/lit/ - Literature

>>22384656
I just hate the aesthetics of Arthur.

Blood Meridian. Good for YA literature

>>22384656
Pulp western novels that were very popular in the 60's and 70's in my country for some reason. You can go through one in an hour or so.

>>22384656
My twisted world

>>22384850
>aesthetics
The art style, you pseud?

>>22384856
Lmao retard

If you like a "bad" book it just means you lack self awareness, you are either defining yourself through society or passively consuming what you read. If you like a "bad" book you should be able to make a solid case for it being a good and worthwhile book.

I hate Ayn Rand as a person and a philosopher as much as the next guy, but to deny that The Fountainhead is a well-crafted Bildungsroman is just straight up delusional.

Murakami's works aren't the greatest but I still enjoy them.

>>22384656
Film novelizations. I don't think they make them anymore but I had (and read) the novelizations of Spider-Man 1, 2, and 3, two of them before the movies were officially in theaters.

>>22385008
Both phrases convey a similar sentiment, but they have slightly different nuances:

1. "I hate the aesthetics of Arthur's work" – This implies a broader dislike of the overall visual appeal, mood, or feel of Arthur's work. "Aesthetics" can encompass not just the visual style, but also the underlying principles or philosophy that guide the work.

2. "I hate the art style of Arthur's work" – This is more specific, focusing on the visual techniques, methods, and stylistic choices Arthur uses in his work.

If you're referring strictly to the visual techniques and methods, "art style" would be more appropriate. If you're speaking more generally about the overall look and feel, "aesthetics" might be the better choice.

You are the pseud. Kys.

I enjoy Atlas Shrugged. I like Rand's writing, the focus on trains and metal, the epic scale of it. It's an enjoyable read.

>>22385008
In this context, if you're referring to the visual look of the cartoon, you might say:

"I don't like the art style of 'Arthur.'"

If you're referring to the overall feel, mood, and visual appeal, you could say:

"I don't like the aesthetics of 'Arthur.'"

Both are valid, but "art style" is more specific to the visual design, while "aesthetics" can encompass a broader range of elements.

You're the pseud. Kys.

>>22385143
Yeah same I am honestly shamelessly addicted to Murakami books. They're so comfy and surreal

Irene Iddesleigh (1897) by Amanda McKittrick Ros. It is the definition of purple prose, except it's practically dialed to eleven. Considered by many to be one of the worst books ever written.
Read it if you don't believe me, and come back to me after you've feasted your eyes on how hilariously godawful it really is. Is it even possible to be so unintentionally amusing without being genuinely unable of introspection?

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/34181/34181-h/34181-h.htm

>>22385586
There is something almost offensive about its aesthetic, that whole general turn of the century delusional middle class positivity "you can be anything you want" mentality on acid combined with the antiseptic visual style. Back when I was about 20 I went through a near morbid fascination with the show which required getting stoned to even be able to sit through and being stoned did not make it fun, just lent a "this is really happening to me and there is nothing I can do about it" feeling to the whole endeavor. For about a month I would get stoned after work and watch Arthur, by the end of the month I was dreading going home. Other than that month I was only an occasional pot smoker and its use was largely social. Weird time in life and I think back on it more than I would like.

>>22385576
You should read the one of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.

>>22385639
The worst part is that I can't tell if this is bait or not

>>22385645
lol. Completely serious.

>>22385639
>that whole general turn of the century delusional middle class positivity "you can be anything you want" mentality on acid combined with the antiseptic visual style.


The fuck does that even mean? Especially absurd drivel like:
>antiseptic visual style
Do you even understand what the words that are being typed out are? Do you realise this is a children's show for babies? Or did the cannabis fry your brain beyond repair?

>>22385143
I've been re-reading Murakami after 10 years and it's quite fun. Hardboiled Wonderland, A Wild Sheep Chase, Dance Dance Dance, on Windup Bird now. Probably going to skip Norwegian Wood though, I recall it being the most normal of his books.

>>22384656
Lotr

>>22385639
Something like My Neighbor Totoro has a lot of soul, but Arthur is undeniably soulless.
>>22385658
Not him, but stfu you obnoxious belligerent pseud. I'd curb stomp you.

>>22385658
>The fuck does that even mean?
Reduce everything bad in life to le bully, life would be perfect if not for them! and throw in the occasional twist, Arthur is le bully! but not really he is still perfect, they are all actually perfect despite their flaws because they all realize their flaws and grow beyond them because of it. Completely removed from reality and the people who grew up with shows like Arthur seem completely oblivious to their own faults and how those faults define them in any tangible way, you just find some people who will tell you what you want to hear and your faults are magically gone!
>antiseptic visual style
The style is devoid of emotion (life). Reduces emotion to facial expression and actions.
>Or did the cannabis fry your brain beyond repair?
Nah, I am just old enough to have grown up in a time when children were treated like humans and we learned about things like nuance and subtext from an early age, we learned the world was not black and white.

>>22384850
Do you like Samurai Jack?

>>22385639
Based anon, never change. I wish I knew more kids like you growing up. I do the same thing (only I use alcohol) with the episode of The Masked Singer featuring Rudy Giuliani. I shuddered just now typing that.

>>22384656
Mein Kant

Just kidding no one likes Kant

Arthur was a demonic show.

>>22385639
Interesting post

>>22385658
>What the fuck? This is not normal but weird, I hate this.. What is this!! What the fuck is going on??! I ain't never seen this before!
Dumb nigger

>>22384656
a litrpg series I listened to on audiobook at work called I believe titanwolf and greymane. I listened to 2 books of what I think are many and enjoyed them a lot. the main character was likeable to the extreme. extremely kind and humble in a very genuine feeling way.

>>22384850
I love it. Is comfy childhood kino.

>>22384656
I like to read hero pulps of the 1920s. Stuff like Doc Savage, The Shadow, The Spider, The Avenger, etc. It was protocapeshit but it's better because most of the tropes that the superhero genre felt the need to apologize for, justify, deconstruct, reconstruct, etc did not exist back then so they could be genuine and just tell their cheap thrill stories.

>>22385639
>>22385775

I see where you're coming from. In my case I grew up in the Delta. PBS was more or less what my two younger sisters and I had to watch on that little TV. Father died young and mother got hooked on keyboard cleaner (among other things) to cope. Needless to say any form of escapism (or at least something innocuous to keep their attention on) was quite welcome. I've always liked its sense of optimism, more offbeat humor, and how the writers clearly incorporated a subtle pro-literacy message in many episodes. Arthur isn't Dante but it's what introduced me to the idea of public libraries and nudged me as a kid to pursue reading. In the grand scheme this led me to pursue an education and become the first in my family to graduate from college since the early 20th century. It's obviously neoliberal through-and-through but if something can contribute positively to my existence and form part of my personal keystone then I can't run too afoul of it.

>>22385962

Based. How do you feel about Howard/Lovecraft's writing?

>>22385639
Talking anthropomorphic animals are part of a larger package of deleterious social engineering, and Arthur's early iteration was offensively anodyne to the point of arousing suspicion.

>>22385772
are there any western animated shows/movies with sovl?

>>22386005
Love 'em both in their respective ways.

Howard is far more accessible and easy to read. He was a better writer of action and adventure than any of the hero pulp writers. There is a wealth of fiction that came after him which owes him some respect and reverence - particularly to Conan and Solomon Kane. Just imagine if he lived into the 1960s or 1970s. I can see him dying rich from Conan reprints and from becoming a prolific western, historical fiction, and fantasy novelist. If only he held on.

At least we have (had) those Del Rey reprints.

There is not much for me to say about Lovecraft that has not already been said. He was one of my earliest exposures to pulp fiction without me realizing it. For a long time he was Edgar Allan Poe for nerds and that was the best time to enjoy him IMO. There was less exploitation of his work and more reverence. His influence is still felt today but I think that most horror which seeks to emulate him does it in the manner of a cargo cult. Few writers truly tap into the same creative headspace that he wrote from. They should read the stuff he read which inspired him in order to accomplish that.

>>22385962
Whoops. I meant to type "1930s."

>>22385639
Junkies love rambling.