Why does /lit/ hate contemporary literature so much?

>>9141893
Because women are allowed to write it

>>9141893
Personally? Because nothing good has come out of it yet.

>>9141893
Because so much of it is vapid, pretentious and blatantly whoring for literary prizes.

Literary fiction is a construct of the publishing industry. It's just a genre like any other.

File: Austerlitz_novel_cover.png (119KB, 341x500px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 341x500px

>>9141893
Avg age is about 21-22. So younger than that you tend to read genre fiction and whatever is forced on you by professors and teachers, and meme books here. Throw in the assholes who say "nothing good has been written in the last 40 years" and people internalize that and don't read it. Then there is a heavier by day population who rejects modernity as degenerate/feminist/degraded (clearly they havent read 19th century novels very deeply) who are too cowardly to read outside of their comfort zone.

All of the above tend to shout down people who read contemporary literature, and it leads to a bad vibe. I love reading new novels, but the one thing true in repeated criticisms is that due to Amazon, it is much easier to get tremendous shit into your hands, so you really have to vet works by sources that you trust, or look for patterns of recommendation.

File: 1487658415937.jpg (67KB, 490x267px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 490x267px

>>9141941
How would you know, are you reading contemporary fiction? What about all the aspiring writers who are inspired by only the greats? Do you think they are going to only write about SJW-related stuff, in hopes of getting published by some mainstream publisher? Fuck off, pseud.

https://oneworld-publications.com/

These guys are ones to keep an eye out for, I am a big fan of a few of their translations.

The contemporaenity I have no problem with, but if it is literature at all, I am not convinced of

I don't hate contemporary literature and don't want to be prejudiced against it but I don't know where to start with it because there are no reliable sources of information as far as I can tell in order to keep up to date and be aware of what is worth reading in contemporary literature. And obviously I can't just read everything that comes out to find out for myself.

>>9141947
>assholes who say "nothing good has been written in the last 40 years"
40 is a lot of time. good stuff has been written in the last 40 years, no doubt.
but in the last 5 or 10? idk. recommend me some authors if you don't mind.

>and people internalize that and don't read it
it's a meme here but that doesn't make it less true: people are fucking retarded. (inb4 edgy underage teenager go read nietzsche etc etc).

>So younger than that you tend to read genre fiction and whatever is forced on you by professors and teachers, and meme books here.
If they just read what their professors and teachers force them to read they aren't readers in the first place, who cares about their 'opinion'.

>>9141893
Because pretending to like classics that have stood the test of time is an easy and lazy way for the intellectually lacking to appear smart without having to defend what they read themselves. They can pretty much just appeal to authority by parroting some experts review on a classic without being in danger of being called out by any of the other phonies.

>>9142029
This exactly.

>>9141985
>How would you know, are you reading contemporary fiction?
Like most people, it was a phase I went through. You'll get over it too, eventually.

>Do you think they are going to only write about SJW-related stuff, in hopes of getting published by some mainstream publisher?
Given that mainstream publishers are actively soliciting this, yes I do.

>Fuck off, pseud.
You keep using that word ...

File: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTcqLdgu-GeHnKLmXW07TpNhFt4g4Z_aOSiRaeRa0e1otAtsENV.jpg (28KB, 486x750px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 486x750px

>>9142029
>>9142053
First do Harold Bloom's favorites, and favorite authors of public figures you respect.

Award winner longlists for Man Booker, Premiya Bolshaya Kniga, Miguel de Cervantes Prize, National Book Awards, Commonwealth Prize, sometimes the Nobel. I also like country awards (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_State_Prize_for_European_Literature) because they are less well known and thus less open to political force.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_literary_awards

Note I didn't say winners, because that is often political. The NYRB, London Review and the New Yorker are liberal as fuck (and I care about that less than most, but Zadie Smith does not deserve 1/10 what is written about her), but they can still do decent reviews when they arent complaining about this or that: I found Chirbes and Ferrante through them. If you need further right The New Criterion, American Conservative, and Lapham's Quarterly have great recommendations. Contemporary book threads here actually are great once they get past the whole 'contemporary threads are shit", Philip Roth is still contemporary and his novels are obviously masterpieces.

>>9141903
god damn it go back to /pol/

contemporary lit =
>this is me not trying, take it or leave it.
>if you don't get it you're not deep or "artsy" it's "art and me being vulnerable therefore i should win a prize"""""""

>>9142669
I have no idea how you would apply this to something like Brief History of Seven Killings or The Vegetarian.

>>9142205
shut up cuck

>>9142708
You're not exactly dispelling any stereotypes there, m80.

>>9142669
What an embarrassing post.

it just seems like our shitty society makes crappy art. No mystery here.

Most music sucks now
Most movies suck now
Most contemporary literature sucks
Most modern art sucks now

It's just our shitty society. People have said all through history that art is reflective of society. Our society has values that don't really translate well into good, universal art. There is too much narcissism and hedonism. Obviously there are still good, even great works in all these mediums, it's just harder to find them among the noise. I think it has more to do with the supermassive industries that have built up and pump garbage out for $$, which is a unique modern thing that is detrimental to modern art. Unless you think an executive boards of producers and marketing teams in now way impact the art in a negative way, which I disagree.

I don't care if you think I'm a le wrong generation fag.That's not even really a valid criticism. I would not like to be born in another era to experience their art in real time, I'm fine where I am, thanks. Just commenting.

>>9141893
I don't. Murakami is comfy.

>>9141903
this. it's what happens every time women demand access into something. they invariably ruin it because they're so desperate to prove themselves.

>>9141893
I sure don't. There's a lot of good stuff coming out. Just peruse Amazon and Goodreads and you'll see

File: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTUlFQW10Gt7OBHAuM9j2c3RysVCqNxf_mGnoWrPnpmRM0Xaxig.jpg (29KB, 467x720px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 467x720px

>>9142918
As always, a broad generalization and crap argument

>>9142849
This is wrong. You just haven't waited long enough for people to sort out what is good and what is bad for you, so you look at the shit-coated surface of art, lazily refuse to dig any deeper, and then come on /lit/ and start screeching about how bad art is these days. It isn't. Go look around.

>>9143145
I clearly said there is good shit you just have to look for it IN MY POST

Learn to read

I also disagree and feel your assumption is wrong. There is less good shit now, prove me wrong.

>>9143127
the book you posted only confirms what he said though

>>9142918
Where did mommy hit you?

>>9141903
>>9142918
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/jan/27/us-study-finds-publishing-is-overwhelmingly-white-and-female

This is why

>>9142083
Cervantes and nobel are joke prizes

File: mybrilliantfriend.jpg (164KB, 951x1471px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 951x1471px

>>9143203
Any book I posted would have been responded to like that though.

>>9141893
Because western culture is degenerating and literature is a product of culture.

>>9143245
People will refuse to admit this even though it is literally brought up by tons of contemporaries all through history any time a society falls into degeneracy.

But no lol you're just not lookin hard enuff tee tee xD

Art has always been 99% shit.
The only difference between old art and contemporary art is that there has been more time to filter the shit works.

>>9143269
>Art has always been 99% shit.

Not true. It's just that when skill has been deconstructed from it.

>>9142849
It isn't that our society sucks at art, it's merely that were not truly suffering. How can one make art out of a time so prosperous as ours?

And the ones that do attempt in our age? They're laughed at, because we know that their demons are imagined; self made vices imprisoning souls--"woe is me for my specific brand of psuedo-marxist gender studies is laughed at". Nobody suffers indolent lyrics anymore, they instead choose to masque their sorrows with technology, memes, and faux social interactions. As my professor says: You gotta have a little dirt in the mix.

>>9143282
Indolently*** fucking auto correctly

>>9143282
Hubert Selby shows that really all you need is deep cynicism. In fact, most great contemporary literature derives from that.

>>9142778
>implying he's not false-flagging
/pol/ is a board of peace.

>>9143293
A deep cynicism for what? The culture that is too self absorbed to even care? Write a novel about how far man has fallen from grace, from suffering and emotion. You'll be laughed at as edgy, misinterpreted by the self-ascribed misanthropes. Or worse, lack nourishment like a hunger artist, as your esoteric brand of cynicism fails to connect with any souls. You might as well laugh surreptitiously at the masses while yearning tales from a genre.

Because for all my wailings--and I can't be alone in this, surely--literature has died. The most beautiful book could have been written this morning, but no one would notice, because we've become inculcated with the swathes and swatches of the mediocre for far too long.

>>9143333
Yarning*** autocorrect is a pleb.

>>9143333
>Because for all my wailings--and I can't be alone in this, surely--literature has died

Bullshit hyperbole, and I even agree that suffering is important to literary fiction. Even your last point falls flat if you look at Harper's Weekly top sellers in literature in the 19th century, lots and lots of pulp. Same as best-sellers throughout the early 20th century.

>>9143145 is the truth, and even then if you are reading widely in literary press you can still be one of the first to find the gems.

/lit/ only cares about appearing smart. contemporary literature isn't propped up and validated by the canon, and therefore to claim you like something contemporary requires an individual stake and risk.

>>9143159
You have the luxury of retrospect, my friend. People back then had to do the same thing- rummaging through the shit to find the good. The shit- and this is a revolutionary thought here- is forgotten in favor of what is good. In every field of art this is how it works.

>>9143363
Ah, but look at what percentage of the population read then versus now. And even looking at the now, view the demographics. A Cadre of counter-culturists does not a sustaining demographic make.

Back then--as it is now, too-- popular culture was adapted to the medium. During the time of the moderns, reading or watching a play was all you could do. Contrast that with now and nobody has the time or energy to read, they'd much rather sit and watch a movie. Even the late moderns felt and saw this coming. Sure, literature exists and still comes out like the 19th and 20th century best sellers, which you call "pulp", but that doesn't ensure it will keep coming out. I maintain that literature is dead or, if not yet, dying.

>>9143427
Please give us the last 10 books you read that have been published since the year 2000.

>>9143427
Basically, this. We live in a post-literate world. Committed readers are rare, and poseurs ever more common. Even language is dissipating into a thin, internationalised gruel of prosaic symbols.

You can't have literature without mastery of language, and electronic communication deprecates this skill a little more every day. Twitter, anyone?

>>9143470
Twitter forces you to write cogently within 140 characters. If that isn't teaching the youth brevity, I don't know what is.

>>9141893
because contemporary literature is bad. constant media distraction coupled with narcissism means authors no longer feel the need to read the classics or to hone their craft. the result is trite ideas and low vocabularies. i can't enjoy a book when i have the constant urge to correct the prose like a schoolteacher

>>9142052
or maybe you are using phony rebelliousness to justify being too dumb to read the classics

>>9143510
Well it sure as hell isn't teaching them how to spell or construct a sentence.

>>9143434
Arcadia
Let The Great World Spin
In Defense of Food

Off the top of my head

File: 1487705941802.jpg (22KB, 526x526px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 526x526px

What constitutes contemporary literature, if a writer is still living or not?

>>9141893
What is contemporary? The last 5 years? The last 10 years?

Mankind has been writing for thousands of years. It is not "hatred of contemporary literature" to say that recent works represent at best 10% of what is worth reading.

>>9141903
Zadie Smith
Toni Morrison
Jennifer Egan
Dawn Lundy Martin
Maxine Hong Kingston
Clarice Lispector
Maya Angelou
Gayl Jones
Suzan-Lori Parks
Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie
Jhumpa Lahiri
Margaret Atwood
Theresa Hyak-Kung
Ruth Ozeki
Ursula Le Guin

>>9141893
People who have made up their mind on something and totally lack the self-awareness to reevaluate their opinion are so fucking frustrating.

>>9142083
Good post. I don't read too many contemporary novels myself but there are plenty of contemporary poets and playwrights that are worth reading.

>>9141985
Publisher said: librarians would reject the new Lord of the Rings; they would tell the next Saul Bellow to fuck off, tell the next James Joyce that he is worthless.

But instead, they will take in the next Stephenie Meyer, or the current YouTube eceleb and the new so called diverse and progressive writer that you so much loathe. Why? Because they're trendy and normalfags buy them. They don't give a shit that you write this century's next masterpiece. That won't sell: they want money and profit.

It may hurt your feelings but that's how money truly works: not for quality or for art but for benefits. Write as a hobby m9. You will only publish the next literary masterpiece if you are renowned.

>>9143752
>ten
>TEN
Muh nigga.

>>9142052
Why should you waste your time searching a pearl in a mountain of shit, when you can read the greates works humanity created? Think of it as an higher form of communication, that comes from the past and always from the past.

>>9145200
I see this only as cowardice and intellectual boredom. See >>9141947

>>9145422
Then stop reading. You nihilist.

File: clairepretty47.jpg (294KB, 1918x1602px) Image search: [Google]

294KB, 1918x1602px

>>9141903
>>9142918
A-anon? You don't really mean that do you?

>>9141893
Because it's politics over aesthetics.

>>9142824
Exactly. I bet he already got his "literary" awards for making himself so vulnerable to criticism.

>>9141903
>>9142918

First response. why are we so desperate to prove women are inferior? Why is /lit/ so afraid of a womyn being better than them? did your mother hit you when you were young /lit/?

contemporary lit pro here.
just read.

- the nix
- the instructions
- paralel stories
- the dying grass
- canonball
- witz
- jerusalem
- last stories and other stories
- middlesex
- never let me go
- buried giant

>>9143258
>le degeneracy meme

How is people having sex outside of marriage more degenerate than starting a fucking world war? We live fucking wonderful times and the real reason you think contemporary art sucks is because you're a filthy pleb.

>>9143238
Elena Ferranted = descent to good

A little Life = bad to mediocre

Yanagihara's People of the Trees was better.

contemporary literature can't be any good because the contemporary world isn't any good

what is a contemporary writer supposed to write about?
how social media is rotting their brain?
how identity politics is rotting their brain?
how the economy is so shit?
nobody needs to read these things when you're already living it

>>9145897
The world has always had problems.
There are plenty of subjects -including the ones you've listed- to write about.

>nobody needs to read these things when you're already living it

Nobody wants to read these things because (figuratively) nobody wants to read. Like, anything, at all.
Those who do read use literature for the sake of escapism. They want love stories, sex, action, easy-to-digest stories and genre-fiction that can be consumed like a TV show, mindlessly, without much thinking.

Contemporary literature can't be good because there's no real demand for good literature.

>>9146204

I mean its like this

do you think that when WW2 was going on and all these people were writing about it that they ever thought "man in several decades everybody is gonna love this stuff"
I figure probably not
what they were probably thinking was "man if the world isn't destroyed by nuclear warheads in a few decades its gonna be so advanced and people are gonna look back on this and realize how stupid it all was"

so I think that the present day is pretty much like that too except this time they really are gonna realize how stupid it all was

>>9142918
the fallacy of induction

>>9143401
they didn't have supermassive industries pumping out pop-garbage to sift through, though

do you honestly think it was the same back then? or do you think capitalism and marketing ad execs have had no impact on the overall average quality of literature?

hint: the times have changed

>>9145805
>How is people having sex outside of marriage more degenerate than starting a fucking world war?
we're on the brink of world war buddy

not sure what you're getting at

>>9146748
>America is now wholly given over to a damned mob of scribbling women, and I should have no chance of success while the public taste is occupied with their trash–and should be ashamed of myself if I did succeed. What is the mystery of these innumerable editions of the ‘Lamplighter,’ and other books neither better nor worse?–worse they could not be, and better they need not be, when they sell by the 100,000.

Hawthorne, on the state of contemporary American literature 159 years ago

>>9146757
>we're on the brink of world war buddy
who vs who?

>>9146766
yeah, and he's not wrong.

but his industry wasn't as large as ours.

so he's like a level 5 gnome complaining about swamprats where we are already level 29 and fighting dragons n sheeit.

We have more to wade through but more tools to wade through it with. So it might balance out. But either way, I'm sure the drivel from the early 18th century is ten-thousand times more interesting and classy than the dreck from today.

>>9147370
usa vs russia obviously

>>9142849
>There is too much narcissism and hedonism.
You really think now has more so than in generations or societies before us? There's nothing new under the sun, more than likely we just see more of those parts of each other than there's more of it now (or maybe there is more of it now because there's more people but you could say that about anything)

>>9145735
I read a book. It's shit. Look at the author. It's a woman.

>>9147676
Not likely. Isn't Trump supposed to be a Russian proxy?

>>9141985

t. hipster faggot from brooklyn

>>9147676
That's impossible. They'll just continue fighting each other trough proxy wars.

File: 6a2.png (565KB, 600x610px) Image search: [Google]

565KB, 600x610px

>>9143788

>>9142849
>Most music sucks now
wrong
>Most movies suck now
Half-true
>Most contemporary literature sucks
wrong
>Most modern art sucks now
Don't know enough about it to judge, and frankly neither do you

There is always someone out there pushing the boundary in these mediums. Film is tougher due to money being such a ruling factor in exposure. But generalising like this is fucking dumb to begin with.

>>9150829
Nah you just like garbage

>>9149001
Try and prove that there were communities of furries and men in adult diapers in 1815

I'll wait.

(Communities, by the way. Not James Joyce writing about farts or Mozart licking ass. Communities)

>>9150412
>war will never happen it's impossible
Says the increasingly nervous faggot for the 12th time this year.

Keep telling yourself whatever is most coddling though. You do you.

the majority of /lit/ are young males wanting to fit into a community, so they read the pre-ordained classics and 'must-reads'

its why flowcharts are bandied about here, people see each author and book as more /lit/ social credit to bank, then when they've read enough acclaimed-but-still-inaccessible-to-the-general-public books they can comfortably feel superior to others in their new /lit/ identity

the end result is that no one ever develops a taste of their own. why would anyone read books that dont have any social credit attached?

you can see a similar phenomenon on /mu/, and in a much more spectacularly embarrassing way on /fa/

There's obviously more great works in total from Homer to the 1950's, and they also stood the test of time. Sure there's works that are published today that will still be praised in 100 years but it'll only be a fraction of the ones people actually consider great right now, meaning it's a waste of time searching for them.

>>9151389
a war between russia and the us will not be a world war, it will be the end of us all. pretty sure russia is not willing to end humanity for a naval base in the black sea and some influence in the middle east

>>9151458
H

>>9151386
people have been fucking animals since the dawn of mankind and scat wasn't a thing prior to the invention of tp because having your arse caked with shit was the standard back then

>muh communities

>>9141903
/pol/ pls go

just go

>>9141893
I don't. I'm less familiar with it though. Recommend me something non-YA, non-sci-fi, non-romance or ero-novel that is top shelf.

Convert me.

>>9151537
Knausgård desu

File: 1487791382468.jpg (5KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 250x250px

>>9151458

>>9143470
this is such a dumb luddite assumption

a. people are reading books, still.

http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/bookselling/article/72450-print-book-sales-rose-again-in-2016.html

b. what the fuck do you think people do on the internet...theyre reading

obviously a lot of stuff is not good, but that has always been the case.

>>9143865
you're an idiot

more books are being published, both literary and trash. but more of everything.

>>9151386
people were losing fortunes on tulips

we've always been idiots

>people on my /lit/ are saying the novel is dead when Thomas Pynchon is currently at work on his final opus

>>9151699

man this is actually really true

I'd hazard a guess that people now are actually reading way more on average than they were just one century ago
sure maybe half of it is twitter posts but hey thats still something

File: b67b3a9b9ec7d538294d005b5dd28932.jpg (57KB, 736x502px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 736x502px

The Apocalypse is at hand.

>>9143788
you forgot Annie Proulx

>>9151699
Are you seriously suggesting people are becoming more literate? Pfft.

>>9151777
I'm not really suggesting that, I'm telling you that

you assume that reading bullshit on the internet is replacing people's engagement with complex works of fiction or scholarship

but those people would just not have read at all in the past

and the people who read to engage with complex and challenging ideas, they still do that, they just have more ways to do so

OR you're right, and this is the first generation where some asshole bemoaning the dumbing down of society turns out to actually be correct

>>9142849
Holy generalizations... i want more

File: 1487796246292.jpg (8KB, 250x238px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 250x238px

>>9151726
>my

File: askildsen858.jpg (23KB, 858x571px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 858x571px

>>9141893
I don't, though.

Most of what you think when you say "contemporary literature" is either just some stuff that is filled with po-mo gimmicks for their own sake or it seems to be written by people who have their head so deep up their ass that they somehow think their "suburban ennui chronicles #23910" to be worth someone's time. There are some good things going on in sci-fi, however.

>>9151499
>pretty sure russia is not willing to end humanity for a naval base in the black sea and some influence in the middle east
Syrian civil war is basically over. Government controls over 70% of population again, it's only going one way

File: disgusted_dave.png (313KB, 539x435px) Image search: [Google]

313KB, 539x435px

>>9141985

>defends contemporary fiction
>doesn't name any titles

Are you the guy who recommended Laurus?

What a joyless essay that so-called novel was.

>>9142083
Harold Bloom's favorites? Are you kidding? Just listen to this schmuck.

http://theweek.com/articles/554901/harold-blooms-6-favorite-books-that-helped-shape-american-sublime

Also, they aren't what I'd call contemporary.

Because at this point it's hard to sort out the great stuff from the shit.

The truly unremarkable, mediocre works of previous generations haven't made it this far whereas the ones out now are still around.

I recommend Ian McEwan, Julian Barnes, Murakami and Ian Banks off the top of my head.

>>9141893
it's trash that will be forgotten in 5 years

I just read The Sea by John Banville and it had me teary eyed by the end. The prose was wonderful and very melodic, the plot tragic. Went to the dictionary 4 times.

>>9152631

He does talk about, with considerable favor, some living authors like Crowley, Pynchon, McCarthy & Ashberry

>>9151805
There's a difference between being literate and just being a functional conduit for memes (which is all that Twitter users are.) Kids leave college nowadays without even a decent grasp of spelling or grammar. Like I said up-thread, language is becoming a debased collection of symbols rather than an artistic vehicle. The sophisticated audience to support literary art forms just isn't there anymore.

If you don't believe me, just ask yourself who the fuck reads poetry (let alone buys it) nowadays? Name a single worthwhile poem written in the last twenty years. Millennials just don't have the sophistication either to produce or appreciate it.

File: 1487827774001.gif (993KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

993KB, 500x281px

>>9152028
>DFWposting

>>9153170
a. just because people are not reading and writing poetry doesn't mean people are less literate. but thats assuming you are right.

b. this lack of literacy youre perceiving is just that we live in a more fractured culture, where there is more of everything. if you want to read poetry, you have to look for it. which I'm sure you could, but you don't, because you actually are a philistine and need things to come pre approved.

c. Anne Carson, red doc and autobiography of red

A lot of American literature nowadays is suburban, air-conditioned, institutionalized garbage like DFW and Franzen.

The shit's not only intollerable, it's almost absolutely meaningless.

>>9143221
That's people in the publishing industry, not people who are published.

Having them arbitrate taste still isn't good though.

Everything in contemporary culture is so hyper self-aware and it's fucking exhausting. I'm sick of critiques and deconstruction and ironic detachment and NAXALT semantics and endlessly reducing everything to pathology or spooks. It's fucking gay and it stifles any kind of productive discourse.

>>9153960
Tao Lin fits this description IMO
>>9154268
Fine distinction, still a massive problem
>>9154373
What would you recommend? We rehash neoclassicism or something else thats sufficiently counterculture? Im tired of people touting the 'progress' meme like its some linear thing we all move along culturally, getting 'farther' today than we were yesterday. I agree with you, I just don't know what to do about it, so I don't write to be published anymore. I just write exactly what it is I wish someone would publish, and then shove it in a box and start another project.

>>9141893
Because most people into art in LE 4CHAINCHINZ think that hating anything contemporary in their respective medium makes them

patrcian
knowledgeful
interesting

when it just marks them as idiots

>>9154430
name 10 books written in the last 17 years that will be remebered in 100 years

>>9154476
I get your point, Anon, but this is a bad way to demonstrate it. Harry Potter will be remembered in a hundred years, is it a literary achievement?

File: 1487997652453.jpg (26KB, 256x256px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 256x256px

>>9154476
my diary, desu

>>9154391
>What would you recommend?
Dunno, try to engage people in good faith and not worry so much about being vulnerable I suppose. I agree the idea of linear progress is bullshit, but that would necessitate culture "rehashes" things at some point, so I don't see anything wrong with that.

>>9153138
But who would want to read the exploits of a two-bit occultist?

>>>/qa/catalog

>>9154476
name 10 books written in the last 17 years that you've read

>>9143788
please don't put Le Guin with those goofballs

>>9141893
Because they are bitter autists who are triggered by the fact that 20 years from now high school children will be forced to read Harry Potter and write essays about it, but will struggle immensely to understand the old English as it is not written in the more familiar combination ebonics and emojis.

/lit/ is angry because they will be grading these papers.

>>9152009
you have to go back

>>9141893
Because they wear they influences on their sleeve. If you can open a book at tell that the author was raised by a single mother or was very impressed by his trip to an oriental country and those things have nothing to do with the story you are reading than its a bad book.