/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4925344]

New Dresden Files book is out in 4 days.

Who is pumped?

[Anonymous No.4925356]

Nobody on /lit/ because the author is still alive and the work is fiction.

You can like fiction, but the author has to have been dead for at least 20 years, otherwise you are liking 'genre fiction' and have shit tastes according to /lit/.

Then again you have shit tastes according to /lit/ anyway no matter what you like.

It is worse than /v/.

[Anonymous No.4925374]

>>4925356
/lit/ doesn't like these books because they're terrible in all respects, stop pretending and put some cream on your buttsore.

[Anonymous No.4925385]

had this thread yesterday

these books are trash

/thread

[Anonymous No.4925389]

doctor who is for faggots

[Anonymous No.4925624]

>>4925374

Yo mama is terrible in all aspects.

>>4925385

Yo mama is trash.

[Anonymous No.4925766]

>>4925356
What about Bolaño? Huh?
Or how about Pynchon?
Delillo?
Saunders?
Calvino?
Wallace?
Vonnegut?
Roth?
Grass?

Yfw there are tons Of good authors not classified as genre fiction that haven't been dead for twenty years.

[Anonymous No.4925826]

>>4919790

[Anonymous No.4926546]

>>4925356
>>4925374
>>4925385
>all this >>>/new/
Every year there is a Dresden Files thread that stays up for days where some get hyped and some spoil shit for others.

Please take your wine sipping asses back to where you came from.

[Anonymous No.4926559]

>>4925356
>the author is still alive
o rly?

[Anonymous No.4926619]

>>4925356
>>4925766
Umberto Eco
David Mitchell
Marquez
Knausgaard
Mccarthy

[Anonymous No.4926637]

>>4925356
>It is worse than /v/.
Don't be silly.

[Anonymous No.4926641]

>>4925766
calvino died in the eighties

[Anonymous No.4926803]

>>4925766
Vonnegut's dead, Anon.

I'm sorry.

He turned off his own life support machine for one last cigar and flipped off the poor with his last ounce of energy.

[Anonymous No.4926814]

>>4925344
you suck

[Anonymous No.4926825]

>>4925356
Objectively bad writing.
Fedoracore.
Treats women like the only women he has ever spoken to, he also fucked. I strongly suspect he has only spoken to and fucked one woman. whom he also married.
'Good bad flaws,' ie all the main characters faults are 'complicated' and 'edgy'.
Mary Stu main character.
Main character is constantly describing his own chiseled jawline and billowing duster and dashing fedora.
Uses fantasy universe to pull constant deus ex machina moments as author cannot write himself out of corners he writes himself into.
Has JK Rowling Syndrome, in which a new element is introduced at the start of each book, then treats it like a shocking twist when said new element shows up at the end in a trite ass-pull.
One dimensional supporting characters. Main character is one dimensional save for moments of 'inner anguish' that are entirely artificial and meretricious.
Plots used to be told in adequate short stories. Butcher stretches them out to agonising book length.
Has not improved writing style or prose in what is it, fifty books now?
Poss. cash in w/ghost writers, I cannot accept that someone would not get better at something they've been doing for this long.

[Anonymous No.4928251]

>>4926825
So you haven't read them have you?

[Anonymous No.4928325]

>>4928251
Not that other guy,
but >>4926825 summarizes the first two books well. I stopped reading after that.

[Anonymous No.4928339]

>>4926637
I was there when this happened, and caused quite an uproar (understandably), until you really think about it.

He was talking about using the word "fun" as a descriptor for a game's quality being incredibly vague and pointless. Saying that something is good because it's fun is no different from saying "I like thing because i like it." It doesn't tell you WHY it's fun, or what qualities about it make it fun.

If someone told you "oh man, The Stranger is really good!" and you asked "why?" and they responded by saying that "It was a fun read!" what would say you learned about that book? Nothing. He's not saying that you can't use "fun" to describe why YOU like something, but you certainly cant use it to describe why it is a work of quality.

[Anonymous No.4928366]

>>4928339
What about Terry Pratchett or something like that? You could describe some books as "fun" because they're only intended as entertainment. Other books are something else, I don't know what exactly, food for thought? I'm sure some games meet or at least approach that same criteria but it's not the primary value by which they're measured.

[Anonymous No.4928434]

>>4928366
To that I will say this: someone, somewhere, on this lovely planet, is currently swashing around in a septic tank and is deriving immense joy out of it. And that's fine. But if he told you that you should do it because it's fun, analyze how you would feel. And it is in that analysis that you will understand why "fun" is not a descriptor of why something is good.

[Anonymous No.4928438]

>>4928434
I can look at the guy in the septic tank and see that he's having fun, but know that it's not something I want to do myself, much like reading the Dresden Files. I do see your point but all you're saying is that language is relative. Which is true, but a useless observation.

[Anonymous No.4930080]

>>4928251
Yes, every single one.

I don't think you can adequately criticise something without having been properly exposed to it. It might be cynical, just to experience something so you can be angry at it, but that's what I dedicate a good chunk of my life to.

[Anonymous No.4930122]

>>4928325

To be fair, the first 3 books are much worse than the rest of the series - kinda like Discworld. He really only hits his stride on the 4th book, and stays pretty solid from there other than the occasional flop.

I won't claim they're amazing or that they have any real literary merit, but they're solidly entertaining fiction if you can get over yourself enough to just groan and move on past the various flaws.

[Anonymous No.4930173]

>OP pic is a man riding a dinosaur

you neckbies never cease to amaze