Started reading today and I'm about 30% into it. Not trying

>>8792682
Pathetic fucking ADHD generation can't even finish Stoner in one session without having to come to /lit/ to pontificate about it.

Just fucking finish it.

>>8792694
Right buddy, but does it get good? I'm just asking if it's just a long list, because that's all it is so far.
I'd finish it in one sitting if I were enjoying it.

>>8792703
During the time it took you to write your reply to me, you could have finished Stoner.

>>8792708
Maybe... but does it get good?

I'm with you, OP. It seemed to lack substance.

I don't know why people here are all about it, except to say a lot of people here are college kids who don't know of anything but a scrubbed, meaningless, institutionalized life and it speaks to them.

Personally, I think academics navel-gazing has all but killed American Lit, but some here like to pretend American Lit is alive and well.

Just read something else.

>>8792703
Williams loved the study of literature. In a 1985 interview he was asked, "And literature is written to be entertaining?" to which he replied emphatically, "Absolutely. My God, to read without joy is stupid."

>>8792717
So Williams himself is telling me not to read his book. It's a shame; I kept hearing so much about it.

>>8792715
Yeah, might as well. Reading a novel you don't enjoy is just as bad as staring at a painting you don't like, I suppose.

push yourself and get through it and then reflect on what this man's life meant. i know many who have reacted as you're reacting but trust me, its beyond rewarding. one of the greatest studies of a human being ever written.

These are the worst threads on /lit/. Not the shitposting, not the Tao Lin or Mira Gonzalez threads, not the women or minority hating threads, not the "I'm a literary genius threads," but these. The threads with a underlying feeling of "I'm so special because I read books" while barely understanding anything about them. The fact that you only got through 30% of Stoner before making a stupid thread about it, and having to tell everyone about it demonstrates this. Yeah you try to cover yourself with ironic jokes, and little buddy-buddy remarks like "does it get good at some point" but I know you think you're smart and "cultured" for reading Stoner. You don't understand anything about the importance of art. Oh maybe you like a few phrases here and there, and get a little tingle occasionally, but you ultimately use art for yourself. Because you think it adds an interesting side to your personality. You love thinking about having read books, but have no idea of what their actual significance is. You probably enjoy saying that "the prose is good." You act all innocent, telling yourself and trying to give off the impression that you don't take yourself too seriously, that books are just a fun hobby for you.. And you are what is killing literature, you and your ignorant, self-aggrandizing whoring of the only secular means of saving the human soul.

>>8793686

Holy fucking shit lol

You're basically 100% right but damn dude, what's going on in your life? lmao at this whole topic

>>8792682
Best book I read this year, so yes. Read it instead of coming here to ask if it gets good or just abandon it and stop shitposting.

>>8793686
This. We should add this to the sticky.

>>8793686
Where's part two?

>>8793686
>>8793914
>>8792682
this really should be in the sticky...

>>8792708
>>8792694
This guy is top fucking troll.

>>8793932
To clarify: this is a pasta in two parts. While part one is essential and is the longer of the two, part two becomes even more acerbic and eloquent. It is a shame to untwine this fabulous pair. As for why I am not posting it myself, I do not save pasta. My posts all feature full, unbridled originality--which is not to say I do not fancy savoury pasta when I encounter it.

>>8793945

can a loremaster please bequeath us with part two????

>>8793945
>My posts all feature full, unbridled originality
You would probably take a picture of yourself reading your book with a nice little "sophisticated" cup of coffee, a "cultured" cigarette in your hand, if it didn't come across as so obviously desperate. Oh you're self-aware enough to know that, so you instead post on 4chan, to your little internet friends, where you can tell each other how fucking smart you are, how fucking special you are for reading books. But look at how "self-aware" we are! We don't post pictures on instagram of us reading books! We don't talk about books with other people that much either, because we're not REAL pseuds! When all in all, you're led by the same attention seeking impulse. You read to gain attention, that's it. You read with the same impulse as a gymrat who only does arms and chest. You don't want growth, you don't want strength. You want people to see you as strong, to see you as the image you're trying to shape. You think you're so aware and thoughtful, but you are all shallow, shallow people.

>>8793686
Books like Stoner are killing literature.

>>8793953
Books like Stoner are pure literature.

>>8793951
>>8793686
I think these might have been the two best posts yet seen on /lit/, unironically

>>8792717
Delicate delicious memes. Hats off to you sirrah.

>>8793951
holy...i want more

>>8793686
The fact that we have copy-paste replies to copy-paste threads is fucking depressing.

>>8794784
It should encourage you, Anon. It means we're getting close to the end of history.

>>8792682
>does it get good at any point?
it does, when you stop being a member of the hoi polloi

>>8792682

this guy is right :

>>8792694

You ARE pathetic, just finish the fucking book, or, as I'm guessing you're also the type of cunt who'd also pause an album or film not even half way through and to go whine about it on the internet, maybe you shouldn't, just drop it.

It's a brilliant, emotive novel and you're just reading it to tell people on the internet you've read it, so don't bother, go watch half a marvel film instead and go over to /tv/ and ask them the same question about Captain America or whatever, or maybe consider getting some adderal.

>>8794847
I was just asking an question anonymously on 4chan.
You writing such an emotional reply like that just shows how pathetic you are instead.
Grow up.

>>8795104
a* question