[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 14 KB, 537x571, 1585580658274.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15445822 No.15445822 [Reply] [Original]

>The book was bad because I didn't like the characters

>> No.15445832

>>15445822
*Unliked/personally felt it was bad

Get fucked, bitch threads

>> No.15445842

>The main character made a mistake while doing something. This writer is an idiot!

>> No.15445891
File: 81 KB, 600x400, UUU.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15445891

>the book was good because the author/main character was non-white

>> No.15445903

>>15445891
The lowest of subhumans.

>> No.15446202

>>15445891
Maybe it's because I mainly browse /lit/ but more often than not I see the opposite, author or their works being dismissed because they were women/nonwhite/jewish

>> No.15446213

>>15446202
Apparently you never heard about decolonizing literature

>> No.15446219

>>15445822
What is Ada?

>> No.15446229

>>15445822
That's usually a horribly phrased way of saying "no one in this book was enjoyable to read about," which is a somewhat more defensible stance.

>> No.15446282

>>15445822
>"Women have trouble getting published while white males like Knausgard get to talk about every little thing in their existence."
sals: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/may/22/celeste-ng-i-couldnt-finish-knausgards-my-struggle-time-is-finite

>> No.15446319

>>15446282
>i didnt like this book
>therefore FUCK WHITE MEN

>> No.15446381

>>15445822
Books without good characters are shit, are you retarded anon?

>> No.15446394

>>15446381
Just because a character is unlikable doesn't mean he's a bad character

>> No.15446416

>>15446282
what are the numbers that lead to such conclusions and what numbers would disprove it?

>> No.15446425

>>15446381
I think there is a large spectrum between Mary-Sue and Patrick Bateman

>> No.15446427
File: 123 KB, 874x1024, 1587191192305.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15446427

>the book was good because it had social commentary shoehorned into it

>> No.15446443

>the book was bad because it didn't have a plot

>> No.15446449

>the book was bad because it was a book

>> No.15446530

>the book was bad because it made me angry/sad/confused

>> No.15446566

>>15446202
Who the fuck reads jewish books anyway? Ok kafka is nice but at least he was alpha chad with his insecurities. Other than that they are all the same.

>> No.15446798
File: 24 KB, 600x600, 1588277251979.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15446798

>>15445822
>book is bad because /lit/ said it was good

>> No.15446832

>>15446530
dis 1 rite there made corners of my mouth rise

>> No.15446848

>>15445822
>couldn’t relate to it

>> No.15446889

>>15446566
You mean...you don’t read Roth, Klein, Bellow, Foer, Cohen? Where do you get your fix of sexual confusion, pastiche wandering, stale takes, prose that attempts to be beautiful but falls short, and crude and curt sentences (let’s call them zingers) that inevitably follow an attempt at beautiful prose in order to undermine that beauty (and subconsciously provide plausible deniability of its failure)