Maybe it's just me, but I like:
• Lord Of The Rings
• A Song of Ice and Fire
• Hitchhiker's Guide (Gasp!)
I see these books shittalked constantly for being badly written, overly detailed, etc. yet IMO they are all excellent books and great reads.
Yet all I hear are faggots who hate these books for no other reason than because they are mainstream and polular
>inb4 pleb
What if it turned out that you were the pretentious one for caring so much about what others think of your taste instead of just enjoying it.
>>8265635
harry potter for adults brah.
>>8265644
Probably right
>(Gasp!)
I really hope you're a women, else you are one massive poof
>>8265647
no but that's objectively wrong
LITERATURE is harry potter for adults.
these bubblegum forced-genre books are harry potter for emotionally underdeveloped normie plebshits
>>8265649
As opposed to a tiny little poof?
>>8265635
This is lit, where people of low intelligence feel special because they like meme patrician books.
Lord of the Rings is almost inarguably the best fantasy series written. It did exactly what Tolkien wanted to do, which was create a world for his languages. Really he created many worlds, because all fantasy ever since has been small twists on his.
ASoIaF I haven't read, mostly because it seems like nothing but (supposedly good) plot. I've seen prose excerpts and they aren't shit-tier, but they don't blow you away. It's simply not worth the investment into a gigantic series like that, in my eyes, unless it's something ground-breaking like In Search of Lost Time.
Hitchhiker's Guide I enjoyed as a 14 year old, and honestly don't think I missed much that I would pick up on in a fresh read-through. It's a humor book, 100%, and I grew out of that style of humor.
The truth is that people here don't hate books like these "because they're mainstream and popular," they hate them (or in my case are largely indifferent about them) because they have flaws or simply don't match the caliber of actual literature. The thing is that most non-shitposting folks here aren't going to sit here and break down what sucks about them like I did, so you get to walk away all smug and say that the only reason /lit/ doesn't like Stephen King and Ready Player One is because we're pretentious assholes.
The solution is to lurk before you post, try some books you see held in high regard that aren't that difficult (I suggest Moby Dick or Dubliners), and maybe learn something about why people say some literature is good and some is bad.You won't do it, though.
>>8265684
>Really he created many worlds, because all fantasy ever since has been small twists on his.
Not really, there are more than enough who go out of their way to avoid so-called Tolkienisms
>Reading for entertainment.
>Genre fiction.
>>8265701
He hasn't experienced the comfy Napoleonic era prose of Patrick O'Brian.
>>8265701
>tfw Big Shakem wrote his plays to entertain the masses
>they also carry substance that allowed them to survive for hundreds of years
>mfw plebs think these things are mutually exclusive
>>8265697
The fact that they have to do out of their way to avoid them speaks for itself however.
>>8265723
Yea, how dare someone want to be an original voice.
>>8265635
>image.jpg
>t-there is nothing wrong with being a pleb! i like being a simpleton!
bwahahahahahhaaha
>>8265727
>Missing my point
You are going to have to tone down in the pretentious alert if you are going to start wanting to enjoy books.
>(Gasp!)
>>8265729
what is the prize for being a complexton?
>>8265732
Yes, fantasy has been saturated with knockoff Tolkiens. But if you look at current trends its easy enough to see a many authors circumventing anything close to what he was doing. To the point its not even an issue anymore. So the point becomes moot and at worse disengenuous.
I enjoy pretentiousness and actually having standards as opposed to shit. Call me crazy.
I think the hostility against garbage is keeping this board somewhat good but it is being eroded and replaced by, well, shit. Stay hostile and keep standards up. Eventually the plebs will go away.
>>8265765
The problem arrives when the people hailing themselves as paladins of good taste are pretty basic themselves.
>>8265635
>Lord Of The Rings
>I see these books shittalked constantly for being badly written, overly detailed,
Really? I haven't anyone say anything bad about it, at worst they just say they didn't like it and it wasn't for them.
>>8265755
You sound like a poof
>muh pretentious
>they don't like the books because they are popular
>uses gay bullet points
>Gasp!
kys pleb
>>8265635
I duno fa:m im no patrician but
Theyre not that bad(except song of ice and fire, it's shit) theyre just looked down because of their meme status. Its not like some faggot judge you anyway carry on my man
>>8265635
People on /lit/ like Tolkien though
Try to compare Tolkien and Grrm and literally everyone will get mad because Tolkien is a different class.
>>8265635
/lit/ is filled with hipsters, deal with it or get out
>>8265653
Harry Potter is pleb YA. Harry Potter for adults is Stephen King ("quite right" - Harold Bloom)
For the OP, populist shit is easy to find somewhere to talk about it. There is a preference for more esoteric shit here because that's the kind of space the users here have typically wanted, rather than being homogenised with good reads or the majority of reddit (or real life)
On top of that there's not that many discussions to have about them. What would you really say about HHG beyond that you liked it? LotR less so but it's not really a treasure trove of hidden meaning, mostly people marvel at the reimagined Beowulf or the linguistic depth or something like that if it gets mentioned here. There's probs more mileage in CS Lewis. There were discussions from people reading for plot and looking for tweests in GoT but the TV show has killed that and GRRM hasn't lived (although literally somehow he has continued to live) up to expectations.
>>8265765
You don't know what pretentious means.
>>8266005
youllsees is pretentious
>>8265635
This is a board for discussion about literature. There are plenty of other places for you to discuss your genre fiction.
>caring about other people opinion
You're as autistic as them.
Wouldn't someone who has read far more than you have more say in it than you? Say, if a plummer had to go to your house and told you whoever installed your pipes didn't know what they were doing, would you dismiss their opinion with "well it seems fine to me"?
I swear to god no one even knows what pretentious means.
>>8266263
Have you never heard of the ol cowboy technique of making everything seem much worse and much more expensive? Like if a plumber came round and started tutting saying everything would need replacing most people would get another plumber in most cases
>>8266024
yes yes yes yes yes it is yes pretentious yes
>>8265635
/lit/ is full of pretentious pseuds who will call you a pleb and your favorite book shit no matter what it is. That being said, the reason people here shit talk the books you listed is because they're fairly simple books with little literary merit and there's really not that much to even talk about with them. I wouldn't go so far as to say they're badly written but really only Tolkien is worth reading of those, and that has more to do with his impact on fantasy than much else. The other two are genuinely not particularly well written (especially ASoIaF) compared with most literary fiction and the great majority of books discussed on this board. It also doesn't help that all these books are really popular and overly praised in communities like reddit/goodreads, which brings out the inner contrarian in /lit/ posters. >>8265684 is a pretty good post too
>>8266283
How pretentious of you to say that :^]
>>8265697
Either you imitate him or spend half your time obsessively making sure you're not imitating him.
>>8265810
Funny thing is, people here used to praise ASoIaF before it got its HBO adaptation.
>>8266597
Really, "fantasy" as a genre is cancer because the word itself is a lot more broad than what's considered a "fantasy" story. If you want to do anything other than medievalesque swords and sorcery type shit you have to call it "speculative fiction" because "fantasy" has come to mean one very specific type of story with various levels of "fantastical" elements.
>>8266641
Most of those people either left or are now in the jetpackshit containment thread. It's not the same crowd.
>>8265783
So you are new then? Because a sizeable majority of /lit/ has disliked the LotR for years.
>>8265635
some worthless comments:
- lord of the rings is alright, we dont bash that too harshly. its a bit shit if this is all you read though. it certainly is badly-written, though some A* world building. simplistic themes ect.
- ASOIAF: pure plot-driven drivel. someone post that Sunset passage. why waste so much time on such worthless garbage. literally 50 shades of gray for man-children
- hitchhikers guide
its funny but too reddit/fedora at times. a lot of the hate is due to its popularity, but mostly because its overrated and smug
In summary: we dont hate books because they are popular, but we hate books for the same reason that a lot of people enjoy these books (and similar), i.e. theyre smug, simplistic, circle-jerky garbage. correlation does not imply causation. its the same reason why people who are REALLY into music wouldnt say that the Top 40 are the greatest musicians.
in short: if it appeals to the masses, its probably shit. but appealing to the masses isnt the REASON why its shit.
idk man
lets be honest, almost all of us have sat down and read a plebby book (im using the word pleb not because i believe in the pleb/patrician distinction but because its a useful shorthand for simplistic unoriginal pandering) because we were too lazy for anything thought-provoking. but we dont pretend its anything more than that.
also this is /lit/erature. genre fiction isnt literature (though they often intersect).
if you havent read any great literature then give it a go. you might like it.
p.s. we are more pretensious than we ought to be though. but thats mainly shitposting and memes
>>8266684
its just hipsterism, /lit/ hates mainstream then creates its own mainstream that's equally memey
>>8266688
you fucking waste of space
>>8266688
Not at all. Most of the shitposts that make everyone here seem like they read the same 3-5 books are by newfag memers who haven't read any of them.
It's just that if you're seriously interested in literature and don't only see books as something to pass the time with, you're going to look into things other than what everyone just praises for its entertainment value.
It doesn't take a "hipster" to think "maybe there's more to books than stories about swords and magic or wacky space adventures?" and follow through on that thought.
>>8266706
Don't pretend I'm wrong. You goofballs spam the same five names all week then pretend you're actually doing something. Big fucking laugh.
>>8266706
>>8266712
>It doesn't take a "hipster" to think "maybe there's more to books than stories about swords and magic or wacky space adventures?" and follow through on that thought.
Its very easy to do without the chip on your shoulder. If you really think you're big shit for reading something other than an average fantasy novel then you really have some growing up to do.
>>8266728
>If you really think you're big shit
This wasn't said or implied any way. The only one with a chip on their shoulder is you.
>>8266728
but most people don't think they're "big shit" for reading literature.
some do, sure, but most don't.
>>8265684
>mostly because it seems like nothing but (supposedly good) plot
>pure plot-driven drivel.
Newfag here, isn't literature all about the plot?
>>8266768
>he insulted my safe-space
>better call him a lemming!
>>8266728
I don't think I'm better than anyone for reading what I read and I don't think anyone is worse for reading genre fiction, but what bothers me personally is when someone only reads fantasy or genre fiction then feels inferior and needs to call anyone who reads something beyond fantasy "pretentious".
>>8266787
That is a 'problem' I agree, but I personally make a point to not even bother with those types. The way I see it everyone has their time when they want to branch out. It's not my business to force anyone.
>>8266597
This is a stock opinion that sounds good but I've seen much evidence for it. The influences on something like Brandon Sanderson's Stormlight books go way beyond just reacting to Tolkien. In general I think there's as much Edgar Rice Burroughs, Marvel comics, and pop science fiction in a lot of post 2000s fantasy.
It doesn't make them good of course, but "it's all just miming/subverting Tolkien" isn't smart criticism.
>>8266753
You will most likely get a bunch of meme replies or angry reaction images to this but in what has always been considered good literature, plot very often takes a backseat to other elements. It's a part of a good book, but certainly not the only one or the most important one. Purists on this board will tell you all that matters is the aesthetic quality of the prose, which is what some authors (Joyce, Nabokov) strived for.
>>8266792
yes, I agree that belittling someone or trying to force someone to read something they don't want/aren't prepared for/aren't interested in is pretentious, and that is a problem too.
it just goes both ways.
>"this book is more intellectual than this book"
>doesn't even try to give an intellectually tenable reason why that is
>>8266785
If anything, the entire publishing industry is a dedicated safe-space for plebs and you're lashing out because a few people aren't eagerly guzzling the same runny diarrhea you've been told is just as good as anything else you could be reading by the people who are selling it to you.
>>8266827
try again
>>8266813
>Laments that others aren't backing up their opinions while failing to read the thread where several posts do exactly that
>>8266684
>its funny but too reddit/fedora at times.
It is really fucking embarrassing how you rail against "popular/mass culture" but still RELY on fucking internet memes to communicate.
>>8266768
This guy's got it
>>8266848
Do you fucking think arguments like "it's fedora core" or "it's like 50 shades of gray for man-children" or "lmao i enjoyed it when i was 14" or "tha prose is shit-tier" constitute some kind of 'intellectual' and tenable argument? A fucking elementary school paper wouldn't accept the way in which you people express yourselves.
>>8266884
That's because you're on a somalian woodcut engraving forum, my friend. Nobody here is going to tear apart a book and provide cited contextual evidence of its shittiness.
If you would like to find "intellectual" reasons that those books are amazing because you've been triggered by this phenomenon >>8266768, go ahead.
>>8266913
So it is perfectly acceptable to communicate in the most low-brow way possible but to actually consume media, that conform to this low-brow taste(that you undoubtedly possess) is something you avoid?
>>8266937
not that anon, but they aren't saying it's acceptable, they're just asking what do you expect from 4chan.
>>8266937
Yes, it is acceptable to post stupid memes on an imageboard made for that purpose and to read literature at different times throughout the day. I don't know why you're accusing me of having shit taste, do you want to talk about it family?
>>8266856
...because we're on the internet.
everyone knows what i mean when i say reddit/fedora, its more efficent than saying: smug, pseudo-intellectual, self-congratulatory, atheistic, progressive, celebrates ""nerd culture"", panders to losers, simplistic view of the world, over-confident, ""nu-male"" ect.
you might not like the fact that a hat or a single website has become a by-word for an entire ideology/personality but it has (at least on here).
similarly, if i said "redneck" you can identify a full range of political, religious, ethical,... beliefs, identified just from their sunburnt neck.
also if you think im railing against "popular/mass culture" you didnt even slightly read my post. im saying that we dont hate popular books because theyre popular, we hate (sometimes) popular books because they are shit, and they're popular because they are shit
>>8267002
But that's like using Ebonics to rail on the way Mexicans speak.
I'm glad it happens to be honest. I don't even care if people are actually being serious when they trash popular books, but I suspect a lot of them (including me) just do so ironically because it's fun. I wouldn't take it seriously at all, and I encourage it because it in turn encourages the discussion of lesser known works and authors, which I always like to know to further my list of books to read. Without such pretentiousness, I feel like /lit/ would become more of a circlejerk than it already is (you can't eliminate it completely on any site about books, lets be honest) and it would start to look more like,,,, dare i say it.......r/books. *shudders*
>>8265635
Why do you care what some anonymous faggots on the internet think?
>>8265635
I can easily discuss (in depth) all of those books without ever having read them. They're marketable entertainment. Could you have an in depth discussion about, say, Sein und Zeit/Soumission/The Brothers Karamazov?
>>8266753
Goddamn you are indeed a newfag. Literature is about prose and themes.
>>8266728
goddamn you win the Fag of the Week Award
>>8266024
My new friend Anon here must think "pretentious" means "good"
>>8267628
Oh FUCK OFF, mobileposter. I wish supreme faggotry was a bannable offense. I have learned and developed more as a person in my 7 years of 4chan than I have from any other online community. What in the hell are you even doing here if you hate it so much? 4chan seeks objective truths and maintains a cynical attitude to keep away from the bullshit of the rest of the internet. People like you are so uncomfortable with our ideas that you feel the need to save this to your phone and post it when there's a hint of an argument about the quality of the site. We don't want you here, I don't want you here. When I come to /lit/ I want to discuss fucking literature with people who may or may not be likeminded to me. I don't want to see your candyass crying about "misogyny" and about how we're just awful. People like you have greatly compromised the quality of discussion on /lit/ because everything has to be about how we're too problematic or some other nonsensical token argument of the internet obsessed liberal. So take your own advice and block 4chan; return to whatever safe space you came from. It will never be this website. Get the fuck out of here.
>>8267661
Take a chill pill bro. Maybe some 5HTP
>>8267752
>I dont have any sort of valid response so I'll tell him to chill out xD
>>8267628
I'd probably think the same thing about the site if I only went on /b/ or one of the equally shitty boards. For all its flaws, /lit/ is a cut above maybe 85% of the site.
this is what I fucking hate about when you jackasses post a /lit/ chart on Reddit then we get a goddamn mass exodus of newfags and have to unpack every goddamn meme and spoonfeed them to get them up to speed.
We use memes as shorthand. We don't hold discussions if they can be encapsulated in a few terms that we've invented.
Calling something "pleb, shit-tier, god-tier, patrician, cozy, GOAT, fedora, buzzword-salad, etc" isn't dismissive. We know what that implies because we've been here for longer than 15 fucking minutes.
We don't post for fucking upvotes, we toss around memes because they pretty much cover the gist of what we have to say.
We, for the most part, read for prose, characterization, themes, and philosophy.
plot and genre pandering are generally dismissed as pleb shit.
Also, enjoying a book doesn't magically imbue it with literary merit, Hitchhikers Guide is literally Dr. Who: the book. It's just cheap smug British jibber jabber.
Here's all you need to know : >>8267818
>>8266706
>>8267818
>>8267818
witness
>>8266753
Leave now, before cynicism ruins any perceptions you've had of books. I can't enjoy any of my childhood favorites anymore
>>8265657
yes
>>8265635
There just not very good mate, you know how Captain America Winter Soldier is pretty good but actually when you compare it to say...The Shining or Adaptation it starts to look a bit rubbish and really you don't want to invest too much of your psychic energy into CAWS because it's basically a waste of your time. It's like that but 4 books
>>8265635
>yet IMO they are all excellent books and great reads.
The fantasies you like are heavily influenced by history, you should try reading the texts that inspired them. History is just extremely low fantasy.
>>8267866
I was never that big of a reader as a child so this was never a problem for me.
>>8266795
Why does almost every fantasy book ever written use some vague medieval or renaissance setting?
It's like the writer sits down and thinks, "hmmm I could imagine anything I want, so therefore I'll just repackage my History 102 knowledge of my own world and add magick."
There's nothing fantastical about fantasy, it's all recognizably our own world. So dull. Real medieval history is more exciting than anything GRRM shit onto paper anyway. I hate to meme, but the only exception I've seen to this is BoTNS. And that is arguably science fiction. All his best books are, imo.
>liking a song of ice and fire
Those other choices aren't bad though op desu
>>8267905
Because that's what the genre came to be defined as after Tolkien. Now if you want to read or write anything genuinely "fantastical" it has to either be called "speculative fiction" or not fall under any genre.
This is the real reason genres are looked down upon by most people here. It's not even that they lend themselves more to potboilers and simplistic stories, just that they're far too restrictive to allow the vast majority of authors to actually put out anything worthwhile if they attempt to stick to the conventions that make them marketable.
>>8267932
I see what you mean. I wouldn't mind it so much if they at least ripped off a wider range of historical periods/areas. It seems like it's always Europe, China/Japan, or some Arab clusterfuck.
I remember one Anon here asked some OP who wanted to write a fantasy novel, "Why Medieval Europe? Why not the Timurid Empire?"
>>8268003
not that guy, but the Timurid Empire would be one of those arab clusterfucks you talked about
>>8267818
>read for prose
>only discover that I want to read/write at late 20s
>Read Lolita's first chapter
>I cry how beautiful that is
>I cry that I can't reach that level of prose for my writing even though I strive for it
Fuck, I should've started reading while I was five-years-old. Fuck vidya, fuck films/movies, fuck everything.
Is it too late to perfect my craft?
>>8265644
>I think it's wrong to discuss things on a discussion board
>I have no idea what "pretentious" means
>>8265711
non sequitur
>>8268238
Nabokov was told that he was worthless as a writer when he was a teenager. And most people agree that his early Russian books were garbage.
>>8267628
yyyyyyaaaaaaawwwwwwwnnnnnnnn
>>8267628
>you chuckle every thirty minutes and are occasionally spurred to masturbation by libidinal posts or pictures.You are addicted to readily available information and pressure free social interaction.
this part stung a little.
>>8268551
all of nabokov's work is worthless overwritten saccharine garbage.
>>8268577
Spoken like a true plebgot.
>>8266039
>Not understanding that HGG isn't really about outer space.
>>8268604
>Not understanding that not really being about space doesn't not make it genre fiction.
>>8268577
>saccharine
Wow, I don't think I could come up with a more inaccurate description of Nabokov if I tried.
>>8267628
all of this is true, but i can't see myself leaving this shithole any time soon.
>>8268151
>Timurids
>Arab
If you set the story in rocky highlands instead of the desert, and avoided Orientalist cliches, nobody would guess Arab.
>>8268500
Admit it, your favourite writers have no imagination.
>dragons
>swords
>knights
>The Chosen One
>women performing magic
>kings, lords, ladies
>inscrutable empires
It's like fantasy bingo. Free Space: cover is garishly illustrated, with large, flashy, lettering.
>>8266688
True and it is so much easier to feel smart saying that pretty decent literature is shit rather than explaining why excellent literature is better.
>>8268611
to one who finds well worked prose sweet, nabokov is absolutely saccharine. overcooked. masturbatory. wank. take your pick, compadre
>>8268635
I dunno what to tell you, enjoy your Hemmingway I guess.
>>8267628
You get out what you put in. And /v/ is now more or less a containment board for idiots at this point, it's like /b/ 2.0 if versioning made things sadder and stupider with each release.
>>8268635
>compadre
So it was just a tortilla-fucking corncobber all along.
>>8268765
idiot
I've never even read McCarthy, I'm actually from the american southwest, where people say things like "compadre" sarcastically, amigo.
>>8268786
>he reckons ya have to have read YeCarthy ta be a corncobber
W E W
E
W
>>8268802
die
>>8268786
Lmao I bet you have a captive bolt gun and call people "friendo" too
>>8266024
100% agree.
>>8268829
I'm too into drugs to spend money on guns, mon frere
>>8266688
you cant tell this post was spot on by all the butthurt it caused
>>8265701
>reading
>>8268238
>I cry how beautiful that is
>I cry that I can't reach that level of prose for my writing even though I strive for it
It's beautiful, all right. Beautifully pedophile insane.
>>8266684
> a lot of the hate is due to its popularity
>In summary: we dont hate books because they are popular
ho kay
>>8268914
Its true, these anons all want to be the exception but the plain fact is that /lit/ is a circus of pseuds and plebs. The snob culture runs deeper than anything but has little to show for it. The board's own output quality is laughable.
>>8268238
>Is it too late to perfect my craft
no
writers often write until they die, and while many writers begin young, many writers start late.
>>8268624
this is sort of inspiring me to write literary fantasy.
>>8268976
>tfw wants to create a fictional encyclopedia with literary movements and cultures shuffled around on a flat-world to create new contexts in which to write
>tfw the amount of work to do something like that would mean I would have to be sure it's the only thing I want to do with my life.
I just want to write under different voices with a compelling reason outside of character.
>>8269003
>functional
I'm not interested in being Robert Jordan
I'm talking about a huge multi-volume encyclodpedia that would allow me to create analogies and nuanced metaphors unique to my world
one where I could ghostwrite as multiple fictive authors with the same sense of buiding upon each other.
I'm bad at describing what I want, because it's currently a poorly formed thought that intimidates me from approaching
>>8269011
I felt like my response was inadequate so I deleted it.
If anything, I guess you can work more at defining exactly what you want and build from there. Do prototypes and play around.
>>8269018
hopefully one day i canI'm thinking of trying to make a video game with a terraria model for money-making
I'm thinking of getting on of those sandboxes with elevation projectors to play around with geography.
>>8266768
I endorse this post
>>8267056
sorry for holding literature to a higher standard than 4chan shitposting.
>>8268917
weak comprehesion skills
i literally spelled out in the clearest terms that we dont hate popular books because they are popular. they are often popular because they are simplistic smug and pandering to their niche market. these are the reasons we dont like them. dickens was hugely popular, as was shakespeare, but they arent simplistic smug and pandering to their niche market.
c'mon i dont know how i can be simplier.
>>8269011
so you want to be Proust but with hypertext?
/lit/ is a terrible place to discuss literature. I think the only board worse than /lit/ when it comes to this is /k/. If I'm a pleb for reading the Elric Saga or whatever, than I will continue to do so. It's better than indulging in the pretentious circlejerk that is /lit/, and you can still read the greats if you want.
>>8270356
I need to read him already.
>>8270459
actually, on second thought
>one where I could ghostwrite as multiple fictive authors with the same sense of buiding upon each other.
this sounds more like Pessoa.
>>8265711
>Shakey was pretty much forgotten. Had it not been for the Romantics (Coleridge) Shakespeae would have been long forgotten; for good reasons too.
>>8270476
I checked out his selected poems. Looks neat.
Thanks, man.
>>8265635
I've never seen Tolkien being trashed in here.
I don't even know what Hitchhiker's guide is.
A song of Ice and Fire, now, that's something else... I've read it because I have fond memories of my adolescence, when I used to devour fantasy novels, but it suffers from the usual issues of the genre. I'm not going to list them, they're numerous, but I'll give you my main problem with. It is the total absence of effort towards style. The idea isn't for the sentences to look pretty, but for the author to articulate whatever reality he's describing in a manner common speech cannot. GRRM, and most fantasy writers don't even try to do that, so the minute the writing goes off plot-related stuff or plot-related stuff becomes boring/predictable, I find myself unable to continue reading...
>>8268786
I'm glad that you are a guy who dislikes Nabokov
>>8270351
Most of the books liked and discussed on /lit/ have sold millions of copies. Lolita sold 100k copies in its first three weeks. Anyone with a scrap of education has heard of Lolita. "V. and The Crying of Lot 49 had each sold more than three million copies in their Bantam mass-market editions [before 1973]" They're popular, just not as much as accessible genre books that have wildly successful movie franchises or tv shows based off of them.
>>8270982
>They're popular, just not as much as accessible genre books
isnt that all there is though in fiction: genre books and literature?
also published fiction wasnt commercialised until quite recently.
im on the amazon bestsellers of 2016. the vast majority are cooking books ect. here is the top fiction:
>harry potter and the cursed child
>me before you (a romantic tragedy recently a movie)
>the worlds worst children (a childrens book by """"comedian""" turned BGT host david walliams)
>the list changing magic of tidying (im assuming this is a self-help book?)
>the girl on the train
>behind closed doors
>unmumsy mum
>after you (the same author as me before you)
>mind management (self help again?)
>how it works: the mum
i know its not fashionable to be all pretensious and complain about how shit publishing has become. i know it makes me look like a pseud. but lets be honest, its true.
>>8271058
I'm just saying that "you only hate Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy because it's popular" is a shit argument when Pynchon (who /lit/ idolizes) was selling books by the millions even in the 1960s. James Joyce, Nabokov, Melville, Dosto, are all incredibly popular and widely read authors, and have been for decades. They're just not popular AND accessible, although desu, most of their books are pretty readable. When OP says "popular" he means "accessible, lowest common denominator books, marketed by the latest movie/tv adaption, the literary equivalent of netflix and video games." The only exception to this is LoTR, which has been loved and read by teenagers and children for so long that people will pretend to like it even when they don't.
/lit/ rarely talks about a book at all if it's not popular. I can't discuss "Ice" by Anna Kavan with /lit/ because I know from a previous thread that <10 people on /lit/ have read it.
>>8271479
Thats why I said /lit/ makes its own mainstream to worship, since that's literally what happens.
Somehow this is some hugely controversial point lmao
we just are fond toward literary fiction. its just the general trend for the board.
I think we should leave the /fantasy/ and /sci-fi/ generals to themselves without bugging them though
>>8266768
based post
I mean, you can still enjoy what you want but don't be going around circles dedicated to a objectively higher tier of medium slinging your dogshit "DUDE U ARE JUST PRETENTIOUS LMAO" bullshit.
You aren't a secretly smart special snowflake for thinking something that's more mainstream and dumbed down is just as merited as something that appeals to crowds more niche and intelligent. You aren't some special guy who really sees what it's all about who fights the hipster movement AND the mainstream movement.
If you recognize the faults of the obviously flawed and still enjoy it you are fine, but if not you are more pretentious than the people you are claiming are pretentious. And more stupid too.
>>8272223
>You aren't a secretly smart special snowflake for thinking something that's more mainstream and dumbed down is just as merited as something that appeals to crowds more niche and intelligent. You aren't some special guy who really sees what it's all about who fights the hipster movement AND the mainstream movement.
I never indicated that. My argument was against the people who act completely self-righteous over their choice of media.
I'm actually surprised he managed to dig up that many cute terms for someone he hardly payed attention to.
>>8265684
Ulysses is objectively shit
>>8272236
the only person who is sounding self-righteous right now is you. You need to fucking lurk more if you think people criticize these books because they are popular. There are lots of pseuds swimming around here, but all their ideals still stem from legitimate literary criticism. Your disdain for elitism (and so many other people's) leads to ignorance and misunderstanding. It should not be feared or disdained, because it leads to a better culture.
If someone criticizes something you like and actually points out flaws in a concise way like so many people have done for all those books you listed, you should respond with your own counter-points instead of saying "You just don't like it cause it's popular." like a fucking pleb.
>>8272285
I'll let you know an important thing before we continue: I'm not OP and I really don't give a shit that people don't like his favorite books.
All my posts were mere assessments on the nature of this board, and I'm very confident in their accuracy.
I'm not arguing against liking good books, I wont even call you pretentious for preferring the so-called literary fiction over the so-called genre fiction. What I am against is the idea of looking down on others for their choice in media based on mere 'principle' as I mentioned here >>8266787
When that sort of attitude is carried around it does very little but puff up ones ego and build resentment in the other party, nobody learns anything and there's no real connection made. Its just schoolyard tier bullshit of "lol i read better books than you." Can you honestly call that being dedicated to a higher tier of thought?
If you really want to improve the quality of this board then you actively encourage reading good books while being as equally open to suggestions yourself. You don't kick around people who more often than not don't even know better, and you certainly don't become a fanatic and hail your own limited reading pool as the be-all-end-all of literature. Its absolutely fruitless.
>>8265684
goood post famalam
>>8272318
I understand you now, but what you are saying is so blatantly obvious and you are describing all of 4chan. And honestly I don't see much of what you are talking about on this board anyways. In fact you see less of that behavior on /lit/ than almost any other board considering the IQ level of this board is probably among the highest. Sure you get lots of pseud summer-fags here, or people migrating from other boards, but ehh. I just don't see it from here as much.
>>8271921
We didn't make them mainstream, the millions of readers in past decades did. Or critics like Bloom et al. If we hated every popular book then we would have to stop reading 90% of the books we like. Everyone and their dog has heard of Anna Karenina.
The argument "/lit/ hates popular books" is unsound.
>>8272318
It's like telling a powerlifter he should respect someone who does a few sets of bicep curls once a week. Part of it is anger at r/books. On any given week there's a thread on r/books talking about how shit "pretentious high brow literature" is and how Patrick Rothfuss should be taught in schools instead of Dostoevsky. That pleb attitude could easily ruin /lit/ and it wouldn't even be fun for shitposting anymore. We would end up with some ghetto like /co/
>If you really want to improve the quality of this board then you actively encourage reading good books while being as equally open to suggestions yourself. You don't kick around people who more often than not don't even know better
Do you know what website you're on? That's why new users are supposed to lurk more. This isn't some hugbox. I come here so I can state my honest opinions in unvarnished language without getting downvoted or banned.
>>8268610
Well I just figured since it used literary elements to discuss themes and concepts pertaining to philosophy and existence that it could pass for a philosophical novel but I forgot that genre fiction=books you don't like.
>>8272682
>It's like telling a powerlifter he should respect someone who does a few sets of bicep curls once a week.
Very poor comparison. How much do you even know about fitness? Do you understand there are different approaches, goals and mentalities in fitness just like everything else?
Besides that, its not about your poor idea of respect, its about working with people who can potentially be interested in other good works while expanding your own range. What universities due to their curriculum isn't part of this argument, I'm talking about /lit/ specifically.
>Do you know what website you're on? That's why new users are supposed to lurk more. This isn't some hugbox. I come here so I can state my honest opinions in unvarnished language without getting downvoted or banned.
So you're part of the problem. You're not interested in discussion, you're interested in talking down to people and spamming bullshit with wild abandon. Why are you even bringing up Reddit when everything I'm saying relates to interacting like a sensible human being? Hell, why are you even pretending to be speaking for this board?
>>8272682
>how Patrick Rothfuss should be taught in schools instead of Dostoevsky
I will kill someone if this actually happens.
>>8270982
>Lolita sold 100k copies in its first three weeks
Fucking pedos.
>>8270639
>It is the total absence of effort towards style
You don't like constipating old man taking a shit, do you?
>>8267628
>you chuckle every thirty minutes and are occasionally spurred to masturbation by libidinal posts or pictures.You are addicted to readily available information and pressure free social interaction.
>Implying I don't memepost for maximum keks then victoriously close my browser while I go for a soapy bath to massage my balls and penis thinking of all the downtrodden female students forced into sexwork
>>8268663
E.Y.E threads are still fun
>>8271479
1. i am not talking about 1960's. as i say, fiction only became this commercialised after harry potter. YA wasnt a thing 20 years ago. even the genre fiction back then (fantasy/sci fi) was pretty good. now its just a money-grab.
also /lit/ talks about popular *literature* because that is what this board is for. we dont discuss the most popular books because (as i show in >>8271058) they arent literature.
>>8268489
This is an image board, you raging cunt.
>>8265755
*disingenous
>>8272318
There's absolutely nothing to be "learned" or taught from this discussion no matter which "side" you're on, and if you think there is you're the most legitimately pretentious person here.
>>8270639
>I've never seen Tolkien being trashed in here.
He's overly expository. Every other paragraph is "the reeds dotted the valley as it rolled towards the greens near the ill age with....". And I agree with Lewis about his overuse of "bloody elves".
Apart from that he's alright. It's amazing how few have managed to write anything approaching decent fantasy after him too.
>>8272741
>Very poor comparison. How much do you even know about fitness? Do you understand there are different approaches, goals and mentalities in fitness just like everything else?
Found the butt hurt curl bro with fuckarounditis. I hope you have a better approach to reading than lifting.
>>8275203
Says the person who fails to understand the purpose behind communication.
____K____K______Y______Y_______SSSSS_____
____K__K__________Y___Y_______S___________
____KK______________Y__________SSSSS_____
____K__K____________Y________________S____
____K____K__________Y__________SSSSS_____
>>8265635
You do realise you're on 4chan right? The le epic contrarian website where Iam a special snowflake with a conosseurian taste in whatever hasn't entered the mainstream yet, until it does.
>>8275239
I hope you do to. Anyone remotely interested in fitness knows how many different approaches there are. Compare the bodybuilder to the powerlifter or hell even a swimmer.
Get the fuck out of this conversation if you couldnt even pick that up.
>>8275255
Bodybuilders and swimmers will have a program consisting of things other than curls. Even Overly-seasoned Panini's 8 hour arm workout has more to it than "a few curls". I can't even think of why a swimmer would use curls.
In fact weirdly a traditional power lifter is still the most likely to do curls (strength set). But again not only curls
>>8275281
I'm talking about end-goals, not process.
Obviously a bodybuilder and powerlifter (even swimmer) may do similar excercises, but their respective goals and outcomes are completely different.
>>8275290
>may do similar excercises, but their respective goals and outcomes are completely different
Their goals and outcomes aren't all that different which is why their training is similar. Which in turn is why compound, functional movements like the squat are a good place to start for anyone wishing to pursue fitness in any form. And while you're at it, increase that weight by the same amount each session. And throw in some bench and the Press and deadlifts. And drink a Gallon Of Milk A Day since you're a baby mammal too. Thank me later.
You are somewhat right when it comes to very advanced athletes. Specificity becomes more and more important as your fitness improves. But we're talking about world class athletes a few weeks before competing.
The comparison above really is about posers vs passion tho. Do you trust the opinion of someone who does something half heartedly because they like how it makes them look, or someone with a real drive to do this thing and enrich theirs and others' lives through it?
>>8275355
I agree that the purpose of the comparison was passion vs posing, but it was so poorly handlded that I had to say that up front, and went into my other (real) points inmediately after.
Applying this passion vs posing argument to literature will take us on a very long and winding road that we can quickly summarize as "the writing is only as good as the writer". And so far as the reader goes then put it this way: "people will read what they want to read, when they're ready for it."
I dont think I need to talk about how many people have gotten a distate for literature because of the instructors poor approach to introducing and proving the relevancy of literature to the students. So my own preference is to let that transition happen on its own or with careful and humble encouragement. Beyond that, I see no point at some people's insistence on calling certain works "not literature" out of plain ignorance of what the term means while also operating under a vague assumption of how 'literature' is meant to carry itself, nevermind the different types.
The tl;dr of that is again, the genre/literary divide is meaningless if you're actually a good writer, and also a good reader.
>>8270561
>Shakespeae would have been long forgotten; for good reasons too.
It's ok, you don't need wrong and unpopular opinions in order to be cool
I actually want to write a treatise in defence of pretension. I think the word pretension has become like the word ironic – just this catch–all term to distance people from interesting experiences and cultural engagement and possible embarrassment. Pretension can lead to other things. You know, the first time I read Gravity's Rainbow, I did so because I thought it would make me seem cool. That was my original motivation. But now I've read it six times, and I find it hilarious and great and I understand it. You can't be afraid to embarrass yourself sometimes.
>>8275383
>So my own preference is to let that transition happen on its own or with careful and humble encouragement.
I totally agree. However, I'm still happy that here we don't have endless threads in line with the OP.
In fact nothing was stopping OP making a HHG thread himself and receiving 300 replies of "the radio series was better".
Also the radio series was better.
>>8265791
You talk like a fag and your shit's all retarded.
>>8274703
This.
Anybody not just posting pictures of books is doing it wrong. Every board is for pictures. The sticky, explicitly stating "/lit/ is for the discussion of literature" in the first sentence, is false and against the spirit of 4chan.
Pic related it's a book.
I haven't even read all of this thread but saying we hate something because it's mainstream is stupid, and you're just applying a criticism that makes more or less sense on other boards an applying it to one where it doesn't.
Do you faggots HONESTLY think that Joyce, Dostoievski, Borges and Nabokov AREN'T mainstream? /lit/ wanks all over the canon, the only people you could argue that aren't canonical writers who get memed here are DFW (though he's already in the process of canonization), Evola (more of a /pol/ crossposting meme than a /lit/ one) and Sankt Max (but even him is well known enough in left / post-left circles).
>>8275488
>You know, the first time I read Gravity's Rainbow, I did so because I thought it would make me seem cool.
in what goatee'd chin-stroking circles were you socializing back then? i hope you've moved on anon
>>8276152
it's copypasta
>>8265635
The only reason I think less of you is because none of those books are old
your reading is most likely very provincial (temporally), rarely stretching back further than the late Victorians
reading books from other times can help you to get a perspective outside of the present fashions in thought, politics, etc. It helps you see how the world could be other than it is, and how people could think, speak, etc. differently than they now do. this is an essential part of any man's education, and you won't get it if you don't read anything more than a hundred and fifty years old.
as for reading Pynchon or whatever, other people care about that but I don't
>>8265684
>Really he created many worlds, because all fantasy ever since has been small twists on his.
He wrote a giant fanfiction of Germanic mythologies.
Robert E. Howard was writing Sword and Sorcery decades before Tolkien did.
>LotR is superb mythology and escapism
>ASoIaF is ramblesome pulp but entertaining
>Hitchhiker's Guide is the funniest and most refreshing book I've read (15+ times)
Sometimes it's enough to read without being reminded that life is shit
>>8268843
>mon frere
That means 'brother' in French, right? I don't even know why I know that -- I took four years of Spanish!
>>8276182
Surly mensch detected. LotR is as much Celtic, Finnish and Scandinavian as Germanic and it has a hundred other inspirations. The fact nobody can agree on what he was trying to represent or copy proves he achieved his goal of making an original mythology.
>>8276182
I have like three Conan anthologies. Howard's not a bad writer, senpai
>>8276195
This anon's got it right, except that ASoIaF is a shitty read. It's honestly better enjoyed as a mediocre TV show
>>8276215
Scandinavian mythology is Germanic, anon. Elves, dwarves, and to a lesser extent orcs are all straight out of Germanic mythology. He did draw from multiple influences, and add much of his own ideas, but at its core lotr is thoroughly Germanic.
>>8268663
Sadly but true. I left /v/ 3 years ago and it was in path to become that, I don't even want to know what it is like nowadays.
I like Jordan's WOT series more than Tolkien LotR
>>8276384
It's painful how palpable the underage is on /v/.
>>8265644
/thread
jesus christ can this thread please die
>>8265697
The faggots who desperately try to avoid him are just as derivative as those who copy him. Both are bad, too.
He was being hyperbolic, in any case.
>>8265727
Yes. How dare they. It's fucking stupid. If you have to go out of your way to be original, you're not original.
Originality isn't even intrinsically good.
>>8265783
People say it's shit because it's meant to be genre fiction, and new e/lit/ists who don't have an understanding of literature yet think that this means it's bad.
>>8266684
>read a plebby book (im using the word pleb not because i believe in the pleb/patrician distinction but because its a useful shorthand for simplistic unoriginal pandering)
Not very shorthand if you needed to say all that anyway.
>>8266712
>It doesn't take a "hipster" to think "maybe there's more to books than stories about swords and magic or wacky space adventures?" and follow through on that thought.
Yeah, just your standard retard. There's nothing inherently wrong with swords or magic, either.
>>8266768
>no one will understand the irony of this post
People who still think Tolkien rip-offs are the big problem in Fantasy dont actually read Fantasy
At best their knowledge of it comes from videogames.
>>8267932
No, it's not that they're restrictive. You can write great, restricted stories. Shakespeare restricted himself to other people's stories, and made them much better.
It's that they're, by definition, pieced together out of tired, already used and *empty* cliches/tropes, without any regard to prose or theme.
Anything which doesn't do that, doesn't deserve to be called genre fiction. And no, Tolkien does not count as genre fiction.
>>8268610
It pretty literally does.
>>8265635
I write children books and I think those are poor tastes. Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy is the worst book I've ever read, I laughed more reading Naked Lunch for fuck's sake. If you said Terry Pratchett instead and didn't mention GoT you'd be fine here
>>8272682
>It's like telling a powerlifter he should respect someone who does a few sets of bicep curls once a week.
/fit/ people are actually very helpful and supportive of newer lifters. There's none of the spite you get here.
>Do you know what website you're on? That's why new users are supposed to lurk more. This isn't some hugbox. I come here so I can state my honest opinions in unvarnished language without getting downvoted or banned.
>le ebin freedom of speech meme
nobody posts their honest opinion here, it's all pseuds trying to be as contrarian as possible. Besides a few good threads where actual discussion is kicked off, usually because a good OP is careful with his tone so as not to trigger all the autists. This entire website is infatuated with contrarianism, and /lit/ is no better.
>>8268976
Don't.
If you want to write "literary X" for the sake of being "literary X", you don't have anything worth saying.
>>8277222
>contrarianism
Ghost of Hitchens detected. Spook!
