>book is titled "the last of the mohicans"
>it's literally about the last couple members of the mohican tribe
>book is titled "the gardens of the moon"
>it's not about gardens on the moon, gardens under the moon, astronomy or gardening in any way, shape or form
Tell me, /pol, when did literature succumb to post-modern wankery and how do we fix it?
>>8006170
>book is titled "a scanner darkly"
>isn't about office scanners
>>8006318
nice new meme friendo, upboated
>Infinite Jest
>ends
>>8006170
>>it's not about gardens on the moon, gardens under the moon, astronomy or gardening in any way, shape or form
The phrase "gardens of the moon" does appear in the book.
>>8006328
Is that supposed to make it a good title for the story? I never got this reasoning.
>>8006328
>And they, hand in hand, with wandering steps and slow, entered into the gardens of the moon
ERIKSON YOU FUCKING HACK
>>8006170
>book is titled Meditations
>there arent any breathing exercises or Ohmns
>>8006335
I think the important bit is the series title "Malazan Book of the Fallen". The individual titles are just window dressing.
Disclaimer: I'm just about to start book 3.
>>8006519
>The individual titles are just window dressing.
Is this meaningfully different from the term I used?
>post-modern wankery
>Butchers crossing
>There arent any cross or even mildly perturbed butchers in the story
>book is titled "1984"
>was written in the 40s
>>8006524
>Is this meaningfully different from the term I used?
Yes.
>>8006547
How so?
>>8006548
It's a perfectly legitimate naming choice that evokes an aesthetic. Not wankery.
>>8006563
But the meaning is the same: the thing in the real world that each of the terms refer to is identical in both cases. It's just the connotation which is different.
>>8006170
>post-modern wankery
>Steven Erikson
It's a fantasy book. Who cares?
>>8006572
Because fantasy doesn't need it. Lots of fantasy authors are able to use the appropriate words to describe what they want to say, without relying on words that mean nothing to describe something else.
>>8006564
Well, yeah.
I find myself unable to participate meaningfully in discussion of the exact definition of post-modernism and was furiously attempting an exit.
