/lit/ - Literature

I don't understand what you mean by stereotypical in this context

>>3307524

>>3307513
>/lit/core


or is being dull and passive agressive /lit/core?

wow

2deep4me

>>3307530
I'm afraid I'm still having trouble with your use of the word stereotypical.
You see, this imageboard consists of a diverse population, all with varied tastes, some more eclectic than others.
Perhaps describing your idea of a 'stereotypical' /lit/ poster, if such a thing exists (and I posit that it doesn't), would help us get to the heart of the matter and disperse the confusion.

>>3307540
>I'm afraid
>You see
>Perhaps
> I posit


wow

all you needed were some 'indeed', 'mad props' and 'good sir' and my face would have turned into a lemon

>Infinite Jest
>Brothers Karamazov
>Gravity's Rainbow
>Ulysses
>Mason & Dixon
>Finnegan's Wake

Infinite Jest, Gravity's Rainbow, and Ulysses.

That is mostly what we talk about. Most of us haven't read all three, I don't think.

Of course, you can always CHECK THE FUCKING STICKY.

Dumb cunt.

I just came here to say that you can fuck off back to /mu/

Fuck you and your new years resolution. If you want to read then just lurk and you'll get it. However you want to appear intellectual in front of your beer in whatever backwater indie coffee shop you hang in. We love reading and don't want it ruined by tier lists and kids making it "the next thing" with shallow analysis, hybris about finding the next great author, bad poetry . So fuck off.

>>3307549

>'s

>>3307540

I wish I could hate you to death

>>3307552
>CHECK THE FUCKING STICKY

Recommendations =/= /lit/core

>>3307556

Problem?

>>3307567
There is no /lit/core. I don't even know that very many of us read. The board's not monolithic.

>>3307589
This chart is not representative of /lit/ quit spreading it and every other chart.

>>3307589
yes finally someone who gets it

>>3307590
>>3307595

stop being butthurt because you don't like the image your board projects, baby

>>3307595
This chart is objective fact, though.

>>3307603
Can you update it to the latest version from this post (>>3307589)?

>>3307595
It may not be representative of you personally, but it's pretty accurate with regards to /lit/ as a whole's general posting habits.

>>3307513

Clumsy socialist propaganda
anti-bourgeois rhetoric

>>3307603
dostoyevsky should be in always on page 1 tier

>>3307603
>implying Tao Lin threads aren't usually started with sincere intentions
They just attract tons of mouthbreathing faggots who can't grasp the concept of 2deep4u

>>3307603
what's the difference between 'frequently' and 'regularly'? non-english speaker here.

>>3307613
Heh. A tripfag who calls himself "I'm Gay" calling something else clumsy.

>>3307601
I have seen six variations of that chart, and every time someone posts one, it's disputed.

>>3307611
>>3307603
It's not representative of taste, because there's always a cascade of shit going at some of the top authors. Quite a lot of the board hates DFW, for example. But I'll concede that we talk about him so often.

>>3307620
>Heh.
>Heh.
>Heh.
>Heh.

>>3307589
Wow, kind of surprised that doesn't have Virginia Woolf on it

>>3307618
frequently - a lot of the time
regularly - at more or less regular time intervals

>>3307618
"Frequently" implies obsessive over-indulgence whereas "regularly" just means something habitual, but not excessive.

If one has regular bowel movements, all is cool. If one has frequent bowel movements, it's a matter of concern.

>>3307621
shit flung*

>>3307621
Yeah but people are only so vocal about their hatred of those authors because they perceive them as being disproportionately lauded by /lit/. Same deal as with ITAOTS on /mu/ and Drive on /tv/.

>>3307640
Basically, they're troll (/contrarian) magnets precisely because of their popularity. The ones towards the bottom of the chart are more unanimously disliked.

>>3307640
What? Stop trying to read people's minds. I don't like DFW because I don't like his prose.

>>3307652
I wasn't speculating about why you hate him, I was speculating about why you're so vocal on /lit/ about hating him.

>>3307655
>>3307655
Because he was an author and this is board where one discuss literature. Why are you here?

>>3307652 is not >>3307621

We can't precisely know that it's a minority that doesn't like him, and what's more is that we don't really talk about his work as often as we talk about his character (though that died partly a while after the biography). There is rarely anything sincere anyone has to say about him. And the same goes for Joyce, most of the discussion is about farts, jokes, and inane things that are irrelevant to him.

>>3307659
Please stop pretending to be stupid.

>>3307609

The "latest version" is actually not as recent as that chart (upper right hand corner gives the approximate date). In my opinion, >>3307603
is more accurate.

>>3307603
wait, so people don't actually like American Psycho or Atlas Shrugged?

>"author x" is pretentious

1. Ulyssess
2. Infinite Jest
3. Gravity's Rainbow

>>3307740
No one on this board over the age of 18 likes Atlas Shrugged.
Regarding American Psycho, some appreciate the humor and social commentary, but the majority echoes Wallace's sentiments about being vapid and shallow isn't a good literary response to your mainstream culture being vapid and shallow.

>>3307740
Edgy people act pretentious like >>3307776 most likely because they think being edgy and entitled makes them better in some absurdistic way.

They are actually appreciated and hated for their very own (sometimes objetive, sometimes subjetive) reasons. Just ignore to the edgy entitled kiddos and enjoy.

>>3307740
>wait, so people don't actually like American Psycho or Atlas Shrugged?

Most people people just say they hate it because it promotes extreme right winger policies.

>>3307915
No, it's a legitimately shitty work.

And objectivism is a legitimately shitty philosophy, even to right wingers. Stirnerites and Heideggerians hate Rand, and even Milton Friedman shit on her.

>>3307540
This is literally the most abysmal post I've ever read here.

Atlas Shrugged is garbage an the world could have done without Rand. She just spread her toxic ideology like she spread her legs and toxified the world with herpes. she wrote a book that gave libtards and ratpublicunts to point at and say 'lookit, see? Our views are literary and therefore valid'

Amerigan Psycho is shit because its boring and has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. BEE is a half-talent cunt who got lucky, read how he got his book published. The only depth it has is that artificially inserted into it by readers who themselves arepretty stupid if they think it had depth to begin with.

>>3308040
>libtards
>liking Rand
what

>>3308045
libtards in this context are libertarians, you dolt.

And most layman libertarians like Rand.

>>3308045
Libertarians

>>3308040
>Ratpubicunts
Fix'd

>>3307540
>this imageboard consists of a diverse population
It doesn't though

>>3307589
Someone sure is american

>>3307740
Most people like it for the "wrong" reasons, I think is the deal with /lit/'s disinterest in it.

>>3308595

Most people like them at all, is a bigger problem.

the newfag is quite strong in this thread