Is Paris Peasant a good introduction to Literary Surrealism?

File: 1449857305633.jpg (1MB, 1697x2599px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1697x2599px

>>7592406

I know nothing about Aragon, but I can vouch for Konrad Bayer and Julien Gracq being excellent

Nerval, Lautréamont and Roussel are nice starts tbqhf

Breton is shyte, avoid him

>>7592530
>vouches for gracq
op doesn't want a mediocre author to start with

>>7592530
Great chart. Whoever made it knew their stuff.

>>7592544
Making a chart is honestly not that hard
And they obviously didn't since there are texts that don't even belong on there

>>7592543

Almost everyone who reads Gracq likes him and the vast majority of all of the reviews of him on the web praise him and his works.

If you are that autist from that other thread who is obsessed with talking shit about Gracq then don't even bother because 98% of people who read him say he is great and so your posts don't have much credibility.

>>7592406

I'd say it's essential reading considering one of the first novels to come out of the movement.

While we're at it.
Do you prefer eastern European, French or Japanese surrealism?

>>7595091
I'd say European, but I haven't read Japanese surrealism.

>>7595152

I've only read Abe when it comes to Japanese surrealism, not sure if Murakami counts, probably doesn't. But I love Czech and Hungarian surrealism. Something so great about them.

>>7592573
>I can't think for myself: the post
You don't even know why you like him, faggot. It's even funnier when you only have read one work by him.

>>7595161

Murakami is more magical realism then surrealism, they sounds similar but end up being quite different in practice.

Anyone have an epub of One Thousand and One Second Stories/A Thousand One Second Stories?

File: IMG_2097.jpg (1MB, 5616x3744px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 5616x3744px

>>7595607

Of course I know why I like him. I like the rich velvety texture of his prose and his impressive vocabulary. I love the descriptions of nature and different scenes. I like the feeling of mysteriousness that pervades his work. I also like how he wrote out his conversations between people and how he did so without notifying who was saying what too frequently, and how the conversations between people were full of suggestions and insinuations.

You are the one who has only been calling him mediocre or boring without giving any examples or reasons why. There is nothing wrong with praising Gracq even if I have only read the opposing shore, its considered to be his best novel, the one that is the most heard of by people and one that that won the Goncourt prize, which is one of France's most prestigious literary prizes and is awarded for "the best and most imaginative prose work of the year".

I don't know why someone would take such time and effort to tell someone else that you don't know on the internet why an author they like is bad. You are really just making a fool of yourself, especially since Gracq is widely-regarded as an impressive and talented author and since he won one of France's most prestigious literary prizes. I don't know what your source of resentment is, but you should just stop and give up on trying to convince anyone that Gracq isn't good because it won't work and you are just making yourself look like an autist by obsessively trying to convince people an author is bad whenever people post about him. Just accept that some people like him and will continue to post favorably about him.