Books you love but never see posted on /lit/
Nice choice, OP. Dance Dance Dance is my favorite Murakami novel.
Yeah that's probably tied with Wind-up Bird as my favorite Murakami novel. Kafka on the Shore is way overrated tbqh
>>7351764
"Homo Faber" - Max Frisch
>>7351764
>gook literature
pls no
I know i'll get shit from this, but fuck it, i really enjoyed this book
>>7351764
an honest to g*d decent YA novel. the characters are not annoying generic shits, but actual real life annoying kids who are shits. it's pretty short so give it a try at least.
>>7352116
I read an excerpt and it seems this was written for children.
Pic related. Don't see a lot of Bernhard on here.
The Snow Leopard and Killing Mister Watson seem to get all the Matthiesen love.
This lil beauty is underappreciated.
>All these people that actively like Murakami
Lmao what is going on. If you debase John Green for being a shit writer and also think Murakami is a really good writer you're a hypocrite.
Hint: There's a difference between being a talented writer (Murakami) and being a GOOD writer
>>7352205
Yes the writing is very simple. still enjoyable.
>>7352245
>>7352008
gooks are Vietnamese you stupid Canadian.
Probably destined to be underappreciated on /lit/ due to subject matter -a worldly Chicago Catholic priest is assigned to an isolated retreat house in the hinterlands of Minnesota- but this is a funny, elegantly written novel that even manages to get you right in the feels by the time it's over.
>>7351764
not that anybody here has ever heard about it
It's shit, maybe that's why. Pulitzer is a sham.
>>7351764
Poor Things - Alasdair Gray
>>7353791
B-but I really liked that one anon
Why didn't you?
Infinite Jest
>>7353802
'cuz i'm an Indian(dots) and i can't stand her sentimental, tiresome, clumsy, tepid prose and superficial and irritating and sometimes illogical milieu.
and yes, i have a toilet at home and that's where i flushed it down.
>>7352061
>butt fuck it
>>7353835
I post this one pretty often. one of the best 4-5 books written so far this century imo
>>7353839
I've been called a pleb once or twice for posting it, but I really love it. The one chapter aboutthe guy who drowns himself in the riverhit way too close to home for me. What did you think of the slideshow?
>>7353307
Sublantics. Originally designated for Koreans, but applies for all slanties today.
Fight Me
>>7352245
I haven't read Murakami apart from a short story. Are you trying to say he is a sellout?
I've only seen one or two threads. Most people haven't read beyond Annihilation, which is actually my least favorite.
>>7353924
Have you read City of Saints and Madmen? I just finished that recently and it was dope af. Been meaning to try out the southern reach trilogy tho
>>7353854
I liked the slideshow but I was so completely taken by the variety of styles by then (I think if I remember right, the one you mentioned was written in second-person?) that I was ready for Egan to do basically anything and I would go along with it. I even loved the final near-future chapter, which I understand some fans found subpar. My favorite chapters are probably the one you cited and, of course, the DFW parody.
>>7351764
When /lit/ talked about Murakami a bit more I used to see Dance Dance Dance recommended to start with him, which I always thought was kind of strange considering that it's a pseudo-sequel to A Wild Sheep Chase.
Flashman papers
>>7353874
This book is full of specious sophistries
this, and Breece D'J Pancake's stories. Two great writers that don't get talked about enough here. Probably nobody on /lit/ reads short stories other than Chekhov, Carver, Cortozar and a few other popular writers.
>>7353953
I've only read A Wild Sheep Chase by Murakami. I was gunna read After Dark next and then Dance Dance Dance. It's a good thing that I read Sheep Chase before DDD though? I know they're related but don't know how so
>>7355107
Yeah, I fully recognize that and its part of why I enjoyed it. In a way each essay is just a very fleshed out metaphor. I even started writing my own because I thought this idea was kind of neat. If Barthes intended the book to be a serious objective cultural critique then I guess he is shit out of luck since his own theory rejects the concept of authorial intent.
Also not to be a dick but I think "specious sophistry" is probably a redundancy
