/lit/ - Literature

>>8696155

Gay Poop?

>>8696155
The Faggot God

>>8696184
I'd read it

homo desu

>>8696155
Looks like more pseudo-mystic horseshit draped in futurism. Enjoy your sympthom

>>8696211
>sympthom

>reading a book which replaces "sapiens" with anything

fuck pop-sci

>>8696226
>a cliché name automatically means it's shit

>>8696228
It nearly always does yeah

>>8696228
Yes

>>8696155
>Yuval Noah Harari
Names like that, as well

>>8696226
>>8696228
>>8696247
Has anybody actually read the fucking book?

>>8696253
>wanting the opinion of someone who reads shitty books

>>8696226
>>8696279
>judging a book by its cover

>>8696334
Nothing wrong with this

>>8696334
>judging a book by its announced theme, its reviews, the popularity of its author, or anything other than the cover
:/

Holy shit all of you fucking kill yourselves, pure cancer.

>>8696389
>redditor gets triggered

>homo deus

*tipt fedoram*

I think this is the worst thread I've ever seen on this board. Nothing but vapid greentext and no actual discussion.

>>8696500
Good contribution

>>8696253
Nobody on /lit/ reads anything if it's not on a chart, ya dunce

>>8696253
I read Sapiens, it's full of info, but it's pop-sci and thus too sensationalised. The author isn't objective enough (I thought it was just muh humans and the contending opinions on contentious matters, but he literally injects his own opinion and it annoyed the fuck out of me), and considering this book is about the future, well, I can't imagine it being an improvement on that. From what I remember he said industrialisation was a mistake and we should have remained nomadic hunter gatherers.

>>8696574
However intrusive and bizarre his opinions might have been, were they at least interesting to read?

>>8696235
>>8696247
>Neuromancer

>>8696155
The sequel is better.

>>8696690
Reddit tier genre pulp, not even memeing

>>8696711

>>8696643
Not for me, though they might have been if they were presented in a better way, rather than sensationalized conjecturing. Some people eat that shit up though, it's why it's a best seller

>>8696711
the title means homo god

is it true, is god a homo?

Bumping... though I'm hoping for more actual conversation. I was curious about this book, too

>>8696708
lol

>>8696708
K E K
E
K

>>8696690
Neuromancer is crap, yeah. The prose is so awful it makes Dick seem like Joyce and the characters so vapid that you could replace them with any other generic protagonist and nobody would notice.

>>8696202
this

>>8698004
>Neuromancer
>Crap
I would have said it was among the upper echelon of sci-fi works out there. The setting is captivating, the language and street talk is dense and very new (for the time it was written).

>>8696574
>>8696643
Reading Sapiens now. I agree that it's too sensationalised. I think it may server, however, as a good starting point if you're interested in the humble beginnings of mankind.
And yeah, it seems like he deems neolithic revolutions to be mankind's biggest mistake. One of the claim he makes is that foraging bands were better of than farmers. There is some truth in that, mind you, but overall, while he bases his opinions on some scientific theories (a bit cherry-picking though), it's mostly his opinion.

>>8696708
This should be the next /lit/ collaborative writing project

>>8696253
I read the other book by him, about humankind hitory. It was really okay on a pop sci level.

>>8701816
Where is the line drawn between pop-sci and... an actual science book, I guess?

>>8702132
Example of real science books?