/lit/ - Literature

The chapters are really short so you can read them fast and feel smart.

>>2885670

>one of the chapters is literally 2 paragraphs long

It's Harry Potter but for adults

>>2885672
What? As much as it's a series of children's books, Harry Potter is ten times more mature than this mix of wish fulfilment and 'YOU'RE SEEING THROUGH THE LIES OF THE ESTABLISHMENT, UNLIKE THE OTHER UNEDUCATED SHEEPLE'.

i lieked it

>spend entire book hyping up how bad the church is and how the secrets should be revealed to the sheeple
>dickface wants to tell the world about the church's lies
>"lol let the sheeple belieeeeeve nothing wrong happens from faith right"
>find the secret
>"lol it was no secret it lives on in art"

>>2885696
ten times 0 is still 0

Books in Britain sell based on quality, in the US they sell based on marketing. Thats why all the NY times bestsellers are absolute shit. The lost symbol is even worse, though Angels and Demons is actually reasonably good.

>>2885865
um

>>2885865
Learn to read and write, you might get beyond "um"

>>2885880
take your own advice; you might develop taste.

Probably the same way Twilight, The Hunger Games and 50 Shades of grey got popular.

Stupid women.

>How did it get popular?

It hits upon a few of the cornerstones of current American culture: the Bible and conspiracies.

But, really, this question implies that popular = quality. Go have a gander at the NYT best sellers list.

>first three ranks of fiction category go to shades of grey series
>15th book in fiction category is a book called shadow of night, where "an Oxford scholar/witch and a vampire geneticist pursue history, secrets and each other in Elizabethan London."
>bill o'reilly's book ranked third in non-fiction
>mass market fiction full of nick sparks, danielle steel, grisham, etc.

That was actually worse than I expected.

>>2885894
I did, and American books are 99% trash

>>2885941
You clearly did not, if you seriously think books sell well in Britain because they're any good

>>2885952
Yes they do, now go and read a fucking american book about an Ivy League professor having ridiculous adventures with a just as rediculously hot scientist, while the CIA is chasing them or something

>>2885957
I have no idea what kind of delusions you could possibly have about bestsellers in Britain when all of them are books written by celebrities (or their ghostwriters), books with recent movie adaptations, books that are typical genre shit, and maybe one or two examples of multi-award winning middle-brow books. But, uh, keep on with your top hat and monocle pseudo-British fantasy world, I guess, if it makes you feel better

>>2885979
Blablabla, use long words and nitpicked examples cause he hurt 'Murrican national pride

>words arent long, you're just stupid, this is the level I read at, cause I go to Harvard, so....

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bestsellers-Books-Fiction/zgbs/books/62
>bestsellers on Amazon's UK website
Oh goodness, the British are SO much more sophisticated and evolved than us

>How did it get so fucking popular?
You're kidding, right?

>>2886061
Yes all shitty books and yes all my American writers

>>2885865
2/10; people responded

>>2886076
The author of the 50 Shades series is British. Stop embarrassing yourself.

>>2886082
0/10; Americans defending their shit writing, cause its "art" the way a chimpansee and a brush produce art

>>2886085
>50 Shades of series tops the US and UK charts
>your thread
>the author of 50 Shades, etc. is a Brit
I get it; you're mortified. That's no reason to lash out. Go read some Waugh and feel better

>>2886137
He's trying to troll you and he's probably not even a fellow European. Just ignore him.

>>2885670
So it's like Moby Dick?

I was single when this came out, and as I like to discuss literature on dates, (to weed out the mouth breathers) the fact that every woman in the world was in love with this book was very troubling.

>> it is complete horseshit. How did it get so fucking popular?

reason #1 - the book is cleverly divided up into short, easy-to-digest chapters that (as I recall) usually end with some kind of cliffhanger - usually something like "he didn't know what was on the other side of the door, but he was about to find out" or the like. Keeps the uncritical reader interested purely through mechanics rather than actual content.

reason #2 - I saw a statistic indicating that people who read these big smasheroo bestsellers tend to only read 1 to 3 books a year if any- they aren't expereinced enough to tell good writing from bad, and thus are prey to reason # 1.

reason #3 - People, especially suburban women, LOOOOOVE to feel that they have been lied to or manipulated throughout history - it makes them feel like all their problems and failures are someone else's fault.

It was accessible and easy to read while being tense and suspenseful. It included romance, mystery, conspiracy. You know why it was popular OP, why do you feel the need to shit up /lit/ with yet another thread about how you're better than your neighbor who's achieved something in his life because you don't like popular books?

So if all of the "bestseller" lists are full of complete horseshit (regardless of whether or not they're British or American) where do quality books get recognized?

The concept is interesting, if unoriginal.

The idea of there being a conspiracy hidden by the Catholic church and the way the book insinuated it might be half-true made people interested. The fuss kicked up by people who knew the book was shit and religious people only drew further attention.

Additionally, for the casual reader it is extremely easy to read and follow.

>>2886566

>>2886298
0/10

>>2886578
Are you saying /lit/ doesn't recognise quality books?

>>2885895
>>2886471
This. Women gobble this shit up as if it's chocolate. Wasn't the prof's voice even described as "chocolate for the ears" or some other ridiculous shit? And everything was about the "divine feminine" or sacred feminine, can't remember. Since the literature scene is thoroughly invaded by feminists, shit like this is like the holy grail (tee hee) for them.

I haven't read the Da Vinci Code, but I have read Digital Fortress. I enjoyed it at the time when I was a young reader. But it's true that when I look at it now, the dialogue is very mechanical and just, doesn't capture how people actually behave very well.

If I remember correctly, Brown ripped off Baigent and Leigh's non-fiction work on hermetism, "holy grail" or something, which is quite good (no loony stuff about conspiracies here, it merely illustrates the influence of so-called alchemist cults and what have you throughout the ages).

>>2886583
I don't know the exact position of feminists on this, but I'm pretty sure they cringe about its lack of quality just as much as other cultured readers do.