/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.12981556]

we are a god damn laughing stock to all other boards

when did we become so dull

[Anonymous No.12981563]

>>12981556
all 4chan boards are laughing stocks to each other and themselves, it is an infinite mirror of mockery and selfloathing

[Anonymous No.12981571]

>>12981556
>JK Rowling and Stephen King are good writers
Based 90 IQ poster

[Anonymous No.12981609]

>no context
link or gtfo

[Anonymous No.12981618]

>>12981556
So he likes Jordan Peterson it seems

[Anonymous No.12981623]

>>12981556
>Dostoevsky wasn’t a poet he was a realist
Peterson Fag detected

[Anonymous No.12981633]

>>12981556
>fags point and laugh at other fags
In other news....

[Anonymous No.12981635]

>>12981556
I’m convinced this person has never read a single page of DFW. He may be challenging on occasion but he is anything but incoherent.

[Anonymous No.12981638]

[Anonymous No.12981640]

>a burger having shit opinions
wow what a surprise

[Anonymous No.12981642]

>>12981633

[Anonymous No.12981650]

This is the problem. Most users care way more about what people think instead of actually reading.

[Anonymous No.12981657]

>>12981556
You can tell he’s never read Infinite Jest, This water, Consider the lobster, A fun thing I’ll supposedly never do again, and The Broom is the System

[Anonymous No.12981661]

>>12981650
This, based.

[Anonymous No.12982064]

>>12981556
There’s absolutely no way OP’s pic wasn’t bait or trolling

I’m lukewarm at best on DFW after having actually read Pale King, IJ, and most of his well known essays like good old neon but it’s pretty unignorable that DFW was at least interesting and without a doubt producing work in an entirely different category from Stephen King and the like. I think the main issue is that normalfags see that IJ is 1,100 pages of moderately esoteric prose and they don’t understand that tricks like his footnotes aren’t actually hard to read and just different from what they’re used to (being handheld from plotpoint to plotpoint as a handful of MC’s progress). They have no issue with reading 1,000s of pages of fantasy books like Harry Potter as long as they’re separated up into digestible chunks of course. I’ll be completely honest I don’t even think IJ would be considered a remotely hard read if it was printed as a 3 book trilogy or something. It’s not hard to read the way something like Democracy in America is.

[Anonymous No.12983111]

>>12982064
>essays like good old neon

[Anonymous No.12983120]

>/lit/
>ever reading poetry
>ever reading non-anglo, non-canonized fiction
lel

[Anonymous No.12983187]

>>12981642
Is this reiley Reid before drugs and miles of cock?

[Anonymous No.12984374]

>>12981623
Yeah I can see someone seeing his as a realist, so long as they didn't read his works and THEN accept that conclusion.

[Anonymous No.12984559]

>>12981563

[Anonymous No.12984647]

>>12981556
that isnt the status quo here, hes retarded but at least its obvious. Status quo on lit is worshipping cults of personality and having daddy issues, more focused on authors than their writing. Thats just a tard who waddled into the board.

[Anonymous No.12984680]

>>12981556
I'm starting to wonder what's worse: an illiterate public or a pretentious public who is still functionally illiterate?
>>12981618
you can just tell by the midwit gesturing to Dosto. someone needs to send one of those national alert text messages that says
READING "NOTES" DOES NOT MAKE YOU AN EXPERT IN DOSTO LET ALONE LITERATURE

[Anonymous No.12984705]

>>12981556
>he fell for the IJ meme

never gonna make it

[Anonymous No.12984723]

>>12981556
>literature
>craft
It's more of a hobby or interest we have...

[Anonymous No.12984773]

>>12981556
>Dostoevsky was a realist
lmao
>not a poet
LMAO

[Anonymous No.12984779]

Glad to see that /lit/cucks are becoming cognizant of their proper place.

[Anonymous No.12984784]

>>12984779
>/mu/
>not below the pyramid

[Anonymous No.12985044]

>>12981556
I think most people here are willing to admit they're just pseuds who like to read. Only a handful of retarded and unironic Marxists on here will want to maintain any sort of facade.

[Anonymous No.12985068]

>>12984779
I feel an urge to... ascend.

[Anonymous No.12985075]

Whoever wrote that picrelated should kill themselves twice

[Anonymous No.12985076]

>>12984779

Movies dont combine the 3 forms into one. Even a TV series of War and Peace isn't as interesting as reading the novel and getting inside the minds of the characters.

[Anonymous No.12985137]

>>12981642
MOAR

[Anonymous No.12985184]

There is no excuse to actually liking Stephen King.

Even before I started reading seriously I was able to notice how mediocre King was, and I am not saying this because his prose isn’t fancy or because he writes horror narratives. The real problem with him is the fact that he don’t create real human beings; he doesn’t have enough sensibility to understand how people really are, how people really feel, how human beings actually behave when facing such and such life situations. There’s nothing wrong about worrying with your plot, but if your characters react how they react only because you have a plot and wants to follow it, disregarding how psychology actually works, then you are making a fundamental mistake.

I remember that when I was 12 I decided to read the guy whose books were always being taken off in the School Library. I took Christine to read, and was amazed at how could people actually find that boring thing interesting. It wasn’t a page turner to me; it wasn’t interesting story-telling; it wasn’t beautiful: there wasn’t anything in it worthy of anyone’s attention.

A few months before this I decided to try to read a book again. I asked the Librarian what was her favorite book, and she said it was One Hundred Years of Solitude. I took it and immediately realized what people who loved reading actually felt when they encountered a truly magnificent work of literature. A few weeks after that I read Anna Karenina (there’s nothing as striking as comparing King with Tolstoy to notice just how little King actually knows about human nature, how cliché he is, with a knowledge mostly based on old movies and pulp books), and from that point on I kept reading all sorts of books. By the way, Genre Fiction can be great: Raymond Chandler is proof of that.

Same thing happened with poetry. Many poems that the teachers brought us (by children’s writers) were mediocre, and to me poetry was a boring art for boring people. However, when I discovered Shakespeare I realized just how much human beings can achieve if they focus their efforts into modeling language

As for Harry Potter, I never read it nor watched the movies. To be frank all this story of “you are a looser in this life but in that other life you are incredibly special, and you didn’t even need to force yourself to become special, you simply are special, you have it in your blood, in your marrow” is not interesting to me. I never read Lord of the Rings too, but the movies are good, and my brother (that read the books) told me a lot of interesting details about it’s particular mythology and lore.

[Anonymous No.12985190]

>>12985184
>A few months before this

after this

[Anonymous No.12985730]

>>12981556
Better than /mu/, trust me.

[Anonymous No.12985758]

>>12982064
How is Democracy in America hard, pleb?

[Anonymous No.12985806]

>>12985184
Potter 1 is good, but it's a fluke. If you read any then I'd stop after it

[Anonymous No.12985808]

>>12985758
t. autist who pretends esoteric analyses of federal vs state courts and AT’s sections that aren’t him spelling out his conclusions are as easy of a read as PKD or DFW

Obviously AT (like most authors) sets out with the goal of being understood so it’s not an impossible read but it took me at least 1.5x as much time per word to read compared to the average fiction novel.

[Anonymous No.12985821]

>>12985808
Why would u compare Democracy in America to DFW? Democracy in America is dense, IJ is that gloomy pseudo-intellectual emasculated bullshit. Tocqueville could teach u a thing or two if you stopped pretending it was so hard or "esoteric." Nice excuse buddy.

[Anonymous No.12985826]

>>12985758
It’s definitely a slower read, bud. Tocqueville has a lot of interesting things to say about legal rights Americans have in Part one. Part two is more broad and sociological, but I recall Part one as being very detail oriented. :3

Part two is a much easier read. Almost seems like an add-on to be honest with you. And I honestly think it was because Part one was rather impartial to democracy as a governmental system, ie Part one was more scientific. Part two has an ideological lean towards democracy. It was written some years later as well.