[ 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: 206 KB, 1179x1681, 3AD08241-0285-44ED-BDA4-675A66326B23.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17791568 No.17791568 [Reply] [Original]

So why does it make you seethe again? I believe most of you would thoroughly enjoy this book. If you like character studies, or books that autistically detail a character's life you will love this book. If you like novels with fun and unique styles you will look this book. If you like stream-of-consciousness you will like this book. If you want to read a great examination of life in the information age you will like this book.
I would compare it to Vikram Seth's A Suitable Boy in terms of scope and detail about the characters and Molly's stream-of-consciousness in terms of style.
Does the phrase "the fact that" really trigger /lit/ this much. Most of you will enjoy this novel. You're just dogmatically opposed to it because you pretending to be a staunch misogynist is 4chan culture.

I'm fairly certain I'm one of three anons who have read this book in its entirety. All three of us like it. Read it /lit/ and stop seething!

>> No.17791574

>"liking" a book
go away anglo

>> No.17791576

I didn’t read any of your post

Is this book good?

>> No.17791589

>>17791574
Critically there's lots to analyze as well. Such as how certain phrases meaning becomes revealed through the narrative structure. Analyzing diction. Analyzing the the use of the fact that. Analyzing the story of the lioness and her cubs. Analyzing its critique of modern life. Analyzing its focus on modern climate (it is an eco-novel just as The Lost Scrapbook is). Analyzing wordplay. There's a lot going on critically in the novel as well you stupid faggot.

>> No.17792520

>>17791568
The confilct over the merit of this book makes me question why I read. I like to think I read because I enjoy it but Ive read several boring classics because I think I need to read them. I feel like a steppenwolf, with a schlocky plot driven book hunger and then a need to feel like I know everything about the western canon.

This book may be engrossing to read but I may feel like im "wasting my time" reading it, it may be so engrossing that I dont think that but I wont be sure if its due to any inherant quality or if its just quick paced.I guess I want books that make me feel things or help me know more, in that case theres definatley swathes of books I can cut out but surely theres a reason pride and prejudice is on the top 100 (thought it was OK but to me was blown out the water in terms of creating a feeling by Grapes of Wrath which I read afterwards)

So on this book, I may get to experience the stream of experiences and chaotic nature of living in another humans mind but im not sure if it will make me feel anything or teach me something

Sorry for the blog post lol

>> No.17792566

Tell me something good about the aesthetic of the work or why the character is fascinating and worth knowing, tell me about the philosophical depth of the work, specifically naming the concepts and ideas it explores and tell me what particular emotions it induced in you while reading it.

I’m not asking in a rhetorical fashion, give a convincing reason to read it and answer the above questions.

>> No.17792914

>>17792566
>Tell me something good about the aesthetic of the work or why the character is fascinating and worth knowing
You're dropped into the middle of a character's mind. There's no explaining anything because the character thinks the thoughts and knows exactly what they mean by them. Thoughts come and go and you have to make sense of them from previous thoughts. Some seem unimportant at first, but the more you read and the more you learn the more past passages and snippets make sense. An example of this is all of a sudden the narrator starts saying "Jesus saved me". The first time you read it there's no way to make sense of it. She thinks this thought after thinking about her childhood. Maybe it is referencing her baptism? or her time in church as a child. As you read on for a few pages, the thought keeps intermittently popping up. "Jesus saved me". She says that her daughter is now getting annoyed by her saying "Jesus saved me". So now we learn the narrator is also saying this word out loud, to her family. Is she preaching to them? Telling them about her past? Why is her daughter annoyed by her mother saying "Jesus saved me". Then through another thought we finally learn "Jesus" is the man who helped her change the flat tire on her car when it broke down in a blizzard. A man named Jesus literally saved her. She thinks this thought and says it out loud repeatedly because it's funny that she was saved by a man named Jesus. Understandably her teenaged daughter finds this Mom joke uncool and annoying.
The whole book is like that, but that's one of the more obvious incidences. A harder to solve is the importance of "ducks, newburyport" or some of the many other seemingly strange thoughts that pop up.

The book is unforgiving like this on the reader. It reminds of a critique someone once posted about Faulkner on here
>Faulkner writes autistically because he references things, objects, and people, and he assumes the reader understands who or what he is referencing even though he never specified "he" or "that" in a previous sentence
This along with what I said about Ducks, Newburyport illustratea Faulkner's mastery of stream-of-consciousness. You get the character'a thoughts, so the character understands these designations. They are the character's thoughts. Why should they explain them to themselves? They see it and they know what they mean.

>> No.17792925

>>17791568
Somebody posted pictures of several pages and it's literally unreadable gibberish.

>> No.17792927

>>17791568
>Does the phrase "the fact that" really trigger /lit/ this much.
It 100% unironically does
I will continue to shitpost in every one of these threads, that is how much it triggers me. You are not allowed to write an entire book of this memery and not be insulted. It's simply unethical to let this slide

>> No.17792929

>>17792925
It's readable. It's just not pleasant to do so.

>> No.17792940

>>17792914
That’s the style but what’s the aesthetic beauty, what’s the philosophical depth, why’s the character an interesting character to examine? Like I get what you’re saying but if the character is uninteresting and the story is just their mundane everyday life and doesn’t explore any philosophical themes and doesn’t really induce any emotion in you or the like, why should I be interested? What’s the actual depth beyond the writing style?

>> No.17792942

>>17792925
See >>17792914
Why should someone be explaining their own thoughts to themselves as if someone was reading their mind? Why should someone present their own thoughts in a conventional storybook manner?

>> No.17792948

>>17792940
Read it and find out. The depth is experiencing another human's life. If you can't find emotional depth or beauty in that then kill yourself. Seriously.

>> No.17792954

>>17792942
Again, though, why am I interested in this character? Why is this an interesting character for me to examine and learn about? What’s the aesthetic appeal, what’s the beauty, what’s the emotional impactful aspects of the book? What philosophical themes if any does it explore? Like what is of value beyond the writing style, why should I care about getting to know the mind of this character, what’s the actual good aspects?

>> No.17792957

>>17792954
Again though, why don't you find beauty in another human's life? Are you that soulless?

>> No.17792977

the 21st century Ulysses.

>> No.17792990

>>17792948
But anon you’re shilling the book, tell me why it’s worth reading and shilling, and if you think this is the only book that gives you an introduction to a humans internal life, well why don’t you try reading some more then anon? Why should I read this and not goethe, why should I read this and not nabokov or Joyce or Faulkner or Shakespeare ? Any good book should have the capacity to make you experience another human life, tell me why this is an interesting and worthwhile read compared to any of the other books I could possibly read.

>> No.17793005

>>17792957
Yes anon, if you cannot tell me anything of worth or genuine beauty beyond the writing style then I am too soulless for you and require a superior work than yours. Again do you think this is the only work that gives access to the internal world of a character? Again, why read this when I can read wilhelm meister or tristam shandy or a-rebours or the like? If you really can’t tell me what you liked about the book in any concrete way or what you enjoyed about this life and character I am forced to believe the work is too hollow, that it doesn’t have the fire of quality enough for someone as soulless as myself. So once more, tell me what you actually enjoyed about the book which I couldn’t get in another book?

>> No.17793027

>>17792990
>>17793005
Once again a trip proving himself a faggot.
>heh I won't read the book because you have to analyticslly prove to me it's better than any book I've read
Fuck off. Also needing "philosophical" underpinnings for a novel? Stick to philosophu shit brain. If you want to read a book about life in the information age, then read this book. If you want yo read a book about the ecological spiral our world is heading into read this book. If you want to...wait I already said all this in the OP. Why are you asking these questions again? Oh right! You think by asking your lame ass "muh philosophy" bullshit that you're raising the discourse on this board. If a novel needs a "philosophical" system to interest you then it's a shitty novel. You should stick nonfiction.

>> No.17793101

>>17793027
If you’re going to shill, people are going to ask why, I do not apologize for asking why you actually liked the work, if you consider that overly analytical there is nothing I can tell you.


>Fuck off. Also needing "philosophical" underpinnings for a novel?

I agree with goethe that Art can appeal either to the lowest sensibilities and appeal to us on a Raw vain level, in which it’s like a flash of force, emotion or empty beauty. Like a lot of decadent orientalism for example, or Art can appeal to us on an emotional level or Art can appeal to us on an intellectual level, the philosophical depth of literature and art in general is not a treatise but rather the core of what it means to be a person reflected in another person, thus high Art as literature as the capacity to cause internal contemplation and self change in the reader. I asked for any of these three and you aren’t able to answer one. I didn’t say any of these were necessary, I asked for any of these and you failed to provide a reason.

>If you want to read a book about life in the information age,

But elaborate on this point, what feelings did you feel, what big points did it raise, what was aesthetically appealing, why do you consider this inherently an enjoyable experience. The setting and period don’t mean anything if they aren’t used well, so tell me if it’s used well and explain how if you’re going to shill.

>If you want yo read a book about the ecological spiral our world is heading into read this book.

How is this explored? How did you feel about it when you read it, did it change your opinion or drum up any emotions in you when you read about these, what was particularly aesthetically appealing with how it presented this?

>Oh right! You think by asking your lame ass "muh philosophy" bullshit that you're raising the discourse on this board. If a novel needs a "philosophical" system to interest you then it's a shitty novel. You should stick nonfiction.


Intellectual content/philosophical depth isn’t the same as a philosophical system, you honestly just sound upset, that only implies to me that the work was intellectually light, it didn’t really do much for you because you can’t really say what it did in terms of making you reflect on the characters or the view of the world presented, and you certainly haven’t been able to tell me why it’s a pretty experience or emotionally worthwhile. All you’ve been able to show is you are easily offended and cannot explain why you like what you like.

>> No.17793138

>ducksposter being btfo'd by Frater's autism
based frater

>> No.17793224

>>17793101
Didn't read. You're a fag.

>> No.17793236

>>17793101
>heh you can't write an essay after reading a book, it must not be worth it
Wow being an intellectually dishonest asshole by using rhetoric still makes you intellectually dishonest asshole.

>> No.17793244

>>17793236
>shill book
>asked to defend the book
>wow what an asshole

>> No.17793280

>>17793244
I did defend. He just got started his period for some odd reason because I wouldn't write him a critical analysis. I told him why it was a good read. He can get over himself.

The dude is vain. He uses a trip and thinks his time is so valuable he needs an exegesis to tell him if he should read a book. The dude is larping as an intellectual but he's shallower in depth and thought than he is trying to make me out to be. I said the book is good. I said why I enjoyed it, and for some reason he can't accept that as a recommendation. Fuck Frater Semen. He's a douche and a pseud.

>> No.17793349

>>17792520
I tend to feel a bit like that, then I remember what I felt when I read Sentimental Education or Iphigenia in Aulis and, as gay as it sounds, there in my chest a warm feeling appears.
You're not going to like all the classics but unless your know your own taste very well they're generally your best bet.
Also many underrated little gem in Western literature (and literature in general). I just finished Raymond Roussel's Impressions d'Afrique, it's very puzzling and experimental while being enjoyable and cozy, and clearly written to boot.

>> No.17793374

>>17793224
You need not read it if you do not desire to.

>>17793236
What is intellectually dishonest about what I’ve said, I asked what was good about it from the beginning and have given various metrics which you could have used.

>>17793280
>I did defend. He just got started his period for some odd reason because I wouldn't write him a critical analysis.

I expect a person who liked something to know why they liked it, I am sorry if this is too much to ask for.

>I told him why it was a good read. He can get over himself.


And again, you never gave anything concrete which would give me a reason to.

>The dude is vain.

Me being Vain or not is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

>He uses a trip and thinks his time is so valuable

everyone views their own time as valuable and everyone should maximize their enjoyment of it.

>he needs an exegesis to tell him if he should read a book.

If I spoke to you in real life and you came up to me saying “you need to read this it’s great” I would, in this same fashion, ask you what’s good about it. Whether if it’s just the imagery, the emotions or sentimentality or how it made you think. If you shilled something like nabokov you could tell me “oh well it makes you see through the eyes of a very intelligent but deprived mind and is a kind of puzzle” and then that would be an interesting discussion or if you told me about A-rebours “it gives you the internal life of an aristocrat and is filled with his vanity to the point you learn to appreciate his vanity.” And that would be more than enough. All you’ve told me is that it shows me the internal world of a character in a contemporary setting, that’s not exactly appealing.

>The dude is larping as an intellectual

I’ve never claimed to be an intellectual or anything, I asked why you enjoyed the work.

>but he's shallower in depth and thought than he is trying to make me out to be.

In which regard? What am I pretending to ? What thought am I pretending at or playing at? And if I was supremely shallow that’s even more reason for why I would need a enjoyable reason to read this book which should be first and foremost for the readers pleasure.

>I said the book is good. I said why I enjoyed it,

No you didn’t, you gave some vague statements that could be applied to any novel “it shows you the world through the eyes of the character “ t. Every single shill review of every novel. If you just like the book because of the writing style, fine, I get that, just say that’s the appeal and nothing else.

>and for some reason he can't accept that as a recommendation. Fuck Frater Semen. He's a douche and a pseud.

Eh, you need to relax, you’re on 4chan. Do you really get so easily offended by people on the internet having different opinions? It’s a waste of emotional energy.

>> No.17793425

As I said last time you made this thread, I've seen no evidence that this book is something other than an experiment in poor style more concerned with meaning than beauty (when the best access to the former is through the latter), and your angry, defensive attitude doesn't help.

>> No.17793444

>>17793425
The fact I wasn’t even in the last thread and the same complaints came up just shows this work has an obvious flaw.

>> No.17795095

Alright, quote me a paragraph from it.

I tried Finnegans Wake after reading anna livia plurabelle so who knows.

>> No.17795363

>>17791568
Its still too new to evaluate properly but I suspect in 20 years it'll seem like a period piece.
Is it packed with puns and wordplay like Joyce? Because thats what makes him classic, not the s-o-c

>> No.17795385

>>17792948
>The depth is experiencing another human's life.
But I'm not doing that.

>> No.17795455

>>17793444
>same shitposts come up from same shitposter
>ah yes this work is truly not worth reading
Love that intellectual dishonesty.

>> No.17795462

>>17793374
>I expect a person who liked something to know why they liked it, I am sorry if this is too much to ask for.
Look Semen Guzzler. I told you why I liked it, and you're being intellectually dishonest claiming I never did anything of the kind. You're a fag and a loser. Fuck off. Kill yourself. You're such a fucking shitty poster.

>> No.17795473

>>17791568
It doesn't.

>> No.17795492

>>17793444
P.S.
I've filtered you because from this thread alone I've seen you post nothing worth reading nor anything intellectually stimulating. Your write long-winded paragraphs in an academic tone to give yourself a thin veneer of intellect. But underneath all this is nothinf worth engaging with. Everything you have typed in this thread was empty and intellectually dishonest. You've simply refused the clear answes that were given and wrote verbose paragraphs about how someone should write a critical analysis if they're going to recommend a book. You're a fag and a shit. Bye bye nerd.

>> No.17795501
File: 1.91 MB, 320x240, 1589462650883.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17795501

>Lucy

>> No.17795711

>>17793425
Seems like you're Frat Boy Semen Guzzler postinf without his trip. If you can't see the beauty in understanding and experiencing a human's mind, then you should kill yourself and at the very least stop reading literature.
If you don't see how there could be beauty in contrasting a the sparse naturalistic journey of a mountain lioness to raise her cubs and then find them when they become lost to the hectic life of a housewife trying to raise and protect her kids in the modern internet informatiom age, then like Frat Boy Semen Guzzler you need to kill yourself and stop posting on /lit/.
If you don't understand how modern times and modern life in America could drive someone insane (looming ecological disaster, current ecological disaster, poisoned water supplies, deforestation, climate change, depleting natural resources, polarized identity politics, school shootings, internet and media isolation) then again kill yourself because you're probably soulless like Frat Boy Semen Guzzler.
The book does a good job of capturing the feeling of living in modern times. Surfeit of information from media. Click-bait newsheadlines, news stories, YouTube videos, experiencing and relating to life through movies. The overall overload of information we're given thanks to the internet. The book is able to capture it all and the experience of trying to make sense of the world with all this information overload.
Here's one more for you Frat Boy Semen Guzzler. The crowning achievement of the book is its style, which I already posted about and you immediately dismissed along the line of "NO NO NO YOU CANT JUST USE STYLE AS AESTHETICS THAT'S NOT TRUE ACCORDING TO MY SEMANTICS STYLE ISNT AESTHETIC AND ALSO YOU CANT READ A BOOK FOR STYLE AND STYLE CANT ANSWER QUESTIONS OF WHY I SHOULD CARE ABOUT A CHARACTER OR A BOOK OR MAKE ME WANT TO READ IT." Yes Semen Guzzler, the style is the main reason you should read this book. Because it is through the fragmented style that a poweful narrative is told. You learn about how the narrator the grew up and her own struggles in growing up and raising a family (mother getting cancer and dying when the narrator was a young teenager; narrator getting cancer just like mother; narrator's cancer causing her to miss the formative years of one of her children; worrying about how her relationship with her mother is affecting her relationship with her children; worrying how her children see her and if she is really a good mother; the anxiety of being a mother raising children in this cold modern world which doesn't seem to have a future). Again Semen Guzzler, if you can't see the beauty in discovering the inner workings of a human mind, and learning about their life experience K I L L Y O U R S E L F. There is nothing for you in literature then.

>> No.17795719

>>17795711
No doubt the Semen Guzzling Frat Boy will write a long-winded verbose peroration where he nitpicks everyline of this post in an attempt to defend his character. Most likely he won't address any of the points made for the merit of this book or why it should be read. Most likely he will quickly dismiss this response as "not answering" his questions and play academic semantics to justify his thoughts. You are not intelligent Semen Guzzler. You are not a gatekeeper of discussion quality. Your posts do no raise the quality of discussion. You are a shitposter. You merely affect an academic tone to give yourself credibility. It fools most of the simpletons on this board but it doesn't fool me. Every single one of your faux-intelligent posts has been you being bullheadedly opposed to reading this book. Anytime I've answered your question you've immediately dismissed it as not being good enough when it answers your question. You play at "close reading" people's posts and your analyses are empty. Your entire posting strategy has been to play pretend as an academic and keep saying "no not good enough". You are a shitposter. Coating your shit in an academic tone doesn't change the fact that the whole time you've been shitposting.
Fuck you Frat Boy Semen Guzzler.

>> No.17795724

>>17791568
It doesn’t.

>> No.17795875

OP is seething

>> No.17795905

>>17795462
>>17795492
>>17795711
>>17795719
Why are you mad?

>> No.17795912

>>17795875
So is Semen Guzzler. He has spent the whole thread "analyzing" himself and why he won't accept any responses which recommend this book and outline its merits. He's a shitposter who clouds his shitposts in an academic tone. The whole time Semen Guzzler has been posting "heh, write me a critical analysis setting forth why this book should dethrone other stream-of-consciousness writers like Joyce or Faulkner or Woolf. Oh btw you have 5 seconds to do it and no matter what you post I won't read it or think about it in any intelligent fashion and just play semantics to say to you didn't answer the question well enough." He's a shitposter. Fuck him. If he wants to be intellectually dishonest and not be genuine about asking someone why they recommend a book, then he can fuck off.

>> No.17795932

>>17792914
>Then through another thought we finally learn "Jesus" is the man who helped her change the flat tire on her car when it broke down in a blizzard
This is so fucking hack it's not even funny.

>> No.17795937

>>17795912
I’m not seething anon, look how many posts you’ve posted crying about how I’ve ruined your thread by asking you simple questions about why you enjoyed it. It’s clear you are angry and you are particularly angry because you can’t defend the work you like. “Oh no, a shitposter? On my 4chan?” Is this really something worth your emotions? You’re embarrassing yourself. Fact is you can’t explain why you like what you like so you’re reduced to this.

>> No.17796290

>>17795937
Why does anyone need to explain what they like? OP should just admit they have no concrete reasons, and stop making these threads. You can appreciate something privately, without explanation.

>> No.17796332

>>17796290
I did have concrete reasons. I have listed them multiple times. Frat Boy Semen Guzzler, despite using an academic tone, doesn't understand the nuance between a recommendation and a critical analysis. Not surprising since he is a shitposter. Semen Guzzler has also decided to play "academic semantics" and say all my reasons aren't reasons to read a novel.

>> No.17796340

>>17796332
Why do you feel the need to present your reasons on the internet? What did you think you stood to gain?

>> No.17796595

BASED Frater BTFOs duckstranny

>> No.17796626

>>17791568
I only haven't read it because some anon posted the extract with the lions and it was total shite. I understand that it's not representative, but it was also not good.

>> No.17796645

wish someone would nick the idea and write something that isn't total shite. what are some other books that use the gimmick?

>> No.17796658

>>17793224
>Didn't read
I mean, you're on /lit/.

>> No.17796732

>>17795492
embarrassing

>> No.17796964

>>17796340
I don't feel the need. I was recommending this book to /lit/, and I'm recommending it because I know a lot of people on /lit/ would enjoy it. But they are too bullheaded about it (see Semen Guzzler) because it is a recent publication, written by a woman, etc.
It was Semen Guzzler who wanted concrete reasons to read the book. Ask Semen Guzzler why he needs a critical analysis to convince him to read a book instead of a review/recommendation.

>> No.17796974

>>17796595
>>17796732
Frater BTFO'd himself. He hasn't contributed one ounce of intelligent thought to this thread and instead has spent the whole thread playing semantics and pretending to be academic in his observations.

>> No.17797003

Ugly style and no substance

>> No.17797066

>>17791568
I appreciate your shilling and might read the book.

>> No.17797110

>>17791568
If OP had just casuallt suggested readinh the book here and there, some people would have read it, now most of us wont out of sheer spite.

>> No.17797133

>>17795719
Dam if this is the kind of people that read this book.......

>> No.17797164

>>17795719
Seethe harder, roastie.

>> No.17797980

Bumping just to see op seethe more

>> No.17799344

OP BTFO

>> No.17799607

>>17791568
The fact that it's hundreds of pages of wikipedia fact spouting drivel really drives home the fact that women can't write