which of the classic books that are never Actually Discussed in depth is your favorite?
basically anything by
>Fitzgerald
>Austen
>Brontes
>Bellow
>Roth
>Dickens
>Hemingway
>Woolf
>Lawrence
as opposed to the ones where the books are actually discussed sometimes:
>DFW
>Pynchon
>Bolano
>Joyce
>Gaddis
>Dostoevsky
>Tolstoy
>Melville
>Camus
>Delillo
etc.
>Philosophers
i wish we could have threads about the tain but i suspect no one's read it
begorrah yall are bunch of bad sasanachs, this is like another potato famine
Tender is the Night, just ahead of the Great Gatsby, which overdoes the symbolism a touch for my taste. I need to reread them both though, it's been a while.
>>8254425
What translation would you recommend?
>>8254393
I'm rather fond of Lawrence.
Sons and Lovers was a slow-burn for me. I wasn't too interested while reading it, but afterwards I found myself thinking about it frequently.
The Oedipal/psychoanalytical angle isn't all that compelling, but unfortunately it seems like that's the only thing that academia is interested in.
The thing that really gets me is the rumination on time. It actually striking the similarities to Faulkner. Both authors are fascinated by the brevity of youth, how reality corrupts the romanticism. Basically quintessential modernism.
>>8254439
I revisited Gatsby recently. Been about five years since I read it. Hated it then; don't mind it too much now. I agree that the symbolism is heavy-handed.
As a side note, I've seen Fitz talked about on this board. I suspect that it's because everybody has to read it in high school in the U.S.
I don't see much talk about Huxley. Not about things that are not Brave New World.
>>8254393
>Dickens
Can we talk how Estella is the ultimate literary tsundere?
>>8254597
only Gatsby. people here like to pretend that Fitzgerald didn't write three other fantastic novels.
>>8254393
Elizabeth Bennet is the greatest waifu in the history of literature.
>>8254393
The Sun Also Rises rarely gets a proper discussion. Somebody will make some shitty cuck meme and dismiss it. If you ever see somebody trying to have a decent discussion about it, it's usually me.Sometimes I samefag a few decent discussion posts in a row just to see if I get anything started. I do this for more than just Hemingway.
>>8254788
My nigga
Can anyone recommend me other Fitzgerald besides Gatsby? I've heard good things about his short fiction. Read Gatsby in high school and liked it a lot, it was one of the first books I read where I didn't focus much on the plot and enjoyed the prose and symbolism instead.
>>8254788I do this tooI'm not this OP though
>>8254799
This Side of Paradise and Tender is the Night are both excellent. The Beautiful and Damned is kind of unfocused and too long, but still worth reading.
>>8254393
>implying there is any depth to be discussed in Pride and Prejudice
MR DARCY MR DARCY MR DARCY OH MR DARCY MR DARCY MR DARCY MR DARCY
>>8254812
>reading for plot
>>8254814
>thinks plot doesn't matter
pleb.
besides, pointless plot is only scratching the surface of what is bad in that shitty novel
>>8254799
>Can anyone recommend me other Fitzgerald besides Gatsby?
Sadly I really can't.
>>8254393
>Fitzgerald
>Austen
>Brontes
>Roth
>Dickens
>Hemingway
>Woolf
>Lawrence
I've seen them discussed several times, and I don't even lurk that much. Maybe the Brontes just once or twice.
>Bellow
This guy though, never. Anyone who's read him care to share some thoughts?
>>8254393
>>Fitzgerald
Comes up often if you mean F Scott
>>Austen
Comes up often. Just because the only people who like her are girls and idiots doesn't mean she isn't discussed, and because I said idiots there's bound to be a Nabokov fan who responds about his lectures on her.
>>Brontes
Come up often
>>Bellow
Gets so many "why does nobody discuss Bellow" threads that I think you're actually trolling now
>>Roth
Gets lots of discussion
>>Dickens
Again comes up often
>>Hemingway
It's Hemmingway
>>Woolf
Comes up often and she is half the board's waifu so long as she's looking to her right
>>Lawrence
Also comes up often
You sound new and like an idiot or girl.
>>8254566
Not him but the Kinsella translation.
>>8254425
Is mór an chuid comhrá dó, go hairithe faoi éad Eimeair nó faggotry an Chú. Freisin, aon am a tosnaíonn éinne ar UaNualláin, instear dó cuir tús lena tána.
>>8254821
>scratching the surface
yes, of the depth
>>8254942
>actually discussed in depth
>bases this on how often he just sees a name
I admit, some of what you mention would have been true three years ago, but in recent times a lot of those are mentioned but not discussed.
>>8255740
And now we're discussing how little they're mentioned instead of the books. I wonder if that's causative? OP has a pretty shitty selection of underrated and some of those names have been discussed in depth in past week (The Brontes, Dickens, Austen, and Woolf is practically a permanent feature).
Bellow not being read was the same three years ago as it was now; we have a thread now and then where OP says "why does nobody" and then the few anons who read him show up and declare which parts they've read and recommend the ones they've read to the anons who read different ones.
Roth whenever he's mentioned gets the same treatment except with more in depth discussion.
Fitzgerald is high school reading and most of the discussion gets shit on for being high school interpretations which readers didn't get from the book but from learning what teacher said.
They're not unknowns, and three years ago anon was complaining we didn't discuss books instead of writing posts discussing them too. OP's list here is especially newbish, and especially normie and girly. It's like complaining Orwell or other writers in the starter kit don't get discussed here often: it's not discussion to complain, and it's slightly less illuminating than looking at the beginner's /lit/ chart. If OP wanted to discuss any of these, OP could have made a thread discussing them, and either samefagged it until it generated interest from OP's braindead observations on the text, or, less likely, until anon responded with discussion to OP's well thought out posts. Let's not kid ourselves that OP is doing anyone a service here posting normal girl core author's surnames and pretending that's discussing them; it's not; it's the same reason why OP never finds discussion on them. There was a thread discussing Austen and the The Brontes just yesterday, and probably the only reason OP feels those authors don't get discussed enough is that OP is the kind of poster who needs spoonfeeding and never reaches the character limit of posts when OP mentions any of them. You get what you give, and when you post pointless meta discussion instead of discussing any of the authors you list, you get meta discussion in return.
