[ 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: 7 KB, 299x168, images.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3653381 No.3653381 [Reply] [Original]

Who is the best living writer, /lit/?

>> No.3653385

Me.

>> No.3653391

either hunter s thompson or david foster wallace probably

>> No.3653392

>>3653385

Impossible, it's me.

>> No.3653394

>>3653385
>>3653392
You're both wrong, me.

>> No.3653397

>>3653385
>>3653392
>>3653394
>These quality posts brought to you by Tao Lin

Also Cormac McCarthy

>> No.3653400

>>3653391
>hunter s thompson
>living

Uh, I got news for you...

>> No.3653415

>>3653394
>>3653392
>>3653385

You all fucked up because I am the greatest writer of all time.

>> No.3653416

>>3653391
>david foster wallace
>living

Uh, I got news for you...

>> No.3653419

My favourite is Ali Smith.

>> No.3653420

>>3653385
>>3653392
>>3653394
>>3653415

Ok guys, which one of you is Tao?

>> No.3653427

I would say many of the guys saying me have a point. The greatest living author is probably one that has yet to publish or be recognized widely.

>> No.3653431

>>3653427

I think the point is more of a hemingway-esque ideal. Like the actor said in Midnight in Paris "If you're a writer, proclaim yourself to be the best writer, but you're not while I'm around" or something like that

>> No.3653433

In my opinion it is Thomas Pynchon. You can say what you want about his stuff, but I think he is amazing.

>> No.3653440

>>3653385
>>3653392
>>3653394
>>3653415

Actually, it's Me.

>> No.3653442

Will Self.

>> No.3653595
File: 25 KB, 264x351, YFW YAM.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3653595

You!

You''re the Greatest Soothsayer, my imaginary green lad - who hopefully doesn't ask 'Y' - but only when you: attempt to remove yourself even further from what everyone has said by reporting the essentials of what they said; assess everybody else and what little of you remains, for you have assessed that you're ceasing to exist little by little; apply all of the ethics/aesthetics/metaphysics you've observed from your subjects, both living and dead and how they would utilize their ics in the situations of X, Y and Z: you may now proceed by finding humanity either as comical or as a tragedy or a combination of both in those three incorrect perception models.

Either of the three works. But please don't pleb around and say: your muse in writing a comedy is funny; or your muse in writing a tragedy is sad; or your muse in writing a tragicomedy is truly bitter-sweet.

Because it's far easier: to write a comedy, when you're depressed; and it's far easier to write a tragedy, when you're - whatever the opposite of depressed is.

This is probably true because I am retarded and logic that the creative depressed usually wants to overcome that depression by writing everything that makes that person depressed in the opposite light of how that persons perceives situations.

I may say: this doesn't make any fucking sense because the creative depressed obviously want to have more intrusive thoughts of how they perceive the world.

For the writers of Tragedy: they're just feelers that feel for those that have feels or when other feelers feel they can limit other feelers and 'non-feelers' feels or the 'non-feeler' feeling all feels . . . and those are the tragedies.

There's an Ultimate writer, but you who are the greatest will learn: YFW YAM of whom it is to be said - will perfect your Lantern; the one that will provide you a new masturbating technique(s) for your Opus X No. 2. . .

Because Opus X, NO. 1 was already written, so a rewrite is necessary in using a different tech

>> No.3653601

Tao Lin

>> No.3653622

>>3653595

You try so hard with every post you make on this board.

Day in and day out. You trying too hard.

There's something vaguely desperate and tragic about it.

>> No.3653625

>>3653622

it always gets me kind of depressed when I see his posts. sincerely so..

>> No.3653661

Pynchon.
& Pratchett gets an honorable mention, because he's awesome and we're going to lose him soon.

>> No.3653674

>>3653385
sup Gene Wolfe

>> No.3653712

Umberto Eco

>> No.3653720

>>3653381
Tao Lin.

>> No.3653729

>>3653431
Fucking Hemingway is such an ass in that movie. Makes me sick that Owen Wilson's character find his nonsense inspiring.

>> No.3653746

>>3653729
>*Hemmingwai

ftfy

>> No.3653753

>>3653746
I'm a fairly old /lit/ poster but that Hemmingway joke never fails to make me giggle like a little bitch.

>> No.3653756

Maybe Margaret Atwood. Maybe.

>> No.3653760

Cormac McCarthy

>> No.3653763

>>3653756
Fuck off, Sunhawk.

>> No.3653793

>>3653763

I like it here. It's friendly and polite.

>> No.3653794

>>3653756
What should I read by her?

>> No.3653798

>>3653753
You're not alone.

>> No.3653801

>>3653794
She's really not very good. Sunhawk has absolutely terrible taste, and knows nothing about books.

>> No.3653955

>>3653622

It's depressing I have to reply to comments like this, not for the sake you, for the sake of me that you're so dense.

I will dissect a little of your clever post because I believe it is in no way your magnum Opus.

Why is it clever?
Because it's your commentary on the post that gave you none of the tools you need to write because you already have them all - neither does my prior post remind you, you have something so obvious when it comes to writing, that I am surprised to find is missing in so many people.

"You try so hard with every post you make on this board."

By saying 'you trying too hard' -
I have ceased to be worthy of you using an 'are', therefore you wouldn't ask 'how ARE you' because you didn't say - 'you ARE trying too hard.'

That's a tragedy right there.

In what way is it trying so hard?

Trying hard to seek approval or trying hard to clarify abstract thoughts to yourself.

What made you logical incredulous hard I was trying so hard, if I come up with Labyrinths on the fly?

Now you may call me out on the bullshit that it only took me 2 minutes for my prior post, if you found the post credible in not being complete bullshit. And if it isn't complete bullshit and there's actual ideas found therein, how long would it have taken you to write that?

The comical thing, is writing labyrinths is the easiest thing possible; it's fucking meandering because I hope somebody would call out the multiple sources in which I derived so much bullshit.

Now, report back to me: and tell me the difference between trying too hard to seek approval of living writers and writing shit on the fly for the conversation with dead writers.

You can be a dead like me btw

>> No.3653962

Stephen King.

I would do unspeakable things to The Dark Tower series.

>> No.3653978

>>3653955
I don't think any human on earth is capable of trying this hard.

>> No.3653991

Will Self, easily.

>> No.3653996

>>3653955
Essucks de Dick
try harder facg

>> No.3654011

>>3653978
>>3653996
but Essex is cool

>> No.3654017
File: 30 KB, 232x324, penny_roja.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3654017

Laurie Penny.

>> No.3654019

>>3654011
He's actually okay, but he does try too hard to seem clever sometimes.

>> No.3654023

>>3654017
Please stop this incessant trolling.

>> No.3654042

>>3654023
Please stop pretending that it isn't a good book.

>> No.3654060

>>3654042
We've been over this before. Laurie Penny has some fine ideas about feminism, but nothing else.

She is simply an Oxbridge graduate who has had everything handed to her on a silver platter. She's intelligent, and well educated, but little beyond that.

>> No.3654070

Melville ,because in my mind his word and being are immortal.

>> No.3654080

>>3654070
*Miéville

>> No.3654077

>>3654060
What specifically didn't you like about the book?

>> No.3654085

>>3654077
I'm not saying the book was bad. I'm just saying she's a mediocre writer in general, and that even if she were good, she still wouldn't be the best author alive right now.

There are hundreds of brilliant authors alive write now, and Penny is barely a footnote.

>> No.3654088

>>3653978

10/10

You must be Jesus too; so that I will worship you and you will worship me.

>>3653996

9/10

I will make medicine only for my and your and other fuckers shit system.

>>3654011

7/10

I will imagine you to be a wolf to my sheep and you are in heat - you could've been a sheep though, you could've been a sheep.

>>3654019

8/10

I need to sound out my stressed syllables better and fuck Ezra's dead ass for something more than imagism for everyone's narrative. The Pound had another ism - it started with a V and I'm ignorant of it.

>> No.3654094
File: 1.54 MB, 256x192, 1538hgl.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3654094

>>3653955
if you use a colon you don't use "and"

should read

>report back to me: tell me the difference...

but that's the least of your worries i presume

>> No.3654114

>>3654085
>I'm not saying the book was bad. I'm just saying she's a mediocre writer in general,
But she's not. Her articles don't have the room for her to play, but her books (not meat market, that was her dissertation) are phenomenally well written. You have to remember that it's a type of neo-journalism -- an almost evolved form of gonzo-- and not fiction; but her prose style, perfect command of language, use of metaphors, grammatical devices for imagery, and her visceral style is superb. Each chapter has the prose meticulously tailored to reflect the content, so she meanders between a curt snarling, to an almost floral poetic style. You might hate her content, but she is by no means a 'mediocre writer'.

>and that even if she were good, she still wouldn't be the best author alive right now.
It depends on how you frame an argument for 'good'. She's certainly one of the best young non-fiction writers at the moment.

>> No.3654132

>>3654094
>if you use a colon you don't use "and"
Unless you are every author ever.

"I didn't know where I was going, but I knew what I needed. I needed a new land, a new race, a new language; and, although I couldn't have put it into words then, I needed a new mystery. "

"I acquired expensive habits and affected manners. I got a third-class degree and a first-class illusion that I was a poet. But nothing could have been less poetic than my pseudo-aristocratic, seeing through all boredom with life in general and with making a living in particular. I was too green to know that all cynicism masks a failure to cope — an impotence, in short; and that to despise all effort is the greatest effort of all. But I did absorb a small dose of one permanently useful thing, Oxford's greatest gift to civilized life: Socratic honesty."

"She nodded. I reached out and caught her hand, and made her sit beside me. We sat in silence, in the silent house, as if there were ghosts that could be listened to and heard. I kept on thinking of the bare skin under the shirt; of her body; and then of how much more than bare skin and body she was."

"I had long before made the discovery that I lacked the parents and ancestors I needed. My father was, through being the right age at the right time rather than through any great professional talent, a brigadier; and my mother was the very model of a would-be major general's wife... Like all men not really up to their jobs, he was a stickler for externals and petty quotidian things; and in lieu of an intellect he had accumulated an armory of capitalized key words like Discipline and Tradition and Responsibility. If I ever dared — I seldom did — to argue with him he would produce one of these totem words and cosh me with it, as no doubt in similar circumstances he coshed his subalterns."

>> No.3654134

>>3654094

and and and and and and and.

Here: and I shit.

Here, and I fuck.

Here; and I shit again.

Wherever 'here' was, it was probably the Universe. The Universe was in the text.

The Universe is the text because I didn't specify where 'here' was, so I will be free to use any fucking punctuation of my choosing.

Or that didn't work so:

If asking to report back to me.

The writer expected the other wouldn't, so it would divide what the homo was presenting and what was being presented by giving out the 'and' after the colon.

E.G.

Please do the dishes for me: and shut the fuck up while you do them.

The presenter doesn't expect it to happen. You will do the dishes, but you won't - so stfu and do them.

Please do the dishes for me: shut the fuck up while you do them.

there lies the idiotic 'and', and not trying to cover up a mistake rather badly.

>> No.3654137

>>3654132
>>3654094
My bad. I though you said semicolon.

>> No.3654162

>>3654132

Those are semi-colons. The colon is presenting thingies of interests.

I attempt to have my semi-colons flow; and have a bit of a go of saying the same thing twice in my building of a court.

If you present thingies in a sentence with the use of a colon: you're expected to do so without having a conjunction.

If I presented this like this: but that presentation wouldn't make sense if I added the but following the colon.

It wouldn't make sense because I'm presenting something, but I'm removing it by separating the separation. It's redundantly redundant in 'all' cases.

>> No.3654191

I have to go with the answer you'd most expect from /lit/:

Pynchon.

>> No.3654198

Thomas Pynchon end

>> No.3654202

>>3654198
My honorable mentions are Gene Wolfe and William Gibson

>> No.3654286

Krasznahorkai, Gass, Pynchon, Can Xue?