ITT: Books you enjoyed that /lit/, in general, doesn't (And why you enjoyed them).
Pic related for me. Sure, it's written as if it was written by a teenager for a class who thought his writing was perfect because of how self-referential it was, but nonetheless I enjoyed it. It was well researched and exciting in a dumb way - a simple book that I didn't have to think much about while reading (which, as much as we may look down upon such books on /lit/: they are necessary, especially after tackling dense, challenging literature).
I liked the inter-mingling of three narratives; the use of graphology to reflect what was happening in the book (or to emulate scattered notes on various papers, etc); the atmosphere of the book; and the Navidson report (moments of it were genuinely unsettling and I don't know a book from recent days that has been effective in unsettling me).
It's not perfect, it's flawed, but I did enjoy it. I don't think I'll bother with that 27-volume shit he's doing now though.
this helped me communicate with anons. I have with it the same relationship your mother does to an electric dildo: I didn't enjoy it itself, but rather the effects it brought on me.
Read it after people on /lit/ told me how boring it was, out of curiosity. Genuinely loved it.
/lit/ seems to currently have a hatred towards cormac mccarthy but i honestly like the guy's work so i guess kinda him.
>>7869040
a personal favourite of of me and my aunt
>>7869082
i think it's just two guys who dislike him and make sure to butcher every thread with "ye corncob tortillas mccarthy. they spit on."
mccarthy has bloom's endorsement, and bloom is /lit/ YHWH
>>7869082
McCarthy is an actual talent and one of the few writers who will be immortalised as a true modern classic writer when he inevitably, and unfortunately, passes.
>>7869139
That cover
The political allegory is obvious, but it's a good book nonetheless. Probably better to have it read to your kids, but still, I can't hate on this book.
>>7869177
Hahahaha yecarthy shills say the darndest things
>>7869082
I've never seen any argument made against his writing.
Why would I ever like a book that /lit/ tells me is bad
>>7869457
Why don't you enjoy McCarthy, anon? I personally enjoy his work but I'm interested in why you don't (And it's perfectly fine that you don't enjoy his works, I'm just very interested in hearing the reasons why someone dislikes him).
>>7869040
I don't like books that are supposed to be science fiction, but have absolutely glaring scientific inaccuracies. The Martian is one of them. The entire premise of the book is faulty.
There are planetwide dust storms on Mars, true, but the atmosphere is so thin that you would barely even feel anything. It would be like a light breeze on a summer day on earth, you most certainly would not get swept away, careening out of control. Only the finest of dust is carried in those winds, not immense amounts of sand and gravel like is depicted.
Yes it's less interesting, but the entirety of the book is moot at this point.
>>7869476
mccarthy doesn't write about anything universal. his work is read almost exclusively by two demographics: poor white hicks and middlebrow american "literati" who feel validated and authentic for reading something so "raw"
mccarthy literally writes genre fiction - he writes westerns (and one shitty post apocalyptic work) - and the stuff he writes might as well be movies as opposed to anything inherently literary. he's a screen writer and it's oh so apparent in his writing.
he'll be completely unread within 25 years. he's already a non entity outside of america.
>>7869492
Are you me? I just read that on Goodreads. Makes me really not want to read it.
>>7869502
> non entity outside of america
He's very popular in the UK, anon.
> he's a screen writer and it's oh so apparent in his writing
I can agree with that, but I don't necessarily think it's a criticism. The point you make with that sounds like you're suggesting that McCarthy is a visual writer (which I believe he is - you can certainly imagine his work vividly imo, and you're right, I think most of his work could be adapted into films because his settings and character actions are often visual). I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing, anon, but please correct me if I've misunderstood what you intended by your remark.
> literally writes genre fiction - he writes westerns (and one shitty post apocalyptic work)
Anon, I'm not really one to snub genre fiction myself, albeit I don't read it much but I do have exceptions that I would allow. From what I understand, McCarthy's westerns are based and inspired by historical fact rather than just being complete fiction (please correct me if I'm wrong). Being a Britbong too, I must admit that his westerns fulfil a craving I have for a genre we don't really see much of over here outside of classic movies.
> mccarthy doesn't write about anything universal. his work is read almost exclusively by two demographics: poor white hicks and middle brow american "literati" who feel validated and authentic for reading something so raw
I'm sure that's somewhat true: McCarthy is certainly keen on his use of North American country dialect and he is certainly keen on setting his books in many small towns with small town mentalities. I can see hicks reading his work as somewhat relatable, and I understand why people might find his work authentic and "raw" (his work to me always feels very dusty and grubby).
Anon, a genuine question: what other authors would you recommend that create the "authentic" and "raw" atmosphere that people get from a McCarthy book? If you think McCarthy is a poor author, what other works do you think convey that gritty, dusty imagery? I genuinely ask because I'm very interested in that sort of setting and wonder if other authors have written it more eloquently.
>>7869556
>He's very popular in the UK, anon.
define very popular
>I can agree with that, but I don't necessarily think it's a criticism. The point you make with that sounds like you're suggesting that McCarthy is a visual writer (which I believe he is - you can certainly imagine his work vividly imo, and you're right, I think most of his work could be adapted into films because his settings and character actions are often visual). I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing, anon, but please correct me if I've misunderstood what you intended by your remark.
he should stick to making movies instead of pretending he's writing stuff of inherent literary merit then.
>Anon, I'm not really one to snub genre fiction myself, albeit I don't read it much but I do have exceptions that I would allow. From what I understand, McCarthy's westerns are based and inspired by historical fact rather than just being complete fiction (please correct me if I'm wrong). Being a Britbong too, I must admit that his westerns fulfil a craving I have for a genre we don't really see much of over here outside of classic movies.
there's nothing wrong with genre fiction it's a stupid dichotomy.
what yecarthy does is all the stereotypes of bad genre writing rolled into one. he leans on cliches and enticing readers with the subject matter and nothing literary. it's the >reading for plot meme except much worse. you're reading him only because he's writing westerns, you're not reading westerns because you like what he wrote.
whether or not it's historical (i have no idea either way) has no bearing on quality of the litereature.
if you really love westerns just watch western movies.
>I'm sure that's somewhat true: McCarthy is certainly keen on his use of North American country dialect and he is certainly keen on setting his books in many small towns with small town mentalities. I can see hicks reading his work as somewhat relatable, and I understand why people might find his work authentic and "raw" (his work to me always feels very dusty and grubby).
it's exactly that. it's an interesting novelty for people living in the new york publishing world but novelty, being novelty, wears off eventually, and for yecarthy, there's nothing of substance beneath the novelty.
>Anon, a genuine question: what other authors would you recommend that create the "authentic" and "raw" atmosphere that people get from a McCarthy book? If you think McCarthy is a poor author, what other works do you think convey that gritty, dusty imagery? I genuinely ask because I'm very interested in that sort of setting and wonder if other authors have written it more eloquently.
i don't think going for "raw" atmosphere on its own is anything worthwhile or valuable so idk if i can help you.
try butcher's crossing by john williams. idk if you'll like it. it's a better western than anything yecarthy has in any case.
>>7869218
there's absolutely nothing wrong with it either.
People who complain about it dont understand it's target audience. Its simplicity is the reason why it's taught in high schools.
>>7869608
You sound overly salty about this. Did McCarthy fuck your girl or what
>>7869631
>respond directly to a question
>you sound overly salty
sorry i guess ill go back to posting only memes lest i sound salty
lol corncobs tortillas yecarthy amirite
>>7869492
Weir has acknowledged this point, but really all that is is the impetus for the rest of the story, a means to get the characters in their various circumstances. The rest of the book is pretty rigorous in its accuracy. There's even a scene towards the end that handles the dust storms in a much more realistic manner (he has to navigate around a dust storm to keep his solar panels from losing efficiency). It's not a deal breaker in my opinion.
>>7869608
> you're reading him only because he's writing westerns, you're not reading westerns because you like what he wrote
Not completely true, honestly. I have found myself re-reading some of his passages that I've enjoyed, I do quite like his writing and it's not always just the dialect that appeals to me. For example, in Child of God, when McCarthy writes "Were there darker provinces of night he would have found them" - it's something fairly simple and straightforward, sure, but it illustrates, imo, effectively the lengths of degeneracy that the protagonist Lester Ballard will go to.
Also I must disagree about historical accuracy having no bearing on quality of the literature (Moby Dick comes to mind, where Ishmael will detail the anatomy of whales, the methods of whaling, all in setting up a context for the scenes that eventually develop - any historical element can provide an added layer of authenticity and, imo, that's at least commendable for the research the author must fulfil).
> it's an interesting novelty for people living in the new york publishing world… there's nothing of substance beneath the novelty.
I must politely disagree, but I appreciate why you say it.
> try butcher's crossing by john williams
I will, anon, I've been meaning to read more of his works, thanks for the recommendation.
I appreciate, anon, why you don't enjoy McCarthy, even if I don't fully agree with your comments. I just wish people would rather articulate why they dislike the author; it's actually pretty interesting to hear why others dislike something somebody else might be passionate towards.
> tfw /lit/ just doesn't "get" the Brontes
>>7869040
About halfway through this, 6.25/10 so far. Premise is neat and the plot is fairly interesting. The characters are absolutely fucking terrible though
>>7869040
Stephen King
Any one doesnt matter i lile his stuff for a light read
indeed
>>7869788
Emily is good and that book in particular is good. The other two sisters are trash.
Idk tbqh
Any female writer. There isn't a single female writer in lit's top 100, so going by that enjoying any work by a female writer is contradicting lit.
>too many thirsty dudes who take reading anything from a woman's perspective
>There isn't a single female writer in lit's top 100
Who is Virginia Woolf?
>>7870192
It's not important, if someone wants their worldview to be the truth all they have to do is ignore evidence
>>7869040
Surprised no ones put this yet.
>>7870890
forgot to put why i like it.
Im not a real big fan of epic, or high fantasy. magic, dwarves and elves are just a bit too fantastical for me.
GOT is a bit more grounded with a lot of interesting plots. The world building and characters are well done as well. in my honest opinion.
>>7869040
reddit general?
>>7870908
XD us 4channers r so much betr than those pleb le rebbit users lolol xD DAE rebbit suks pepememe.jpg
>>7870890
t b h i enjoyed GOT too, it's just it was carried so much by the characters. the story isn't particularly captivating.
>>7870967
he needs to hurry up and get to the point though. im getting tired of reading about 70 different people doing 160 different things.
i want a story or something.
so fucking done withdany sitting around doing fuck all in a city i give no fucks about and bran talking to a fucking tree and cersei being a bitch doing bitch things
at some point he needs to wrap this up or something.
>>7870964
i mean... yeah
there are dummies on both but if anyone from either site is going to amount to anything in the humanities i guarantee you theyll be from 4chan. anyone popular that comes from reddit will be a grandstanding hack.
>>7869040
Is this /lit/ approved?
>>7871154
hod is amazing and one of fthe best novellas of it's eras
>>7871154
PROPAGANDA
Just as Belgium starts making more rubber than the UK, an author who earned government money appears with a best-selling novel about a guy from Brussels who has slaves and pretends to be the mad king of the jungle while torturing his rubber workers.
The horror, the horror!
>>7869139
it's beautiful
>>7871154
It's in /lit/'s top 100 so I believe so. People on /lit/ who don't like Conrad don't appreciate prose.
>>7870908
C'mon, anon… there's got to be at least one book you enjoyed that /lit/ seems to have disdain towards. A guilty pleasure, perhaps.
>>7870173
iirc bronte and woolf are both on it, sorry lit doesn't lower standards for women.
