[ 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: 505 KB, 1024x1024, tao.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3206655 No.3206655 [Reply] [Original]

/lit/,

In this thread we should have an honest discussion about Tao Lin's literary merit. His style is minimalist, realistic and contemporary. I suspect that most who dismiss it as bad writing for that reason have a juvenile obsession with purple prose, contrived language and obscurantism because that's what seems like "real literature" to them, while a modest portrayal of our society is in reality both more sincere and harder to accomplish. Tao Lin is almost like a Schopenhauerian reporter, capturing the tragedy of modern life.

>> No.3206669

It reads like a post on /adv/

>> No.3206667

>>3206655
I used to write like him when I was in middle school.

>> No.3206673

>>3206655
I can't believe anyone on this board would read Tao Lin besides Tao Lin. He uses the board for viral marketing, but no one here has ever said they like the guy (excpet Tao Lin himself)

His work looks tiresome and bland. There are many more exciting, vibrant authors out there. It just so happens he posts on /lit/

>> No.3206844

>>3206673
I would, and I've gotten his works as ebooks from other e/lit/ists. There are plenty of people here who sincerely like Tao Lin. And for good reasons.

His works aren't supposed to be exiting and vibrant. Not everything needs a fast plot and twists and car explosions.

>> No.3206864

>>3206673
>mfw people actually believe this
I pity you
I also pity people who tell others they pity them

>> No.3206871

haters jelly of this chink's hustle

>> No.3206873

>>3206673
I'm not sure if it's a joke that people say this or if people here are really paranoid he makes threads about himself to promote/market.

He wouldn't waste time "viral marketing" on /lit/, which only has, what, 40 or 30 unique posters visit on an average day? He also already has a book deal, he doesn't need the money.

FWIW I don't think it's spectacular stuff but I really like the voice Tao uses in his writing. It's very sharply honed and people seem to miss this, I'm not sure how. Compare that to, for example, Chabon, who while elegaic and lofty at times, still often reverts to a generic historical omniscient voice.

Most people just recoil at the fact that he's familiar or deals with themes of technological consumptions (Gmail chat, twitter, etc). If he wrote about war with the same voice no one would bat an eye and he'd be celebrated as the new Hemingway.

>> No.3206881

>>3206873
>/lit/ only has 40 or 30 unique posters visit on an average day

Is this true?

>> No.3206883

>>3206881
the statistics isn't public, but you're definitely wasting your time here tao

have of the people here aren't even american so they won't be able to buy your stuff

>> No.3206887

>>3206873
>>3206873
Is /lit/ really just the same 50 people posting every day? I had no idea there were so few. Does that make me e/lit/e for even being here?

On topic: the subject matter is important though. I think it's perfectly fair to consign him to an anonymous death if the only comments he has to make are about twitter. It's easy, simple, and perfectly meaningless. That might be his intent, but for me it also means it's not worth reading.

And can we stop having Tao Lin threads? We need to reach a general consensus and then ignore him. It's getting a little ridiculous

>> No.3206892

>>3206883

Nah, I'm pretty sure a decent amount wash into /lit/ from the other boards now and then. Place a few TL threads a day and your marketing's basically done.

>/lit/ sure does discuss Tao Lin a lot
>I wonder if he's any good
>Which book should I get?

>> No.3206904

>>3206887
/lit/ is like 90% tourists and 10% frequent users.

It's why we have the same threads retarded threads everyday.

>> No.3206911

>>3206887
There'll never be a general consensus because the slime that splashes in here from /tg/, /co/, /a/, and other boards can only accept simplistic prose if the book is full of dragons, wizards, and awesome fight scenes.

>> No.3207470

>>3206883
yeah, /lit/ is probably the least american board

>> No.3207485

>>3206892
Go away Tao.

>> No.3207511

>>3206911
>books like Deus Ex?
>books as deep as NGE?
>YA fantasy is the only worthwhile lit
>comic books=graphic *novels*=literature
>why are you guys so elitist?
On the other hand, the few times someone has done the reverse and posted /lit/ discussion to other boards I'm looking at you Deep&Edgy it has nearly always resulted in massive amounts of butthurt and rustling.

>> No.3207518

>juvenile obsession with purple prose

If you haven't noticed, literary or purple prose has been long dead. Hemingway pioneers the idea of minimalist prose which of course proves to be popular. Then you get decades of creative writing courses pumping out the same tripe that you MUST show not tell or that writing should be minimalist and so forth. And why? Because if someone can't control their prose it comes across terribly if it is flowery and bearable if not.

>> No.3208672

Wow, I was actually drawn into that.

I feel somewhat frightened because I know this will be regarded as a banner for our generation.
I wish there was some indication of his intelligence besides pop-culture stuff.

I'm actually impressed.

>> No.3208689
File: 30 KB, 447x327, Tao Lin.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3208689

Tao Lin is shit. His "style" is lazy. It's easy to copy, too. I'm doing it right now.

Hemingway was a good writer, unlike Tao Lin. It's difficult to emulate Hemingway, because he was a good writer, and it's hard to be good.

It's easy to be Tao Lin, because it's easy to suck.

>> No.3208691

he is the funniest writer that i have ever read

>> No.3208701

Personally, I think that writing and language just needs to be adequate, needs to convey what you're trying to convey. If the story you're telling can be accomplished to its full effect with simple language, that's fine.

But by the same token, the phrase "purple prose" is stupid as shit on account of being entirely relative to subject matter and audience.

>> No.3208707

>>3208689
>It's easy to be Tao Lin, because it's easy to suck.
I wholeheartedly agree.

>> No.3208714

>>3206844

>being this retarded

If the OP post is representative of TL's work as a whole, I'm sorry.

>> No.3208740

>>3208689

but you aren't doing it

Tao Lin is not very good writer. The way he writes is lazy, like it's easy to copy too. I'm doing it right now.

Hemingway was good at writing, not like Tao Lin. It's difficult to write the same as Hemingway, because he was very good writer, and it's really hard to be good and stuff.

It's not very hard to be Tao Lin, because it's easy to be a bad writer.

>> No.3208744

Why does everyone comment solely on his style? Isn't a novel more than just prose? You know, plots and whatnot?

>> No.3208756

>>3208744

because his style is the content

if his book were written traditionally they would be worthless. they are golden because of his deadpan minimalist style.

>> No.3208808
File: 4 KB, 215x162, images.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3208808

Hey...what's going on guys

>> No.3209066

>>3208740
Doesn't sound like Tao Lin to me. As expected, you fail to copy him because you fail to see the quality amd craftmanship that goes into his deceptively simple prose.

>> No.3209081

>>3208756
Doesn't sound like a good novelist at all.

>> No.3209090

>>3209081
With good novelists style and content are always inseparable. That's why the Wikipedia page of a Shakespeare play isn't quite as moving as the play itself, for example.

>> No.3209128 [DELETED] 

His writing definitely makes its point, but it just doesn't appeal to me. I'd much rather read something aesthetically pleasing.

>> No.3209132

His writing definitely makes its point, but it just doesn't appeal to me. I'd much rather read something aesthetically pleasing.

I have only read some samples on here, and I probably will give one of his books a try. I'm also not sure that his style could sustain itself in more than one novel.

>> No.3209141

>the past of some future's future, Steve thought suddenly

I hate it.

>> No.3209153

>>3209141
I hate all of it

>> No.3209161

I highly suggest you all watch his YouTube videos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZtEUST-p5w&feature=share&list=ULRZtEUST-p5w

>> No.3209174

>>3206655
Is this a joke?

Serious question.

>> No.3209188

>>3209161
>Thank you for watching this tour video
I laughed. Still have yet to see any writing elicit the same feeling though

>> No.3209201

>>3206883
what? Lin's works are marketed for the e-book industry. i'm pretty sure he expects a large chunk of his readers to be consuming through that medium - given that his readers are of the demographic that would the title 'shoplifting from american apparel' intriguing - and, i think, there are a number of things which are only viewable online, right? despite being an australian, myself, i've still been reading his works - that is, i've only read 'bed' so far, but i liked it enough that i think i'll pick up another.

>> No.3209208

>>3209201
*would find (obviously)

>> No.3209229

>>3209161
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZtYgUkwr0w&feature=autoplay&list=ULRZtEUST-p5w&playnext=
1
Does it look to anyone else like the wheelchair kid has no arms?

>> No.3209246

>>3206887
>he has to make are about twitter.
That isn't his intent at all. Have you even read any of his work?

>> No.3209254

>>3208756
>because his style is the content
That isn't true at all. Have you read Richard Yates? That book was basically him commenting on existential loneliness.

>> No.3209281

>>3209246
This.

Most people on /lit/ seriously haven't even read his work. It's really fucking pathetic considering that I even bought two of his books just so I could be educated on the guy and form a proper opinion.

That being said, I appreciate the guy. His style achieves its purpose and there are some deeply personal and funny bits in his novels. OP's pic is garbage though. First of all, that's not a very good passage to quote, and even if one of his "best" passages were there instead, I still wouldn't agree with the high praise being given to it. The style is not aesthetically pleasing and it's not supposed to be, but that's also why his work doesn't have much merit outside of the same themes and ideas he goes over in the novels I've read (eee and american apparel).

I think one of the biggest misconceptions is the idea that he's something like a Jack Kerouac of our generation. You could imagine how fucking pretentious that would be if it were the case, but Lin's novels have enough irony in them so you can see that he's not trying to glorify this generation or be some sort of hipster, but it's rather like he's saying "I'm a part of this shit and it's really stupid and sad. I'm only writing about what I see."

In the end though, it's nothing significant or ground breaking. The only reason I wouldn't call it a gimmick is for the actual sincerity in the work. It's the type of work people would look back on and say "it's an interesting historical document."

>> No.3209293

>>3209281
The thing that's great about Lin is that often he doesn't write what he sees, he just writes that he sees. It's not his prose or style, it's what he talks about without bothering to talk about.

>> No.3209296

>>3209293
I kind of see what you're saying but it also sounds like you're purposely being hard to follow.

Explain further because I'm not sure if you were agreeing with me or not.

>> No.3209316

>>3209174
No. Serious answer.

>> No.3209352

>>3208672
Watch his vblogs. You'll get an idea there ..

>> No.3209357

>>3208689
Clever. This post was as numbing to read as Tao's work

>> No.3209365

Can we have a Steve Roggenbuck thread

>> No.3210540

>>3209365
No he sucks

>> No.3210564

Suddenly, I understand why there is a kind of person who can look at a giant painting of an asshole up close, and declare it art.

Tao is shit. You can claim there's merit to him being shit, but he's still shit.

>> No.3210565

>>3210564
Why is he shit?

>> No.3210569

>>3210564
Do you have at least a structured reason why you hate him?

>> No.3210814

Well, for starters, his marketing skills suck.

Tao? You out there? You wanna pick up another reader? You wannt make /lit your friend?

Write a book on writing and then, we'll talk. We'll talk long and hard and our days will pass in blissful praise for a proper legend.

>> No.3210862

AND LEARN TO USE EMACS YOU BORGED TOOL!