What is /lit/'s genuine opinion? Pleasure reading for between classics?
Classic are already pleasant.
>>8064178
Classics*
People are at bottom concerned about self-identity. If you're here, you are invested in being superior. The culture here makes anyone who isn't leave.
Therefore no one will read or allows themselves to enjoy Dan Brown here, more or less by definition.
I've gotten to the point that seeing something as repetitive and uninspired as a Dan Brown novel is so jarring that I can't enjoy it. Also, >>8064178.
>>8064184
That's a purely cancerous existence though and shouldn't be encouraged. Why can't people enjoy both and discuss both here?
>>8064158
I like reading Dan Brown novels for the same reason I like watching schlocky movies: I like shit shoveld into my eyes.
>>8064196
That last bit seems non sequitur. Schlocky movies are enjoyable for completely different reasons than a popcorn flick, which is what I assume you're comparing Dan Brown to. One is so bad it's good and the other is just made to be good. Not great, of course but not schlock.
>>8064235
It's unsurprising because Dan Brown is a legitimately bad author. You can read his books all you want, but what kind of base-level discussion do you expect? "It sure was exhilirating when Nick Cage solved the mystery!"
he is a shit author
he is not even middlebrow, he is simply shit both at making a good detective story and at adding some deepness to his novels past solving the mystery
also it seems he tries to ape umberto eco, but fails at it
>>8064158
enjoyable
enjoyable
mediocre
unreadable
Never read him, but I'm not enough of a stuffed shirt that I can't enjoy a fun story even if it doesn't have pompous appeal. I've loved reading Stephen King my whole life and I definitely got a lot more enjoyment from reading Pet Semetary or Salem's Lot over something like Don Quixote. I have a lot more respect for Don Quixote in terms of what it represents in the history of Western literature, but there were rather large spells that I had to force myself through connecting some of the more genuinely entertaining scenes.
I've been on a big science fiction kick lately, going through some Neal Stephenson novels specifically but also a bunch of other authors. Good science fiction tends to balance meaningful and insightful storytelling that can make you think about your world with a narrative that is still very exciting and clever.
I'm a bit new to /lit/ so I'm not sure how the crowd here feels about science fiction, but it is quickly becoming my favorite genre.
I used to read easy contemporary fiction between classics but now I read easy classics in between hard classics. I get absolutely nothing out of bad fiction anymore. It's not about pretension or ego or whatever, it's just not fun to read anything less than a classic at this point. I don't feel like I'm missing out on anything because I enjoy and understand good literature more than I ever have, and I don't bother to waste time on anything less. Feels pretty good.
>>8064368
This is what people who call others pretentious don't understand. Hunger Games-tier shit is not enjoyable when you really do enjoy well-written books.
They're very exciting; and if you have a pas,ing knowledge of history / art history, they are good at jobbing your memory and stimulating you with that as well. They were never meant to be literature. They were meant to be entertainment, and they are very good in that regard.
>>8064436
>They were meant to be entertainment, and they are very good in that regard.
nope, they fail at it
>>8064235
bingo
>>8064439
I found them very entertaining, but I read AD/DC/Inferno like 3-4 years ago so maybe I wouldn't now.
I personally really liked their short bursts between parallel plots. I found it really engaging
>>8064158
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/10049454/Dont-make-fun-of-renowned-Dan-Brown.html
