Really, when's the last time you picked up a book and went "I know this is shit but I also know it'll be fun as hell."
Well maybe not 'shit' but something that'll be fun as hell. Maybe not win any awards any time soon but something like a chaser to those long 1,000+ page books about the history of nuclear energy.
Me:
"Hard Luck Hank", about some guy in the distant future who's got skin of steel and works as a negotiator for hire. There's aliens and mutants and corrupt galactic federations and shit.
John Green loved the study of literature. In a 2005 interview he was asked, "And literature is written to be entertaining?" to which he replied emphatically, "Absolutely. My God, to read without joy is stupid."[
>>7882490
At long last, /lit/ has its own boogeyman. Not even a rival website, but an author/youtube celeb.
What a glorious day.
>>7882470
All the warhammer 40k novels I have.
I'm about to read some mystery novels, mostly of the hard-boiled variety.
I tried to read Dinosaur Lords.
I regret that. Since then I haven't read a single book for fun.
>>7882510
How is he a boogyman? What he's saying is absolutely correct. If you don't get any enjoyment out of reading then just stop.
>>7882470
This is my experience with every Young Adult novel recommendations I get from my friends. Cheesy as fuck but amusing timewasters.
I really resent the idea that something can't be both good and "fun" at the same time.
To be honest it seems like people use "fun" as a codeword for "thing that is garbage but I like", instead of its actual definition.
>>7882757
People spent a billion on watching Transformer movies.
They sure as hell weren't good but at the end of the day you got to see some goddamn robots kicking each other's ass.
>>7882757
I don't think that they're arguing that something can't be both good and "fun" at the same time, simply that at times you want to read something you know isn't "good". Which is a false notion anyway. There is goodness in anything that brings true joy, simple as that joy may be.
Y'know, so long as no one gets hurt or dies.
>>7882470
I've fallen in love with the Powder Mage series right now. It has guns, explosions, magic, and gods all set in a fantasy napoleonic setting. I mean it'll never win a pulitzer but damn it's some good reading.
Infinite Jest
>>7882800
Okay.
>>7882802
No, if you have a critical mind, you can see that there is a difference between something that is good, and something you enjoy. I enjoy many things that aren't good, and there are many good things I don't enjoy. I'm able to separate these two concepts and judge things in both ways.
That being said, the issue here is that people think that enjoyable things can't be good things. And when it comes to genre fiction especially, people think this. And honestly most of the time they're right, but it's very possible for something to be fun, and also be very good (Book of the New Sun for example). But people also think that just because they liked something, means that it's objectively good, which is also false.
>>7882807
Give the Paper Magician series a shot.
Well, trilogy. Rumor has it disney wants to make it into a movie, which is cool as no book I've ever read has ever had that happen (clarification: a book comes out, I read it, and then it became a movie all within my scope of time. Obviously the Hobbit, etc have movies but I've never been there for a first edition so on and so forth. No I never read harry potter until long after the last film came out, etc.)
What is "fun"? I derive pleasure from reading literary works.
>>7882828
I understand what you're saying but let us take an example. I enjoy smoking and drinking, and these things harm my body. I once drank so much the world didn't stop spinning and smoked so many cigarettes my mouth felt like an ashtray.These things are undoubtedly killing me. But that does not negate their goodness to me.
>>7882830
Looked it up, and it seems really interesting. At first I was a little off put by the cover and the beginning of its description but it sold me at the end.
>>7882757
I think this thread isn't so much about defining fun as "shitty books I enjoy" exclusively; it's just a subset, like B movies.
>>7882757
Oh my god same. Same same same.
>>7882470
I always have fun reading, philistine.
>>7882850
you enjoy them but they are not good
>>7882470
>He doesn't read esoteric boring patrician shit in order to seem smart
Reading isn't for enjoying dumbass.
>>7882470
This was fun for a while
Until about a third of the way through when you "get" what Danielewski is doing.
Then its shit
If you like real literature then it is fun to read you fuck.
Inherit Vice has been a fun read so far.
After Party was some quality scifi. I liked all the Dan Simmons Hyperion books too, even if they are kind of up their own ass with pretentiousness. The Iliad books Simmons did were a great idea but the delivery fell apart.
I also have my Drizzt and Resident Evil novelizations...
>>7883333
Oohhhh them digs
>>7883355
I just started this. What's he tryna do anon?
>>7883498
He tried to create a meme.
Unfortunately he succeeded.
Fun is play. Fun isn't a synonym for "enjoyable".
>>7883333
Good
![1AE1D2DD-70B6-461D-95F1-910178FA3815Img100[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/oGiV6LL.jpg "1AE1D2DD-70B6-461D-95F1-910178FA3815Img100[1].jpg")
gravity's rainbow which i have been reading 1nce a year for 5 years
looking forward to this june when i start again for 2016
