>You generally basically like the books Harold Bloom likes, but you disagree about David Foster Wallace.
>You think that the fact you disagree with Bloom about Foster Wallace means that you know more than dick about fuck.
>You like McCarthy more than Pynchon, Roth or DeLillo because stuff happens in McCarthy's novels.
>You liked White Noise but you couldn't get past the first 50 pages of Underworld.
>You liked The Crying of Lot 49, even though you're not sure you fully "got it".
>You haven't read Gravity's Rainbow.
>Don't kid yourself, you're never going to be able to appreciate Proust.
>Admit it, you're not even as smart as you think you are, and feeling smart is the main reason you read books in the first place.
>>7620797
That's not me at all. I'm pretty sure Bloom is an idiot. Pynchon a hack. MacCarthy a bigger hack. And the only thing I struggle to read is old English.
Is Philip Roth a meme now?
>>7620797
Disagree with Bloom on a lot of things
Not really fond of DFW
Pynchon is my favourite book
Didn't really care for White Noise, though I'll probably read Libra and Underworld soon
I'm pretty sure I've got most of it, it isn't that hard
Yes I did
I don't even try, have no interest in reading A Recherche any time soon
I probably am smarter than I think I am, but hardly as smart as other people think I am
>>7620797
2/8
go kill yourself
>>7620812
>but hardly as smart as other people think I am
Whats up with normies overvaluating people simply because they liek to read books?
>>7620797
Is this you OP?
>You generally basically like the books Harold Bloom likes, but you disagree about David Foster Wallace.
Sure, so does half the Western World.
>You think that the fact you disagree with Bloom about Foster Wallace means that you know more than dick about fuck.
Hadn't thought about it one way or another. I actually see why Bloom doesn't like DFW. I think Wallace is very much a writer for people of a certain age.
>You like McCarthy more than Pynchon, Roth or DeLillo because stuff happens in McCarthy's novels.
Not a chance. McCarthy is a nobody to me compared to Pynchon and DeLillo.
>You liked White Noise but you couldn't get past the first 50 pages of Underworld.
I don't like White Noise much, I absolutely loved Underworld. (And the first ~50 pages were some of its best . . . )
>You liked The Crying of Lot 49, even though you're not sure you fully "got it".
I love The Crying of Lot 49, have read it a dozen times, and feel I "get it" as much as one can.
>You haven't read Gravity's Rainbow.
I've read it three times and plan on giving it another go this Summer.
>Don't kid yourself, you're never going to be able to appreciate Proust.
I'm not kidding myself, that's probably true.
>Admit it, you're not even as smart as you think you are,
That's a little oxymoronic . . .
>and feeling smart is the main reason you read books in the first place.
Couldn't be more wrong.
Assuming this is you projecting onto the rest of /lit/ - why do you even post here?
I enjoyed the picture you used in the OP though, thanks for that.
>>7620831
Obviously, I thought that was pretty clear.
>>7620797
>You generally basically like the books Harold Bloom likes, but you disagree about David Foster Wallace.
10% of the canon is always negotiable.
>You think that the fact you disagree with Bloom about Foster Wallace means that you know more than dick about fuck.
inappropriate
>You like McCarthy more than Pynchon, Roth or DeLillo because stuff happens in McCarthy's novels.
You obviously have not read these novels. Except DeLillo, that's sometimes a fair description.
>You liked White Noise but you couldn't get past the first 50 pages of Underworld.
No, I disliked White Noise all the way through.
>You liked The Crying of Lot 49, even though you're not sure you fully "got it".
Yeah, that's pretty much right.
>You haven't read Gravity's Rainbow.
27 years and still truckin.
>Don't kid yourself, you're never going to be able to appreciate Proust.
I guess, except for the kidding myself part?
>Admit it, you're not even as smart as you think you are, and feeling smart is the main reason you read books in the first place.
Next time put the edge up top so I can immediately cut myself.
>>7620856
>Next time put the edge up top so I can immediately cut myself.
>>7620856
>Next time put the edge up top so I can immediately cut myself.
But that was the whole payoff
Read Gravity's Rainbow
I did get past the first 50 pages of Underworld and still didn't care for it; Mao II was good though
I don't disagree with Bloom on DFW. DFW was puffed up as a great american novelist by Rolling Stone. He's not that great. Danielewski (sp?) tier.
