>people who criticize a book because they can't identify with any of the characters
>people who write a book off as "too confusing"
>people who call a book pretentious
What triggers you, /lit/?
>people who think minorities writing about their experiences is predictable and repetitive
>same people's favorite books are all either fantasy or about a sad, vaguely existential mid-20s to late-30s white guy
>we be oppressed by whitey ooga booga buy my book nugguh bish aise muh fuh fooboo mup da doo didda bix nood
>Cohesive. Compelling images from the rust belt. Unfortunately, this book is drowning in its heteronormative masculinity. For one thing, it needs a counterpart where women actually do things. Not a single woman in this book actually does anything other than have PIV intercourse with a man. Oh.. there is a bit of pregnant belly-rubbing and hanging of laundry on clotheslines. Right! Stereotypes of masculinity covered in this text include: fighting, wearing Italian shoes, drinking scotch, driving a truck, hopping trains, chopping wood, playing with fire, making poor engineering decisions, owning a business, being homeless, not listening to women, being sexually available at all times, etc.
I won't call a book (or really anything for that matter) pretentious IRL because I have enough social intelligence to know that it makes me sound like a tryhard, but I will shitpost about what I find pretentious on /lit/ with great enthusiasm.
Christian people. Christian sentiments. Christian logic. Christian hypocrisy. Christian texts. Christian "thinkers". Christian conformists. Christian apologists. Christian spreaders. Christian ceremonies. Christian cultural artifacts. Christian influence. Christian politics/politicians. Christian posters. Christian "sympathy". Christian righteousness. Christian 'holier than thou' attitude. Christian women. Christian updates on profiles. Christian closeted homos. Christians.
Not that anon, but books can certainly be criticised for pretension. Take James Franco's Palo Alto, for one. It'd be impossible to encounter that book without knowing it's Franco's attempt to appear a talented writer
People who believe reading for prose without enjoyment will benefit them or increase their standing to fellow anons in any way.
The defenders of American Psycho as great literature.
Discussions of high-school reading books every day.
People who only assign value to books that are obviously written to be obfuscating.
People who grab hold of books in order to be pretentious.
"Nothing good has been written since the 70s except IJ"
"All contemporary literature is shit"
Yeah sure buddy, its a really hard book with difficult prose,. Dunno how I could have missed it with it thrust in my face more than Fight Club.
The reason its popular here is because so many beginning readers experience it as their first edgy book. Its a linear uninteresting overly long horror novel with obvious discussions about materialism with absolutely useless scenes of over the top violence added. The movie was way better
Less than Zero was 10x the book, and for edge masters The Painted Bird was far far better.
i read it. i got the point real fast. so much of it was redundant. There's a way to make a flat plot and graphic volence unbelievably compelling. american psycho is not that
it was YA when it came out for me. i read it and thought it was the shit. i loved that series actually. but i soon learned that most YA is shit shit and more shit
>the book was way better
most people who say this do not read regularly
it's also just completely inane to compare a book and its movie adaptation as they typically have completely separate goals