" - and by taking that divide seriously, as booksellers promulgate it, you're taking the standards of the booksellers for your own, and refusing to judge for yourself.

It's funny, because I am the furthest possible from saying that we shouldn't judge art. I am not an amoralist here. The only real difference is that I insist on judging the books by their quality as books, while you refuse to do this - while you refuse to look at the books themselves.

>>2599057
Do you even believe your own stupidity right now? Very well, I'm not going to waste my time further listing examples because you'd reject it anyway out of some deluded feeling of better nurtured taste, stay further in your ignorant mud.

>>2599065

The booksellers are taking a standard that existed before them. As am I. Literature is not a genre; it's an approach to writing, an acuity, an investment of attention. Why use the label for the wrong kind of merchandise? It won't help sell the merchandise, and it won't help the readers of literature find something they enjoy. I do look at the books, in the widest possible sense, an objects in the world.

Always saying things like "I won't bother" and "there's no point", aren't you? Well, the choice is always yours.

> further listing examples

You never listed examples before.

Let's be clear, I don't think it would benefit me any to pretend that literature was the name to call anything I enjoyed. Some people seem to think that's what it is. It's like the word "gentleman". It used to mean something specific. Now it means nothing, is a cretin's compliment. All because people used it to describe people who made them feel good.

>>2599002

> It's crazy how you could be making the exact some posts on /pol/ except substituting "Jews" or "multiculturalism" for "genre fiction" and "Europe" or "America" for "/lit/".


> mfw neckbeards equate product to human lives
> mfw
> i have no fw

>>2599067
>ur stupid. can't think of any better rebuttal.
confirmed for genre fiction reader

Does it really matter if people like genre fiction? I like science fiction and "literature" equally, and the Foundation trilogy is excellent science fiction, although it's more about the Seldon plan than the characters, so don't go in expecting deep characterisation and whatnot.

Read the original Foundation trilogy first. All three are short story collections and not novels. Asimov is a great short story writer.

Also ignore, in the future, ignore lit. It is full of angsty teenagers that just started reading grown up books last year and are still in that stage where they think that makes them better than everyone else.

>>2599141

Yup.


>>2599155

Yep. Nope.


>>2599213

No son, we're not.

>>2599231
>vocal minority

>>2599256

That's right, but also your betters.

The majority of /lit/ posts from Starbucks. It's kind of cute how they try so hard to be unique.

>>2599424

No we don't, and you have no friends, >>2599409

Bumping with shitposts won't do you a bit of good, this is /lit/.

>>2599434

Be silent, hipster scum. You will speak when spoken to.

>>2599436

Hahaha, the beta is crumbling!

All you have to do is lose the attitude and read some real books, kid. You can do it any time you want.

I read Foundation and it was honestly not very good. It's just a grandiose boyish fantasy about saving civilization and not very interesting or surprising about it.

I, Robot is better in terms of technological fantasy. Read that instead. But he does suck at characters and narratives from what I read. Don't read him for that

>>2598933
are there big-boy sci-fi books?

>>2599508

Slaughter House IV, the main five Dune books (arguably), Do Androids Dream Electric Sheep, Childhoods End.

Maybe?

>>2599536

V*

Don't judge me.

>>2599536
>>2599541

already reading Dune :D

thanks bruh

>>2599458
>I read Foundation and it was honestly not very good. It's just a grandiose boyish fantasy about saving civilization and not very interesting or surprising about it.
You didn't get it.

Man. You would think of all the boards on 4chan this one would be the hardest to troll.

Follow what interests you. Don't let these assholes dictate what you should or shouldn't read.

If you need recommendations for what most people consider the established classics of a certain genre, ask the internet (but not /lit/, because unfortunately they're just /mu/ with books) and start from there.

>>2599508

Riddley Walker, Ballard from Atrocity Exhibition to High Rise, and... I think that's it.

Haven't read foundation, but I've always thought that Asimov did his best work in short stories.

>>2599508
Brave New World and Nineteen Eighty-Four are obvious ones... Left Hand of Darkness? Handmaid's Tale? Never Let Me Go? Parts of Cloud Atas?

...those are the obvious 'more literary' scifi books that spring to mind. There's a dystopia thing going on, clearly.

>>2598894
> I'm aware that the action in asimov's writings is in the dialogue
The action in Shakespeare's writing is in the dialogue. Asimov only wrote action where people shoot laser beams, and even that wasn't that active either.