/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16984654]

Why is his writing style so bad and disgusting? I'm new to literature in general and I don't know a shit about literary criticism but I can't stop thinking about this. Is like he's trying to write like Victor Hugo but he fails pathetically. I don't know how, I don't know why, but he's a terrible writer.
>also
How can I learn to criticize things like writing style?

[Anonymous No.16984665]

stop reading YA

[Anonymous No.16984704]

I fucking hate subjevtivism.

[Anonymous No.16984856]

Who? The fact that the picture isn't in black and white is proof enough that he's a shit writer

[Anonymous No.16984863]

>>16984856
It's John GREEN, idiot.

[Anonymous No.16984870]

>>16984863
Okay then, did he write a book or something?

[Anonymous No.16984876]

>>16984654
>”Relatedly, I am reminded how there exist certain cultural “works,” such as John Green’s The Fault in Our Stars, that I would describe as “emotional gore,” since their use of an inherently dramatic device (cancer, for instance) is so exhaustive of the material’s natural capacity to inspire discomfort and sadness that it shares more with Tarantino’s unique brand of ultra-violent tragicomedy than it does any of the more robust and traditional “dramas” it aspires to emulate. And, like Tarantino’s work, one can only respond appropriately to the absurdity of both not with tears, but laughter. “Trauma” here hollows itself of substance, subsuming the narrative to a pre-given emotional apparatus rather than subsuming any emotional “force” to the narrative—the “story” becomes merely a matter of manipulating emotional shocks, removed from any and all “messiness” of lived experience, abstracted and made the autonomous playthings of your average Sophist. Here is the great difference between the originality of a true artist and the gimmicks of a quack, a trickster or illusionist. Green’s works, as all overtly sentimental works of similar nature, are utterly cloying, low-hanging and over-ripe fruit—saccharine Pharisees of the soul.”

[Anonymous No.16984891]

>>16984654

1. It's a YA novel
2. Its John Green who is as reddit as it gets, thus his prose is the equivalent of reddit spacing
3. Only girls read this crap and that alone should tell you alot.

[Anonymous No.16984895]

>>16984654
>How can I learn to criticize things like writing style?
Try to do small criticisms of pieces you like. What you don't like is hardly worth the time and it's too easy to talk down any kind of writing (even Joyce or Proust), you won't learn anything this way. Don't focus too much on the technicality, but on the way it makes you feel and on how you would connect it with other works or artistic movements. No one wants to read a dissection of a work, it's not interesting unless you use it to make something bigger out of it. Read authors who also dabbed in criticism (a lot of them), but don't bother with the nabokov-style dudes who only do it to feel superior, read those that talk about book they liked.

[Anonymous No.16984923]

The faults in John Green's writing stem from flaws in his moral character. These shortcomings amount to effeminacy or autoemasculation combined with literary pretense or pseudointellectualism. He obviously has some form of personality disorder stemming from abuse at the hands of a female caregiver in the first five years of his life or perhaps the absence or distance of a father figure later on, and that has manifested in him some kind of complex where he feels compelled to turn his mind into that of a woman in order to feel powerful. That doesn't mean he loves women. Quite the opposite. His anima is a monster that terrifies him in the darkness of his soul, and so he wears the image of an all-devouring "female intellect" as a mask to degrade and destroy the world just as he was terrorized as a helpless little boy. Obviously this is repulsive but it's something teenage girls might be attracted to because they recognize their own vanity in him. You can hear all this in his written and spoken voice, just the gnawing tone of it. I won't provide any examples because his writing is shit and his voice is annoying so I don't want to have to read or listen to any of his material again, but check it out yourself on your own, keeping in mind what I've said here, and you'll recognize instantly what I'm talking about. I feel nothing but pity for him.

[Anonymous No.16984949]

>>16984870
No, but I heard he had a youtube channel.

[Anonymous No.16984955]

>>16984923
based psychoanalist poster

[Anonymous No.16986336]

>>16984654
Imagine getting filtered by THIS guy

[Anonymous No.16986341]

>>16984704
Prove her wrong.

[Anonymous No.16986663]

>>16986341
money does not equal good. Someone made money off a Die Hard Reboot. Does not make the reboot good.

[Anonymous No.16986821]

>>16986341
If I buy a lottery ticket and win millions of dollars does that make me a good entrepeneur?

[Anonymous No.16987149]

>>16986341
https://youtu.be/Lgcd6jvsCFs
Tangential to this

[Anonymous No.16987708]

>>16984704
It would actually be fine if this poster was making a subjectivist case that aren't cannot be objectively good or bad but she isn't.

She seems to be making a bizarre quasi-objectivist case that artists who are sufficiently successful (monetarily, etc.) cannot be considered bad even if you dislike them. Which needless to say is fucking bullshit.

[Anonymous No.16987712]

>>16987708
How the fuck did I write aren't instead of art?

[Anonymous No.16987721]

>>16986663
>>16986821
ITT: anon was btfo.

[Anonymous No.16987723]

>>16984704
what gets me is how normies think value and subjectivity are synonymous. I hope they find out that "hard" facts are backed by value-driven scientific theory.

[Anonymous No.16987730]

>>16986341
The standard by which she’s praising Picasso (being really skilled at his craft) isn’t the case for John Green. Now you can still look at John Greens work and make the subjective judgment that it’s good but that’s only defendable if you’re being honest about it’s content, most people can’t do that though because they need to justify liking things and so they manufacture beliefs about the nature of what they’re consuming that just isn’t true

[Anonymous No.16987913]

>>16984704
She makes a valid point, or, almost.

One should not read, or consume any media for that matter, to evaluate and concern oneself with concomitant issues of appreciation.

"Good" and "bad" are shallow judgments. One should analyze a text only.

[Anonymous No.16987945]

>>16986341
>financial success as a artist makes you a good artists
It's not subjective then, you can tell who are the best artists by checking sales records.

[Anonymous No.16987989]

>>16984704
>>16986341
Several reasons this is wrong:
1. Selling a lot of books doesn't mean a lot of people like your books. They could think that your books are marginally more worthwhile than $20, they could think that your books are worthless, but you could market well, etc. A book which someone finds truly beautiful has a high price for them. Nobody would buy any John Green book for a high price, even if many would buy a John Green for a low price.
2. Timelessness matters. People finding value in your book in 100 years means more people find value value in your book than selling a lot of books right now. The traits which create timelessness are not present in a John Green book.
3. People buy John Green books because of the marketing. They would enjoy any book given the author was marketed the same. Therefore, John Green is no better a writer than the average person. He's merely a better marketer.

[Anonymous No.16987995]

>>16987945
BASED

[Anonymous No.16988075]

>>16987989
What do you mean with he's a better marketer?

[Anonymous No.16988090]

>>16988075
Purchasing decisions are made based on someone's perception of the value of the purchase, not on the innate value of the purchase. If you're good at marketing or advertising, you can effectively hide the flaws of a product or construct a culture around the product that makes it perceived as something which it isn't.
John Green (of cursed memory) doesn't have to be a good writer to sell books. He just has to convince people that he writes good books.

[Anonymous No.16988099]

>>16988075
He has a popular YouTube channel on which he markets; he says exactly the kind of statements his audience wants (in public). He portrays himself as exactly the kind of person his audience wants to read from. Therefore, people buy his books. Other people who aren't as good as he is at marketing himself sell fewer books.

[Anonymous No.16988110]

>>16988090
>John Green (of cursed memory) doesn't have to be a good writer to sell books. He just has to convince people that he writes good books.
This part I get. But what I wanna know precisely is HOW he do that.

[Anonymous No.16988130]

>>16988110
Not by much. Burgers aren't known as being refined culturally speaking. Case in point >>16987995

[Anonymous No.16988148]

>>16987995
SCUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUM GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANG

[Anonymous No.16988292]

>>16984876
You know whats ironic? To attack a work like TFioS as "low-hanging fruit" is itself low-hanging fruit. The stakes are nil. The exercise is redundant. The only people who take stock in it are teenagers on the cusp of an epiphany.

[Anonymous No.16988325]

He writes books for teenage girls, and is good at selling them. That doesn't mean he's a good literary author.

[Anonymous No.16988369]

>>16988325
What is literature? And could asking the question reveal more about what literature is than any answer ever could?

[Anonymous No.16988377]

>>16988369
It's a featherless biped.

[Anonymous No.16988383]

>>16988369
fuck off socrates

[Anonymous No.16988407]

>>16988383
Well? What is it? It's not an accusation, it's an inquiry.

[Anonymous No.16988420]

>>16988369
>could asking the question reveal more about literature than any answer
No. That's the most pseud sentence I've ever read.

[Anonymous No.16988431]

>>16988420
See >>16988407

[Anonymous No.16988439]

>>16988431
I don't care to answer. I'm just saying that the question doesn't tell us anything.

[Anonymous No.16988456]

>>16988439
I think the question is absolutely important because reading is never an activity that can be "completed". It is an act that necessarily inspires questions.

[Anonymous No.16988515]

>JuanVerde.jpg

[Anonymous No.16988531]

>>16988456
What does that question tell us. You said the question alone revealed stuff about literature. What does the question "What is literature" alone reveal about literature?

[Anonymous No.16988545]

The Anthropocene Reviewed is great

[Anonymous No.16988560]

>>16986821
I spend much of my disposable income on Cash4Life tickets. I just want to win second prize.

[Anonymous No.16988567]

>>16984923
>These shortcomings amount to effeminacy or autoemasculation combined with literary pretense or pseudointellectualism
Cringe
>and so he wears the image of an all-devouring "female intellect" as a mask to degrade and destroy the world just as he was terrorized as a helpless little boy.
Cringe
>Obviously this is repulsive but it's something teenage girls might be attracted to because they recognize their own vanity in him.
Cringe
>I feel nothing but pity for him.
Aaand cringe. Alright since I don’t have any interest in this bs but I’m actually based and redpilled I’ll diagnose you and say it makes you feel tingly to write long, wordy critiques of pop writers when you’ve never read them. furthermore, your unnecessary dig at young girls mid way through leads me to think you probably hate women, which is something you’re self conscious about as evidenced by your judgement cast at john green for supposedly hating women

[Anonymous No.16988585]

>>16988567
This is fine bait. I think it'll get 3 or 4 responses before dying down.

[Anonymous No.16988611]

>>16988585
You also seem to be addicted to the internet by how quick you respond

[Anonymous No.16988641]

>>16988611
not the anon you're replying to, but we're on a discussion board here. are you actually retarded? should he be replying once per hour?

[Anonymous No.16988648]

>>16988611
This: >>16988641
I'm also not >>16984923
You're going all in on this bait, aren't you?

[Anonymous No.16988657]

>>16988531
The question tells us that "literature" doesn't need to be any one thing at all.

[Anonymous No.16988668]

>>16988657
No, it doesn't. The incapability to answer might. But even then, it could just mean we're bad at answering questions.

[Anonymous No.16988678]

>>16988668
If there's no answer, then there's no definition.

[Anonymous No.16988777]

>>16984654
>when /his/ does Anne Frank fan fiction better than you

[Anonymous No.16988826]

>>16984654

[Anonymous No.16988912]

>>16988826
this is kind of like two of his books and unlike the rest. this is more a general YA parody honestly

[Anonymous No.16989034]

Tell me about the time he talks about why women shouldn't be slut-shamed using a food analogy based on cheetos
Why was he talking about the slut-shaming of women in the first place?

[Anonymous No.16989531]

>>16984654
Ge writes shit tier hot garbage YA stories like Fault in our Stars and Paper Towns, the last of which was just some dumbass story about some simp who spent days looking for his missing crush only to discover she was just hanging around in someplace in a city. What a fucking travesty.

[Anonymous No.16989854]

>>16986341
I can prove her wrong... BY ANAL.

[Anonymous No.16990951]

>>16988567
I never claimed that I don't hate women. My judgement against Green is that he hates women while pretending to love them while acting like one and openly hating men. Also teenage girls are vapid and you don't need to hate women to recognize that fact. And yes do I enjoy writing this kind of thing. Good job. 2/5