Is there a book that the entirety of /lit/ agrees on as being: great, without flaws, literally GOAT, etc.?
Im reading moby dick, but im finding it a bit slow at the beginning.
Did you feel the same way while reading it?
I also have to add i lost a bit of my reading routine or however you call the frequency of your reading times due to exams and vacations
Paradise Lost, the Bible, there was some dude the other night hating on Macbeth but I'm pretty sure he was a Reddit plant trying to shill the Ender Quartet.
Oh and Borges. Then again, the kinds of people who hate those books are garbage, Protestant, Platonists, or all of the above.
How far are you into the book so far? I felt that the first 150 or so pages were the easier parts to get through, filled with actual plot, introducing characters, etc., and it's the middle 500 or so pages that take a while to get through.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I found the hero with a thousand faces flawless.
The only people who don't like it haven't read it.
I didn't enjoy Moby-Dick. It was too slow and just really linear. It wasn't difficult or anything, pretty easy read and a few parts were enjoyable, but I felt that it lacked something to make it good. Maybe a better pace would have worked.
There was a guy who sperged out on how PL was a "minor Milton work," got called out on it, then tried to compare with PL with everything but Milton works, from Shakespeare to Dante. It was pretty pathetic.
A lot of people find Dante boring/unrelatable (fucking r/books)/le deritative fanfic unironically.
I'd guess <10 people here have read it
>falling for the subjectivity meme
they used to be more common, but the previously weekly dostoy vs tolstoy threads showed a lot of people were kinda meh on this
frequent threads from people saying it's overrated/boring/pointless
Swann's Way from Proust's search is generally pretty liked although some people are too impatient for the prose which is fine
The Tunnel is really well liked
Alessandro Baricco's Ocean Sea is pretty great though I doubt many have read it.
Lolita is almost unanimously loved, rightly so because the prose is absolutely beautiful
not upholding a sense of objectivity (however delusional it may be) is how you end up with shit literature being privileged over greater works. It would inevitably end with only popular simplistic works being considered the greatest. Go to r/books for an example of this
The book is pretty mediocre aside from the above average departmental stuff regarding the nephew, the good marriage stuff and resulting turning of the daughter, and the phenomenal last chapter.
nobody even a little read needs to refers back to this redundancy because they've already reconciled it with the further proposition that unless they hold some sense of objectivity re:quality all further discourse on art is essentially useless
Literally one of the worst books I've ever read.
Campbell treated Freud as if he was a physicist, the most outlandish and insane theories as if they were concrete fact. Reading it in 2016 gives the impression of a bad parody of psychoanalysis. The stuff about dreams in particular is absolutely preposterous. And the only way he manages to fit so many stories into his framework is by fucking including all possibilities! The hero accepts the quest, the hero doesn't. He's helped by the gods, he isn't helped by the gods. He returns home, he doesn't return home. And it keeps going like that. He might as well have written "the hero decides to eat the doughnut, or he doesn't". When you include the entire probability space you naturally end up with everything in the end!
Not even the best "The Tunnel".
Pretty much half of his popular plays and a number that aren't. If you find flaw with Hamlet or Macbeth you are lying or just not trying.
/lit/ will never agree on anything because it is full of insecures who like nothing more than being contrarian
Not even best Williams. Seriously, find a flaw
As much as i hate reddit's attitude toward most things, /lit/'s hate for /r/books is fucking hilarious. Did you read that thread? The top response is cormac mccarthy. There are plebs for sure, but other people listing murakami and then people discussing how damn repetitive his novels are. Is nabokov pleb because he's well liked on reddit?
Yeah, Borges. The only contention and arguments people have are about various translations. Outside of that there are people that call him pretentious. Anybody who calls anything pretentious without a supporting argument are complete idiots and should be never listened to and of course nobody ever calls something pretentious with a supporting argument because the people that use that word are using it in place of an argument.
it runs deeper than mere taste, which obviously overlaps with here since any decent reader refers to the canon
The quasi-democraticization of posts in larger subs is shit compared to the flattened stratification here. Both are echo chambers (the former moreso because you're actively rewarded for it) but anonymity + ephemerality produces much more insightful and honest (if you understand subtext 101) content tbqh.
I liked this.
Nobody on /lit/ ever told me that it's shit.
So it must be good
This is why I said I hate reddit, I agree with all that. But the person I was initially replying to implied they suck because LMAO STILL READING VONNEKEK XD. My point was that, community shittiness aside, their taste is a bit of a mix but there are clearly redditors that are very well-read.
>clumsy plot writing
>writing style consists of sentimental platitudes
>people constantly "in raptures", giving "twisted smiles", in "ecstasies", etc
>DUDE GOD LMAO
>Several chapters of pure filler
I'll agree it's a beautiful and passionate book, but it's not perfect
I didn't say all of reddit though did I? I specifically said in my post prior to that /r/books which, I admit must have members who are well read, but the majority of them stick to places like r/askliterarystudies. r/books is made up largely of people who don't read very much. I think its fair to say that that board is shit and represents the point i was making and what >>7664222 said
yea you have great threads like this one
which is basically an open invitation of "let's all feel good about ourselves and how progressive we are by slamming a a guy as a racist based on two phrases"
>one guy dares to pose a contrary opinion (hail st. bloom), has 20 downvotes (in a tiny sub)
yeah you're right. But I'd say that's mainly because of the points system. Appearing to be progressive is entwined with intellectuality in common society for whatever reason. You get this self-righteous brigade whenever there is a cost to dissent. Doesn't mean that the sub isn't the better out of the two though
The points system is what makes reddit a shitty place to have any sort of discussion about anything overall. That and the overwrought posting restrictions. The userbase is a small portion of the problem comparatively. It's just an absolutely useless platform.
A little too long. A rollicking historical novel written for the general reader, specifically for the young. Artistically unsatisfying. Cumbersome messages, didactic interludes, artificial coincidences. Uncritical of its historical sources.
I agree that prose is good, and all those whale references to life overrall were cool; but i thought its bit autistic, i dont think we need chapter about every simple thing in whale boat, i would like this place filled with actual plot and character development outside Ahab (for example Starbuck is barely touched)
Borges is smart and witty and kybalistic but genius? Nah
Would agree with Dante but he is kinda difficult, and his morality varied with modern reader. Lyrically and ideas are beautiful
Agree with Lolita
To much farting and vormiting, ad boring stories, maybe i should read part 2 tho
Agree with Moliere
Illiad is dry and repetive
It's funny how you had to post this right after mine. You seem to have read everything. Not having Don Quixote as your favourite is weird. Or is it that you didn't really read it.
I really felt that book 2 is when Cervantes really upped his writing style. Book 1 was largely repetetive, and although enjoyable seemed a little shallow. Book 2 is nothing short of incredible. A funny and intelligent novel.