ITT: books that dumb people say are their favourites
>>7383031
I just looked up 'attention whore' but don't see any book by that name...?
"Stop liking what I don't like" threads need to be a permanent ban on this fucking board. Fuck it, they should be a permanent ban on every board.
>>7383031
ALL HAIL THE QUEEN OF /lit/
>>7383038
Rustled pleb detected
>>7383046
>s-stop liking that book you... you PLEB!
>I said STOOOOOOP!
>>7383031
who is this bridge fridge?
>>7383051
The Marie-of-Scotland to Oxford Girl's Elizabeth
>>7383038
I agree.
>>7383038
>>>/reddit/
>>7383022
>light adventure fare that has proven to be a classic and attracts many young readers as their first "real"novel
>"dum peeple reed dis"
Harry Potter
The Lord of the Rings
Gone with the Wind
>>7383065
I think it's good but if it's your favorite, then you're not well-read. Not dumb, but not well-read.
1984
Catcher in the Rye
Inferno
Brave New World
Catch 22
Lord of the Flies
YA Flavor of the Month shit like The Fault in our Stars
Most entry /lit/ core applies to this.
If you arent reading these before/in/for high school or some sort of graduate course where you deconstruct classic novels, or arefrom a non western country, you are reading these to be seen or because someone told you you are supposed too.
>>7383088
Don't forget Fahrenheit 451 and Slaughterhouse V
>>7383088
My brother recently took an interest in lit and those were the books he immediately picked off my shelf simply because they were the ones he'd heard referenced the most often.
>>7383102
Slaughterhouse 5 is my favorite book and every person I tell that to tells me they've never heard of it like what the fuck.
>>7383088
So if one hasn't read them for school one shouldn't read them at all?
>>7383113
read them but in the privacy of your home you degenerate
>>7383113
Only for getting references from plebs but no, you won't miss anything. Anyway, they rarely read it themselves so you can just namedrop “shit, it's getting 1984 out there” or “we're going to a brave new world” each time you're talking about the NSA or some I, Robot-tier technology.
>>7383123
Well I'm going through pic related but I dont discuss them outside of /lit/
>>7383129
Yeah name dropping like that makes one sound like a fag, although I've never come across someone whose said something like that.
>>7383129
Newfag here, but I take this is not the general consensus, right? If those books are so non-important, why are most of them in the sticky? Or the sticky does not reflect the opinion of the majority of the users?
>>7383088
This guy is why /lit/ is shit
>>7383129
You're a funny guy.
this thread is almost as bad as:
http://boards.4chan.org/lit/thread/7383022/
>>7383146
Really? I hear it almost every two weeks.
>>7383151
These works aren't not important regarding their literary value but you should read them because eveybody read them so they're more or less part of the literary pop-culture. Of course you're free to go through it, we're not here to prohibit titles, I'm just warning you it has little value. You would better be reading, I don't know, “The Trial” by Franz Kafka, “It Can't Happen Here” by Sinclair Lewis or more recently “The Outer Zone” by Alain Damasio. “1984” or “Brave New World” are amous chiefly because of being one of the most common school reading assignment, even in non-English speaking countries. It appears on a couple of charts because either the author isn't well-read enough and shouldn't have made it or its intention was the provide this aforementioned pop-culture canon. Honestly, I would have never suggested them to a novice reader.
>>7383203
I see. I don't think I'm knowledgeable enough to agree or disagree with you, but thank you for elaborating.
>If it isn't esoteric as fuck, it's for dumb people.
>>7383253
We would head to a terrible culture if all the choice we had was reading a high school assignement book or “esoteric as fuck” material. Do my suggestions look obscure to you? Because Franz Kafka and Sinclair Lewis could hardly be described as “esoteric as fuck” and Alain Damasio is a French best-seller, frequently classed as a science-fiction author. Either you aren't cultured enough and should refrain from throwing carelessly such a false dichotomy or you're not and should have thought twice before making yourself look like an idiot. Whatever it is, you fucked it up.
>>7383253
>anything besides High-School-core is 'esoteric as fuck'
What is this, /pleb/ general?
>>7383146
>slaughter house 5
Do I have to read the previous 4?
>>7383308
Definitive rankings of the Slaugherhouse series:
>1- 7.5/10
+characters/concepts very well introduced
+prose generally great (at least better than subsequent novels)
+strong ending
-falls into a lot of genre cliches along the way
>2- 6/10
+creative exploration of the old characters
+not afraid to change things up and take risks
-very unbelievable start w/r/t the last one which had wrapped things up nicely
-all the Billy Pilgrim chapters
>3- 3.5/10
+still somewhat grounded in realism (hasn't jumped the shark yet)
+Billy Pilgrim much better
-prose has taken a nosedive
-incredibly boring plot, just seems like a string-along to the fourth
>4- 6/10
+breath of fresh air in the series
+more engaging versus the last one
+utilizes the new setting very well
-prose still abysmal
-really starting to jump the shark into the 'magical realism' crap
>5- 5/10
+philosophical insight somewhat interesting, if cliche
+prose makes an effort to improve
+wraps up the story in a bittersweet way
-aliens. Fucking seriously?
-magical realism taken to an extreme
For the life of me I don't know why the last one gets all the praise. If you are going to skip one, skip the third
Books donativos make you smart, math does.
The idea that writers anda readers are smart is dumb
>>7383348
Have an unironical upvote.
>>7383770
Talking about dumbness, how could we describe someone who still opposes mathematics and literature?
>>7383238
Not the previous anon but saying they're unimportant is some what dishonest. Whilst maybe not the pinnacles of literature most of the starter kit are good examples of what they are meant to be, either thematically or stylistically. So there's definite with on starting here. As well as the whole popular thing, most people can discuss one or some of these because of school.
>>7383791
These titles aren't elaborate and wrought enough to be a good starting point. I'm aware we shouldn't suggest ridiculously obscure and dense stories with non-linear narratives but there's way better, fitted authors out there so we don't have to read again the flat prose and the clumsy plot of “1984”, not mentioning many of these are read and studied because they are one of the first dystopian novels to gain recognition. As a reader and not a scholar, he has no reason to care about this. The titles I posted seem reasonably appropriate either in term of style and content.
By the way, I wrote another post in a related subject, the original poster might find interesting material.
>>7383660
>>7383088
You idiot. I haven't read catch 22 or lord of the flies but I probably will one day because lord of the flies seems pretty dope and my gf really likes catch 22 so I'd like to read it so we have some common lit ground.
also
>reading because someone told you you are supposed to
that's what /lit/ is. this thread is the inverse: not reading because someone told you not to
>>7383933
>seems pretty dope
>my gf really likes
holy mother of underageb&, this entire thread should be nuked and then the CPU it was hosted on burned because of how underage this post is
>>7383022
shut your whore mouth
The Alchemist
