/lit/ - Literature

>>4919790
6 days!

>>4919790

>genre fiction
>classified as "contemporary urban fantasy"
>generic action novel cover with photographed actor
>debut timed for early summer; book is clearly geared towards beach crowd
>but I'll buy it because the Jew York Times says its good

>>4919819
>Jew York Times
Into the trash.jpg

>>4919854

>defending genre fiction pleb fodder

intotheoven.png

>>4919854
>Not understanding jewish media control

You are honestly a nincompoop.

>>4919790

>year of our lord 2014
>reading genre fiction

Pumped as fuck, OP.

The Dresden Files are good pulpy reads that flow fast and are entertaining on the whole. Some have been weak books (Fool Moon, Ghost Story) but god damned if Butcher doesn't do action like a man possessed.

The Codex Alera books are great reads too.

These are good books for when I want to turn off my brain for an afternoon, and it's comforting that he re-introduces everything from previous books as they appear in each new book. A good quarter of every book I've read from the series has ended up recapitulating previous entries so I'm not entirely sure how people manage to read every single one of them without approaching them like I do: Something to obtain, consume, and then wholly discard.

Also, sweet jesus these books are misogynist as fuuuuuuuck.

>>4920989

>These books are misogynist as fuck

Nah, that's just Harry. Read Butcher's stories from other characters point of view, the Codex Alera series, or his Spider man novel and you will see this. Hell, the RPG even pokes fun of this with the margin writing.

Harry: Will, the descriptions for a lot of the ladies in here is a bit heavy in describing their physical appearance. Seems kind of chauvinistic doesn't it?

Will: The descriptions come directly from your notes.

Harry: Still...

Most believe that Harry notices such things because of how little he gets laid and how he is dead set at having the 'no fap' stance due to it causing him to slack on his mental energies and leave around excess fluids that can be turned against him.

I judge that book by its cover.

>>4921028

So, you don't ready anything that was too old to have a cover when it was first made?

Seems like a good idea. Skipping over stuff that just had the title of the book printed on the front with nothing else (pretty much all books from prior to the 20's-30's)

Also a good idea. The vast majority of old lit is fucking retarded and full of bullshit that was only applicable during the time it was written.

>>4921008

Butcher confronts it in the books themselves (I remember a passage that effectively said, "If not wanting to hit a woman makes me a chauvinist, then I guess I'm a proud chauvinist" or something along those lines), but I wasn't really saying anything about Butcher being a misogynist. Just that the books themselves are really gross with the way women are talked about and treated throughout, down to basic things like agency. In Changes, Harry ties up his ex and has sex with her while she is restrained and in no position to consent. This rape is treated as a sensual, positive experience, and even the woman ends up treating it like there was nothing negative about the encounter beyond the circumstance that necessitated her restraint. Whether Butcher himself is a misogynist isn't something I can speak on with authority, but the books themselves are really fucking gross with how they present and treat women.

>>4921047
Are you high?

For those that don't know, the first five chapters of it are available on jim-butcher.com to be read for free to get you hungry for more.

>>4919790
>that horrible cover

>>4921067

go to bed Jim

>there are people on /lit/ right now ardently defending genre fiction tripe
>mfw

Summer has arrived.

>>4921060

Did he do that in Changes? Pretty sure that didn't happen there. It DID happen though, no doubt about it, some kind of reasoning about having to 'calm the beast in Susan" and he needed to illicit a strong emotional reaction to snap her out of the hunger state she was in or something. So he basically raped her.

I don't know why he though that was better than simply giving her a small taste of blood while she was restrained and then burying his fist in her face to snap her out of he (something he did do in Changes after the fight in Erlking's courtyard).

Maybe I like the books because they are misogynistic? I mean, loads of female figures have ridiculous power and status in his books and more than one can kill you with an absent thought, a plain mortal female has also gone toe-to-toe with plenty of supernatural bad asses and kicked their assholes up to their earlobes before too. So, you know, take the good with the bad and just leave it at sometimes women get fucked and sometimes they do the fucking.

I do like that women aren't all dainty flower in the series and plenty know how to use their feminine charms to get what they want (an aspect most people won't touch in movies and literature because it isn't PC despite it being what most women will do given the chance) I also don't like how most modern media seems to think the best way to show a woman as being a strong character is to have them do things exactly as a man would and to not use their natural advantages in a fight or conflict to turn the tide of battle in a way that most men wouldn't think to employ. Then again, like I said, treating women as different creatures in any way is not considered politically correct these days and it really fucking annoys me.

>>4921066

He's the fucker )or possibly you) that says he judges books by their cover.

>>4921086

Everyone, let's hate on fiction.

Dracula, Frankenstein, All of Edgar Allen Poe's work, all of Mark Twain's work, The Iliad, the Odyssey, H.G. Well's work, Issac Asimov's work, the Lord of the Flies, and 95% of the great works of literature since mankind existed are all shit because they are fiction.

>>4921096

If the person designing the cover felt the need to depict an actor waving a revolver around in a rain of burning money to make the book in any way interesting/appealing, I'm going to assume the book itself is pretty bad.

You don't see all that bullshit junking up the front of Pride and Prejudice, do you?

Even Harry Potter had decent cover art.

>>4921085

It is almost 10AM, I am just getting started.

>>4921109

I said genre fiction you twat, not fiction in general.

>>4921109

he said genre fiction, retard

>>4919790
Given the artistic merit of that cover, not at all

>>4921096

The books are all real samey so it might not have been Changes, but it happened somewhere.

Also, you basically said, "I like the books because I am a misogynist," but it took you two paragraphs.

>>4921109

>not understanding the difference between genre fiction and literary fiction

Have you even read any of the books you listed outside of school?

>>4921109

Dude, the Odyssey? That long ass poem with ocean monsters and gods and a fucking Cyclops?

Genre as fuck.

>>4921096
I said I judge THAT book by its cover. That simple sentence seemed to go right over his head. I'm guessing it's the same poster as >>4921109 who is just as incapable of reading comprehension.

>>4921118
>>4921122
>>4921137

ALL fiction is genre fiction, just from different periods of time.

Dracula - Vampire fiction made for the masses
Frankenstien - Sci-Fi 'I shouldn't have played god' fiction made for the masses
The Odyssey Iliad - Historical fiction made for the masses

Your 'classic works' were the Twilight Sagas of their time.

Get bent.

>>4921118
>>4921122
>>4921137
The only difference between genre and literary fiction is the amount of overpaid English majors who have come to the conclusion that said work is good because it fulfills some arbitrary requirements, nothing else.

>>4921134

Whatever, I would talk to you more, but I am gonna go watch some torture porn and then lobby to make abortions illegal this afternoon, so my day is busy.

>>4921113

Given that Harry Dresden uses a revolver, is knocking over a vault in this title, and he frequently has a habit of lighting everything on fire, the cover pretty much just tells you what you are in store for.

Pride and Prejudice was shit on all fronts by the way. A plain cover is fine for that boring ass read.

>>4921175
You seem to miss the point every time.

>>4921205

Yo mama.

>>4921175

Nigger detected

Is this fedoracore?

>>4921369

>Inverness coat
>fedora
>operating double action revolver like a single action
>weird neopagan bullshit on walking stick
>burning money ("hurr hey mom n dad imma libertarian fug da gorborashuns n gubmint :DDDD")

Almost certainly

I'm hyped for it. I like having a semi-yearly 'dumb' book to read, I just treat it like a comic. Is also the only book series I still buy physically, just so I can read a physical book every now and then.

>>4919790
Literally cannot wait to make a fake Audible account and download.

>>4919790
Fuck yeah!
It's 6 months late!

>>4922445
how?

Hyped .

>>4919819
Just to clarify:

Getting on the New York Times' bestseller list doesn't mean that the writers of said publication *liked* the book. It's literally exactly what it sounds like: a list of books that sold the best within a given period of time. Things like Twilight are universally critically panned, but are still bestsellers.

>>4921118

Repeat after me, highschool kid.

All fiction is genre.

>>4921047
I don't think he meant or had to have a pretty picture, I think he meant that he didn't want to a photographed actor on the front.

If I was given a choice between a book with no cover and a book with that cover, I would choose the book with no cover.

>The books are written as a first person narrative from the perspective of the main character, private investigator and wizard Harry Dresden

Also I would never waste my time with that heap of shit. Looks as if cover judgement worked once again.

>>4921154
Haha wait, what? Frankenstein was sci fi for the masses?
>sci fi
>masses
>1818
>not knowing how Frankenstein came to be

Genuine pleb, we got a live one over here

>>4921157
>arbitrary requirements

How is good prose an arbitrary requirement? You sound like a buttmad neckbeard.

>>4923088
I'm sure there are some decent books with photographed actors on the cover, but this isn't one of them. There are lots of things about that cover that, taken separately or in the right context would not mean the book was shit. It's just this particular configuration that makes it obvious what the content is.

>>4924836
Because there is no universal checklist for what makes prose good that doesn't vary between social and cultural frameworks. Even the word good "good" just means "I like this", which is the apex of subjectivity.

>>4924868
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c&feature=kp
>this guy's argument

>>4924868

You're absolutely right. Juliette Society is a masterpiece of amazing prose.

>>4924874
I think the issue is that when we talk about "good" literature, to some degree we're presupposing a shared appreciation of certain, probably quite nebulous attributes. Much in the same way that when we discuss anything at all we presuppose that the other party understands language in the same way as we do.

>>4924884

But when you're confronted with a work like Lolita where the enjoyment of the work (at least the most of the enjoyment) comes from the prose, then you can safely call that literature where a work for which language is just a communicator for the action (where the enjoyment is had) wouldn't qualify as "literature."

Plus, calling Lolita or Nausea works of "genre fiction" would be false. What genre would they belong to? No popular genre I can think of. They can be classified, but they are classified in terms of literary movements, concerns, etc, whereas genre in the popular sense is a description of the action/content (fantasy, SF, romance).

There's a clear divide and it's not dismissible by debating what "good" even means. It's more an issue of focus.

>>4924908
I'm not the person who was arguing about genre fiction so I'm not really sure what the debate is at this point.

Yeah I understand the whole arguements about how you can't *really* define low and high art but come on we know genre fiction sucks for the most part let's not act like it doesn't. Seriously, it's like there's some sort of political correctness attached to shitty books now.

I'm not a SJW, but I found myself having issues with the way women were portrayed. This is entirely new for me. I couldn't make it past book five, for that reason and the godawful writing and all the fedoracore.

>>4924966

I think this is a natural feeling. When I hear tumblr-tier SJWs complaining about some throwaway line in a TV show that could be sexist or "transphobic", I get frustrated, but when I see something that legitimately misogynistic or awkward in a film or book, I am sensitive to it. Most of the time it won't hinder enjoyment of something that's very good, but I'm definitely aware of it.

>>4921074
Which the author has said many times he has never had any control over.

>>4921028
>>4921113
>>4921127
>>4921152
>>4921381
>>4923088
>>4924859
See >>4926626

>>4926626
supposedly there's almost a running gag with the cover artist and that hat, which Dresden never actually wears in the books