What do you guys think about this book? It's been called "the first great millennial novel," and a lot of people agree in saying that it really is the defining voice of generation Y.
I just finished it and would love to hear what /lit/ has to say. Does it live up to to being crowned such a canonical title? Tell me about any part of your experience, whether it's on the prose, plot, characters, etc.
>>8117583
is shit.
>>8117585
Could you maybe elaborate?
>>8117590
its a turd.
Wow, the cover makes it look a Pynchon ripoff
>>8117590
you should really go to /r/literature
unless someone in the 10% of good posters saves this thread
Never heard of it, how about you tell me what you have to say about it and tell me your experience, whether it's on the prose, plot, characters, etc.?
>>8117583
m8, unless you're posting about Zizek or Kant dont expect anyone to have read that let alone give you some insight on it. the majority of /lit/ dont read contemporary books.
>>8117583
>San Francisco
Into the trash it fucking goes.
>>8117583
>It's been called "the first great millennial novel," and a lot of people agree in saying that it really is the defining voice of generation Y.
desu I really don't want to hear the defining voice of our generation.
>>8118793
It really isn't even that. It's just some faggy book about self-absorbed tumblrific San Francisco douches in their 20s. They're generic millennial stereotypes rather than actual millennials.
>>8118891
Any book about "millennials" set in San Francisco is ridiculous. San Francisco/CA culture is so different than the rest of the US that it can never be the voice of a generation.
>>8117583
This writing is uh... not good.
>>8119060
Jesus Christ.
>>8119060
More proof that critics are out of their goddamn minds. I've seen better written AND more meaningful graffiti in toilet stalls. Voice of a generation my ass.
>>8118418
I honestly don't read contemporary books either, but then it's like, the fact that they're contemporary shouldn't necessarily be an automatic turn-off.
Although all literature can be taken as a unifying power in the sense that it makes us aware of all our underlying similarities and of the existence of this greater Human identity, all the generations end up facing unique struggles that significantly alter their experiences in this world. This is pretty obvious, but perhaps it's fair to note that the individuality of those generational experiences ends up soaking into literature, affecting everything from its stylistic elements to characterization to the distancing of the author element. Jameson has written a lot on this topic, so I am going to move on.
All books were contemporary at one point, and considering that I am alive right now and my own generation puzzles me so much, as well as the matter of negotiating /my own/ position within something as overwhelming as 21st century modernity, why not turn to contemporary millennial literature to gauge these questions? It's one of the functions that literature has served for millennia, so why are we so averse to allocating it that role?
At least, that was my own reasoning when I picked up the book.
>>8118891
See, I would be interested in why you say they're generic millennial stereotypes rather than actual millennials. This was a question that was pretty interesting to me as well, and I think it's something that was a core endeavor on the part of the author--notably, what is the real millennial and how does one characterize him/her in a world that has already made up its mind and pinned so many stereotypical labels on the generation? What for you is a real millennial?
>>8118935
Agreed, it really is more about a certain strata of very highly-educated, bourgeoisie Stanford millennials.
>>8119060
For anon's sake, I really hope you don't always judge the quality of writing based on the first page. >->
A certain writing style (even one that is irritating, self-absorbed, and tacky) often works to reinforce a certain purpose/theme that is only revealed later on in the book, which I would say is the case here.
Maybe I overestimated /lit/ too much..........
>>8119744
>why not turn to contemporary millennial literature to gauge these questions?
because we aren't really a literary society desu
>>8119755
Who is 'we'?
I mean, if you're talking about /lit/, then the quality of these responses makes that a fair point. Exhibit A.
>>8119744
>What for you is a real millennial?
This is a dumbass question. There are tens, probably hundreds of millions of millenials living in what is easily the most diverse society in history in every single aspect and you want to tie up a neat little bundle of traits with a bow and say "this is a millenial; that isn't a millenial".
You want to write a book about "real millenials"? Write a book about regular people. Not this trite about narcissistic phone-addicted 20-something SJWs.
also
>but then it's like
> >->
>trailing ellipses
you're either trolling or 14.
>>8119785
What is the most diverse society in history? This one? Are you kidding? Globalization and Internet culture have definitely acted as major deterrents to diversity of all types and have brought people into a much closer intellectual circuit, in my opinion for the worst.
Are you a millennial? Or do you interact with regular millennials everyday? The reason I ask is because the characters in this book struck me as the very epitome of 'regular people.' I don't know what society you live in where the average millennial is /not/ a narcissistic phone-addicted 20-something SJW, but it must be quite nice.
As for your personal attacks on my posting style. Yeah, I don't even know how to respond to that. Making a comment of that nature doesn't make you seem older than 14 yourself, but I am not going to fling personal attacks.
>>8119840
please kill yourself
>>8119861
11 year old confirmed.
>>8119744
>See, I would be interested in why you say they're generic millennial stereotypes rather than actual millennials. This was a question that was pretty interesting to me as well, and I think it's something that was a core endeavor on the part of the author--notably, what is the real millennial and how does one characterize him/her in a world that has already made up its mind and pinned so many stereotypical labels on the generation? What for you is a real millennial?
I'm the guy who you originally posed this question to.
To hell with what "the world" has decided we are. There is an "average" millennial, and it's not some tumblrite sanfran tech startup faggot. The average millennial is a relatively young person, usually with some degree of education past high school, maybe a bachelor's or master's degree (though obviously not universally from a prestigious school) though not always, who typically has to settle for a job they're overqualified and underpaid for because of the shitty job market and economy they've inherited from gen X. The internet aspect of millennial life does lead to some dissociation from "genuine" modes of social interaction and thought, but not really to a significantly bigger or smaller extent than various other things have for previous generations of youths during similarly transitional times.
Political views are also more varied than the media would have you believe, even if the apparent trend on social media is towards progressivism.
To fully encapsulate the "millennial experience" you'd have to not only show the absolute average but also those who deviate in either direction from it to varying degrees. This sort of book completely fails to do that by focusing too much on the stereotypes in a very clichéd setting for said stereotypes.
>>8119744
>reinforce a certain purpose/theme that is only revealed later on in the book
spoil it for me. I dont care. If this so called twist is really worth it, I'll give this book a chance and maybe talk about it in a month or two if you're willing to do so.
>>8120437
I have an idea of who OP actually is, and it might not be the author. I say this because I read this exact same opinion and rhetoric somewhere else.
This thread is cancer from every angle and proves that lit should now be avoided at all costs, unless you're interested in stuff like the ontology of the word millennial. See you guys in a couple of weeks.
>>8119934
>some tumblrite sanfran tech startup faggot
You've got it all backwards. Tulathimutte isn't a techie, he's the kind of liberal arts major who spends all his time hating on STEMfags because they make more money than he ever will.
Techies aren't the problem, they're the best thing the Bay Area has going for it. The only reason they have to act so liberal in front of the public is because every time one of them says something out of line with the progressive orthodoxy they get labeled as fascists and neoreactionaries by the left-wing media.
>>8121780
Pretty sure the author worked in tech before the bubble first burst some 8-10 years ago.
He got his mfa from Iowa city and I believe is currently in his 30s. Tbh I'm not sure he really encapsulates melinnial in the sense that 4chan does. But that just goes to show how many different identifyING factors there are for milennials. Take tinder for example, for those in their 30s it is a different experience than those in their 20s, and will be an even different experience for teenagers who will grow into adults with it already bring around. Now let's also take into consideration the millions that don't even use tinder in each of those age groups and you have yourself so many different experiences that trying to write a voice of generation novel (at least being silly enough to describe a novel as such) is just moronic and naive.
I believe all milennials will have a need for validation that their life is the correct life and books like this will only help to keep us in our comfort zones, just like 4chan carries out the same method, just like safe zones and triggers do the same currently in unis. We want to be told that what we are doing is what everyone is doing or should be. Thank the Internet for this self feeding loop of a need for validation.
>>8119840
whoa chill out tony
>There are Linda, a tattoo-sleeved hedonist in flight from writer’s block who weaves a semi-professional path through parties and sex dungeons, fueled and numbed by alcohol and various powders; Henrik, a burnt-out, laboratory-bound grad student with a secret history of manic-depressive breakdown; Will, an Asian-American freelance coder with a porn addiction almost as debilitating as his identity-based inferiority complex; and Cory, a dreadlocked, Jewish, queer-curious, and lonely liberal activist with an eating disorder and a habit of checking her privilege to the point of personal stasis.
A Little Life, City on Fire, Private Citizens - the trend continues.
>>8117583
fuck off tony, calm down
>>8117583
>written by a white male
not hanky ou
>>8118891
Haven't read the book myself but have you considered the possibility of it being a fucking satire?
>>8119744
Tony Tulathimutte detected.
Go to bed, Tony
>>8121270
Millennial ontology!!! O LAWDY!!! JESUS, MARY & JOSEPH
>THE INTERTEXUALITY OF REALITY
>MY SCHIZOPHRENIC SUBJECTIVITY
>THE POWER IS DOMINATING MY BODY
>>8119060
>>8119121
>>8119682
>>8120437
>disregarding an entire 300+ page based on the first page
Remember 3-4 years ago when there was actually discussion on /lit/?
>>8123493
Even if it is, what would the point of satrizing people who are already parodies of themselves be?
>>8123591
Parody =/= satire, you fucking 12 year old
>>8122345
>and Cory, a dreadlocked, Jewish, queer-curious, and lonely liberal activist with an eating disorder and a habit of checking her privilege to the point of personal stasis.
>>8123582
Doesn't matter how many times you repeat this, you weren't there, and your writing is still shit
>>8123630
No one said they were the same thing faggot. Satirizing a parody is a pointless exercise at best though.
>>8124017
They aren't parodies. Go to San Fransisco and there are people who are unironically like that.
>>8124289
Are you retarded?
>>8120437
>>8122162
>>8122921
>>8123512
>post a genuine discussion thread about a book that's provoking a lot of critical attention in the real world because it's /lit/ and maybe some people actually like to read and discuss literature seriously apart from just name-dropping memes
>no one has read the book
>instead 4chan accuse you of being the very well-acclaimed author
>don't even know if I should take on the role or not
/lit/, bless your hearts.
>>8124985
Ok, going to be honest with you. I live in a place where I can only get (foreign) books by mail and they are very costly as a result - so, buying this would mean no Gaddis, because this and recognitions to me cost the same. So i went on goodreads, not to make a decision, but just to get a feel for the book - and I see the author in the review section, with a post: "A fine book by an anxious man."
And I understood that I would never read it. This is too much self-aware, and even if the text is okay, I would never immerse myself. It's just a guy telling a story who thinks story a tool to show himself(probably also a tool). This is the kind of folk you avoid at parties, for their own good.
>>8124985
I mean... if you're that offended by the whole thing, then surely you must be the author?
>>8124341
Good counterpoint anon.
>>8121780
But two of the main characters are 'STEMfags,' and he makes a pretty clear distinction between your traditional science devotees and the new millennial phenomenon of the Silicon Valley 'techie,' wearing the 'liberal' T-shirts and talking the talk, while contributing to social blight and defining a new kind of bourgeois capitalist culture. It is precisely their insincere /pretending/ that is really the problem, the fact that they will criticize things like capitalist society while ultimately benefiting from reinforcing its systems of power.
But Tulathimutte never makes it as simple as that. Described above is the common progressive view of the techie, the 'bad guy,' but then in the book there is /a lot/ of internal bashing of those liberal arts Stanford graduates who go about quoting Marx and Althusser, slamming the techies, all while profiting off their work (the very 'liberal arts majors' you have just described).
Actually, the author distancing element is super interesting in this book, and we never really understand what Tulathimutte really thinks about the whole situation. Are techies really the problem? Are theory-high liberal arts majors really the problem?
>>8125037
>more Two Cultures shit
this will never be relevant
>>8125043
>because I said so
Summer is most definitely here
>>8125059
damn, nice one
>>8125043
Yeah, I guess, but maybe not. Maybe it's a challenge to the whole Two Cultures motif.
That's not really the most important part of the book, but perhaps it's another example of the millennial obsession with Identity/labels (all while claiming to be post-structuralist and past deconstructing those labels) and likewise the confrontation with 'difference' that this provokes. It's what gives rise to these problems in the first place.
>>8125009
I'm not offended at all, I just don't know what to make of this book.
Like the rest of you guys, I want to hate it. The writing style seems pretentious and plain, 'contemporary.' The characters irritate me because I can relate to all of them in their daily lives (and they turn out to be a lot more well-rounded than is immediately apparent from their initial descriptions) but I hate myself for being able to do it. The ending is what one would probably call terrible, but then why do we say that? What does it say about us and our expectations of the traditional literary medium?
As a millennial, if you read this book seriously, it really messes with you. Why do you want to hate it so much? It manages to get closer to you than you expect.
I'm not saying this is the Best Book Ever, but man, it really says something about the millennial reality.
>>8125106
Your posts are way too substantial given all the summerfags, contrarians and /pol/ crossposting lately.
>>8125106
Eh, you convinced me. I like books that I want to punch.
>>8125106
This post doesn't really help your case, Tony.
>>8125106
>3.4 on Goodreads, 296 votes
> It's been called "the first great millennial novel,"
My ass. Go away, Tony.
>>8125170
It's a guy playing the role of the author, very convincingly, but too blatantly. Pretty sure it's not Tony.
I'm kind of curious about it, honestly, since I am a Millennial but I'm not sure how much I have in common with my peers. I've never really been one for voice-of-a-generation novels, though. I mean, Fitzgerald was the weakest author of the Lost Generation, but he was undoubtedly their voice.
>>8125106
>The ending is what one would probably call terrible, but then why do we say that? What does it say about us and our expectations of the traditional literary medium?
Kek this argument
>it's shit but that's a good thing because it challenges our expectations that literature should be good
this is where postmodernism crosses over into joke territory
>>8125175
I have the same problem, I didn't know and still don't know where I fit into the whole Millennial species, but this book did make me realize that I'm at least not as distant and irrelevant to it as I initially thought I was.
It's funny you say that about Fitzgerald though, because "Private Citizens" was called the "This Side of Paradise" of our generation, so maybe you will find something in it. Can't make any promises, but it's worth a try.
>>8125174
He knows and cares way too much about this junk and its critical reception to be even a dedicated troll. The unabashed samefagging clasps it.
>>8125181
More like challenges what qualifies literature as 'good.'
I'm not saying it's good or bad, I'm saying it makes me mad at both the book and at myself.
>An Amazon Best Book of the Month in the Literature & Fiction Category
>A Buzzfeed "Most Exciting" Book of 2016
>A Flavorwire "Most Anticipated" Book of 2016
>New York Magazine calls Private Citizens "the first great millennial novel."
>From a brilliant new literary talent comes a sweeping comic portrait of privilege, ambition, and friendship in millennial San Francisco. With the social acuity of Adelle Waldman and the murderous wit of Martin Amis, Tony Tulathimutte's Private Citizens is a brainy, irreverent debut--This Side of Paradise for a new era.
>Capturing the anxious, self-aware mood of young college grads in the aughts, Private Citizens embraces the contradictions of our new century: call it a loving satire. A gleefully rude comedy of manners. Middlemarch for Millennials. The novel's four whip-smart narrators--idealistic Cory, Internet-lurking Will, awkward Henrik, and vicious Linda--are torn between fixing the world and cannibalizing it. In boisterous prose that ricochets between humor and pain, the four estranged friends stagger through the Bay Area's maze of tech startups, protestors, gentrifiers, karaoke bars, house parties, and cultish self-help seminars, washing up in each other's lives once again.
>A wise and searching depiction of a generation grappling with privilege and finding grace in failure, Private Citizens is as expansively intelligent as it is full of heart.
You'd think after decades of this hyping tripe that the publishing industry would've matured in its advertising tactics. But I guess that's where social media comes into play.
>>8125193
I... I don't even know what to say anymore.
You know what, I might actually read this just because the mind of someone who would do this would just be so interesting to explore (not really, but it's a funny thought).
>>8125206
You live by too many rules.
The 'unabashed samefagging'? Really?
>>8125210
Bitches don't realize that the real "great millennial novel" was pic related.
>>8124985
I've read some reviews online. Apparently the book is riddled with unnecessary vocabulary. Sort of like Infinite Jest. and the characters are excruciating caricatures of California Millenials to the point of obnoxiousness being on every page.
>>8125537
>I can't read it cause I don't like the characters
I'm gonna go ahead and recommend you all take a look at Three Lunch Martini. It's about a group of young people in the 50's that are trying to make something of themselves in the literary world/industry. and it does what 'Citizens' tries to do for this generation but ten times better, with much more spare prose and realistic characters that are slight archetypical satires instead of a full on charicatures in 'Shitizens'
>>8125662
There is a right way and a wrong way to do satires. Citizens doesnt cut it.
>>8125817
Or just read (or reread) The Recognitions since it does these things too.
>>8125826
but with more believable and realistic characters and god tier prose and structure. OP's book seems like it lacks both.
Source: I've read The Recognitions.
>>8119744
>A certain writing style (even one that is irritating, self-absorbed, and tacky) often works to reinforce a certain purpose/theme that is only revealed later on in the book
this is such bullshit
>>8125839
Is it three lunch martini or three martini lunch?
>>8125037
This shit is primitive and time-bound. Conflict doesn't happen between big groups of people, it happens between individuals, among human hearts. Anything without that might as well have been written before the Renaissance
>>8125175
>Fitzgerald was the weakest author of the Lost Generation
what
>>8125878
not better than Gaddis in any way. but actually enjoyable, and substantial, compared to OP's book.
on a related note, has anyone read City on Fire? there was a lot of hype behind that.
Just so we're clear: the OP is the only one who has actually READ the book, right?
>>8125890
I haven't read it, but all the reviews say it's terrible posturing shit by someone who has no idea what 80s New York was actually like.
>>8125892
I was at a barnes and noble and read a few pages. I listened to a podcast that mentioned it and they mentioned that it was pretentious, but I usually like multicharacter doorstoppers. from what I read the writing was pretty bad and the characters were basically saturday morning cartoon characters of Cali Stereotypes.
>>8125892
This seems to be a pretty common pattern on this board
>>8125905
>read a few pages at barnes and noble
>heard it mentioned in a podcast
>has the audacity to give an opinion on the full book
>>8125931
He's not a book reviewer. There's no obligation for someone to read a work in its entirety to have an opinion on it if they're not reviewing it professionally. And for instance, I can tell you twilight is shit without having read it, most people here wouldn't even argue with me about that.
>>8125892
The OP is the only one who wrote the book, that's for certain.
>>8125948
Yeah
>88 / 34
Even if he didn't write it, he's been samefagging so hard that he must be the author's mom or something.
>>8125931
I gave it a chance. I read as much as I could without vomiting on the spot. Audacity would be noticing the terrible writing and characters and stillbuying and reading the whole thing for an anon's sake. the book is bad, deal with it.
>>8125902
got a link? I like reading both perspectives. maybe I missed something.
>>8117583
What is up with this board and content-free OPs?
If you just finished it, why don't you fucking tell us what you thought, or whether you think others should read it, or whether the critics are right or full of shit?
>>8125106
jesus christ u fucking faggot do u not understand that the millennials you are describing are a very small privileged strata of individuals ?
maybe why you are getting such hostile responses is bc you refuse to move your foot out of your mouth and talk character instead of proclaiming this to be the manifesto of a gigantic fucking age group, especially on 4chan where those type of people are generally derided.
you piss people off by refusing to understand that. you want to talk about this book and how it is generally being praised by the publishing industry atm? or the internet? well golly fucking gee do you know who are the type of people who run those publications? the same fucking people who the book probably speaks to.
>>8125942
I think this post completely encapsulates the general downgrade in the quality of discussions lately.
>He's not a book reviewer. There's no obligation for someone to read a work in its entirety to have an opinion on it if they're not reviewing it professionally.
Hes trying to trash talk a books thats more than 300 pages based on the first several. That's not a fully developed opinion at all. 100 pages is fine, maybe 50, but only the first few? No. That's like dismissing a video game because you finished the tutorial. If somebody were doing this towards a canonizes book or a book you liked, you'd find this unacceptable.
>And for instance, I can tell you twilight is shit without having read it, most people here wouldn't even argue with me about that.
>false equivalency
Wow anon, a series of romantic pap for 13 year old girls is shit? Those are some hot opinions friend, I bet you read soooo many books!
>>8125905
>I was at a barnes and noble and read a few pages
>I listened to a podcast that mentioned it and they mentioned that it was pretentious
What the fuck, is this bait? If so, bravo. If not, you basically don't have an opinion on the book at all, so you can stop pretending that you do.
>>8127358
This isn't any different from twilight in terms of being pandering though. It's pandering to a very tiny self-involved minority in the publishing industry. It's puddle deep but that's what passes for nuance now.
For all your posturing, you've yet to make any sort of coherent case for the book.
>>8127394
I love that when people don't like the intended audience for a certain product, suddenly the product itself becomes something being "pandered." Does Dove make soap in order to pander to people who want to take a shower?
>For all your posturing, you've yet to make any sort of coherent case for the book.
Haven't read it. Who knows, maybe I'll pick it up soon, and there's even a chance I'll hate it. But unlike you and all the other pretentious faggots on this board, I don't like to meme out and make stipulations about books I haven't read.
>>8127394
this x afuckingmillion
hell i would say the meme tao lin has created more substantial work than this author. lin was at least trying to do something that was all of his own at first. tai pei was a big fucking sell out failure, but his earlier work was a writer not afraid to be a weird loser. this book though, is a publishing agent's wet dream.
now to whoever is saying the contents of this book is satire or meant to shine a light onto why these types of books and the people that read them are so easily mockable - then, please show me something to be as revealing within he confines of this novel. otherwise this book is just the west coast version of HBO's Girls.
>>8127461
>a product
This is the exact problem.
>I haven't read it
Then what the fuck are you even doing? By your own standards, you don't have a real opinion on it either.
>>8127471
You do realize that Girls is a satire too?
>>8127498
>Then what the fuck are you even doing? By your own standards, you don't have a real opinion on it either.
Im not stating an opinion on the book. I'm stating an opinion on faggots like you.
>>8127512
So you're being a contrarian because we got sand in your vagina? Ok.
>>8127524
How the fuck am I being a contrarian?
>>8127538
>contrarian denies being contrarian
surprise
OP is so butthurt he/she/xer is actually responding to a bunch of anons on a Chinese scroll kokoro board.
Wether your book is good or not. How in the right mind did you think /lit/ would discus it? It's contemporary, it's a debut novel, It about millenials. You're not just a newfag, you're a fucking idiot for thinking this drivel would have any sort of substance aside from all the hype the publishers drum up.
>half this thread is filled by the same double faggot going waaah you haven't read the whole turd you can't judge it based on the bits of turd I've posted
And that's why everybody knows your book is shit.
>OPs face right now
