You suggested me this book and it was shit. Why did you do this to me?
>>8071796
Shitty in what sense?
>>8071814
It's written boring, and predictable. There's not a lot of atmosphere, and I was looking for atmosphere of the wasteland. Also, it felt like all of these authors used some standard science fiction formulas and having it be in wasteland was just a feature, like writing a romance on a tropical island
>>8071832
you may be right, but you had pretty vapid reasons for going into it in the first place.
>>8071839
>vapid
How so? Wasteland is not just a fancy location. It can be viewed as a concept to be used in fiction like cybernetics or long space travels. I thought I'd see people experimenting and expanding upon the theme of living in a post-apocalyptic world, I also wanted to be engaged.
Instead I got a bland fruit-mix of different stories without anything interesting to say about them
>>8071796
Stephen King, Orson Scott Card and Gurm
What the fuck did you expect?
Blame yourself for picking the wrong book you kuk, someone obviously recommended you Eliot's 'The Waste Land'
>>8071796
>those """"authors""""
Did you get this bullshit as a rec in the scifag containment thread?
i think elliot's wasteland was the one people were referring to
i would rather read some sf shit than that hack eliot who was one of the murderers of the poetry
>>8073681
(You)
>>8071796
Did /lit/ really recommend a short story collection from a bunch of meme authors?
It sounds more likely they recommended Eliot, if they did you should probably start with Prufrock and Hollow Men then read an anthology of English poets then read the Waste Land then reread it while referencing the anthology.
>>8073698
>It sounds more likely they recommended Eliot
my twisted world :3
a
