Why does /lit/ hate him so much?
overrated talentless virgin
>>7831856
like /lit/ in general
>>7831849
On the contrary, i've heard lots of people here praise him. And i do think he is one of the best current writers.
>>7831849
poor prose, hardly /lit/
same bag as Orwell & Asimov, say.
>>7831849
Because he is /lit/: the person some people hate themselves by proxy through him.
>>7831871
I hope you didn't read the English translation and blame Houellebecq for it, m8o
>>7831879
The English translation is actually better than the original French (not that other anon)
Houellebecq has no feel for French, the English translations iron out a lot of clumsiness
>>7831871
Wait, /lit/ doesn't like Asimov??
>>7831881
A lot of the 'clumsiness' is intentional, the translator is butchering it by taking out deliberate repetition and the like and replacing it by babby's first creative writing workshop language.
>>7831884
>it's not shit it's intentional!!111!!
opinion descartes-d
>>7831849
He's politically incorrect, which to millennials can either be processed as "lel trying 2 be 22222222edgy4me u fuck" or absolutely haram tier triggering.
>>7831887
>catcher in the rye is bad because the narrator sounds like a dumb teenager!!
>>7831896
wat?
>>7831883
Retard
>>7831896
I think it's bad because I personally find the protagonist is impossible to identify with and unlikable as fuck.
I use reading to escape my shitty life, no live someone else's even shittier life vicariously.
After talking to a lot of readers in my lifetime I can confidently assess whether a person and myself are compatible as friends based on whether they enjoyed this book.
So at least it's got that going for it.
He is a pretty good writer and explores themes of sex and isolation pretty well.
But he is not an "ideas man" or a very philosophical writer apart from the whole nihilistic schtick he has. He is more of an explorer of the late capitalist experience, rather than someone that points to something new.
Summision also is laughably bad as an idea, it reads more like wish fulfilment rather than a dystopia.
>>7831883
Asimov isn't touted as his country's figurehead writer by ignorant entry-hipsters abroad. At least not now... not by the same crowd...
His analysis of the extension of capitalism into the sphere of love and sexuality is top notch. I mean, he managed to see all of this 20 years before Tinder became a thing. Still that's not enough to write good novels. He'd be better off sticking to essays and poetry.
>>7831902
Artistic choices that aren't the prettiest aren't necessarily bad, especially if it serves a purpose.
>>7831913
>I think it's bad because I personally find the protagonist is impossible to identify with and unlikable
You read like a girl to be honest.
>I use reading to escape my shitty life, no live someone else's even shittier life vicariously.
That's what genre fiction is for, literary fiction generally confronts you with the shittiness of life.
>>7831871
>poor prose
>Orwell
nice one
>>7831925
>His analysis of the extension of capitalism into the sphere of love and sexuality is top notch
where do i find it?
>>7831913
So any protag with a bad life automatically means you hate the book? What the hell do you read, fifty shades?
>>7832382
Extension du domaine de la lutte is the title of his first novel
Translated as 'whatever' in English.
Rafael Tisserand is a proto- Elliott Rodger
>>7831849
With his every book I felt like I've wasted my time for something, that could've been a short essay.
>>7832393
thank you
>>7832393
also the movie based on the book is good
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_g_AZP0K6CE
Still better writing than K. Dick.
