[ 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: 291 KB, 799x594, gw1zb4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3668010 No.3668010 [Reply] [Original]

New to /lit/, does Gene Wolfe have a decent following here? if not, I think I'll just leave because at the moment he's the only thing in the world that matters to me.

>> No.3668016

He's usually mentioned at least once a day when someone asks for examples of sci-fi/fantasy with actual good writing.

>> No.3668033

>>3668016
so nobody's looking to discuss his books in depth?

>> No.3668038

pretty often talked about.

I'm reading it.

I love it

>> No.3668039

>>3668033
I've read the books of the new sun. What do you want to discuss? Was it rape? Why is he Jesus?

>>3668016
this

>> No.3668041

I don't understand what people see in those books.

>> No.3668042

>>3668033
There probably will be at some point. /lit/ moves slow.

>> No.3668044

>>3668041
You should probably reread them until you do.

>> No.3668058

>>3668041
I finished them almost a year ago and I'm still having epiphanies about the meaning of this book
>>3668039
I think I believe in god now, and I think this book played a huge part in that. I'd like to discuss other things, but I think its best I learn how to use spoilers first

>> No.3668064 [DELETED] 

>>3668061
damn
thatshit goes here

>> No.3668071

>>3668044
More like you should reread them until you don't.

>> No.3668079

>>3668033
There are two types of people on /lit/
Those who read GRR Martin, Neil Gaiman and Gene Wolfe, and those who don't.
If 'in depth' discussion is "who's your favorite sexy female character?", "who's the most badass dragon?", "who would win in a fight between..?", "who has the coolest magic trick?", then, sure you'll get in depth discussion out of the former category.

>> No.3668086

>>3668079
I love it when some pseudo-intellectual vocal minority tries to enforce its little uppity (and completely deluded) vision of what is literature and what /lit/ should be. Many tier charts suggest that /lit/ should be a very close circle of "patricians" (concept stolen from /mu/) collectively circle-jerking about Ulysses, Finnegans Wake and Infinite Jest. In reality, no one has ever read FW, maybe three people have read Ulysses and IJ is mainly used for trolling purposes. It's also funny to watch how /lit/ used to love ASOIAF back in the days and then started hating it with all its guts because it was adapted in a "popular" (!) TV show. Those who remember the shitfest that was early /lit/ (the same shitfest that made mods create an artificial rule 3 about Ayn Rand) can't and won't ever take /lit/ seriously.

>> No.3668090

So uh, how bout them alzabos?

>> No.3668094

>>3668086
>taking blatant trolls this seriously

>> No.3668101

What do you think of the Ascian language? It really blew my mind about a lot of things.

>> No.3668110

>>3668086
>/lit/ used to love ASOIAF back in the days
I remember when 4chan was the secret exclusive hideout of basement dwelling pedo-rapist neckbeards too

>> No.3668111

>>3668101
It was interesting. I'm currently reading long sun, and I think I may find some answers there. I feel like it could represent the arguments of atheism.

Also, what was the meaning of terminus est shattering?

Oh, and I just found something out about the claw the other day: hand of benediction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulnar_claw

>> No.3668112

>>3668101
Loved it, how that guy told the story with just those canned phrases was just amazing. All those stories were great, probably my favorite part of the book.

>> No.3668118

>>3668110
So? The point isn't that ASOIAF is any good because /lit/ loved it in the past, the point is that /lit/'s opinion doesn't matter at all.

>> No.3668117

>>3668112
holy shit, that part was amazing. the story with the birds? genius.

>> No.3668124

>>3668086
Troll exposed.
http://fuuka.warosu.org/lit/?task=search&ghost=&search_text=pseudo-intellectual+vocal+minority

>> No.3668127

>>3668124
That doesn't make the copypasta any less valid

>> No.3668132
File: 89 KB, 500x353, 1365283946432.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3668132

>that quiet little mountain family wiped out within a couple days

fucking Agia

>> No.3668133

>>3668118
I don't follow the logic of your argument

But it doesn't matter. Shut up and read real books

>> No.3668135

>>3668133
What is a real book, anon?

>> No.3668144
File: 180 KB, 755x1031, neckbeard brigade.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3668144

>>3668135
That's an interesting question. This thread is now a "What is a real book?" thread.

For starters you can exclude anything written by the neckbeard brigade and their accomplices

>> No.3668149

Why does every BOTNS thread get overrun with idiots and their pleb/patrician talk?

>> No.3668150

>>3668144
Gene Wolfe doesn't have a neckbeard.
Why are books made by neckbeards not real? I can touch them though.

>> No.3668160

>>3668150
>implying neckbeard is a physical description

>> No.3668161

>>3668160
> (n) Facial hair that does not exist on the face, but instead on the neck. Almost never well groomed.

>> No.3668178

>>3668161
> (n) a bundle of sticks or twigs, esp when bound together and used as fuel

>> No.3668186
File: 31 KB, 300x414, Stick Stickley.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3668186

>>3668144

>> No.3669769
File: 77 KB, 403x512, lt.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3669769

>>3668144

>> No.3669795

>>3668178

"Don't read books by faggots" is also a pretty vague statement.

>> No.3670135

>>3668101
if you interested in that language concept check Babel 17

>> No.3670287

>>3668079
>Those who read GRR Martin, Neil Gaiman and Gene Wolfe, and those who don't.
Those three authors have nothing in common and their readership does not intersect in any way.

>> No.3670302

>>3668149
>Why does every BOTNS thread get overrun with idiots and their pleb/patrician talk?
Because the 'patricians' here don't even know who Gene Wolfe is, and immediately jump in assuming that Wolfe is some guy who writes edgy grimdark fantasy about dragons and swords. Purely from the picture on the cover. They don't even bother to check Wolfe's wikipedia page!

Lol.

>> No.3670315

>>3668178
i see what you did there, lel

>> No.3670389

>>3670302

Yeah, as if we all hadn't read James Joyce's Self-insert, mary sueish fan fiction of the Leatherstocking Tales...

wait, what thread is this anyway?

>> No.3670402

>>3668086
Hey, I've read finnegan's wake twice, ulysses a dozen times, and the book of the new sun and Peace about three times each. All good, all well-written, none as good as Boswell's Life of Johnson. Just a taste thing, really.

>> No.3670724

>>3670287
>and their readership does not intersect in any way.

Now that was a silly thing to say.

>> No.3671323

>>3669769
>he still thinks being a neckbeard means actually having a neckbeard

>> No.3671326

>>3670402
That post contains more bullshit than any other post I've seen today.
And that's saying a lot!

>> No.3671336

>>3671326
yeah right. read Boswell, really read him, then come back here and say that.

>> No.3672488

>>3670287
I have read and enjoyed (to different extents) all three of those authors

Wolfe is an autist/genius, Gaiman is the most accessible and entertaining, and GRRM is a fat fuck. Would read all of them again, though.

>> No.3672500

I lub Gene Wolfe's Soldier series

>> No.3672526

>>3672488
> readership, n.: The readers of a publication considered as a group.
Obviously there are people who read all three authors, but if you were to stereotype the fans of each author you'd have three completely different caricatures.

Wolfe: a bookish semi-autistic male who thinks Nabokov is too simplistic and Borges is not literary enough.

Gaiman: a teenage or early-twenties chick, slightly 'edgy' but doesn't really take it seriously. Says she's "into reading" but what she really means is that she likes Harry Potter and the Hunger Games.

GRRM: overweight ironically-nerdy lebbit person who says that he/she likes 'nerdy' things like fantasy novels, but in reality reads GRRM because they want to read a soap opera without the associated social stigma.

>> No.3672548

Gene Wolfe reveres Vernor Vinge. Perhaps he could matter to you, too.

>> No.3672596

>>3672526
GRRM's readership is well more broad than your description at this point, and definitely includes the demographic you've described under Gaiman, or at least the early-20s age group element of it.

>> No.3672608

>>3672526
0/10
go to bed Gene Wolfe

>> No.3672685

>>3672608
This thread is for adults. Please remove yourself to a thread more suitable for your age. (I suggest one of the perennial 'how do i into neitzshu' or 'rate my broshelf' threads.)

>> No.3672686

>>3672548
You should never trust an author's advice about other writers. They really do have a completely different perspective compared to regular-person readers.

>> No.3672692

>>3670402
It must take at least 20 hours to read through Ulysses. Are you saying that you have spent over 240 hours of your life reading one book?

>> No.3672694

>>3672692
I've spent way more reading Shakespeare and Twain. Ulysses is just one of those fun books. And really, asking somebody why they reread a book is like asking them why they eat the same food all the time. Ulysses is a big dish of shepherd's pie and a mug of beer. finnegans wake is similar, served in a shoe with dash of peyote.