/lit/ - Literature

>>1639022
This is barely related, but I met one of the men that actually took part in that mission while volunteering at a military hospital's post-surgical ward.
He was kind of a badass irl too.

The Things They Carried was pretty good.

Guests of the Ayatollah is also good. It's about the year long hostage situation at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.

>>1638939
It's mostly this.
The Fountainhead plot was actually decent. You had manipulation, love/hate sex combined with hints of rape, architecture and a decent ending. The biggest issue is that everyone on here reads because they feel like they need to gain some sort of intellectual superiority over someone by the end of every book. If the story doesn't make a valid social/political/etc point, then it's useless and shit-tier.

>>1631410
Actually, I realized after posting that the use of ironic to describe them to strangers is incorrect.
Though their behavior is the opposite of mine, and thus ironic for me to exemplify them... which you would know if you knew me. But you don't. ^.^

>in case you don't get it, my inspirations are mildly ironic

Oh, fun fact guys.
She's no longer doing porn as of 2011.
Hasn't released any, and won't be.
Goin' mainstream.

>>1609406
The name "Sasha" was taken from Sascha Konietzko of the band KMFDM, and "Grey" represents Oscar Wilde’s novel The Picture of Dorian Gray and the Kinsey scale of sexuality.
Wikipedia, like a boss.

>>1609296
lol'd.


But seriously...
all of you are raging.
It's a photography book.
Please shut the hell up.

It doesn't make her more or less intelligent, it doesn't make her more or less of a porn star, it doesn't change anything, and it certainly has little to do with /lit/ other than it being called a 'book.'
Unless the quality of lit has been reduced to picture books, in which case I say carry on.

>>1609255
Shit just got real.

Forget a shitty poem.
Do this.

>>1609269
Bill lives in a futuristic cyber-punk style world.
BAM.
Setting.

>just watched Blade Runner, sorry.

>>1609254
This made me laugh so hard.
I must read it.

Was the writing itself bad, or just the content?
Cause I can't stand a bad writer, but I can suffer through shitty content.

>>1609240
You caught me.

You need the electronic version of that work, right?
This work?
http://books.google.com/ebooks?id=2Zc3AAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r

I didn't check to see if it was complete, sorry.

>>1609208
why's that?

> Favorite novel
I'm really not sure, honestly.
My Pet Virus is my recent favorite.

> Currently reading
The Eden Express: A Memoir of Insanity

> Proudest reading achievement
I'm not really sure what would qualify... maybe reading the entirety of Anna Karenina in one night about 4 years ago? I didn't want to... but t'was required for a class.

> Description of current boyfriend:
Tall, skinny day-walker.
Obsessed with computers, music, and PC gaming.
Been together for a little over 6 months.

Antichrist was a ridiculous movie.

>>1609154
It's commonly believed that bad weather alters health.

Sorry, no awesome explanation for that one. :/

>>1603522
No. What he said was discussing a book.
Discussing a book has to do with comprehension, analysis, and in some cases, what events caused what.
A lot of "god-tier" books are meant to cause some sort of a reaction. People write things to get a reaction. They don't just write so litfags can talk about how well they "know" the book.

Sometimes though, first impressions of a book are the best impressions.
With the second read, especially if it's within close proximity, you skim a bit more.
On the other hand, you might try to read into things that aren't meant to be read into.

With the first impression, and analysis of the novel AS you read everything for the first time, you get a much better idea of what you're drawing from the book. (Using the you as an all-encompassing pronoun.) I'll take a scene from the Great Gatsby as an example, purely because of it's popularity. When you read the Great Gatsby the first time, you are shocked by Myrtle's death, and that's what you're supposed to feel. Therefore, you're experiencing and understanding the novel as it was intended. The second time you read it, all you're doing is analysing the "symbolism" which in my honest opinion, is pretty subjective in the first place... unless of course the book comes with an index, written by the author, clearly outlining all symbolism within the novel.


And using a completely different defense, not everyone has to read a book more than once to understand it.

>>1587658
500 Days of Summer. :D

Anyway, as for your casting...
I don't like Leonardo DiCaprio. I feel like you need someone even classier. Maybe if it were him 10 years ago, but not now.

>>1587643
You're just bumping his thread.
I've only had one or two literature related arguments with Fabulous, and while he can be an ass about the way he says things, if you provide evidence to support your claims, he will at least say that you know more than him... he might even say you're right.

If you don't like him, don't talk to him... it's pretty simple. He's going to be here either way.

>>1587595
It's Joseph Fiennes.
Best known for Shakespeare in Love if I'm not mistaken.

>>1587595
Joseph Feinnes