/lit/ - Literature

>>4637026
because its pleb shit for plebs

its the literary equivalent of fight club but worse

>>4637041
p sure its because hes a YA author and not a thing to do w/ fight club tho i think that book sucks too but get it straight ok thnx bye

>>4637026
He isn't so bad if you're a prepubescent girl. If you're a 25yr old seriously reading John Green, there is definitely a problem, and it's not with the book.

>>4637050
i am a 25 year old man and my problem is that fuckers like you tell me what i can and cant read and own me on the internet frequently enough that i read john green lol

>>4637026
Because he is a shit writer. I can handle reading YA books for fun and light reading but goddamn was The Fault in Our Stars fucking awful. No one talks the way he writes people talking especially teenagers. Not to mention the pretentious teenagers who spout his shit thinking they are intellectuals because HURR INFINITIES!

>>4637051
I'm not saying you can't read John Greene, I'm saying that you can't read John Greene expecting serious prose, then cry on the internet when you don't find any.

The sad truth is that if John Green was good in the classical sense, he wouldn't be as popular as he is.

BECAUSE EVERYONE AT MY COLLEGE SUCKS HIS DICK AND I HATE IT.

He's really popular with people, especially younger people, especially girls.

He's also not a great writer but frankly he could be Faulkner come again and he'd get a lot of grief on /lit/

Because he's accessible

>>4637026
Because the people on /lit/ are circlejerking faggots obsessed with dropping the names of authors of philosophy books they've forced themselves through instead of legitimately enjoying immersing themselves into an enjoyable book, especially if that book is objectively popular.

>>4637190
>objectively popular
r u mentally redundant

>>4637209
>conflate objective with absolute

so deep
very authenticity
much pretense

it's like Juno but somehow shittier

>>4637226
I don't usually listen to /lit/'s rants about mediocre writers, but I'm with you anon. That's fanfiction level writing.

>>4637777
have you seen the dialogue? it's even worse than the bullshit monologing. I'd never read dialogue that pissed me off more than Juno's until this book.

>>4637802
No, and I don't think I need to. I think monologues are underused in modern writing, but this is so trite, underwhelming, and poorly thought out that I can't believe Greene wrote it. I've heard him speak a few times and he seems like a pretty intelligent guy, and I like giving writers the benefit of the doubt, so maybe he was trying to convey a character who was too young to process the idea of mortality and slipped into the quasi-nihilism enjoy kids like to latch on to? Maybe this is all satire? Or something?

>>4637815
emo teens*

Not enjoy kids.

>>4637815 I think he's much better as a history teacher than a writer.