ITT: Underrated books

sincerely underrated, though that cover is a monstrosity. the book itself is a delight

>>9990989
That is a bad cover for an excellent book.

sincerely underrated, though that is a bad cover. the book itself is an excellent book

>>9990989
holy shit i thought the wordsworth cover with dripping blood was bad, but wtf

i think it gets a lot of love though, to be fair. the woman dressed as a monk idea springs up in other media and it's usually clear its a hat tip to lewis.

another one you might like (but is common enough on /lit/) is william beckford's vathek

>>9990989
Centipedes are fucking nasty

sincerely underrated, though that is an atrocity of a cover. the book itself is fascinating

>>9990989
>saskue the novel
>sharingan

>>9991488
what about in a glass darkly?

>>9991614
the le fanu one? i don't think i've read that since i was a teenager, so i can't tell you if i was unimpressed because i was a teenager or not. i remember feeling like i was promised more lesbians.

sincerely excellent. the book itself is an underrated book, though that is a bad cover

>>9991782
I agree, such an underrated book, though the cover looks like crap. The book is a very good book

So glad to see this book and it's author get recognition, maybe he will recognise /lit/ in return ;)

>>9991634
the film Vampyr is based on it though

>>9991809
how much lesbianism is in that?

Sincerely underrated, though this cover is thematically amazing, the book itself a book

File: p1254_d_v8_aa.jpg (419KB, 960x1440px) Image search: [Google]

419KB, 960x1440px

>>9991824
it has been cut out and censored because it was made in 1932 (one of the first early sound films), but it's still worth seeing due it's weirdness and surreality.

But it's nice to know that lesbianism is canon, only stripped out.

what is going on