[ 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: 43 KB, 450x684, the-martian.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6274799 No.6274799 [Reply] [Original]

ITT: Books that /lit/ tricked you into reading.

This book was absolute shit.

>> No.6274804

>This book was absolute shit.

I thought this was the opinion of 99.9% of the threads I've seen here on it?

And yeah, I agree, I read it back when the hype took off, terrible shit

>> No.6274812

yeah i agree it's not even 50 years old yet

>> No.6274821

>>6274799
It's not very well written, it comes off as more of a fan fiction written in chunks. It's very clearly the authors first book. It's written like how I imagine he imagines a book like this should be written, plus the dialogue is dreadful and the majority of secondary characters are totally 2D and weak. Having said that I found the story itself to be compelling and read it in two sittings over the course of a day.

Overall it's probably 4/10, if he had a proper editor and a bit of writing coaching it could easily have been 7/10.

>> No.6274869

Infinite jest, the first time I didn't really get it but /lit/ convinced me to read it cover to cover two more times.

I still don't get it.

>> No.6274903

>>6274799
fuking lolita. prose was great but i cant finish it for the life of me. should i continue, lit?

> wow shes so young and hot. sure am glad her mother bit it before she ratted me out. wow look at all the places we've been going! haha we fucked outside once, almost got caught!!! XDDDD

>> No.6274994

>>6274903

lmao being this goddamn pleb

>> No.6275010
File: 204 KB, 1075x1600, 1370428972377[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6275010

>> No.6275017
File: 373 KB, 1181x1912, Got cucked.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6275017

>>6274799

>> No.6275022

>>6274869
yeah man, there's nothing to get. dfw is a fucking hack and im glad he killed himself

>> No.6275097

>>6274994
He's right though.

>> No.6275105

>>6275097
>reciting plot points
>right about literature

oh

>> No.6275145
File: 47 KB, 600x326, american-psycho-patrick-bateman.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6275145

hold on now: you'd use this material if you were stranded on MARS. You're concerned about that possibility? Right?

>> No.6275150

>>6274799
>holds: 5
>available: 1

Fucking Library.

>> No.6275194

>>6275017
This is the best answer. Book is trash, literally meme book.

>> No.6275201
File: 59 KB, 401x615, Untitled.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6275201

>>6275017

Fucking this. Tao Lin is a talentless hack. Fucking /lit/, tricked again.

>> No.6275213

>>6275010
I'm serios btw

>> No.6275235

>>6274799
Well fuck I was gunna read this as my next book...

>> No.6275278

>>6275010

This book was really bad.

>> No.6275346

>>6274903
Wow, get yourself a little bit of symbolic reflexion son.

>> No.6275347

>>6274994

lmao being this insecure intellectually that you automatically defend the /lit/ cannon.

I acknowledged the prose was fantastic. but to what extent is prose enough? Mind you, I haven't finished the book, so my critique is pretty lacking in the respect that I can't evaluate the piece as a whole, but so far, if I had no prior knowledge that it was as revered as it was, I would leave it as it stands. Nabokov is an amazing writer, that alone is no question, but why is lolita considered 'the book that got me into fiction'?

>> No.6275361

>>6275347
I guess in that point your are right, especially when Nabokov have works that are way better than lolita.

>> No.6275367

looks like a fucking movie poster

i automatically avoid that shit and you should as well

>> No.6275372

>>6275361

I am definitely interested in more Nabokov. Lolita was my introduction to his works, but I just don't vibe with it as well as I would like to.

What would you say is his best?

>> No.6275380

>>6275347
>>6275361

I haven't read Lolita yet, but I'm curious what Nabokov's statement was with Lolita. Did he write it to show that you can write horrific things and have it be acclaimed as long as the prose is good? I guess I'm asking if it's sort of a critique of negative capability.

>> No.6275391

>>6275380
>A poem named Lilith (Лилит), depicting a sexually attractive underage girl who seduces the male protagonist just to leave him humiliated in public, was written by Nabokov in 1928.[46] In 1939 Nabokov wrote a novella, Volshebnik (Boлшeбник), that was published only posthumously in 1986 in English translation as The Enchanter. It bears many similarities to Lolita, but also has significant differences: It takes place in Central Europe, and the protagonist is unable to consummate his passion with his stepdaughter, leading to his suicide. The theme of hebophilia was already touched on by Nabokov in his short story "A Nursery Tale", written in 1926. Also, in the 1932 Laughter in the Dark, Margot Peters is 16 and already had an affair when middle-aged Albinus becomes attracted to her.

he just liked boning young girls

>> No.6275394

>>6275372
Hmm.. that's a hard, especially when I havent read the entire works of Nabokov, but I enjoyed both Ada and The Enchanter (which is basically a sketch of Lolita) way more than Lolita. He is also an amazing short story writer, The first short story I read of him was the wood sprite and I become dazzled.

>> No.6275400

>>6275391
Oh ok then I guess there's no way to rationalize it, thanks.

>> No.6275401

>>6275394

word I've been looking for good short fiction so I'll give his a try! currently reading kierkegaard's works, alongside tess of the d'uberville, but in the summer i take it ill have a lot more time to really kick it with some good /lit/erature

thanks, anon

>> No.6275411

>>6275380
I'm inclined to think that he express the obsession, its consequences, its different faces, and the mind and behaviour of the infatuated. But thats just an opinion.

>> No.6275426

>>6275411
This guy right here, he's got it right.

>> No.6275429

>>6275380

from my interpretation (im the anon who couldnt finish it), I think part of what potentially makes it such a great piece of literature (even if I don't like it particularly, I cant deny it's beautifully written), is that it really makes you see just how rationalizable something as taboo as 'statutory rape' can be. You can't deny in humbert's writings that there was indeed a deep sense of affection for lolita. even if it was completely overshadowed by his lust and his overt cynicism, there were moments, I found, where his affection really shone through. That's what was brilliant about it -- the fact that he could make a love story-- and a beautiful one at that-- out of such a taboo relationship. the way that you can almost agree with humbert in some scenes -- is that not a major statement? is the idea that one can empathize with someone who, if one hadn't had such a detailed look into their thought processes, would most likely condemn as a 'child molester' or something of the sort?

imo that's the brilliance of the work.

>> No.6275433

>>6275010

>implying I read the whole thing

I didn't even make it to all the violence. What a snoozer.

>> No.6275443

>>6275429
Indeed, to make of criminal infatuation into a sublime reflexion on affection and desire, though without losing the point on its taboos and alarming behaviour of Humbert it's what makes it a great piece of literature.

>> No.6277798

>>6275010
My favorite book of all time.
I'm serious

>>6275017
I'd never read that

>> No.6277886

>>6274799
I went into The Martian expecting to see how a stranded astronaut survives on an alien planet, and that was exactly what I got.
I feel like the book doesn't leave much room for disappointment. It did what it set out to do.