/lit/ - Literature

I recommend Stendhal.

A Spot of Bother by Mark Haddon. You may call it "trashy" but I have rarely been that entertained by a novel.

>>2768357
What do you recommend to follow up The Red and the Black with?

A Confederacy of Dunces

I'd also throw in Maldoror.

Bad-ass as fuck prose poem. You get /lit/ cred for reading it too.

Augie Marsh

>>2768368
I own it, it wasn't that entertaining. If anything, it's only famous because of his fanbase as a columnist at Cracked.

>>2768360

Charterhouse of Parma.

>>2768382
There any download links for good translations of this?

>>2768384
Download your way to a library

>>2768387
They don't have it, and even if they did, it'd probably be Penguin, and they often use public domain translations anyways.

>>2768384

I don't know, I don't download books. I recommend Margaret Mauldon's 'Oxford Classics' translation, however.

>>2768357
Stendhal's not quite what I'm looking for. As much as I loved "The Red and the Black", it isn't what I would consider "pure entertainment". By that, I don't mean that it wasn't entertaining or is one of those books that you have to force yourself to read (in fact, it was so entertaining that I breezed through it in just a few days), but it does take an emotional toll on the reader in a way that something like "The Count of Monte Cristo" does not.

Let me elaborate a bit: By "pure entertainment", I am referring to something that primarily aims to entertain, and does so in a way that is less emotionally and intellectually taxing than fiction that is understandably more valued. Although "pure entertainment" may contain tragedy, the tone somehow always remains relatively light. "The Count of Monte Cristo" contains many tragic moments, but they become somewhat diluted by the more light atmosphere of the novel, whereas in a novel like "The Red and the Black", these elements are emphasized.

I guess what I'm saying is that "pure entertainment" isn't defined so much by how much you are entertained, because you can be entertained in a lot of ways, but how you are entertained, if that makes sense.

Pretty much anything by Agatha Christie.

umberto eco, yo!

>>2768356
trash =/= entertainment?

hmmm

you must mean art

>>2768475
trashy =/= trash

>>2768477
that's circular, basic

>>2768484
actually, it's more linear - goes nowhere

>>2768486
he's saying that trashy does NOT equal trash, which is BS

>>2768490
trashy=trashy
trash=trash
trash=/=trashy
trashy=/=trash

>>2768494
circular, again

>>2768500
it's not circular, or linear. it's just zero.

Christopher Moore

>>2768356
Tom Clancy

joyce carol oates

Anything by Hunter S Thompson. He's got such entertaining prose and a really dynamic way with words.

>>2768547
+1 x-scientologist

>>2768565

If you want some well written entertainment, lolita or anything by Shakespeare has some amazing verbal wordplay.

Sounds like you might like Kurt Vonnegut

>>2768777
lel

>>2768356
The History of Man, by L Ron Hubbard

>>2768778
Why? Vonnegut isn't taxing in the least and his stuff is simple and fun to read

>>2768809

I think he was implying Vonnegut was trashy and poorly written. I disagree with that notion.

>>2768356

this

bumpo