A good writer doesn't need more than 100 pages to impress

That doesn't mean the rest of the book does not contribute to it being a good or a bad book, though.

>>9688262
That's an optimistic claim. It supposes that the reader is of the intended target audience and that all readers are equal and valuable, or their opinions are.

File: self-cringe.png (177KB, 292x426px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 292x426px

what THE fuck is his problem

>>9688262
true

>>9688262
Anyone who isn't a brainlet will give a long book the time it needs to set up a large story. Those books aren't written for the type of people who stop books less than 10% of the way through. If you need a plot to grab you immediately, go read Brandon Sanderson or something. 2666 starts slow, but it's an undeniably a masterpiece. Stop being afraid of long books /lit/.

>>9688262
define "A good writer"

>>9688329

So let me get this straight, you unironically use the word "brainlet", and you unironically think a book titled "2666" is a masterpiece? This is an unironic post?

>>9688284

You know "you're not smart enough to understand this" is an entry-level fraud-artist tactic, right?

/pol/ has really dumbed this board down. Jesus.

>>9688418
You should read more

File: 1484630727843.jpg (638KB, 2400x1800px) Image search: [Google]

638KB, 2400x1800px

>>9688418
>le /pol/ bogymin
nonwhite brainlet detected

>>9688426
>>9688431

Great replies, guys.

>>9688418
Oh look another comment criticizing a book by someone who never read it. How original.

>>9688418
>/pol/ has really dumbed this board down
His opinion has been common on /lit/ long before the /pol/ infestation. You are either a newfag or an idiot.

>>9688262
Frankly this is a pointless question, as far as I see. You finish a book or you don't finish a book. Maybe you give up for some reason. So what? "Impressing a reader" and "a good writer" (heck, even "100 pages") are all tricky and relative terms. Even if we solved and explained all that shit and could give you a definite answer to your question, we would gain no actual knowledge regarding the true essence of our pursuit - the art itself.

In other words: who gives a fuck?

>>9688792

There's gotta be some link between 4chan's "art is objective knowledge" opinion and the increase in spectrum disorders.

I was looking for people to share subjective opinions about art. Art is subjective.

>>9688844
Then why are you asking wether your statement is true or false, if you don't want objective answers? Stop conflating truth and opinions.
In my opinion, the question is still pointless. If I am enjoying a book then I'm enjoying a book. My subjective experience is my subjective experience, it's a waste of time to make a philosophy out of it, making rules such as yours to try to organize it.
By the way, some aspects of art are definitely objective, don't think that art is just how much you enjoy it.

File: self-cring2.png (147KB, 322x329px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 322x329px

>mfw I talk to a girl

>>9688262
A good writer should make the first page interesting, enough to read the second, the second enough to read the third, etc.

True.

>>9689257
Hello redd7t :)

>>9688262
A good writer isn't necessarily someone who's supposed to entertain the reader unless we're talking about YA or genre fiction

>>9689364
There is a difference between pure entertainment and telling a compelling story.

I wouldn't call the first chapter of Moby-Dick "entertaining," not in the popular sense, but it definitely leaves you wanting to read more.

>>9689381
First 100 pages of Moby Dick are so good you can NOT stop after reading it.