[ 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: 68 KB, 310x400, 1399746004464.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4951303 No.4951303[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

I've been reading a lot more recently and I've just checked /lit/'s essentials list of reading material for some recommendations. But I was wondering, is there any books and authors I should stay clear of? Obviously stuff like Fifty Shades Of Grey and whatnot, but I was wondering if there were awful books by good authors I should skip past, or generally accepted crappy authors?

>> No.4951380

>>4951303
I'd personally not want to touch House Of Leaves again. People treat it like it's some hugely experimental piece when in fact it's existentialism for babies with somewhat interesting graphology.

>> No.4951399

I personally think Kurt Vonnegut is a huge gimmicky, reddit-tier faggot and people should just skip over him right into Delillo or Pynchon or Calvino.

>> No.4951437

Chuck Palahniuk is a pretty enjoyable author but I felt Snuff was just shock value for shock value's sake and Haunted was an inconsistent collection of short stories weakly tied together. Haunted is still enjoyable as some of the short stories are pretty good, but the weaker ones outweigh them.

>> No.4951447

skip shakespeare

>> No.4951454

Stephanie Meyer

>> No.4951464
File: 20 KB, 278x323, 1401386980864.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4951464

>>4951454
Well d'uuhhh

>> No.4951473

>>4951399
I don't want to agree, but have to. Vonnegut offers very little of substance. One could skip his entire oeuvre and miss nothing.

Most of his books are short, at least.

>> No.4951476

>>4951380
> not liking House Of Leaves.

I understand that some might find it pretentious, but didn't you at least enjoy unravelling a mystery? I guess I'm just a sucker for mystery and thrillers, but for me, House Of Leaves was hugely compelling.

>> No.4951486

>>4951476
>I guess I'm just a sucker for mystery and thrillers,

No, you just can't tell a good mystery from a bad one.

>> No.4951496

>>4951486
To each their own. I loved the idea of finding nonsensical scribblings on napkins and notepaper and trying to put some meaning to it.

>> No.4951507

Ignore Neil Gaiman's work entirely.

>> No.4951513

>>4951507
How can you hate whimsy?

>> No.4951521

>>4951507
No.

>> No.4951537

>>4951447
Does anyone actually casually enjoy Shakespeare? Sure, the guy was influential, but would anyone pick a Shakespeare play to read over a book that they are actually interested in? Of course not.

>> No.4951569

>>4951537
for the language alone, the sheer pleasure of the sound and rhythm of the words, Shakespeare is worthwhile

>> No.4951574

>>4951507
> an author who has shown versatility in writing a variety of genres
> ignore it all

Yeah sure thing, buddy.

>> No.4951580

>>4951537
I think it's at least worth reading something by Shakespeare outside of your time in education, anon. His tragedies are truly tragic.

>>4951569 and this guy has a good point too - that phonology of archaic language is just bliss.

>> No.4951672

>>4951507
Although I disagree with what you've said, you're within your right to say it.

>>4951380
Gotta agree with this though. It's so self-indulgent that it spends a lot of the book creating fake footnotes to give the impression that "The Navidson Report" is something genuine. I got it after the first few entries in the false bibliography, the book didn't need to shove pages and pages of this shit down my throat after a chapter.

>> No.4951683

>>4951454
He asked about authors and books, not fanfic.

>> No.4951696

>>4951537
>Does anyone actually casually enjoy Shakespeare?
I imagine that is how most people who read Shakespeare enjoy it. How often does one study Shakespeare's time, his contemporaries, and the works that some of his works are "influenced" by just to read what he wrote? The normal person reads Shakespeare for the language, and the scholar may very well do the same, but have a better appreciation for it.

>> No.4951717

>>4951437
Those are definitely his weaker books, but I felt that they were still enjoyable. Probably not books to start off with if you want to get into his work, but I wouldn't completely dismiss them if you became hooked on his works.

>> No.4951740

>>4951437
Guts was alright. Other than that, agreed.