ITT: We post authors who are hated here but are critically acclaimed everywhere else
He's a great author for his genre. That's why he always has good reviews. If he were trying to make it in a more advanced or obscure area, he'd probably be laughed at.
>>7417520
no surprise here /lit/ is full of /pol/fags and buttravaged white fuckbois
The Beat Generation, or at least the prominent members.
What do y'all think out the rumor that James Wood and Zadie Smith has co-ghostwritten his three latest books?
>>7417547
John Green's that is.
>>7417538
No he's just mediocre at his best, but was propelled into the limelight by writing about a hot button issue at the right time.
His works are a footnote on the 21st century's literary scene.
>>7417547
I wouldn't want to claim authorship, either.
>>7417538
He spoke at my university this year, and people acted like he had said some revolutionary thing and was the greatest person ever, even though he provided zero new ideas or information.
>>7417520
I genuinely enjoy reading DFW and the way he examines things but it seems to be the new meme on lit to hate on him
>>7417562
U JUST MAD WITE BOI HES A GENIUS!!!
>>7417564
>new meme
Yeah, /lit/'s only been very critical of his work for the past 4 years. You can call it new if you want to.
>>7417558
He doesn't sell because he writes about cancer, he sells because he writes an accessible, and timely love story. He was very successful even before then. He can communicate to teenagers well and write something familiar to them.
He's a good young adult author. Within that genre most of the stuff is much shittier than Green's books are. These are reasons why he's acclaimed. Like I said if he were to try to enter something a lot more advanced he wouldn't make it. He's not a good author in general, just good at what he does, which is writing books for teens.
>>7417538
Jesus that's an ugly guy. You can tell great lengths were gone through to make him look normal here, not quite successfully.
>>7417576
I was talking about Ta-Naeishi lmao
The author of all that outrage porn and political analysis on the level of the average reddit poster.
Even John Green is better than him.
>>7417558
>His works are a footnote on the 21st century's literary scene.
You're either being incredibly generous, or you don't realize 80% of the popular authors of the day won't even get mention.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publishers_Weekly_list_of_bestselling_novels_in_the_United_States_in_the_1910s
Take a look at that link and tell me how many names you recognize. Obviously, there are notables like Joseph Conrad and Winston Churchill (who isn't known for his books, btw) but it's in a veritable sea of nobodies.
Nobodies who don't get a footnote, let me add.
>>7417599
You're completely right, he's a literary nobody who will be regaled to the dustbin of history.
>>7417520
John Green would be a much better writer/intellectual (I have no idea what other word to use) if he wasn't pigeonholed by his fan base so hard. He'll always be stuck with an audience of pseudo intellectual/confused 15 year olds and never have a chance to talk about real or truly controversial subjects.
I agree his books aren't anywhere near /lit/ material (Looking for Alaska is the only bearable one) but he could be so much more.
>>7417564
Fuck off David
>>7417564
The wraith of DFW once showed up in my hospital room and kept pirouetting like some fucking asshole. Fuck that guy.
>>7417564
/lit/ can't like any one thing for two long before it grows disgusted with itself for being so paltry.
The process is sped up if the author in question enjoys some mainstream popularity, which is the case with DFW.
>>7417547
Deets?
>>7417668
Let's go dig up his body, that'll show him!
>>7417589
He isn't that bad 7/10 would watch him kek my gf
john green is despised on here because of his otherworldly displays of faggotry on youtube. If it were just about his YA books, no one would care
Paul Rabbit.
>>7417754
This
>muh Cheerios
