/lit/ - Literature

>>6497977
>first person present is too difficult for me to comprehend

>>6497984
Not at all. I use it sometimes in my own writing and it certainly has its place in literature. Just like second person present tense, which I forgot to put up there.

Still doesn't change the fact that it often appears in amateur writing and is, ipso facto, a "literary red flag," as the subject heading suggests.

tl;dr - suck my dick

ITT: stop liking the things I don't like

Look at you, saying no! Denying literature reduced to a caricature. What a brave man you are.

>sci-fi book where half of the vocabulary is "future slang"/techno-babble created by the author

>>6498003
>Red flags
>somehow saying 'stop liking what I don't like'
>not just being personal opinion

>>6498010
Except I'm not saying no. I'm completely against literary reduction, people shying away from experimenting because of bullshit taboos.

All I'm saying is the aforementioned things are often a sign of low-quality writing, not that they're inherently bad.

>fantasy or scifi
Have fun not reading Borges or Calvino

>>6498029
I enjoy how you're oblivious to contradictory nature of your claims. It must be fascinating being retarded.

>>6498042
I enjoy how you can't read. It must be fascinating being illiterate.
What you think I'm saying:
>I support experimentation but X is shit and should not be used
What I'm saying:
>I support experimentation in literature, although there are some things, like X, that, while not intrinsically bad, are often used badly by novice writers, and thus are associated with bad writing

This is not a "things I don't like" thread. This is a "if I start reading a book and come across these things I'll have doubts regarding the quality of the book and the proficiency of the writer" thread. Stop being a retarded faggot and either contribute something or fuck off.

>>6498065
You're retarded. Kill yourself.

>>6498065
>mfw this idiot can't even elaborate what "good quality writing is"
>mfw this idiot is earnestly saying "this is not a stop liking what I don't like"

>>6498035
He said it was a red flag, not that all fantasy and sci-fi is shit.

Fantasy and science-fiction are shit though

>>6498068
Likewise.

>>6498072
I like present tense, as well as both first and second person. They're still red flags to me. So yeah, this isn't a stop liking what I don't like thread.

>>6498081
Fuck off with your damage control.

Just read a book by my pal chucky p. I take it?

>>6498020

Eyes slideways, bratty! Figure I *ain't* into it, man, INTO it. Balls nasty.

>>6498086
>being this buttflustered
YA isn't literature you fucking baby, time to grow up

>>6497977

How is a one word title tryhard? It's like the least amount of work one could put into a title.

Maybe you meant really long titles? Blood Meridian or the Evening Redness in the West. Jesus Christ what an edgy book.

And let's add all first person tenses to the list. It's a narrative for people too self absorbed to understand someone from the outside, too dumb to guess what someone's feeling.

>>6498092
>I like present tense
>it's a red flag
Next you're going to say you like young adult, but it's still a red flag. I'm sure you don't know what red flag means, you pleb.

>insinuating I like YA
There you go, collapsing into the stop liking what I don't like position
Kill yourself you obtuse cunt

>>6498086
It's not damage control, it's me being forced to clarify the purpose of a simple thread to even simpler people who can't grasp it and have a terminal case of shitposter blues.

>>6498097
>My mother drank heavily while pregnant with me: the post
Here:
>red flag
>noun
>a red flag as a warning of danger or a problem.
>"they had overlooked the red flags that should have alerted them to the county's disastrous investment strategy"
That's the definition of red flag. That's how I'm using the term. A warning. A possible indicator of bad quality. But please, by all means, keep bumping my thread.

>>6498104
Calm down, retard.

>>6498104

>replying to shitposters

How new are you?

>>6498112
Today is my first time here. I just wanted to see if any one else shared my disdain for plebs. Patrician lit only secret club, am I right?

>>649810
I actually have been taking a shit this entire time so this thread has been great for my bowels. Squeaky clean. A shitposting enema.

>>6498010
>>6498042
>>6498068
>>6498072
Why are you guys so stupid.

He clearly said a red flag, then explained just in case you were spazzing out that yes, by red flag he meant "I have my doubts"

Holy shit

>>6497977
>>It's written in first person present-tense
Not really. Narrative voice
>>It's Young Adult
Definitely
>>It has a movie adaptation
Not at all unless you specifically mean a popular Hollywood adaptation.
>>It relies on a ¡¡¡cuhrazzzy!!! premise to carry the shit everything else
That's a really arbitrary and subjective metric to come up with
>>It's Fantasy or Sci-Fi
nonliterary genre fiction tends to be weak in general
>>It has a one-word, tryhard title
Another highly arbitrary, subjective metric
>>It's postmodern
100% subjective
>>It compares itself to other books or authors
That could just be an editorial marketing decision
>>The first sentence describes the weather
You can't really tell much of anything from the first sentence so this is completely retarded.

>>6498155
Fucked up with the first one.

I meant to say that narrative voice by itself is never a sign of quality.

>>6498146
Fuckoff, OP

>>6498200
I'm not OP, you could even check it if you wanted to

>>6497977
>muh literary fiction

Look, it's babby's first shitpost

>>6498253
I actually love noir-y thrillers and mystery novels
But here's your reply :)

>It compares itself to other books or authors
True, Paradise Lost is a shit. Fucking Milton tried to surpass the likes of Homer and the Illiad

>>6498264
Your taste is just shit then. Go be a tard on reddit where people can't see through your pretence ;))

>>6498282
Perhaps the dpwnvote system is more your style? That way you can make sure people with opinions different from yours are unable to express them :^)

>>6498002
>>6497977
You're fucking stupid. Please stop posting and leave.

>>6498092
>Literature equates to quality

>>6497977
> it has a movie adaptation

How is that a bad thing? The Crucible has a film adaptation but there's no way that lowers the quality of a fantastic piece of literature.

> it has a one-word, try hard title

Do you mean all one-word titles are try hard or do you mean to refer to books with one-word titles that sound like they're over-compensating for something? If it's the latter, I might agree with you on that.

> It's postmodern

Literally nothing wrong with that.

> It's fantasy or sci-fi

How about contemplative science fiction like Roadside Picnic or Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? I can't say much about fantasy, I haven't read many fantasy books.

> It's written in first person present-tense

I'm mixed about that myself but I do think some writers really manage this well so take it with a pinch of salt I guess.

The other stuff I didn't quote in your post I could agree with though.

my book is
third person
>YA
isn't finished yet, so no obviously
Nope
>Sci-fi
It doesn't have a title yet (it's been a year and a half please help)
>Maybe
No
No

how'd I do?

>>6498096
I was referring to really bad wannabe-profound stuff like "Darkness" or "Requiem" or similar titles. But, again, these are just indicators. Saramago's "Blindness" has a one-word title but is an amazing book.

>author writes w/ the goal of his writing being a 'tour de force'

>The author is a communist
>"New York Time's best seller"
>Contemporary
>Dystopic
>With prologue by an author with a totally different style
>Set between 1200 and 1800
>The title is more than 5 words long
>Set in a magical world

>>6498020
I actually find that kind of charming sometimes, if done correctly.

>>6497977

>The name of the author is bigger than the title

into the trash it goes

>first half-paragraph in
>I don't immediately dislike it

>the author is American
>set in one of the world wars
>forward by dave eggers
>zadie smith quote on the cover

>Not published by Random House
>Not published by Vintage
Try harder next time, faggot.

What exactly is wrong with fantasy and sci-fi?

>>6498079
>Fantasy and science-fiction are shit though.

Not true. We can imagine a world in which that is not the case. However, it isn't our world.

OP,you're getting more and more buttblasted by the second. It was a bad way to start you're thread.

>>6501065
>forward
/lit/

>>6500143
Well, that's not Saramago's real title, though. The real one is something close to Essay on Blindness

Just finished a book called Departure that followed most of those red flags, and it ended up being pretty bad.