Did you read this lit? I'm new to lit criticism and this

>come to lit
>post actual lit criticism
>no one replies

File: tyrone.gif (3MB, 250x257px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 250x257px

>>7680201
>BEE
>actual lit criticism

>>7679812
After this are you going to be moving on to Chuck Palahniuk critical compendiums?

>>7680201
>come to /lit/
>call it "lit"
>post unpopular literary criticism concerning an infamously mediocre writer
>demand that people discuss said mediocre writer (despite being incapable yourself)
>get upset when people choose not to waste their time
>bump your own shit thread in a passive aggressive anonymous internet tantrum
Here's a reply: slit your wrists

>>7680206
>>7680214
Gtfo team David fags

>>7680222
>Any criticism of American Psycho/BEE must be by DFW fans

I think he is a talentless hack, but BEE is below contempt.

>>7680229
>>7680221

So how about that baudrillaurdian criticism of Bret ellis you're obviously familiar with?

>>7680229
>but BEE is below contempt.
This is true. I honestly don't think about BEE outside the context of dubs man, which is genuinely the only artistic creation related to him which has ever given me a sense of joy or entertainment.

>>7680201
I have never come across BEE in criticism as a student. Tell us literally anything interesting about his essays and then someone can talk about it.

>>7680247
>>7680240
>>7680229
>>7680221
>>7680214


>didn't even check what book I'm talking about

Lol

>>7680236
How about accepting that by giving legitimacy to BEE youve outed yourself as a plebian.

American Psycho has one claim to depth, it's attack on materialism and the reality that it defines in 80s manhattan. And it is hammered into you with no subtlety or nuance. And despite what the undergrad lit majors have to say on this board, it is completely unrelated from the absolutely base narrative of a serial killer, and the outlandishly scripted scenes of violence that accompany them only to shock and sell. I would have had more respect for the author if he presented the story as a real descent into madness and not some preachy, poorly written appeal to his (BEE) peers and under-read edgy male slobs like OP

>>7680253
Its already been noted that it is a critical compendium. Keep grasping onto straws.

File: IMG_20160209_151135975~2.jpg (1MB, 2272x3196px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2272x3196px

My favourite passage from American pyscho. Really captures the importance of lit criticism for bee.

>>7679812
Where do people recommend starting with actual lit criticism?

>>7680236
>>7680253
Did you read it? Because I haven't seen you make a single comment on BEE's writing or its criticism. I've seen you bitch and moan that people aren't doing what you want, but I'm wondering if you're actually capable of contributing to the discussion you demand others participate in.

>>7680271
Sorry I couldn't hear you, I was grading essays about bee- lunar park is my favourite subject for my advanced American lit course

File: Waifu.jpg (34KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 1280x720px

>>7680253
>Implying I don't know Elena Gomel

Famous Isreali Professor at Tel Aviv!
Teacher of English and American Studies!
Writer of such great essays as 'Alternative History Vs. Zombie History' and 'Shroedinger's Cat at Cat Street Market: Hong Kong as a Quantum Chronotope'!

Lol OP please, the only reason I haven't read this book is because it couldn't live up to the hype.

>>7680279
No you weren't? You were whining on 4chan about how nobody likes your favorite YA writer.

>>7680290
Yah her contribution was pretty weak. Gomel was kind of a wash, although blazer and Clark were very good (hamlet and Dryden)

File: _1425464802.jpg (21KB, 600x350px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 600x350px

>>7680301

File: Award Winning Journalism.png (700KB, 928x632px) Image search: [Google]

700KB, 928x632px

>>7680328

Are you not subscribed to the GQ Literary Magazine?

Award Winning Journalism.

http://www.gq.com/gallery/reading-guide-to-dirty-books

>>7680374
That got me so hard so fast. When he talks about Updike

>>7680201
I see no literary criticism in the OP. It's just another useless, vague thread asking for general opinions. Nothing to see here.

>>7680428
Hey faggot, what do you think about zizeks response to lunar park?

Yah. I didn't think so.

>>7680434
You didn't think? How surprising.

I like the ranting descriptions he goes on about in a utterly matter-of-fact tone, but some of the content in it gave me the creeps.

Cult classic though; it's worth a try.

Wait so is it any good or not? I've been reading the lit starter kit and it's next in line

>>7681462
Yeah, it's pretty good. The second half definitely drags on a bit. The main points and themes are honestly explored to the point of exhaustion within the first 150 pages but it's never really bad.

Don't listen to anyone here though, read it for yourself and form your own opinion.

>>7679812
don't read through the lens of "lit criticism", just enjoy books broski.

you'll naturally get into thought, theory, criticism

Read 'My Twisted World' instead, it's a superior American Psycho.