What does /lit/ think about this?

>>8302809
well he isn't wrong, but that doesn't necessarily make him right.

>>8302820

Thanks /lit/ for making me giggle

It sounds like every poster on r/books has this quote printed out or committed to memory.

>This book was too intellectual, a pretentious writer trying to impress everyone by using overly complex language. It wasn't too hard, not for a Chem engineer like me, it was just pointless when he could have used simpler writing. It was also really boring! Now, The Name of the Wind, that's real literature.

>>8302887

Anon, you are misunderstanding the image. It doesn't have anything to do with literary criticism, in fact Bradbury was pretty well read in intellectual literature. Bradbury is merely talking about the process of writing itself. His whole creative approach was jumping on a type writer and letting the words and sentences form themselves naturally, without thinking hard about what you are going to write.

File: 1467412434300.jpg (60KB, 960x944px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 960x944px

>>8302838
>i was bein srs

>>8302909

>I was only pretending to be intellectual

>>8302809

if Bradbury (or anyone) wanted to transmit feelings to people instead of having his words dissected by autistic methods he should have become a recreational pharmacologist instead of a keyboard jockey

>>8302914
oh, I shouldn't have greentexted that. I always forget it means 'implying' whether you say so or not.

>>8302922

By your standards then the majority of all important writers shouldn't have ever became writers in the first place.

>>8302978

>majority of all important writers...

...made social or philosophic statements popular with upper classes, Dickens, Shakespeare

define imporant in a way /lit/ would entirely agree upon

now try defining important in a way that somone whose parents died because they couldn't pay medical bills or advanced treatment facilities