/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19705675]

Why do I never see people on this board about much of anything outside of the general literary "canon". By canon I mean books that are known around the world and have been talked up and talked about by tons and tons of people. Don't you people know that the more popular a book the less merit it has. Normal people are dumb, so it naturally follows that the more "normal" or famous a book is the dumber it is.
I started reading again after childhood in ~2016. At first I was dismayed and thought maybe there was something wrong with me because I dropped almost every single book I started (thank god for kindles and piracy or I would have wasted hundreds of dollars on trash). Eventually though I discovered the wonderful world of indie publishers and more specifically obscure books from mostly the turn of the 20th century. For me personally the time period between ~1880 and 1915 (WW1) seemed to have amazing book after amazing book published but basically all of them are completely unknown even to people who claim to study literature of the period. All you ever hear about from then is like James Joyce and Henry James or whatever, you know the big names.
So I say again, why do I never see this board talk about or discuss obscure authors, or to put it another way, all the authors that are actually good because they are off-putting to normal, half-literate retards.
Every single book I love has less than 10k ratings (not reviews, ratings) on Goodreads (the best metric of determining a books popularity imo). The vast majority have less than 2k ratings, and more than 50% have less than 1000. They are virtually unknown to even the biggest readers. Why? because again they are too hard for normie idiots to comprehend. Hence why those of us who can read and enjoy them find them to be absolutely fucking amazing.
Wakefield Press specializes in books like this, as do a couple other publishers I will now link to.
https://wakefieldpress.com/index.html
https://atlaspress.co.uk
http://www.dedalusbooks.com
https://www.snugglybooks.co.uk
https://www.twistedspoon.com
https://neglectedbooks.com
https://www.openletterbooks.org

so to conclude and reiterate. Why haven't you, /lit/, started reading actually good shit. Why do you insist on constantly focusing on books that are pretty damn famous in lieu of actually great works that wallow in obscurity simply because they are too complex, i.e. GOOD, for normies. Are you people just normies desperately trying to disguise yourselves as intellectuals? Or do you actually like great works. If you're the latter and not the former then please fill this thread with great obscure books. Books that are obscure because normies are too damn stupid to understand them. Pic very much related. I'm pretty sure you're actually just fake intellectuals because I've made variations on this thread several times with less than stellar results but I keep hoping for the best. Prove you read books because they're great, not because they're said to be great.

[Anonymous No.19705690]

fuck off with your blog post
the reason we don't talk about obscure books: because no one here cares. I make a thread about some outstanding book that no one here have read and no one will reply to it
Unless, of course, I make it about hating women, jews, not having sex, being hopelessly jaded or some other retarded bait.

[Anonymous No.19705755]

good post. it brings joy to go to the unexplored.
>Unless, of course, I make it about hating women, jews, not having sex, being hopelessly jaded or some other retarded bait.
most cannot break the programming. it takes surplus energy to create or even to be able to perceive the new.

[Anonymous No.19705782]

>>19705690
how is this even remotely a blog post?
>the reason we don't talk about obscure books: because no one here cares. I make a thread about some outstanding book that no one here have read and no one will reply to it
So you agree with me? Are you defending the fact no one here ever talks about anything outside the canon? If not then why act like you're mad at my post?

I'm going to keep bumping with amazing obscure book covers, I have literally dozens I could post. This is one of the most beautiful books I've ever read purely for its descriptions of nature.

[Anonymous No.19705786]

>>19705675
>Why do I never see people on this board about much of anything outside of the general literary "canon"
It is an unfortunate fact across all the boards that nothing else but baitposts beating a dead horse get any replies. We, the few who do read, tend to congregate, discuss and share in quiet corners of threads that go mostly ignored.

[Anonymous No.19705792]

>>19705782
me
me
me
me
that's why it's a blog post, retard.

[Anonymous No.19705802]

>>19705675
you'd fit right in on reddit

[Anonymous No.19705806]

I need to take a nap now so here is one final good book from Wakefield. If this thread dies in the hour or two I'm gone I will be very disappointed in this board. If you agree with me and like what I'm saying and the books I'm posting then please offer up a bump in these trying times. Thank you and goodnight.

[Anonymous No.19705831]

>>19705792
There is a single use of the word me in the OP, are you retarded?
>>19705802
Feel free to name a place on reddit that discusses any of the publishers or books mentioned in this this thread. You seem mad that someone is calling out your (/lit/'s) shit taste. Try to not take everything so personally.

[Anonymous No.19705836]

>>19705831
im not mad, you're the one writing manifestos kek

[Anonymous No.19705865]

>>19705675
Great post. Finally someone else is talking about Macedonio Fernández. It makes me sad seeing people here accuse others of being pseuds or having shit taste when trying to recommend less known or marginal writers. I have discovered that, for as much as this board affects endorsing open discussion and discovery, a strict adherence to Western canonicity (with some exceptions) prevails that breeds elitism and an outright dismissal of anything not already deemed "great"/"respectable" literature. The fact is that good, even great literature, can exist outside the boundaries of the canon. It just lacks exposure due to a plethora of circumstances like difficulty, not getting translated, not being picked up by a major publishing house, etc., often leading English speaking readers to know who Borges is but not Fernández.

[Anonymous No.19705872]

>>19705865
too bad you can't updoot

[Anonymous No.19705875]

>>19705836
Someone wants to discuss new and interesting books on a board devoted to discussing books and within moments they get attacked and insulted for it. Why would they not be mad about that? If you don't want to discuss books you can go literally anywhere else. Otherwise feel free to share your thoughts on say, this amazingly underrated work.

[Anonymous No.19705876]

>>19705806
Is this the pataphysics Baudrillard mentions a few times

[Anonymous No.19705880]

>>19705792
>t. de-individuated chud

[Anonymous No.19705901]

>>19705865
I really just don't get it. Why does it seem the majority here would rather talk about Crime and Punishment for the millionth time rather than find and discuss things that haven't been beaten to death for going on a century. It's weird as fuck.
As far as Fernandez goes The Museum of Eterna's Novel is one of the most difficult works I've ever read so that probably has something to do with its obscurity but its also one of the most rewarding. It's nothing less than the greatest meta-fiction I've ever read and I've read a lot of meta-fiction.

[Anonymous No.19705902]

>>19705806
Ever read Fernando Arrabal? I find his work in the spirit of the pataphysics.

[Anonymous No.19705908]

>>19705901
see >>19705786
It is the fate of all boards.

[Anonymous No.19705912]

>>19705876
probably, I've never read Baudrillard though. Pataphysics is a term made by Alfred Jarry (yes the Jarry from lit meme fame) but while Jarry's pataphysical writings seem like mostly nonsensical ramblings Rene Daumal's essays in this book actually have a lot of substance to their madness in my opinion. I am especially fond of one of the essays entitled "The Pataphysics of Ghosts" which gets into stuff like thoughtforms and the realness of creations in the mind. It's still nonsensical at times but gets surprisingly lucid at others.
"Pataphysics is as far removed from metaphysics as metaphysics is from physics" is the description I like most of it.

[Anonymous No.19705917]

>>19705902
I have not but I'll definitely check him out now, thanks for the rec. Any suggestion on what to start with?

[Anonymous No.19705933]

>>19705675
Post a list of your favorites

[Anonymous No.19705949]

>>19705901
I agree that the difficulty of Eterna does very much contribute to its relative obscurity, yet I find it's not outside the realm of preoccupations expressed in the work of later metafictional writers like Barth, Barthelme, Fowles, Vicens or, again, Borges. A lot of its meditations on fictionality open up too when read alongside Adriana Buenos Aires. It's such an integral part to the development of metafiction and yet people don't seem to care for it. It's pretty frustrating.

[Anonymous No.19705959]

>>19705917
Cementerio de automóviles (Junkyard or Car Cemetery, I don't know how its title was translated) probably. It's like Beckett by way of the pataphysics

[Anonymous No.19705974]

I do not talk about obscure books I enjoy because I know the cut set of other people having read it is minimal. This is just common sense.

Of course, I recommend obscure books if the topic is appropriate.

[Anonymous No.19706069]

>>19705675
bump

[Anonymous No.19706096]

>>19705675
I only read the same writers. I think some are canonical, but not every book of theirs is. IDK is Matthew Arnold canonical? I think he is, but I doubt a thread of him would get many mentions.

[Anonymous No.19706102]

>>19705901
I made multiple threads on Aeschylus and Ibsen, but they got no replies. The only time I see people responding to my threads on Aeschylus or Ibsen is if I included that quote from Myrmidons about intercrural sex or Ibsen's stance against feminism. It's the result of having a site fixated on American politics.

[Anonymous No.19706105]

>>>19705675 (OP)
>bump

[Anonymous No.19706116]

>>19705675
> Wakefield Press specializes in books like this, as do a couple other publishers I will now link to.
>https://wakefieldpress.com/index.html
>https://atlaspress.co.uk
>http://www.dedalusbooks.com
>https://www.snugglybooks.co.uk
>https://www.twistedspoon.com
>https://neglectedbooks.com
>https://www.openletterbooks.org
We get it, faggot. You just discovered these publishers and now have a raging superiority complex. I own all of Wakefield’a and atlas’ catalog, what’s your fucking point, moron? It’s a relatively medium paced anonymous image board, start a fucking thread if you don’t see one. Just don’t make a thread being condescending thinking your taste is great when it’s lukewarm at best.

[Anonymous No.19706239]

>>19705690
>>19705792
>>19705836
>>19706105
who are you people and why are you on a book board getting mad at people trying to talk about books outside of the most basic common shit? Talking about Dostoevsky for the thousandth time is more reddit than anything else. This entire thread is clearly trying to make this board less like reddit if anything. Seriously if you only want to talk about the basic canonical authors r/books and r/literature are unironically great for that.

[Anonymous No.19706260]

>>19706116
I've been reading these publishers for years and only once in a blue moon do I see mentioned on /lit/ if ever. I started this thread because I'm bored of never seeing anything past the most absolute basic bitch tier books and authors discussed on this board. It's unbelievably lame to see the exact same threads repeated ad nauseum for going on a decade that I've been here while actually great publishers and authors go completely overlooked. If you're so content with this place good for you but I want better. I want discussions of authors like say this. Sorry to make you feel bad about how lame your favorite hangout spot is but I'm not going to stop. If anything I've resolved to post a thread like this at least once a week until these publishers and books are more commonly talked about than anything else in this godforsaken place.

[Anonymous No.19706285]

>>19705933
The Book of Monelle - Marcel Schwob
The Beautiful and Damned - Fitzgerald
The Golem - Meyrink
The Conductor and Other Tales - Ferry
The Sorcerer's Apprentice - François Augiéras
The Lime Twig - Hawkes
The Briefcase or Manazuru - Kawakami
The Passion According to G.H. - Lispector
The Use and Abuse of Art - Barzun
The Fortunate Fall - Raphael Carter

[Anonymous No.19706293]

>>19706239
Maybe you should go back, since you lack basic text comprehension

[Anonymous No.19706297]

>>19705792
I is the most commonly used word In English language, you are like everyone else, your blog post is >me me me me me

[Anonymous No.19706323]

This reads like an ego stroking thread with no substance, peace galaxy brains

[Anonymous No.19706329]

>>19706293
I'd love to go reddit and talk about these publishers and books. Could you direct me to a subreddit that has literally ever had a thread on Wakefield Press? Try searching google "Wakefield Press site:reddit.com" and tell me what shows up.

[Anonymous No.19706342]

>>19706260
> If anything I've resolved to post a thread like this at least once a week
Ego aside, go ahead. Exposing and sharing obscure works is a good thing.

[Anonymous No.19706353]

I'm genuinely surprised at how mad the denizens of this board got at my post. Many of you are legitimately mad that someone called out the fact you pretty much never talk about anything that hasn't been talked about in some Literature class thousands of times. If you actually thought I was wrong you'd be able to post good obscure works but instead you resort to childish nonsensical replies about how reddit is a better place to discuss some of the least mentioned works ever. Who hurt you /lit/? If I'm so pretentious and wrong about how lame this board is why can't you reply with actually good books?

[Anonymous No.19706361]

>>19706329
>I'd love to go reddit
it shows

[Anonymous No.19706366]

>>19706329
https://www.reddit.com/r/WeirdLit/comments/pjopzm/malpertuis_by_jean_ray_now_available_from/

[Anonymous No.19706371]

>>19706353
It's not about obscure books, it's about your attitude.

[Anonymous No.19706385]

>>19706371
Terra nova expedition and my confessions: recollections of a rogue are two books I liked but they’re probably too mainstream for the cool guy

[Anonymous No.19706386]

>>19705675
>>19705690
I make a point of trying to engage specific obscure questions on lesser-discussed works, even if it's possible to reread it beforehand, and often OP won't even reply. I do it often, though, so when I know its mostly bullshit when I see these "whoa is me, nobody wants to play in my thread about a book whose value to my self-image is how rare it is, what a shock" are probably bullshit egostrokes.

OP I didnt click on your links or really even read your faggy little blog post, but if you're in a roundabout way shilling decadent or related writers like Schwob, they have been discussed here as recently as a few days ago and otherwise continuosly. >>/lit/?task=search&ghost=&search_text=Schwob+

What you guys are doing is now the most tired low effort meme on this site

[Anonymous No.19706413]

>>19706371
clearly I touched a nerve because numerous people agree completely with my OP. The only reason I took such a contemptuous attitude against the board is because I knew it would make this thread significantly more visible, and.....would you look at that it worked perfectly! Every other thread I've made like this without the condescending tone doesn't even last for more than maybe an hour or two. This is by far the most successful version of this thread I've made in the dozens of times I've made it over the last several years.

my attitude has gotten obscure books discussed more on this board today than I've basically ever seen in the decade I've been posting here. You're welcome bitch

[Anonymous No.19706420]

>>19706353
I don't entirely disagree with you but something you have to understand is that there is a practical reason why literature boards end up endorsing conformity. Reading is not like listening to music or watching a movie. Getting through a 300+ page long book takes far more time and effort than listening to an album or watching a movie by an unknown artist, especially if you have a job or do any daily activity that takes time away from reading. This means it takes more time to read all the canonical writers and discussions end up stagnating around the same works as people prefer to read a "great" book than possibly waste their time and energy giving an opportunity to a work outside it. The frustration you are feeling usually sets in after you have gotten through the basic reads and can't find anyone to talk about the less known stuff you've read.

[Anonymous No.19706431]

Yeah, nobody will have read your obscure novel at the same time to be able to discuss it, that's why you need read-alongs for those obscure works

[Anonymous No.19706436]

>>19706386
>>>/lit/?task=search&ghost=&search_text=Schwob+
LMAO all those posts about Schwob are almost entirely MY OWN POSTS. That never got any replies mind you. You literally proved my point perfectly. This is some fuckin funny irony if I've ever seen it.

[Anonymous No.19706460]

>>19706420
I actually haven't read much if any of the canon because I always drop them in like 50 pages. They're boring to me. Which is why I find such a stark contrast between them and the stuff I'm posting here about. The obscure works I like hook me by the first couple pages, I pretty much never have to force myself through them like you hear many on this board doing with canonical works. And as an aside, I don't think any books over 250 pages are worth reading. Virtually nothing I posted in this thread is over that page limit. Which is probably a major reason I like them all so much. They rarely if ever have any pointless exposition like you see so commonly in the basic shit people force themselves through because "it's Dostoevsky, if I can't read and enjoy this theirs something wrong with me". No there's nothing wrong with you. It's everyone else thats dumb for lying about how much they enjoy hundreds of pages describing how bleak some drab town is or how beautiful Paris is for the thousandth time. Which isn't to say descriptions of places can't be great to read. Take this book for example

[Anonymous No.19706468]

>>19706431
or, hear me out. I could post about the books and publishers who proselytize these works until eventually they're commonly read enough in this community that we can actually discuss them

[Anonymous No.19706476]

>>19705675
It’s because the more esoteric your thread creation is, the less likely other anons will be able to engage in knowledgeable discourse with you. Their chance of having read it is lower, and thus there’s little point in making a thread about a book only you have potentially read.

[Anonymous No.19706507]

>>19705908
This unfortunately

[Anonymous No.19706527]

>>19706413
I don't see any upvotes

[Anonymous No.19706541]

>>19706507
I think it's better that way, crouching out of sight in a thread about a similar novel or theme. The only ones who reply already have a similar interest and have done the footwork finding books that meet it. Casuals are so filtered they'll complain, "why is there no x?" in the middle of discussing a whole stack of books about just that.

[Anonymous No.19706547]

>>19705675
>too smart for the Canon
>can't understand why obscure books are less discussed than popular books
Why not just start threads recommending these supposed hidden gems, rather than whining that nobody knows them?

[Anonymous No.19706554]

>>19706468
yeah and you can do that without being a faggot if being called out bugs you so much or maybe you can't

[Anonymous No.19706603]

>>19706547
As I've said numerous times I've been doing that for years. The threads rarely if ever last more than hour. There are sometimes threads about obscure books that last for a day or two. those are the best threads on this board but I think I've seen a thread like that less than 5 times in the last 5 years.

[Anonymous No.19706619]

>>19706102
>>19706385
>>19705902
thanks for the suggestions. I'll be checking all these authors out.
Anyone else want to suggest underrated books they've enjoyed? I think Cesar Aira is the best living author today personally.

[Anonymous No.19706628]

Imagine if /mu/ only talked about albums that were played on the radio. thats what this board is like, but it clearly doesn't have to be. Somehow /mu/ manages to discuss near exclusively obscure artists as though they all know them. Why can't we be more like /mu/ in that regard?

[Anonymous No.19706650]

Jachym Topol is one of the greatest Czech authors and like most authors from his country he is completely unknown. He is also the only author writing in the 90's included in a list of the most important Czech literature from the 20th century that was made by Czech scholars. I really liked this book by him.

[Anonymous No.19706686]

>>19706554
I've tried for years without success. So now I'm trying something different and being a dick about it. If this thread is any indication my tactic has been wildly successful. I've brought more attention to the books and publishers I find interesting than I've seen them get here in years.

[Anonymous No.19706698]

>>19706628
An LP is 70 minutes tops, the average novel takes around 6 hours. I can listen to half of an album and shitpost knee jerk reactions to it and pretend they're seasoned opinions from an expert before the thread falls halfway down the board.

[Anonymous No.19706703]

>>19706619
Aira is pretty well known in Latin America. Perhaps because his work is carried by Random House here. If you want to check out other contemporary Spanish speaking writers you should probably check out Daniel Sada or Cristina Rivera Garza. Almost Never and The Taiga Syndrome were highlights for me last year.

[Anonymous No.19706724]

>>19706703
Yea I know he's quite popular in his home country/language but its rare to see him mentioned by English speakers. Thanks for the other suggestions I will definitely check them out.
Side note: have you ever read Ema the Captive by Aira? Its what I plan to read next by him so any thoughts on it would be appreciated. I've also read Episode in the life of a Landscape Painter of course because its his most famous work (I think it is at least) and it was my introduction to him. I found it to be a pretty solid work, it got me to read more of him. Conversations is my favorite of his, though I haven't actually read more than like 4 of his books.

[Anonymous No.19706728]

>>19706686
I think the best palliative would be a /new/ lit general that focuses on current releases and forces anon to READ NIGGA, READ. That would solve a lot of problems and open up discussion of more obscure works.

[Anonymous No.19706746]

>>19706619
The terra nova expedition is a journal/log/diary recovered in the Arctic where the team died, I guess that still makes the guy an author but it’s not a book with premeditated plot and narrative

Recollections of a rogue is an autobiography that is the source material for the violence in blood meridian, where the former is non fiction and the latter is fiction based on it

[Anonymous No.19706752]

>>19706728
Great suggestion desu

[Anonymous No.19706753]

>>19706698
I understand what you're getting at and it makes perfect sense but I will also point out that many of the works published by Wakefield specifically are often either quite short (less than 300 pages, or often less than 200) or they're short story collections that are filled with amazing stories you can read in less than 30 minutes. The Conductor and Other Tales by Jean Ferry is a perfect example of this. All the stories take like 20-30 minutes to read and in my opinion at least they are all fuckin amazing. He has a very Borgesian style to his writing in a way but even more so he is completely unique. The Conductor collection is his only published work of fiction writing and I love it. The Garbagemen's Strike is a super fun read as they all are, I don't know why I even tried to choose a favorite.
Pic related is a similarly great short story collection. Each story can be read in 30 minutes or less and begs to be discussed

[Anonymous No.19706761]

>>19706746
Neither being obscure, a king suggested all citizens should read the one and the other is the source material for a best seller, doesn’t foot the obscure bill

[Anonymous No.19706769]

>>19706728
I think most new literature is pretty trash but most newly translated literature is often quite great (hence all the publishers mentioned in the OP who specialize in this). But the idea of a new general about new or even just obscure books is a great idea. Like the sci-fi/fantasy boys have. Good idea desu. Everyone who posts in such a general would look like this to me simply by virtue of caring about books beyond the basic bitch canon.

[Anonymous No.19706786]

>>19706752
The major hurdles in doing so are that I have neither the time nor inclination to do anything more than read a book or two and shitpost about it, and fuck reading boring books I don't care about. It takes some serious collation and filtering to read through new lit like that. We used to do it here but it's been a long time.

>>19706769
I don't think you can truly identify shit until you've stepped in it, so a broad reading list with few quality controls is a fast track to becoming a better reader and growing some taste for obscure old shit. As long as it isn't a formal book club, it works pretty well because of the bandwagon effect.

>>19706753
Short stories in general aren't discussed very much, it might be a neat way to tease anons into something that isn't a rehashed shitpost of high school and freshman required reading.

[Anonymous No.19706822]

>>19706786
I used to think short stories were all kind of lame. Thinking about the short stories I found lame and the ones I find amazing off the top of my head it seems like the ones I didn't like all shared one thing in common. They were written to make a quick buck in some form or another, often for newspaper publications or however it worked back in the day. While the short stories I loved are all written for completely different reasons. Mainly because thats what worked out well for the author. Point being short stories can be great places to find amazing unknown works as long as you try to avoid the shit that was only written for people to read in their daily paper.
Pic Related, I bet. I haven't read more than one story from it yet but that one I did was awesome

[Anonymous No.19706836]

>>19706786
> It takes some serious collation and filtering to read through new lit like that
The trick to doing this well is to find reviewers on goodreads you trust (which is as easy as finding obscure books you love, searching for 5 star reviews of them and seeing what else the reviewer gave 5 stars).
And also pirating every book possible. You will only read great stuff if you consistently pirate and drop anything you find off-putting in the first 10 pages or whatever you think is enough to determine how good a book is. I've dropped books at 2 pages in and dropped others when I was nearly halfway through. The only reason I felt ok doing this all the time is because I never paid for the books. Dropping the majority of books I started saved reading for me. Suddenly I was only reading stuff I loved and it completely saved my love of reading. I read over 70 books in a year after I started doing this. Would recommended.

[Anonymous No.19706837]

>>19706728
>going to 4chan for life advice

[Anonymous No.19706850]

>>19705675
because you fucking 70 IQ quadrigger outside of the canon no one reads anything in common. it's not that we literally do not read anything else--we don't read anything else IN COMMON. i read tons of [shit you never heard of] but how can i discuss it here

retard
pseud
idiot
moron
dumbass
shit for brains

[Anonymous No.19706937]

>>19705782
The reason is obscure books are obscure. You can't make a thread that catches if there are only one or two anons who happen to have read the book and happen to be online and happen to notice and happen to have something to say that happens to need more than one post to be fleshed out. You discuss obscure books in a recommendation or "what are you reading" thread.

No one wants hipster fags like you killing threads in order to jerk off about the esoteric garbage you're patting yourself on the back for reading.
>Don't you people know that the more popular a book the less merit it has. Normal people are dumb, so it naturally follows that the more "normal" or famous a book is the dumber it is.
Fuck off hipster. Go back.

[Anonymous No.19706947]

>>19706937
>getting mad about it hipsters in 2021
Pathetic

[Anonymous No.19706986]

>>19706603
I don't understand what your problem is. If the books you are referring to were read widely enough to entertain regular discussion, they would be books you would consider below you because they're popular. Vane retard.

[Anonymous No.19707016]

>>19706947
>current year
Pathetic.

[Anonymous No.19707035]

>>19706986
obscurity chasers are peak cringe

[Anonymous No.19707069]

>>19706413
The only reason this thread got responses, including mine, is because you’re obnoxious.

[Anonymous No.19707161]

>>19706413
>the decade I've been posting here
Oh dear.

[Anonymous No.19707327]

>>19705675
>Don't you people know that the more popular a book the less merit it has.
You're absolutely fucking retarded. Kys.

[Anonymous No.19707906]

>>19706937
I recommended The Woman in the Dunes (not that obscure but probably not widely read enough for a long thread) to an anon who was looking for unconventional horror. He made a thread about it a few weeks later that demonstrated how completely filtered he was ("an enemies to lovers romance"). It was pretty funny seeing 5 or 6 anons make fun of him though.

Anyway, OP is a fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.19708075]

>>19705675
Because people would rather rant about what people read/what they should read than what they have personally read. Also, we just went through 2 years where a thread could not last even 4 hours without being bumped, so slow obscure topics got bumped off before the right anons could find it. Thankfully things have slowed down enough that a thread can make it through the night without a bump.

Serpants Tail and Dalkey are good publishers, and the old standby of NYRB.

[Anonymous No.19708156]

>>19706986
if they were widely discussed here that doesn't mean they wouldn't be obscure literally everywhere else. Again see /mu/ or /v/ or literally any other topic board on this website where its mostly devoted to discussion of lesser known works and not the same top 40 hits ad nauseum.
The only reason I insist that popular books are worse than obscure ones is because they are so consistently more complex and worthy of discussion than the basic shit you find in the canon.
Anyone else have obscure works they want to recommend. If no one else will check them out I will at least.

[Anonymous No.19708162]

>>19706628
So fucking retarded.

[Anonymous No.19708225]

>>19706628
/mu/ as a culture is just as bad and in an identical way. There's more discussion of obscure music because it takes 5 minutes to listen to a song you've never heard of, and because you can listen to more bands than you can read books.

[Anonymous No.19708244]

>>19708225
/mu/ as a culture is a cancer infected with a complex and varied array of other cancers.

[Anonymous No.19708279]

>>19705675
>literary hipster writes a blog post while affirming the consequent

You could have easily made a thread with pitch for the books you like, but instead you fallaciously shit on books many people here read, and told us about yourself, and your tastes needlessly. To return to the eternal philosophical quandary: Why is OP such a faggot?

[Anonymous No.19708295]

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA MISTA SVECHNIKOV
This is the power of exclusively following Instathots

[Anonymous No.19708306]

>>19705675
Book looks self indulgent. Post looks self indulgent. Will not read either.

I'm not going to read your book OP. Go sell somewhere else.

[Anonymous No.19708386]

>>19705675
Seriously thanks for this thread and the recommendations.

[Anonymous No.19708473]

>>19705675
>why aren't obscure books less obscure
idk anon, you tell me
>>19708156
>Again see /mu/ or /v/ or literally any other topic board on this website where its mostly devoted to discussion of lesser known works and not the same top 40 hits ad nauseum
you haven't browsed either of those boards enough, it very much is congested with the same 50% famous works and 50% 'board-core' (aka slightly less popular, slightly less accessible) works. why do you think "/mu/core" and memes about /v/ 3x3 threads consisting of the same (planescape torment, F:NV, SMT) games? every board is the same shit. if you want obscure go to some obscure board/forum. even WLF is more obscure than this place (compare 4stats info to WLF stats, even accounting for WLF's increased effort per post).
go find some niche circles, /lit/ isn't enough of one for you. specify by genres to make it a bit easier. the last good niche book i saw recommended was maldoror.

[Anonymous No.19708927]

>>19708386
no problem friend, have another
.>>19708279
tons of people have enjoyed my thread and recs. sorry I did more to promote good books than most on this board have done in a long time but not sorry. (see what I did there? =p)

[Anonymous No.19708958]

>>19708279
>but instead you fallaciously shit on books many people here read, and told us about yourself, and your tastes needlessly.
countless comments agreeing with me and or thanking me for the recommendations and this is what you get out of my insistence on posting books I find better than what's discussed here. I ask again, who hurt you /lit/? No one should actually give a fuck about yet another thread on Dostoevsky or Hesse or Hegel or The Odyssey or whatever book this board feels like beating on for the literal millionth time since its publication. They're only that popular, largely, because they're simple enough for plebs to read and enjoy. Any book like the one in the OP will never be discussed that much in common circles because its literally impossible for normies to read. Your taste is synonymous with basic bitches, sorry someone came along and pointed it out.

[Anonymous No.19708989]

>>19708473
lol at your idea of an obscure book.
> the last good niche book i saw recommended was maldoror.
I hadn't even finished reading your comment before seeing this. Have an actually obscure gothic aesthetic rec.

[Anonymous No.19709015]

>>19708958
Lol. If you say so, princess.

[Anonymous No.19709034]

>>19705831
/r/TrueLit

[Anonymous No.19709084]

>>19709015
not just me saying so Mr. Prince, not even remotely just me. There are a dozen+ people in this thread backing up everything I said in the OP and or thanking me for my obscure recs. I succeeded in spreading the word on good obscure good shit like this book. So I'll say again, you're w

[Anonymous No.19709096]

>>19709034
I was a founding member of that subreddit so I can say with certainty that its pretty shit.

[Anonymous No.19709098]

Be careful. The Penguin janny will stalk and harass you into transitioning if you start bringing up presses other than Penguin Oxford or NYRB. Advertising is not aloud.

[Anonymous No.19709108]

>>19709084
Still trying to decide if you're intelligent, and attempting to bullshit your way through this, or simply an idiot that actually believes what you're saying lol. Either way; you're adorable.

[Anonymous No.19709161]

>>19709098
I've been posting threads about obscure indie publishers, mostly Wakefield Press for a long time and never get much if any discussion. Someone linked a search in the archive for my favorite books author (Schwob) to prove I have just "missed" all the talk of him. Nearly every post made about him and or my favorite book by him in the archive are literally me posting about him and rarely if ever getting any replies lmao. Of course after pointing this out that guy got real quiet.

[Anonymous No.19709306]

>>19705675

[Anonymous No.19709331]

>>19709161
sounds like this board isn't for you, you're just too big-brained and cool for it

[Anonymous No.19709339]

>>19709161
>post about my favorite Obscure™ books repeatedly
>get few to no replies
>this is the board's fault

[Anonymous No.19710231]

>>19705782
I've read that. It was excellent. But the thing is most people won't have read it, so there's no point posting about it. The best talking points are on books everyone has read.

You are better off just using goodreads and hoping someone starts talking to you about a book you add.

[Anonymous No.19710258]

>>19708156
>Anyone else have obscure works they want to recommend. If no one else will check them out I will at least.

I shill these pretty consistently

>gilda trillim - steven l. peck
>moss - klaus modick
>the tidings of the trees - wolfgang hilbig
>the arabian nightmare - robert irwin
>the graveyard - marek hlasko
>on elegance while sleeping - Vizconde de Lascano Tegui
>the dead lake - hamid ismailov

[Anonymous No.19710476]

>>19709161
Whatever you say, bud. Yes, you are the only one in the entire board’s history to have read these books. You are truly that special snowflake and wallflower that you desperately want to be.

[Anonymous No.19710495]

>>19708958
> They're only that popular, largely, because they're simple enough for plebs to read and enjoy.
Yup, you have an unfounded superiority complex. I’m quite confident that you just discovered these publishers and are just randomly selecting books to post here ITT. You never once have actually described why any of these books — books that I have owned and read years ago, since they’re not obscure at all (simply just temporarily unknown to a few anons on this board) — should be read, you just sperg out over your own Solipsism and cry “me this,” “me that,” “please look at me,” without providing anything substantive. I’m sure those tons of people giving you the (You)s that you desperately crave and seek definitely are
coming from the same IP address as you. Your entire posts can be reduced to this simple axiom: I like chocolate ice cream just because I like chocolate ice cream, but I don’t like strawberry ice cream because I don’t like it. You are about as insightful as a child. You can’t even explain why Dostoevsky is “pleb shit” only for the fact that many people here have read him? What are you in high school? Surely with al the obscure books you have read, and all the “pleb shit” you have read and filtered out, you could have come up with a response that is seemingly intelligent and not just a faggot toddler having a temper tantrum.

[Anonymous No.19710505]

>>19710476
>>19710231
>>19709339
Go to /v/ and post about an obscure game you can easily get a thread with dozens of replies. Go to /mu/ post an obscure album you can easily get dozens of replies. Go to /lit/ post an obscure book or publisher and the thread dies in an hour every time. Clearly there is a discrepancy here. A discrepancy that can easily be solved by simply shilling better books and publishers, the same way the other boards got to where the are today
To everyone saying that unlike games or music books take too long to ever devote time to obscure stuff. I simply don't buy it. I never had that issue, the dozens of identical reviewers I see on almost all the books I posted in this thread on goodreads never had this issue. The problem is this board doesn't care enough to get off their asses and read something that hasn't been shilled to death for a century straight, and thats a damn shame.
>>19710258
Never heard of any of these works besides Arabian Nightmare but I've been wanting to read some more eco-focused works so thank you. Moss looks very cool

[Anonymous No.19710509]

>>19710505
>obscure
>the lime twig
You are such a newfag and it shows lol

[Anonymous No.19710516]

>>19710505
go back to those other boards, faggot. You clearly belong on /a/, /v/, and /mu/ like the loser that you are.

[Anonymous No.19710520]

>>19710495
Popular books are not worth as much as unpopular books by virtue of being so simplistic that the uncultured masses can ready and enjoy them. Unpopular and obscure books should be talked about more by a board that professes it's intellectual superiority because they are inherently more intellectual because as I've said countless times they are too complex for the common man to understand the beauty of.
It's really not that hard to get, I've said it a dozen times in this thread and have yet to have anyone respond with anything other than "Nuh uh, you're wrong!". Is it really that hard to get? /tv/ /mu/ /v/ all seem to inherently understand this and their content shows it. So why can't /lit/?

[Anonymous No.19710524]

>>19710505
>Go to /mu/ post an obscure album you can easily get dozens of replies
No you do not. I have migrated from /mu/ to this place. /mu/ had the same problems.

[Anonymous No.19710535]

>>19710516
You're never going to make me care about the opinion of someone who defends the state of this board and its boring high school literature class level discussions repeated ad nauseum. I'm going to keep posting good obscure books whether you like it or not

[Anonymous No.19710545]

>>19710520
Again, you are a retarded faggot whose insights are about as worth as much as that homeless man screaming about the voices inside his head. Popular books = bad because “uncultured” masses read them. Damn, you truly are the next Bloom with the profundity of your insights. You are truly the most well read on obscure books and most articulate literary critic in this board’s history. It’s truly marvelous that despite you insisting that “is it really that hard to get?” yet you are unable to do what you accuse others of doing. You haven’t even addressed most of my points. You just collapse into the same axioms and repeat it ad infinitum. You can’t even address Dostoevsky specifically, despite a lot of the “obscure” writers you posted are fans of him. Interestingly, you post Lispector thinking she’s obscure. She’s a starter writer for basic white women with a superiority complex just like yourself. Again, we shall wait until you can stop posting “ME ME ME ME ME ME.”
>Unpopular and obscure books should be talked about more by a board that professes it's intellectual superiority because they are inherently more intellectual because as I've said countless times they are too complex for the common man to understand the beauty of.
Stop writing like a contrived popinjay who just discovered the power of their Mac’s thesaurus. Far too complex for a conman man according to whom? You? Do you even know how to communicate with people IRL? Have you talked to a common man before? Define common man. Definite inherent intellectualism. Define complex. I ask this because you just talk in tautologies and self-referential nonessential clauses that you internalize as substantive critique — but in actuality is just meaningless fluff and demonstrates your faggotry.

[Anonymous No.19710546]

>>19709098
tranny janny killed this anon for speaking the truth

[Anonymous No.19710553]

>>19710505
>Go to /v/ and post about an obscure game you can easily get a thread with dozens of replies.
Not in many years. You can't even talk about new and upcoming games.

[Anonymous No.19710556]

>>19710546
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.19710583]

>>19710535
Im a native Spanish speaker and none of the books by Latin American authors you have recommended are obscure. Lezama is read and celebrated all throughout the Spanish speaking world and this book is carried by one of our major publishing houses. These novels just feel obscure to you because the Anglo book market limits access to good, widely disseminated translations of these works. Lezama and Fernández and Aira and Lispector are just the very surface of big boy Spanish language lit.

[Anonymous No.19710635]

>>19708958
There is literally a Penguin edition of this and it's required reading in most Black literature college classes. Not obscure by any means, really.

[Anonymous No.19710641]

I agree with OP and I fucking hate this board so much, there’s truly no hope for you retarded knee-jerk losers. For years this board has been circular discussion and identical threads on the same basic entry level lit with all of you faggots patting yourself on the back because you can scratch another title off some generic “Best 100 Books” list. It hardly seems like there’s anyone left here remotely interested in digging deeper and actually discovering or discussing lesser known stuff which is really good.
Thanks for the posts OP and fuck everyone else here. You’re all faggots and you’re no better than Reddit despite your obvious complexes

[Anonymous No.19710642]

>why do the vast majority of people discuss books the vast majority of people have read or at least heard of
Don't you feel a little stupid OP?

[Anonymous No.19710643]

>>19710641
>>19705675
(You)

[Anonymous No.19710648]

>>19710641
>lesser known stuff which is really good.
If the books you're talking about were actually 'really good' they'd be more well known. Seems more that you either have highly eclectic taste, or that you just like to huff your own farts about having read books nobody else did.

[Anonymous No.19710663]

>>19710535
OP, really the only thing you are doing in this thread as >>19710583 and >>19710635 point out is demonstrate your lack of worldliness in a seething egomaniacal episode. None of the books you list are necessarily obscure outside the inconsequential limits of this board's taste. You could have done something productive and sought to expose people to literature they otherwise might not have cared for by providing a synopsys and by comparing it to works they might have read. Instead the only thing you have accomplished is that no one will read the stuff you have recommended out of pure spite.

[Anonymous No.19710676]

>>19710648
You’re asserting a false judgement. “Being good” absolutely does not equate to how well known something is. You simply have to look at popular culture to understand this. Kill yourself and don’t @ me again you illiterate faggot

[Anonymous No.19710678]

>>19710676
You’re genuinely retarded and your seething is fucking pathetic, just like your taste in books.

[Anonymous No.19710681]

>>19709034
It's extremely normie.

[Anonymous No.19710683]

>>19710678
You didn’t disprove anything I said. I don’t see any argument at all. So really honestly just fuck off, I don’t give a shit what you think

[Anonymous No.19710686]

>>19710505
Recently finished the Bettle leg. Get on my level Normie.

[Anonymous No.19710691]

>>19710524
just went back to /mu for the first time in about 6 months and holy christ, the board is not just dead. it's completely bereft of anything, even funny shitposts. truly kind of sad to see, I used to get a lot out of it. not sure if rym or indieheads is better at this point but that board is so done you could stick a fork in it

[Anonymous No.19710694]

>>19710663
Good take

[Anonymous No.19710696]

>>19710683
You clearly do care, hence your eternal seething, faggot. It’s also cute how you avoid any anon that challenges you with actual substance because you’re too retarded. How pathetic and sad. Many such cases.

[Anonymous No.19710699]

>>19710545
Dostoevsky still sucks.

[Anonymous No.19710705]

>>19710676
You’re asserting a false judgement. “Being bad” absolutely does not equate to how well known something is. You simply have to look at the obscure books you posted to understand this

[Anonymous No.19710706]

>>19706460
This shouldve been included in the op. You would have outed yourself as a major pseud beforehand.
Don Quijote or The Divine Comedy are both very entertaining and some of the most beautiful works of literature. The kinds of books you posted are forgotten for a reason. They are fun and interesting, but rarely have any great pact on the reader or some great insight.
Dostoevsky had considerable impact on my life (Im Orthodox (native)), and besides the beginning of Demons none of his books were hard reads for me.
In conclusion, reddit cope seethe nigger dilate.

[Anonymous No.19710710]

>>19710699
Now this is copeposting. I love how defeated you’re getting. Hopefully, you deep throat a shotgun and stay at /v/ where you belong.

[Anonymous No.19710723]

>>19710696
You're the only person that responded to me and your argument did not contain any "actual substance" whatsoever so I'm not really sure what you're talking about at all.

>>19710705
I disagree completely, again look at pop culture for example. The most successful movies or books are often "common denominator" products designed for mass appeal. This should be obvious and I suspect that you're aware of this but you're acting like a retard because you're upset

[Anonymous No.19710730]

they hated OP because he spoke the truth
nuke this entire board

[Anonymous No.19710739]

>>19710710
>"NOW *CLANG CLANG CLANG*"
>"YOU'RE *TIN TIN TIN*"
>"I HOPE *CLANG CLANG CLANG*"
Dostoevsky still sucks ass.

[Anonymous No.19710747]

>>19710730
>>19710739
Keep crying, OP.

[Anonymous No.19710751]

>>19705675
because the way people around here find books is through reading orders. So they will be default have their favorite books be classics.

[Anonymous No.19710773]

OP here just got back from picking up some fire brown boy, its nice to see more people agreeing with the sad state of this board. God I love anonymity. The fact so many people think anyone agreeing with me is me is funny as fuck. Have another great obscure book none of you plebs will ever rise to read. Admittedly I'm purely posting this one because of its inherent intellectualism just from the title. Deal with it faggots

[Anonymous No.19710774]

>>19710747
Wipe tears. Dostoevsky sucks. Nothing you can do about it.

[Anonymous No.19710776]

>>19710774
Keep crying, OP.

[Anonymous No.19710778]

>>19710773
kek

[Anonymous No.19710782]

>>19710773
>>19710774
>>19710776
>tfw you reveal you have a 4chan pass
Faggot site won't let me delet.

[Anonymous No.19710788]

>>19710739
>>19710774
Why? Can you articulate why he sucks? Many of the writers you posted really loved Dostoevsky and many other canon classics? Where they stupi too?

[Anonymous No.19710793]

>>19710788
Yes, they were stupi. Stupi that they don't realize how much better they are. But self deprecation is part of the great writer package.

[Anonymous No.19710798]

>>19710773
Nigger these are little books arent obscure at all. And will I even get something out of it if I dont know what structuralism as a philosophical movement is?

[Anonymous No.19710809]

I get where you're coming from, OP. You just have to look at the top books list made each year to realize that this place can be pretty boring. It's still fun place to be edgy and shitpost about cultural politics, but that''s about it.

[Anonymous No.19710817]

>>19710782
lmao. I don't even know what 4chan pass does. >>19710788
OP here, I've never tried to read Dostoevsky personally because I assume like the rest of the canon its basic bitch shit filled with pointless exposition.
I can tell within 5 pages if a book is going to be good and complex/intellectual. As can the majority of the authors I posted in this thread from the fin-de-siecle. The Use and Abuse of Art by Jacques Barzun that I posted above is almost entirely about this phenomenon but again none of you will ever manage to read it, its simply too hard for you basic bitches. He says all the same shit I am just in a more polite manner.

[Anonymous No.19710820]

>>19710817
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHSHAHAHAHAHAHAHAJJAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

[Anonymous No.19710824]

>>19710798
I had no idea what structuralism was when I read it and it was one of the best books I've ever read. And why do so many people keep acting like just because a book isn't obscure in some obscure circle that means it's not obscure to this board. What a retarded take.
>>19710583
Like this guy acting like since I can't read spanish me posting books that aren't obscure to spanish readers is dumb. You're all clearly mad I'm right lololol. I can't read spanish dumbass.

[Anonymous No.19710828]

>>19710793
>stupi
Im a phoneposter. Great to see you make fun of a typo instead of making an argument of any substance. If you declare some books to be bad and others to be good you must have some criteria that goes beyond obscurity in the anglophone world=bad. If you just feel that some books are better than others, then your opinion is no more valid than that of some ya reading teenage girl who just "cant get into the classics". Enjoyment is the most subjective way to judge quality.
So how do you objectively judge a book? Whats your criteria?

[Anonymous No.19710831]

OP is right, /lit/ is the one media board where appearing to be well versed on the topic is the most important part by far. Actually finding obscure books and reading them till the end is beyond what the average poster can accomplish

[Anonymous No.19710851]

>>19710824
>Paradiso
>Listed as one of the best Spanish language of all time by El Mundo
>not obscure in some obscure circle
Alright, I was trying to explain a real basic concept to you but this just shows you don't care about literature or its reception but only how it makes you feel to know that you have read something people in your insular part of the world might not have. If you spoke Spanish you would not be complaining about Dostoevsky but of Lezama, dumbass. Next thing you'll try to cop as "extremely obscure, complicated avant-garde" lit will be some Nicanor Parra or José Rizal. You are the exact definition of a pseud.

[Anonymous No.19710859]

>>19710817
Im Romanian and know this book. Gellu Naum is little read here for a good reason, hes actually best known for his kids books about a penguin. The big classics like Caragiale, Creangă, Rebreanu, Bacovia or Blaga are much more popular for good reason. And Cioran (widely known at least in Europe and on this board) is actually one of our best writers.
Ill give it to Gellu though, his translations from french are really good, Ive got a beautiful edition fo Stendhal's novels translated by him.

[Anonymous No.19710862]

>>19710648
is this what the average person on this board really believes? That anything unpopular deserves it and anything popular got that way by being great? Are you really all that deluded? what the absolute fuck. I'm beginning think there is nothing worth saving in this godforsaken place. Why is /lit/ of all topics so fucking lame compared to the rest of this website. There is so much potential for great discussion and instead we get this highschool bullshit.

[Anonymous No.19710879]

Books take a while to read and people want to discuss what they've read. The Internet isn't big enough to discuss much more than the most popular two thousand or so books.

[Anonymous No.19710886]

>>19710859
My Tired Father is an autobiography written by taking cut-outs from American (fashion?) magazines. It's probably one of the most inarguably avant-garde books I've ever seen. But since the dude is well known in fucking Romania the book is somehow wrong to mention as obscure? This is getting really stupid at this point. Grasping at any straw you can to try and claim I'm wrong even if it's obviously stupid just proves how much I struck a nerve in you bitches.
No matter what this meta thread is probably the healthiest discussion I've seen on this board in years. At least it's making some of you contend with how lame this place is for once.

[Anonymous No.19710899]

>>19710828
>how do you objectively judge a book? Whats your criteria?
The writing should be good, which means it should not be by Dostoevsky.

[Anonymous No.19710904]

I'd love for this post to be pinned.

[Anonymous No.19710913]

>>19705675
>tfw when you realize OP is right and we are the /tv/ of literature.

[Anonymous No.19710917]

>>19710886
I didnt just point out that hes well known in Romania (for his kids books), but that hes not a good writer. And I suspect the only reason you even posted his book (as a reccomendation I assume) is because hes obscure internationally and the fact that you read obscure books makes you feel superior. Its obvious that english speakers will mostly read books written in english.
Naum is also an example of an avant garde and niche writer who is simply worse compared to his more famous and canonised brethren.
Forest of the Hanged by Liviu Rebreanu and Mircea Eliade are my reccomendations if youre interested in good romanian fiction.

[Anonymous No.19710929]

>>19710917
>>19710851
Really the only thing this whole discussion confirms is Americans are uncultured swine that will vulturize anything outside the boundaries of their culture to make themselves feel special. Nothing new, really.

[Anonymous No.19710931]

>>19706102
>Ibsen

How is Ibsen even remotely obscure? He's one of the few playwrights you can comfortably mention in the same breath as Shakespeare.

[Anonymous No.19710938]

The fact only like 3 people have actually tried to suggest good obscure works instead of just defending the boring as fuck repeated discussions about the most basic books ever is making me sad. Don't you guys actually like reading? Who claims to like reading but never strays from the most popular shit of all time? I'm just about done with this nearly 24 hour tirade. If you're all content with how boring this board is so be it, I'll be content with the knowledge that at least I tried to save this place from mediocrity. Successfully or not. I'll finish with this

The Use and Abuse of Art by Jacques Barzun was recommended to me on this board years ago and basically says everything I have about the canon. That its only the canon because the books are simplistic enough for anyone to read and enjoy them. If only one book from this thread got widely read by this board I wish it'd be this one.

Almost all of you are stupid doo-doo-heads who can't read anything actually great because of your terminal retardation.

[Anonymous No.19710941]

>>19706628
/mu/ is the most pointless board we have as it's almost entirely focused on absolute hipsterdom to the most extreme level. Even /po/ would serve more of a purpose if you ever actually became interested in its subject matter.

[Anonymous No.19710942]

>>19710938
The problem is not that the board is boring (it is) but that you have failed to provide any actual obscure book.

[Anonymous No.19710953]

>>19710942
>but that you have failed to provide any actual obscure book.
lmao what in the absolute fuck is wrong with you? I post a couple books out of dozens that aren't obscure in their home language and suddenly nothing I posted is obscure. Why grasp at straws so blatantly? It only makes you look stupid as fuck.

[Anonymous No.19710959]

>>19710938
I’m going to read this by your recommendation, thank you. You’ve caused one anon to seethe so hard he keeps responding pretending to be different posters, so that demonstrates to me that you probably know what you’re talking about since you’ve struck such a sensitive nerve.

Godspeed OP

[Anonymous No.19710961]

>>19705675
OP, do you know a good site to download old stuff from the renaissance, baroque, enlightenment age? I have an interest in the lit from those eras but some works are pretty hard to find.

[Anonymous No.19710962]

>>19710953
>The Acéphale
>Bataille
Really?

[Anonymous No.19710964]

>>19710917
>Forest of the Hanged by Liviu Rebreanu
>Mircea Eliade
thank you for the suggestions

[Anonymous No.19710970]

>>19710962
really. not him but most people here would probably stop at Story of the Eye because it's relatively well known. Bataille was actually quite a prolific writer of poetry, essays, and philosophy, much of which hasn't been translated into english.

[Anonymous No.19710976]

>>19710961
I only buy books that I can't pirate on libgen. Many of the books I posted in this thread I had to buy to read.

[Anonymous No.19710979]

>>19710942

[Anonymous No.19710982]

>>19710970
You’re so fucking insufferably insecure it’s nauseating

[Anonymous No.19710986]

>>19710962
this book is mostly papers that have literally never been published before Atlas books went to the descendants of The Acephale and asked for the random papers their grandpappys left locked away in the attic. It doesn't get more obscure than that....

[Anonymous No.19710989]

>>19710970
I've had conversations with people in this board on The Accursed Share and pure expenditure. Again, it's not that it's obscure. It's that you lack worldliness and want to feel different.

[Anonymous No.19710996]

>>19710986
Hahahaha

[Anonymous No.19711003]

[Anonymous No.19711007]

[Anonymous No.19711008]

>>19710979
0 ratings, 0 reviews on goodreads. Now thats some obscure shit

[Anonymous No.19711011]

OP, I too remember when I started discovering writers for the first time and felt vastly more important and well-read than I actually was, then I read over 1,500 books and laugh at myself for thinking I had good taste for reading Atlas, Dalkey, and Wakefield when I was 19

[Anonymous No.19711017]

[Anonymous No.19711020]

>>19710976
I get it.
It baffles me how hard it is to find certain books, and I'm talking about works from big authors.
I recently downloaded the complete works of Voltaire, with all of his plays. Not obscure but marginal since most people don't care about his plays. Lol
I don't hunt books because I like it, its more that certain works are interesting to me but they are hard to find.

[Anonymous No.19711023]

[Anonymous No.19711032]

I love the fanfare my thread's getting. You basic bitches need to get out of Anglophone tastes. You will like this one but as usual nobody discusses it because you guys suck.

[Anonymous No.19711034]

>>19711008
It's made me sad. I only found it mentioned in passing in another obscure work and went to look it up. Written in the 1800s, preserved for some unknowable reason, likely never read. I read one of his novels out of curiosity. It was about a woman who falls into poverty and has only two remarkably intelligent pet parrots as company.

[Anonymous No.19711036]

>>19710938
do you use goodreads? i want to add you and follow what you read. that's the best way to talk about things imo.

[Anonymous No.19711042]

>>19711032
>You basic bitches need to get out of Anglophone tastes
>doesn't go beyond the surface of popular difficult literature in other languages
What did he mean by this

[Anonymous No.19711045]

>>19710959
thank you /lit/bro. If you do read it come and post your thoughts here. If I cared more I would try memeing it into popularity by spamming threads on it daily. It's absolutely the greatest work of art criticism I've ever seen. Every other work I've tried inevitably just ends up like some kind of history book cataloging famous stuff and why people liked it. This book actually gets deep into the why and how of Arts popularity. And not just Art, it also talks about Religion, Science and politics in relation to Art just as much. It predicts so much of our modern world its spooky at times. There is an entire chapter about Scientism and its dangers that has only gotten more true and relevant since its publication. It's just really really prescient and had me constantly putting it down to think about the ramifications of what he says. AND it actually offers answers to the questions of how to deal with scientism and other stuff. Answers that are all the more important today with the rise of SJWs and all this cultural marxist bs. I have given less than fifteen 5 star reviews ever and this is the one of just two non-fiction books to receive one. The other if you're curious is pic related which is tangentially related in many ways. Semiotics is a great topic to read about in this day and age, would recommend.

[Anonymous No.19711046]

>>19711032
I've seen this one discussed, however I take issue with the idea that Asian writing be considered literature

[Anonymous No.19711052]

>>19711032
Murakami is one of the best selling authors in the world. Hes not discussed here because most people dont like him much, not because they havent heard of him.
Are you actually retarded.

[Anonymous No.19711055]

>>19711032
That was popular when it came out. People moved on from it some time ago.

[Anonymous No.19711074]

>>19711036
https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/63651680-toran
>>19711032
lol I love you

[Anonymous No.19711093]

>>19711074
>read
>144 books
LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[Anonymous No.19711095]

>>19711042
>>19711046
>>19711052
>>19711055
LMAO there are really this many people lurking in this thread that are this stupid. Thats not the OP. I get it now I think. The reason this board never discusses anything outside of the basic canon is because it's unironically incapable of rising above such basic shit.
Not being able to tell this obvious troll and getting baited this hard and this fast shows your ignorance better than anything else. Holy shit I'm gonna burst a lung laughing at you idiots. How could you ever think such a blatant troll was serious??? It's Murakami for fucks sake

[Anonymous No.19711100]

>>19711095
>Thats not the OP
I never assumed it was. I just responded to the post itself.

[Anonymous No.19711114]

>>19711093
Do you actually add everything you've ever read to goodreads so that its filled with 99% pointless fluff read for entertainment? No one needs to see that you've read all of Harry Potter and the Chronicles of Narnia. It's called curating, try it sometime pleb.

[Anonymous No.19711132]

>>19711114
Now this is copeposting. Feels good knowing I’ve read over 1,500 books of literary fiction, poetry, and plays :)

[Anonymous No.19711158]

>>19711132
I've dropped 1500 books of literary fiction. Thank god for piracy letting me only read whats truly great. I drop probably close to 50% of what I start and I'm already incredibly choosey with what I attempt. If I finish a book that means it's probably amazing so I have very few books on my goodreads. I'm proud of that just like you are of your number. We just have very different approaches to reading.

[Anonymous No.19711185]

>>19711032
that filename and those replies. you're too good for this board homie. lmfao

[Anonymous No.19711389]

>>19711114
you have hunger games in your good reads bro

[Anonymous No.19711475]

>>19711389
kek

[Anonymous No.19711752]

>>19705675
>THEY'RE READING POPULAR BOOKS AAAAAAH I'M GOING INSAAANE AAAAAA

[Anonymous No.19711879]

>>19705675
hey op
is sam pink a good writer

[Anonymous No.19711905]

>>19710524
whats bnw

[Anonymous No.19711919]

>>19710648
The Fault in our Stars is very well known anon, that book isn't good.

[Anonymous No.19711973]

>>19711905
Best New Music. This was back in the day when Pitchfork was relevant. You could guarantee that any BNM album was spammed on /mu/ the next day. Fantano had a similar impact when he blew up.

[Anonymous No.19711990]

>>19710691
/mu/ was at its best during the tripfag times. It had a really fun and unique board culture and drama.
Never forget Hampus, Cooltop, and Tourist.

[Anonymous No.19712103]

>>19705675
>Prove you read books because they're great, not because they're said to be great.

How do you know a book's great without reading it and choosing it because its obscure like you say?

[Anonymous No.19712923]

Most of these aren't obscure at all, and are on my shelf right now you dickhead. Post some obscure poetry books if you actually want to contribute.

[Anonymous No.19713446]

late nite /lit/ will surely understand me

[Anonymous No.19713456]

>>19711032
Kek

[Anonymous No.19713461]

>>19711990
Kek I was on /mu/ then too. CLT was the best trip though.

[Anonymous No.19713468]

>>19705675
>Why do I never see people on this board about much of anything outside of the general literary "canon".
Because the canon is large enough and already contains the best books in history. It's objectively the best focus for anyone interested in literature.

[Anonymous No.19713490]

>>19711990
Some friends and I once listened to The Tourist masturbate in a tinychat room through what we referred to as the windtunnel mic. Apparently, instead of stroking up and down the shaft, he would hold his hand upside down and squeeze the head of his penis. Good times. The names Hampus and Cooltop haven’t appeared in my mind in ages. Thanks for bringing up these memories.

[Anonymous No.19713528]

Too bad Biotroll killed himself

[Anonymous No.19713547]

>>19713468
lmao. Enjoy mediocrity. Like a tux from Goodwill it suits you plebs nicely. this thread only got better after a few glasses of wine.

[Anonymous No.19713676]

>>19705675

[Anonymous No.19713772]

>>19705675
We obsess over the canon first of all because the canon is good, and your points about it being entry-level or whatever can obviously be dismissed out of hand, and second of all because we can agree on it. When it comes to other good books that might be worth talking about, there are generally too many choices for everyone to have read the same thing. Which is a shame because you're completely right that there are tons of worthwhile books that are never discussed here.

One neat idea would be starting like "book club" threads where people could agree on non-'canonical' books to read and discuss. Let that exist alongside the canonposting.

[Anonymous No.19713826]

>>19705690
I agree. People post tons of obscure books but you cant talk about if you havent read it. OP is a retard and a faggot

[Anonymous No.19713871]

>>19713547
Your b8 is powerless. If you want to get people reading lesser-known books, make a list of them into a spammable recommendation chart called like "official /lit/ patrician-core". I would be interested in something like that.

[Anonymous No.19713877]

>>19713772
/thread

[Anonymous No.19713880]

>>19705690
Kill yourself

[Anonymous No.19713892]

Check Akutagawa, PO, you'll love the short story Kappa.
Read Kawabata too. Palm-of-the-Hand Stories is like a diary full of short entrances of beauty.
I would suggest Guillermo Cabrera Infante, but some of his books were not translated too English.
I believe the problem with /lit/ is how fast and out of topic the board is right now. Years ago I used to come here all the time to find suggestions since even a thread with no replies would stay on for days; now, it's mostly /pol/ shitposting with a veil of literature to avoid the jannies, this can make a thread about a book die in a few hours.
So, if this board doesn't go back to it's old glory, try to find suggestions on the writings of other writers. I discovered Schwob thanks to Borges and Infante by reading a text Vargas Llosa wrote.

[Anonymous No.19714724]

>>19713871
That would make sense. However, OP is too busy "drinking wine" and calling anons names. That will surely works.

[Anonymous No.19714761]

>>19713528
https://www.last.fm/user/Mecoptera
I am pretty sure he is still doing his thing.

[Anonymous No.19715671]

>>19710931
Never claimed Ibsen is obscure, and neither is Aeschylus for that matter. I'm sinply trying to demonstrate that not even very famous authors can always receive tons of replies.

[Anonymous No.19715759]

pussy

[Anonymous No.19716035]

>>19713446
I ordered that the other day.

[Anonymous No.19716284]

>>19716035
I hope you bought it from wakefield press directly and not secondhand like googling the title will lead you to believe is the only option. It's a massive problem with most of the publishers I mentioned. Just always go to the publisher website and check if its in stock. I just had a bro tell me they struggled to get a secondhand copy for a high price when Wakefield Press will give you a brand new one for like $15

[Anonymous No.19716636]

>>19713871
this is a good idea, maybe I will do something like this. Although I'm pretty bad at Photoshop/GIMP//whatever photo editing software is the bee's knees these days. It would be amazing if someone came along and made a tier list of the best indie publisher's. With Wakefield and Dedalus Books at the top of course..

[Anonymous No.19716816]

Wish Wakefield was easier to get in England, shipping prices are crazy.

[Anonymous No.19717024]

>>19716284
KYS

[Anonymous No.19717031]

>>19716636
Most of the books in Wakefield’s catalog are not even particularly good. I’d rather re-read ISOLT for the fourth time than re-read majority of the books on their catalog. Mostly forgettable and a few gems.

[Anonymous No.19717308]

>>19717031
You won't find any disagreements here. Why do you think I listed like 7 different indie publishers in the OP. I only own like 6 books from Wakefield and don't even think all of them are good. You'd be retarded to assume everything from a publisher is good simply because they chose to publish it. That doesn't change the fact that Wakefield are the only reason I was able to read some of my favorite books ever and I thank them for it. But for instance Paul Scheerbart that they published like 3 different works of is pretty damn boring imo and they didn't even publish the one thing of his that actually looks interesting. That being his work about how every building should be made of glass because glass looks beautiful.
The same goes for every indie publisher I mentioned. Do you think there are any publishers who have near perfect catalogs? I'd love to hear about such a thing

[Anonymous No.19717328]

>>19716816
on the other hand you have tons of indie publishers like Atlas Press UK that you get cheap shipping on or even an actual storefront to visit in England. I'm jealous of that. Twisted Spoon Press is another that I've paid exorbitant shipping costs to get books from across the pond from.