/lit/ - Literature

>What is it about King’s writing that appeals to so many people? Clearly, King’s readers — many of whom seem to get hooked on him when they are adolescents — don’t care that the sentences he writes or the scenes he constructs are dull. There must be something in the narrative arc, or in the nature of King’s characters, that these readers can’t resist. My sense is that King appeals to the aggrieved adolescent, or the aggrieved nerdy adolescent, or the aggrieved nerdy adult, who believes that people can be divided into bad and good (the latter would, of course, include the aggrieved adolescent or adult), a reader who would rather not consider the proposition that we are all, each of us, nice good people awash in problems and entirely capable of evil. King coddles his readers, all nice, good, ordinary, likeable people (just like the heroes of his books), though this doesn’t completely explain why these readers are so tolerant of the bloat in these novels, why they will let King go on for a couple hundred pages about some matter that has no vital connection to the subject of the book.

>>10997865
Welcome, friend

And but so he was a Team Creme man

Accountancy

>What is it about [Stephen] King’s writing that appeals to so many people? Clearly, King’s readers — many of whom seem to get hooked on him when they are adolescents — don’t care that the sentences he writes or the scenes he constructs are dull. There must be something in the narrative arc, or in the nature of King’s characters, that these readers can’t resist. My sense is that King appeals to the aggrieved adolescent, or the aggrieved nerdy adolescent, or the aggrieved nerdy adult, who believes that people can be divided into bad and good (the latter would, of course, include the aggrieved adolescent or adult), a reader who would rather not consider the proposition that we are all, each of us, nice good people awash in problems and entirely capable of evil. King coddles his readers, all nice, good, ordinary, likeable people (just like the heroes of his books), though this doesn’t completely explain why these readers are so tolerant of the bloat in these novels, why they will let King go on for a couple hundred pages about some matter that has no vital connection to the subject of the book.

>>10818378
>>10818384


My son, George, who is now twenty-four, read a little King in high school, but he hasn’t gone back to him since then. After you’ve read Roberto Bolaño and Denis Johnson and David Foster Wallace and Thomas Pynchon, as my son has, why would you return to Stephen King? King may be an adequate enough escape from life, if that’s all you require from a book of fiction, but his work (or what I’ve read of it) is a far cry from literature, which, at its best, is, sentence by sentence, a revelation about life.

>>10705829

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CrOL-ydFMI

>DUDE BE NICE TO EACH OTHER LMAO
wow so deep

What book will prevent me from eliminating my own map?

>had had

>>10409924
Ascending to a higher plane of existence is

when will this fuck release some new stuff already?

>>10400652
It's the journey that counts, not the destination

>None of this is about morality, or religion, or dogma, or big fancy questions of life after death.
>The capital-T truth is about life before death.
>It is about making it to thirty, or maybe even fifty, without wanting to shoot yourself in the head.
>It is about the real value of a real education, which has nothing to do with grades or degrees and everything to do with simple awareness - awareness of what is so real and essential, so hidden in plain sight all around us, that we have to keep reminding ourselves over and over: "This is water, this is water."

If he knew so much about positive thinking and not wanting to kill yourself, then why did he do it? Isn't it proof that his philosophy is bunk?

Without a doubt.

>>10376002
>tfw European who prefers American literature

The male is completely egocentric, trapped inside himself, incapable of empathizing or identifying with others, or love, friendship, affection of tenderness. He is a completely isolated unit, incapable of rapport with anyone. His responses are entirely visceral, not cerebral; his intelligence is a mere tool in the services of his drives and needs; he is incapable of mental passion, mental interaction; he can't relate to anything other than his own physical sensations. He is a half-dead, unresponsive lump, incapable of giving or receiving pleasure or happiness; consequently, he is at best an utter bore, an inoffensive blob, since only those capable of absorption in others can be charming. He is trapped in a twilight zone halfway between humans and apes, and is far worse off than the apes because, unlike the apes, he is capable of a large array of negative feelings -- hate, jealousy, contempt, disgust, guilt, shame, doubt -- and moreover, he is aware of what he is and what he isn't.
Although completely physical, the male is unfit even for stud service. Even assuming mechanical proficiency, which few men have, he is, first of all, incapable of zestfully, lustfully, tearing off a piece, but instead is eaten up with guilt, shame, fear and insecurity, feelings rooted in male nature, which the most enlightened training can only minimize; second, the physical feeling he attains is next to nothing; and third, he is not empathizing with his partner, but is obsessed with how he's doing, turning in an A performance, doing a good plumbing job. To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he's a machine, a walking dildo. It's often said that men use women. Use them for what? Surely not pleasure.

>>10356285
>The male is completely egocentric, trapped inside himself, incapable of empathizing or identifying with others, or love, friendship, affection of tenderness. He is a completely isolated unit, incapable of rapport with anyone. His responses are entirely visceral, not cerebral; his intelligence is a mere tool in the services of his drives and needs; he is incapable of mental passion, mental interaction; he can't relate to anything other than his own physical sensations. He is a half-dead, unresponsive lump, incapable of giving or receiving pleasure or happiness; consequently, he is at best an utter bore, an inoffensive blob, since only those capable of absorption in others can be charming. He is trapped in a twilight zone halfway between humans and apes, and is far worse off than the apes because, unlike the apes, he is capable of a large array of negative feelings -- hate, jealousy, contempt, disgust, guilt, shame, doubt -- and moreover, he is aware of what he is and what he isn't.
Although completely physical, the male is unfit even for stud service. Even assuming mechanical proficiency, which few men have, he is, first of all, incapable of zestfully, lustfully, tearing off a piece, but instead is eaten up with guilt, shame, fear and insecurity, feelings rooted in male nature, which the most enlightened training can only minimize; second, the physical feeling he attains is next to nothing; and third, he is not empathizing with his partner, but is obsessed with how he's doing, turning in an A performance, doing a good plumbing job. To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he's a machine, a walking dildo. It's often said that men use women. Use them for what? Surely not pleasure.

I have to say, reading through her manifesto, I thought almost *constantly* about none other than our boy David Foster Wallace. Almost everything she says can be related to Good Old Neon, his Brief Interviews With Hideous Men segments, etcetera.

What was his problem?

Let's face it, /lit/. Now that the dust of post-irony and new sincerity has settled, all that remains are hacks and pseuds. There is literally nothing a writer in the 21st century can do other than engage in copious amounts of postmodern kitsch.

>>10233185
>Cuckboy9000

What is up with his obsession with The Exorcist?

oh you anime-watching nerds act tough on the internet, dontcha, but you wouldn't be acting so tough if you saw old david in the flesh, 6'2" 240 of pure banana bound literary genius muscle, swinging a tennis racket down hard with his massive hairy forearms. yeah you little beta bitches would probably run or ask him to sign your copy of infinite jest. oh infinite jest? his 1000 pages of literary phallus that's been slammed right into that cute literary girl that you've been crushing on? yeah that book. yeah this little "banana bogus" wrote that, and he would probably be slamming his veiny postmodern penis up her cute little twat if he were alive today. oh you think he's a coward for killing himself? you think he's a beta who couldn't handle life? no, david foster wallace was the ultimate alpha. the only reason he killed himself was because he realized that the only thing more alpha than himself was himself in the future. it was an ontological expression of pure alpha dominance

oh you anime-watching nerds act tough on the internet, dontcha, but you wouldn't be acting so tough if you saw old david in the flesh, 6'2" 240 of pure banana bound literary genius muscle, swinging a tennis racket down hard with his massive hairy forearms. yeah you little beta bitches would probably run or ask him to sign your copy of infinite jest. oh infinite jest? his 1000 pages of literary phallus that's been slammed right into that cute literary girl that you've been crushing on? yeah that book. yeah this little "banana bogus" wrote that, and he would probably be slamming his veiny postmodern penis up her cute little twat if he were alive today. oh you think he's a coward for killing himself? you think he's a beta who couldn't handle life? no, david foster wallace was the ultimate alpha. the only reason he killed himself was because he realized that the only thing more alpha than himself was himself in the future. it was an ontological expression of pure alpha dominance.