Why do so many books seem self indulgent, even ones I like? I think the fortress of solitude was a vehicle for the author to peddle his childhood memoirs rather than an attempt to write a novel. It's a particularly annoying book due to this reason.
Are there any novels that combine fiction with either non fictional discussions, almost easy style? It seems like any straight up novel has to either be an enjoyable page turner with literally zero patrician cred or philosophical ruminations about the unknowable nothingness of blabla.
you're going to have to get over the fact that artists are a lil narcissistic
Why do so many books seem anthro-centric, even ones I like? I think the fortress of solitude was a vehicle for the author to peddle his experience of being human rather than an attempt to write a novel. It's a particularly annoying book due to this reason.
Why do so many books seem materialism, even ones I like? I think the fortress of solitude was a vehicle for the author to peddle his experience of being 3D rather than an attempt to write a novel. It's a particularly annoying book due to this reason.
>>8101456
This is an /int/ meme you fuckin dip
Dostoyevsky would be a great example of what you're looking for, anon. his two main ones, crime and punishment and the brothers Karamazov, are 80% fiction, 20% philosophical discussion. Of course, he is a novelist before a philosopher, so don't expect mind-rattling ideals, however he is considered to contribute a lot towards existentialism by a lot of prominent thinkers. He is a great choice for what you're looking for. To answer your first question, though, i think books may come off as self-indulgent because the easiest way to write a book is to write what you know. It is much easier to make a book feel generic if what you are writing about actually is relatable to your own life experience.
