"Greats" you don't care for.

Post highly regarded authors or books that you tried and didn't like. Justify your opinions.

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Stoker's Dracula
    Shakespeare's Hamlet

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I thought e-girlta was boring. Just didn't grab me. I didn't even bother finishing it.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      this. pretty sure it's memed hard just because it's pedocore
      also the stranger. nausea was way better and that book was boring as frick

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Frick Dumas. His dialog is so obnoxious and there's so fricking much of it. I only read The Man In The Iron Mask and I couldn't finish it.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The Count of Montecristo. The characters are shallow, the good ones are Mary Sues, the bad ones are moustache twisting villains, and I was bored 100% of the time until I dropped it when they were in Venice. Literally XIX century slop.

      I've only seen people describing Dumas as a good* adventure/pulp writer without much literary quality
      *though I can find many who disagree with even that and cite him getting paid by the word

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      This. The Count of Monte Cristo abandons a decent revenge plot with hundreds of pages of bullshit

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        The first third or so is amazing, and then it gets into all that boring shit with the son

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Watch the show revenge

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Seconded. Just unreadable interactions, and I like pulp generally.

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Mark Fisher, fanatical cult leader who twisted Marxism into a masturbatory mix of critical theory, navel gazing, 80s nostalgia and “dude weed, lmao” so he could pull the wool over his readers eyes and say “just forget socialism even exists and just get high”

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Goncharov
    Oblomov was a very boring read. It wasn't the storyline, it was boringly written. Or boringly translated idk.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Surely you picked up the Max Lawton's translation.

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    crime and punishment. Raskolnikov doesnt feel like a real person, and the prose is bland(it lacks scenario detailment) yet too long

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Oh, that also. I couldn't even finish it. I liked Notes from the Underground though.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Ghastly rigamarole

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Lmao, I am not one who tends to agree with Nabokov often but one cannot deny he was based.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      i fell for the black cat bait and tried to force myself to read The Master and Margarita twice but the story and prose are crude and unbearably boring

      agreed, the only part where he seems like a real person is when he's lying in bed making up shit about killing the old hag

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Raskolnikov doesn't feel like a real person
      Hard to relate to, but most certainly real. I have been like him and I know others who are even more like him. People that thirst for fame, fortune and power without the maturity to pursue them with diligence become bitter, self-hating, often contradictory, sensitive men.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        oh no, I didn't mean this about his personality. I was talking about his thought processing and his actions. For instance, he sits to listen to marmeladov complaints, a total stranger, and acts like he thinks he was annoying, while giving total attention to the drunk's rant. He overreacts and make far-fetched conclusions when he read his mother's letter, and was so infuriated by his own assumption that he would probably kill the man mentioned in the letter. He needs weeks to make a plan to kill the old woman, yet was probably the worst plan I have ever seen in fiction and it was surprisingly unexpected from a character who was said to be intelligent. And finally, he hesitates to kill the old woman a lot, even though he was despicable in his eyes, yet he kills in absolute cold-blood her sister, who he knew was a lot kinder and pure. I dropped the book afterwards, the assassination scene was poorly written, in my opinion, way too rushed for what was expected to be an important occurrance.
        Raskolnikov appears to me to be a mental deranged youngster, but it is still very hard to enjoy the book

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          What the hell are you talking about? That's exactly what real people are like.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            where do you live that people act like that?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >And finally, he hesitates to kill the old woman a lot, even though he was despicable in his eyes, yet he kills in absolute cold-blood her sister, who he knew was a lot kinder and pure.
          seems perfectly reasonable to me. that was a heat of the moment thing. all this stuff is intentional and realistic. dosto does not believe man kind is perfectly reasonable and is instead given over easily to passion. "a man is not an organ stop". not saying you have to like it but saying dosto writes unbelievable characters is just incorrect.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >that was a heat of the moment thing.
            the thought came to mind when I read, but he was expected to realize what he had done as soon as possible: a mistake he made that would give him a burden in his conscience, specially because by that far in the book it was pretty obvious raskolnikov was a sensitive, kind young man. Yet, he immediatly takes action to hide trails.
            I dont know man, I just dont buy the whole planned assassination thing. It certainly didnt look what a normal person would do, specially someone who would make such altruistic acts like giving money to other people, even when raskolnikov was in poverty himself

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >the plan to murder an old woman is half-baked and goes breasts up
          sounds pretty realistic for a deranged fedora tipping intelleckshual

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Raskolnikov doesnt feel like a real person
      But he is literally me 🙁

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I do not like Dostoyevsky at all. Most of his characters don't seem real. His dialogue is ridiculously unrealistic. I'm not sure how to describe it. Melodramatic and cringe maybe. The only good thing I've read by him was Notes From Underground because his character's 4 page long literary expositions made sense in that context. Also the underground man is literally me. He should've been an essayist rather than a novelist. The dreadful dialogue flops hard compared to the work of a master like Tolstoy or Chekov.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >His dialogue is ridiculously unrealistic
        I just figured this was the way slavs talked to each other, but I may be wrong. Any slav can conffirm?

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Borges- a cute short story writer but very gimmicky and certainly not a great or cornerstone of the western canon

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Same. Some of his works are really good but most of it hinges on him being a pseudo intellectual who read an encyclopedia once.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Same. Some of his works are really good but most of it hinges on him being a pseudo intellectual who read an encyclopedia once.

      Yes.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Agree

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Nabokov. His prose is nice but every single one of his books makes me just go
    >ok
    and then I don't think about them at all.

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    henry james

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I never see him talked about here (maybe for good reason) but Sinclair Lewis is so incredibly mid.

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    D. H. Lawrence, novelist. Had to read Women in Love and Sons and Lovers for a class. Later read Chatterley on my own to see if maybe...but no. I don't know how to put this, his writing smells weird, mildewed, I just don't like it. Some of his poetry is ok, though.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I've read several of his and enjoyed them but I still can't tell if they're actually good; he's the sort who hits you with a few beautiful sentences and then for several pages comes off as a hack. It doesn't help that his books are riddled with typos.

      https://i.imgur.com/NFhOD9y.jpg

      Hesse's Siddhartha. Thought I might be in for explosion of wisdom and found in its stead a drawn out revamp of Tolstoy's How Much Land Does a Man Need.

      I came here to complain about Hesse. I read Siddhartha for school 15 years ago and didn't like it; wanted to give him another shot so I read Steppenwolf recently and it's fricking terrible. Flimsy central metaphor, childish attempts at profundity, joyless style.
      Conrad also sucks, which is a shame because he seems like an interesting historical figure and is clearly important.

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    zlilzlek
    neetzsche
    joyce
    grass
    hesse

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I think Hemingway has decent politics. I know he likes Cats and I find it very difficult to disliks someone who likes Cats. But I cannot stand his prose. I dislike the way he plainly mentions as much detail as possible and nothing else, and do not find it deep or appealing. Getting through The Old Man and the Sea was a slog and it took me to read that 90 page novella as much as it takes me to read a 1600 page epic.

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I fricking hate Dune.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      good thing it's not considere d a great

  15. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Anna Karenina
    Madame Bovary is a similar concept but so much deeper and better executed

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Madame Bovary is a similar concept but so much deeper and better executed
      Nah, you got filtered.

      t. loves both

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        How? Emma feels so believable and she's actually a great portrait of this deeply unfulfilled woman that you kinda hate as a person but love as a character because she's a dumpster fire but a realistic and very relatable one. I feel like Emma would still be a good modern character And for Anna it seems like her problem would pretty much be solved if she lived during times where divorce was socially acceptable. Unlike Emma she didn't draw me in with her incredibly attention-catching antics making me feel that mix of sympathy and disgust for her. Overall, I think unlike Emma Anna is actually pretty boring even with her antics and not relatable at all. And all those noble Russian family dynamics also felt meh. Even when we look at the husbands. Charles is a cinnamon roll who does no wrong which is a nice contrast to dumpster fire of a girlie that is Emma. Even if Emma finds him boring he's actually the closest thing to the idea of a perfect romanticism husbando with him being a cinnamon roll with unconditional love for Emma. And Karenin is a pretty boring guy who is also involved in unpleasant stuff related to resettling native peoples of Russian Empire. I guess it could've made Anna seem more sympathetic but even that still felt meh. I guess if the writing was less boring to me I might have been more invested but for me Madame Bovary is superior in all: writing, CHARACTERS and the story. Even the climax with MCs deaths. Emma's actually made me cry. Yeah, the girlie was mega problematic but she was so unfulfilled that even trying to fulfil herself in a beautiful peaceful death she failed. Even trying to finally show love to her daughter she failed. Just a realistic problematic girlie death. And Anna's death is all romantic with her thinking deep thoughts which is just so meh to me. So like even climax has no appeal to me.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Verbose, but limited. Essentially, to you, Emma is bored (and makes failed albeit interesting efforts to placate that boredom) whereas Anna is simply boring, unforgivable to you as reader. For me the way the Kitty/Levin dynamic slowly approaches the Anna/Vronsky dynamic, at last crosses it, and then parts forever set up a novel-reading tension that I hadn't experienced anywhere else: it was absolutely masterful. Also, Vronsky's movement from cad to sympathetic character actually 'moved' me rather deeply. The problem with your analysis is that you confine your comparison completely within the frame of Flaubert's plot, i.e. ignore the fact that so much more is going on in Tolstoy's novel than in Flaubert's, which is mercilessly claustrophobic, of course, for a reason. OTOH, I agree-- Emma is by far the more 'modern' character; less imaginative, less energetic, less pathetically adorable versions are rife these days both on-line and irl. I love both novels, of course.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          You write like a woman. I can see how a woman would think that, but Anna Karenina is the greatest novel of all time because of Levin.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I understand your logic. I've never read Anna Karenina but having Levin in a book would sure keep things interesting

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's a good song.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I watch them Live twice a few years ago. Those old c**ts can still play.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Charles is a cinnamon roll who does no wrong
          Anon, you did not understand the book.

  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Hitchikers guide, it's shitty unimaginative humour designed to appeal to children. Literally only exists to cater to the market of pre-teens who want to feel smart.

    Great game though

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Couldn't finish it. I guess you'd have to be from the 60s or whatever to find it funny.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        It's a radio play that was turned into a book. You really have to like BBC radio plays on some level.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Couldn't finish it. I guess you'd have to be from the 60s or whatever to find it funny.

      It's a radio play that was turned into a book. You really have to like BBC radio plays on some level.

      This really, Adams was very much a Monty Python fan boy. His aim with hitchhiker's was to combine his two dear interests, i.e. Doctor Who and Monty Python.

      The radio series, is very in line with the other BBC comedies, The Goon Show, The Burkiss Way, Monty Python of course, Round The Horne etc.

      If you do not appreciate the humor, of that era of BBC, you'll not like it.
      It is neither literature, or some great scifi book, it was always just a british comedy.

      t. i just like bbc comedies a lot

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      [...]
      [...]
      This really, Adams was very much a Monty Python fan boy. His aim with hitchhiker's was to combine his two dear interests, i.e. Doctor Who and Monty Python.

      The radio series, is very in line with the other BBC comedies, The Goon Show, The Burkiss Way, Monty Python of course, Round The Horne etc.

      If you do not appreciate the humor, of that era of BBC, you'll not like it.
      It is neither literature, or some great scifi book, it was always just a british comedy.

      t. i just like bbc comedies a lot

      if you want something stylistically comparable to adams but funnier and with far, far better characters and plot payoffs, just read terry pratchett

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >lesser of two evils
        Granted, pratchett isn't as bad, but he still makes me cringe a lot. Hogfather and discord in general was not for me.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymouṡ

      >lesser of two evils
      Granted, pratchett isn't as bad, but he still makes me cringe a lot. Hogfather and discord in general was not for me.

      Pratchett > Adams, but they're both OK for what they are.

      I think the problem is that a lot of people nowadays ask too much of them. They were never intended as more than light reading for young teens or very light reading for adults. If you read serious stuff, and you occasionally kick back with a Discworld novel, that's fine. But if you're older than twelve and Discworld (Or Harry Potter, or Star Trek) is your entire culture, that's a problem.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I see Pratchett as the point where you grow out of fantasy because it's exactly what he parodies. People don't grow out of fantasy any more. It's a problem with how we most often interact with this second order fiction. The sincerity of the real thing is too obviously lame as shit but the layer of irony doesn't save it. The answer is of course to put all that shit down, but we have a manchild epidemic and they can't do that.

  17. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Tolstoy
    Confucius

  18. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Hesse's Siddhartha. Thought I might be in for explosion of wisdom and found in its stead a drawn out revamp of Tolstoy's How Much Land Does a Man Need.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I've read several of his and enjoyed them but I still can't tell if they're actually good; he's the sort who hits you with a few beautiful sentences and then for several pages comes off as a hack. It doesn't help that his books are riddled with typos.

      [...]
      I came here to complain about Hesse. I read Siddhartha for school 15 years ago and didn't like it; wanted to give him another shot so I read Steppenwolf recently and it's fricking terrible. Flimsy central metaphor, childish attempts at profundity, joyless style.
      Conrad also sucks, which is a shame because he seems like an interesting historical figure and is clearly important.

      glad to see people agree hesse is trash. coelho tier

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Agreed. It fricking drags on and pretends to be deep while actually being as shallow as a puddle.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I've read several of his and enjoyed them but I still can't tell if they're actually good; he's the sort who hits you with a few beautiful sentences and then for several pages comes off as a hack. It doesn't help that his books are riddled with typos.

      [...]
      I came here to complain about Hesse. I read Siddhartha for school 15 years ago and didn't like it; wanted to give him another shot so I read Steppenwolf recently and it's fricking terrible. Flimsy central metaphor, childish attempts at profundity, joyless style.
      Conrad also sucks, which is a shame because he seems like an interesting historical figure and is clearly important.

      I enjoyed Siddhartha as a boy and I consider it a formative book for me, but I second Steppenwolf. I found really nothing at all of value in it. I racked my brain trying to understand what it is I had missed only to realize I probably didn't miss anything at all. I recall my copy had a preface or something of that sort which seemed to insist that those who read the book but don't "get it" simply aren't old enough to "get it," which I found to be rather absurd as well. In fact, the older I get the less I appreciate it.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Fricking Hesse in general. Sucks taint.

  19. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Mishima Confessions of a Mask
    Too gay and homosexual

  20. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    James Joyce. I don’t live in Dublin. Makes me sad. Gonna try Ulysses this year, though. Wish me luck lads.

  21. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Most books t b h

  22. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I don't know if this counts but I think F. Scott Fitzgerald is shit.

  23. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The Count of Montecristo. The characters are shallow, the good ones are Mary Sues, the bad ones are moustache twisting villains, and I was bored 100% of the time until I dropped it when they were in Venice. Literally XIX century slop.

  24. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I like Steinbeck, honest stories about American people from the perspective of a working man. Am not a contrarian just because I don't hold religious reverence for the every author in the canon.

  25. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The invention of Morel. What a shit book. Frick that author.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Frick you Santi.

  26. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Zadie Smith. Tried multiple books and none of them interest me.
    I refuse to read Bukowski because of some interview I saw of him but I honestly can't even remember what he said that put me off.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I heard Bukowski described as Al Bundy writing a book and I've been terribly turned off by that. Plus I know lots kf scuzzballs that constantly share Bukowski like they're fricking deep, YEAH NO SHIT PEOPLE DONT LIKE TO WORK, DEAL WITH IT.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Plus I know lots kf scuzzballs that constantly share Bukowski like they're fricking deep, YEAH NO SHIT PEOPLE DONT LIKE TO WORK, DEAL WITH IT.
        this is also a reason I refuse to read him. A few bad apples ruining the whole bunch

        Where he said he lost his virginity to a fat prostitute?

        no, he may've been talking about his writing or reciting one of his poems (i remember thinking the one about the bird or something was really dumb). He just seemed like an unbearable alcoholic loser

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Where he said he lost his virginity to a fat prostitute?

  27. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    War and peace. Its just a book composed the lives of 3 or 4 or so medium-interesting people. Got to page 900/1300 when i decided to put it aside to never pick it up again. I then read a summary and guess what, nothing fricking happened anymore.

  28. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    ‘Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus’
    Only the beginning part set in the arctic was decently written.
    The rest was boring twaddle, and badly written.

  29. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Dune was a dry book.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      it's bizarre how many people get tricked into thinking dune is considered a classic when it was just some shitty bestseller

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      underrated comment

  30. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Didn't really like Dickens at all outside of Great Expectations.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      same but for tale of two cities. only other i've read is copperfield and a christmas carol, though. reading his other stuff was like trying to imagine what the little porcelaine dolls grandmother's have get up to when no one is watching. what did you like about middlemarch?

  31. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The Trial
    It's supposed to create this whole architecture of bureaucratic unreason, yet the world that the protagonist inhabits feels like a fake world - why, for example, did he not ever consider going to a journalist to complain that he's been charged for a crime which the bureaucracy refuses to divulge? Once you realize this massive plot hole exists, the whole house of cards falls apart, and the book essentially becomes Twilight Zone pulp. How does anyone regard this as a classic?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      that's not a plot hole. he won't go to a journalist because he is ashamed to be under suspicion and further he has no reason to believe this is anything but routine and thus not newsworthy. he's a paranoid bootlicker.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        nice headcanon. the idea is never even brought up. and even if what you said was true, the protagonist thinks that a secret trial is routine? even in the victorian era that was almost unheard of. the trial takes place in a "surrealist" universe where no one behaves like human beings.
        gogol's the overcoat is an example of how you can write surrealist literature without it becoming twilight zone pulp

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >the idea is never even brought up
          he also never brings up the idea of dressing up as a clown to throw off suspicion. still not a plothole.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            not an argument
            the trial takes place in a universe where trials are conducted without charges being brought. if this were not the case, everyone would be scandalized by the event, and bring it to the attention of journalists and government officials. instead everyone nonchalantly proceeds as if it's a regular trial. yet, the protagonist's exasperation is supposed to mimick our own. he at once lives in a universe where these things are normal yet reacts as if they are abnormal. like I said, it's genre fiction, sci-fi trash like Twilight Zone

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            i'm afraid you've been filtered. the fact that an author didn't address a course of action you would have done does not in the least blemish any book. would you also go to the press in china? soviet russia? do you want to be known statewide as a suspect in a crime in a very authorian state? further, can you really not even imagine that someone else might not want to gain noteriaty this way? literature might not be for you.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Well The Twilight Zone is cool, for one.
            You're reaching so hard trying to sound smart by identifying a "plot hole" in a book that is pretty clearly meant to be absurd, ambiguous and unfair. We don't exactly know what kind of universe it takes place in and neither do its characters I feel like I got that when they had us read Metamorphisis in highschool...

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            https://i.imgur.com/rV2OxQW.png

            it's unbelievable to me that "people" like this exists. this is one unplayable character right here.

            I'm going to add to the chorus by saying it's embarrassingly obvious you were filtered and should probably stick to movies.

            >no arguments or defense of the book
            Suck his israelite dick more. The trial is horrible by the standards of other classics of the time like Lost Time.

            >it's supposed to be nonsensical on purpose
            Go read Gogol's Overcoat.

            i'm afraid you've been filtered. the fact that an author didn't address a course of action you would have done does not in the least blemish any book. would you also go to the press in china? soviet russia? do you want to be known statewide as a suspect in a crime in a very authorian state? further, can you really not even imagine that someone else might not want to gain noteriaty this way? literature might not be for you.

            >the fact that an author didn't address a course of action you would have done does not in the least blemish any book.
            That anyone rational would have done*
            Cheap ad hominem attempt there, for one.
            Second, it blemishes the book significantly, since it strikes a blow against the believability of the narrative, which is the springboard for any surreal work. Again read The Overcoat. Everything about the book is believable until the surrealist end. If it's just in a whacky universe where anything goes, it's now genre fiction, which no doubt everyone would sneer at if it wasn't written by Kafka.
            Voltaire's Micromegas also falls in this category.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            in an authoritarian regime what journalist would fight for your rights moron, it's like asking why in communist russia people who got unfairly treated didn't go to a press or a government official. you are one of the most moronic people I have ever seen on this board. you might even be the worst one so far and I've been on here for close to four years.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            it's unbelievable to me that "people" like this exists. this is one unplayable character right here.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            it's grim.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That's still not an argument for why nobody else privy to K's trial doesn't even suggest going to a journalist or higher authority. Brainlet. Suck his israelite dick more.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Try not to think too hard about it. Kafka never got over how terrified he was of his father and it tainted his entire concept of authority.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm going to add to the chorus by saying it's embarrassingly obvious you were filtered and should probably stick to movies.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      yeah man that book did not make sense at all. like who goes to a painter to get his case solved LOL very weak plot.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        pls be trolling

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >plot
          Midwit

          I think metamorphosis is silly too. the world kafka tries to create is highly unrealistic, people DON'T just turn into bugs like that. even if they did their parents would take them to an entomologist right away to find out what kind of bug he turned into, how else would they know what to feed him? instead in the book they tried to feed him different sorts of food to find what gregor would like(big plot hole).

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous
      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >plot
        Midwit

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      It’s a partly metaphysical book

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        that's cope. the overcoat is metaphysical because everything is believable except at the end there's a ghost

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Do you not like Homer?

  32. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Pynchon = Dishonest Vonnegut
    >Russian literature is a wasteland with anomalously rare exception pre-mid 21st century
    >Borges was a journalist - not a writer - and his fiction was confabulated travelogues tier
    >Heemingway was a spook from a spook family pushed as a spook for spook ends
    >Napoleon losing at Waterloo was a disaster for the human race, specifically the arts
    >Genre fiction has no right to be bad in light of Dumas, namely ...
    >post-WW2 scifi and post-Tolkien fantasy.
    >Kafka stans are universally sex pest rapists in waiting; the novellas > the short stories individually or collectively

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >pynchon
      >great

  33. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The Great Gatsby
    No, just no. Tried reading it, just didn't care.
    Tried listening it on audiobook - instant sleep.
    Twice.
    I just don't care about the premise at all.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Based and true.
      Book is a bit overhated though, because so many people were forced to read it for a high school English class

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The thing about Gatsby is that literally nobody reads it for fun, it's only relevant because the book's themes are super obvious and easy to discuss in a high school classroom

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      bet you play 3DS in public

  34. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Tolstoy

  35. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    obviously not considered a great outside his genre but heinleins short stories suck wiener. maybe it was more interesting when the idea of time travel paradoxes was novel

  36. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Borges' short stories: They didn't touch me. It was like reading something that was intentionally written for posh angloids.
    Don Quijote: Unnecessarily long.
    Martín Fierro: José Hernández was a bonafide hypocrite.

  37. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    joyce is pollock in verbiage I fricking hate him

  38. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I'm going to say it so other anons don't have to. James Joyce, specifically his experimental stuff. I liked Portrate and Dubliners. But The experimental stuff just missed the mark for me. Too obscure. I appreciate that he was going for something new and I'm not going to say there is no merit in it, but I couldn't dig it. Same goes for William Burrows.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      what did you like about Dublineers? I found it boring

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      what did you like about Portrate? I found it boring

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I'm a sucker for grandiose verbiage so I was drawn into the sermonizing. I'm also sympathetic to the overarching theme of struggling with faith as someone who realized their beliefs were beliefs solely because they were brought up with them.

        what did you like about Dublineers? I found it boring

        I think the writing itself caries Dubliners. I didn't find it boring at all even though the themes of the stories are largely not my thing. If he were a worse writer I would probably think Dubliners nothing but sentimental drivel. But as it stands the writing makes the stories engaging for me.

  39. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Leviathan by Hobbes
    Although I recognize its significance that's about the only care I can give

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      This thing literally put me to sleep every time I tried reading it. What's its significance or value?

  40. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    That french homosexual that liked madeleines - simply unreadable.

  41. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Kafka. Metamorphosis, The Penal Colony, and Hunger Artist are okay and even good at times. Not super huge on the rest though

  42. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    LotR is the easy one

  43. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Pindar, just didn't enjoy most of it, the fragments were a lot better than the sport celebrations.
    I assume I would enjoy it if I learned Greek.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymouṡ

      I've tried to experience Pindar as well as one can who can't read Greek. I've listened to it in Greek and studied a few bits in depth. He's a mad ranter, a sort of poetic Thomas Carlyle. Basically I think there's just no point reading it in translation. Everything gets lost.

  44. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    As a HUGE fan of Grapes and Wrath and East of Eden, I hate Of Mice and Men. Instead of making me cry (the breastfeeding scene and the deathbed scene destroyed me and I loved it), I just felt like George was a massive douche. The whole story leaves me cold and empty.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymouṡ

      Strange how different people can be. I liked GoW and OMaM, but EoE felt tryhard and false.

      Steinbeck's main fault for me is that he'll say something well but then tell you the point he was making. YES WE GOT IT JOHN. He mistrusts either his own ability or the reader's intelligence.

      East of Eden needed a brutal editor. Gordon Lish would have worked wonders.

  45. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    shakespeare, goethe, dostoevsky, gorky, balzac, stendhal, camus, sartre, hesse, rilke, pessoa, bulgakov.

    don't even @ me.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      what do you like then anon

  46. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    personally i don't like goethe or shakespeare because i find their characters too histrionic. i can still see why others like them, though.

  47. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    In all the years I've not finished only 2 books I started, both by dostoyevsky. Fine ideas, shit writer. God save this world from dostoyevsky-esque prose

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      did you read him in russian or translated? just curious.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        nta, but does it get better in russian?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Polish and English translations, polish crime and punishment I've tried twice, by two different translators, I really doubt it's much better in original

  48. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The Unnbearable Lightness of Being
    I have no idea why the prose is so basic. It reads like a midwits perceived view of simple prose. Midwits believe simple prose= bad because it's not obviously complex or that simple prose is inherently easy. If that wasn't bad enough, the rare use of big vernacular words when the novel reads like a slightly mature YA with poor decent philosophy allusions is such a pretentious style choice. It reads as if Kundera found a synonym for a simple word and hamfisted it in when it doesn't fit. I only read 40 pages because it was too annoying for my taste.

  49. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I absolutely hated Arsene Lupin. There's just something about that kind of writing style that makes me hate the author. Don't really care for Sherlock Holmes for the same reason but at least he has some good stories and the exposition dumping isn't as ridiculous as with Arsene Lupin

  50. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Starship Troopers, a literally nothing book.
    >Private, if I took a shit in 10 minutes and bugs attacked in the next 5 minutes and you had a baby strapped to your chest and a slingshot as your weapon, what would you do?
    >Uhm... Sir I would respect code of conduct sir!
    >Excellent private! You are now a corporal!
    Rinse and repeat

  51. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    All these blowhard 21st century homosexuals located in the UK: Ian McEwan, David Mitchell, and I count Kazuo Ishiguro too.

    Same with TV: Charlie Brooker, Steven Moffat, etc.

    I also don't care for 'le kooky' Sci fi like Discworld and Hitchhiker's Guide.

    "Oi, I'm a humanist and I need ta lecta ya bloke." Frick off with your ponderous, self-important 'shite'.

  52. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    This thread serves as a midwit echochamber. I hope people reading the posts in here understand that and don't skip on good literature because these morons are too shallow to appreciate it.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The most mature position one can have is recognizing something as great while not personally caring for it. I bet you think informed opinions are subjective.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      What I don’t get is the complaint that something isn’t realistic. homie, you’re reading a book. Imagine looking at a painting and criticizing it because it isn’t realistic. Literature often has a bigger goal than portraying realism

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The word is verisimilitude, the appearance of reality. No one is complaining that it isn't "real", they're complaining that even the exaggerations and narrative conceits of a good story don't account for how moronic a character's dialog and action is. You have have cardboard characters do dumb shit as long as it doesn't ring false within the concessions of the fiction itself.

  53. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Joseph Heller. I tried reading Catch 22. Page 328 of 519. It didn't pull me, and frankly I don't get what the book is about, as anything except a disjointed and cynical look at exaggeratedly stupid and corrupt people. I quit around the time the mess chef builds a baking supply bartering air force across both sides of the war and bombs his own air base. Too silly.
    Where's the plot? It was a couple years ago I read it but I honestly can't remember a damn thing about what Yossarian was actually doing or why, other than being generally angry at stuff and people in general.

  54. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >authoritarian regime
    nice headcanon never mentioned once in the book.
    >b-but austria-hungary
    ah yes that famous society where a free press was didn't exist and every newspaper was owned by the state

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      you are fricking brain dead.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >loses argument
        >starts flinging insults like a histrionic
        back to IQfy with you

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          video games are not realistic. in some games characters even jump over ten meters, I am too smart for that.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I think frankly you are just too stupid to understand the argument.

            The word is verisimilitude, the appearance of reality. No one is complaining that it isn't "real", they're complaining that even the exaggerations and narrative conceits of a good story don't account for how moronic a character's dialog and action is. You have have cardboard characters do dumb shit as long as it doesn't ring false within the concessions of the fiction itself.

            this anon might help explain it better than I can

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I frankly think you are a brain dead animal who should not read at all but feel free to waste your time any way you deem fit.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            if you can't form a coherent argument then you're not ready for the big boy boards, back to IQfy

            the trial could not more obviously be set in an authoritain regime. it starts with the police entering a man's house unannounced. this is treated a routine by all the characters. this is what a police state looks like.
            [...]
            i think the trail more sets out to create a sort of dream like feel, like in alice in wonderland rather than verisimilitude. regardless, k not contacting a journalist IS realistic. the reasons for him not doing so are very obvious.
            [...]
            >That anyone rational would have done
            you say that but countless other people have read it and pretty much none of them feel this way, so it obviously isn't what "anyone rational would have done". you should really give some serious consideration to the possibility that you simply are not that bright.

            >it starts with the police entering a man's house unannounced. this is treated a routine by all the characters. this is what a police state looks like.
            So you're making my point for me - if it's not set in Kafka's Austria-Hungary or fictional analogue and is just an unnamed authoritarian society that doesn't resemble our own, what is the book then but pulpy genre fiction?
            >imagine if you will, a society where the police and courts have too much power...
            It isn't particularly well written, so why is it a classic if it's just the Twilight Zone a half-century in advance?
            >countless other people have read it and pretty much none of them feel this way
            It's a subpar 20th century classic, not very many people have read it, even by the standards of classics. And the book isn't especially well regarded. It only appears in "best 20th century classics" because the competition is so sparse
            > you should really give some serious consideration to the possibility that you simply are not that bright.
            true I only scored 130 on those iq tests in school. you need to be at least 150+ to understand the trial

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            would you say that the oddessy is realistic or is it just genre slop?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            all fiction must be realism hrng in a massive fricking homosexual.
            literally have a nice day and spare someone else the trouble

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            low iq browncel who doesn't understand the argument
            surrealism doesn't work well if the world is fantastical from the start. it needs to start off normal, then become surreal.
            therefore the trial is a failed book

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You are a moron and that indian is smarter than you.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Kafka was an absurdist not a surrealist. You got filtered.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            gay

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            classic cluster-b response.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      the trial could not more obviously be set in an authoritain regime. it starts with the police entering a man's house unannounced. this is treated a routine by all the characters. this is what a police state looks like.

      The word is verisimilitude, the appearance of reality. No one is complaining that it isn't "real", they're complaining that even the exaggerations and narrative conceits of a good story don't account for how moronic a character's dialog and action is. You have have cardboard characters do dumb shit as long as it doesn't ring false within the concessions of the fiction itself.

      i think the trail more sets out to create a sort of dream like feel, like in alice in wonderland rather than verisimilitude. regardless, k not contacting a journalist IS realistic. the reasons for him not doing so are very obvious.

      [...]
      [...]
      >no arguments or defense of the book
      Suck his israelite dick more. The trial is horrible by the standards of other classics of the time like Lost Time.

      >it's supposed to be nonsensical on purpose
      Go read Gogol's Overcoat.
      [...]
      >the fact that an author didn't address a course of action you would have done does not in the least blemish any book.
      That anyone rational would have done*
      Cheap ad hominem attempt there, for one.
      Second, it blemishes the book significantly, since it strikes a blow against the believability of the narrative, which is the springboard for any surreal work. Again read The Overcoat. Everything about the book is believable until the surrealist end. If it's just in a whacky universe where anything goes, it's now genre fiction, which no doubt everyone would sneer at if it wasn't written by Kafka.
      Voltaire's Micromegas also falls in this category.

      >That anyone rational would have done
      you say that but countless other people have read it and pretty much none of them feel this way, so it obviously isn't what "anyone rational would have done". you should really give some serious consideration to the possibility that you simply are not that bright.

  55. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >1914 austro-hungary had the same level of press freedom as the soviet union
    where do these brainlets come from?

  56. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Nearly all black authors. inb4 "Racism!" I WISH I could name even ONE that doesnt suck. Toni Morrison, Leroi Jones, Achebe, Angelou, Ta-Nahisi Coates. They're AWFUL, and you're forced to not only read them but kiss their asses in lit class. James Baldwin's essays are the only things that even approach competence. What the hell is it? Blacks can make great music, or at least great jazz. Put a pencil in their hands and they all become morons who can't write about anything but being black.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      pick up "pimp" by iceberg slim. it's seriously good. i used to hate black authors too.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I loved Achebe personally

  57. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >>"pimp" by iceberg slim
    >> Achebe
    Compared to Tolstoy, Dante, Goethe, Shakespeare, Milton, Shaw? kys. Black authors write as well as women play chess.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      do you only read books as well written as those? it may have a silly name but i'd put "pimp" above anything hemmingway ever wrote.

  58. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >comparing a 20th century surrealist novel to an ancient verse epic
    cool
    if you want to argue in good faith you'd compared it to The Overcoat, another surrealist novel. unlike Kafka's genreslop, it is a realistic depiction of then contemporary society and people. it didn't have to invent a bizarro fantasy world to tell the story.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >um actually you can inky compare books in the same genre released around the sane time
      Nah. Book is book

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      you are such a subhuman that you are diminishing my affection for gogol simply by mentioning him. just please don't name any other story or author.

  59. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >can't form a coherent argument
    >calls others subhuman

  60. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Yukia Mishima. homie’s a fruitcake!

  61. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Beckett. I just can´t deal with his style.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymouṡ

      Is that you, Maggie? Chin up. If S. B. saddens you, you don’t have to read him.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        damn now i gotta read it

  62. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Read fiction
    >Hate it because it is unrealistic

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *