[ 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: 181 KB, 1078x1228, life.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7334119 No.7334119 [Reply] [Original]

Some time ago there was a youtube thread and /lit/ recommended this guy,

now I see he uploaded a (very positive, so far) review of
>Submission - Michel Houellebecq
and he references a recent (positive) review by Knausgaard of the book.
(Who himself references À rebours by Huysmans.)

So I thought I make a thread and dump those links here and watch/read on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IBT9FkruS0

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/08/books/review/michel-houellebecqs-submission.html?_r=0

/lit/ seems less favorable of him, if I recall. Is it because they disregard the opinions expressed, or somehow because of the writing?

>> No.7334121

>>7334119
sick viral marketing, saged

>> No.7334131

>>7334121
Because so many people are on /lit/?
I've never watched a video by the guy and after reading the Knausgaard review am at minute 7 in the clip now.

>> No.7334155

This guy is a piece of shit who cares more about his image than any real discussion. Might as well just skim the book's Wikipedia page because he sure doesn't have any insight

He pretty much just makes film reviews now anyway, in other words, he admits he's a hack

>> No.7334157

Is this guy our Anthony Fantano or w/e yet?

>> No.7334160

>>7334155
Cool, he should probably post here

>> No.7334166

Better Than Food, pls go.

>> No.7334167

he is pretty lame but the only BookTubah out there really grindin in these lit streets

>> No.7334172

>>7334155
The youtuber of Knausgaard?
Since I don't see film reviews on the youtube channel and since Knausgaard speaks of van Trier, I'm inclined to think you mean the latter?

>> No.7334173

youtube is fuckin retarded

>> No.7334175

>>7334172
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSMZGwceqd20_w4cOrEQ1Ag/

>> No.7334457

This guy has pretty good taste but goddamn his "reviews" are superficial. He basically does a summary and throws out a couple of adjectives instead of actually doing any real analysis.

>> No.7334467

>>7334119
He actually just reads reviews then proceeds to expropriate those reviews as his own.

>> No.7334470

>>7334119
Say that girl was attracted to you. What do you think it would be like to spend an evening with her?

>> No.7334475

>>7334470
Looks like a typical lighty with a flattering filter on. Those girls are ten a penny in London.

>> No.7334486

>>7334119
gigantic douchebag. What is that shit he is reading out in the beginning?

>> No.7334513

This dude obviously does this shit for fun and he is one of the least offensive out of all those YouTube review channels. You guys get heated like teenage try hards.

>> No.7334517

>>7334513
It's just dull. What's the point in watching this bullshit?

>> No.7334524

>>7334517

I never said you have to watch it, but it is just try hard and goofy to rage about a channel this inoffensive.

>> No.7334534

>>7334119

Lit is fine with hollaback in general, they just don't suck his ugly troll dick like some people do.

Hollaback is amazing insofar that he might be one of the most authentic writers to come along in a very long time. That being said he is always authentic about the same kind of bitter things.

This book submission looks promising though.

>> No.7334536

>>7334524
Who's raging? I'd describe the tone of this thread as indifference.