Oh no no no no no no

[Anonymous No.11062409]

What the fuck is this guy's problem?

[Anonymous No.11062417]

>>11062409
some one toots their horn to much

if ya know what i mean

[Anonymous No.11062664]

>>11062417
>HAROOO HAROOO HAROOOOOOO

[Anonymous No.11062685]

>>11062409
>something that have happened for a while keeps happening
>Oh no no no no no no
Wew lad

[Anonymous No.11062710]

Do people unironically read Games of Thrones, Hunger Games, etc?

[Anonymous No.11062719]

>start writing book
>plan a time-skip
>don't do time-skip
>add irrelevant characters instead, doing irrelevant stuff thousands of miles from each other
>seem to build up to something, but not clear what
>try to tie it all together at some point
>fail
>???

[Anonymous No.11062761]

>>11062409
Just accept it, he stopped caring and he'll never finish it. The TV series will be done next year, and although lots will be different, the big points will probably be the same, so there's that at least.

[Anonymous No.11062796]

I know OP is a pseud because he spends untold hours reading a series that's actually less good than the TV show it inspired

[Anonymous No.11062805]

>>11062796
Which itself is not very good.

[Anonymous No.11062809]

>>11062710
Yes. But they are not our kind of people.

[Anonymous No.11062818]

>>11062809
Right, we're the "intellectuals" that read Land, Teddy Beale, Kaczinsky, Sam Hyde and other loons.

[Anonymous No.11063061]

>>11062409
I don't really care for the Game of Thrones books and it always surprises me that /lit/ is really into them despite it being "pleb shit" and "genre fiction trash" but hey what are you gonna do.

How are people surprised by this though? This guy is known for taking ages with each book of his, right? Shouldn't people be pleased that he's supposedly still working on it? Isn't that a sign he's focusing on getting it just right?

But also with how fat and rich he is, and how successful he became because of the HBO show, it wouldn't be surprising if he's lost motivation to write a new book - why bother? He doesn't need the money right now so why wouldn't he just take trips to Italy all the time and sit in an orchard and eat gelato every day because that's what i'd do if I had fat fuck bucks

[Anonymous No.11063066]

wheres my hbo show of book of the new sun

[Anonymous No.11063068]

>>11062417
HONK

[Anonymous No.11063070]

>>11062409
is A Song of Wind and Fire worth reading at all though? where does one start and at what point do I drop the series?

[Anonymous No.11063073]

>>11062796

books > show

[Anonymous No.11063074]

>>11063073
The show is an average tv show, the books are well below average books

[Anonymous No.11063075]

>>11063073
I dont gonna read thousand of shitty writen. The show are more cool

[Anonymous No.11063079]

>>11063074

incorrect

[Anonymous No.11063081]

>>11062796
the show is piss poor so the books must be crap

[Anonymous No.11063089]

>>11063070
Imagine having the choice between reading Anna Karenina, War and Peace, Brothers Karamazov, a plethora of amazing books or the same amount of pages dedicated to a retarded storyline with cliche characters written by some fat fucker that doesn't even care and choosing the latter.

[Anonymous No.11063093]

>>11063089
you're right, anon, I don't know what I was thinking, I'm going to return back to Stoner now

[Anonymous No.11063096]

>>11062818
>we
>lists second rate American """authors"""
We are not like you, mutt.

[Anonymous No.11063106]

>>11063096
> misses the inherent irony of that anon's post this much
> the quotations around "intellectual" that implies it's a flippant remark followed by a list of conspiracy theorists and edge-lords
> didn't realise that the original post was remarking on how pretentious /lit/ can be

C'mon dude did you skip breakfast this morning

[Anonymous No.11063146]

>>11063089
Dostoevsky is telenovela level though, hardly any better

[Anonymous No.11063155]

>>11063106
I know he didn't promote those authors himself and that it's a criticism on the board, but he assumes we all have an interest in such authors here. My point was that the "intellectuals" on /lit/ who only read American trash are all American. Not all Americans on /lit/ are bad posters, but all bad posters are American.

Kaczynski is worth a look though.

[Anonymous No.11063159]

>>11063146
> Dostoevsky
> hardly any better than George RR Martin

you watch your mouth PUNK

[Anonymous No.11063161]

>>11063159
his books are a literary equivalent of watching a sitcom though

[Anonymous No.11063169]

>>11063161
please elaborate on why you think this, anon, because I'm not convinced

[Anonymous No.11063175]

>>11063169
I'm not convinced you read any of his books though, your posts are just memes and posturing

[Anonymous No.11063194]

>>11063175

No, anon, I've read Crime & Punishment, Notes from Underground, The Double, The Meek One and I'm halfway through The Idiot. Please elaborate on why his writing is like a sitcom, I'm open to being persuaded. My one meme-like post was calling you a punk because I felt it was a light enough remark to not start a flame war, I don't really come here to hurl insults

[Anonymous No.11063209]

>>11063194
He describes each character, no matter how minor, in excruciating detail, giving you the whole backstory, and focusing especially on the drama. The subject matter is exactly that of a telenovela, it focuses entirely on the personal drama, complete with cheesy shocking plot twists, and "brain fever" deaths or sickness for that added punch. Sure, there are hints of something more philosophical, some psychological truths, but it really isn't all that much. If it were ever adapted to TV, people unfamiliar with the author would be hard pressed to distinguish it from other sitcoms.

[Anonymous No.11063218]

>>11063209
That's an incredibly shallow take on his work. If you're being serious and not just trying to be a contrarian I feel bad for you

[Anonymous No.11063220]

>>11063218
again, you contribute nothing to the conversation
if the work is so deep, why not write one or two sentences on why
is that so hard

[Anonymous No.11063236]

>>11063209
Strongly disagree but I appreciate that you've given me a genuine response.

He does tend to elaborate on most characters despite how seemingly minor, especially in Crime & Punishment, but it works to the benefit of the drama - nothing feels irrelevant (i.e. Crime and Punishment: everyone working or living in the apartment building who potentially saw Raskolnikov leave or enter is detailed to assist in cross-examining who killed the old woman). Dostoevsky manages to find discomfort and drama in very minute/insignificant places which I find is admirable as a writer. Again, none of his characters feel particularly irrelevant if you ask me.

Yes, his books do tend to focus on personal drama, and I always loved his frequent use of internal conflict portrayed with long monologues the characters have with themselves (sometimes even meandering and contradictory to emphasise that the character isn't as rational or ethical as they initially thought if they can poke holes in their own logic). I don't know if I'd say the novels contain "cheesy shocking plot twists" but that's subjective I guess, if you find them cheesy then to each their own, mate.

The "brain fever" and "deaths or sickness" make a lot of sense when you consider the context of the novels. It's 1800s Russia, a time where medicine was still developing and understanding of mental health was poor. Of course those details are going to be vague, especially if the character doesn't fully understand the intricacies of what causes the said sickness. I feel Dostoevsky actually does a fair job of exploring mental health in his novels, nobody is particularly healthy in his books and I feel it serves more as a cautionary tale that way -- we might all feel resentful of people at times but surely nobody wants to be like the Underground man, right?

I think there is quite a lot of philosophical and psychological development in his books, especially the debates on ethics in Crime & Punishment, but again I guess that's to each their own.

I have to disagree, anon. I think tonally, thematically and characteristically Dostoevsky's writings are definitely different from the typical television sitcom. Most adaptations of his work I've seen seem to actually over-exaggerate the misanthropic atmosphere his books seem to convey. It's cool if you don't like Dostoevsky and it's fine if you find his writing poor or goofy, I've come across people before who don't enjoy his work and it's all fine by me, I don't mind, it's just it feels unfair to compare it to a sitcom when it's clearly not similar at all.

Which translations did you read, anon? Sometimes it comes down to the translator doing a poor job.

[Anonymous No.11063239]

>>11063220
also dude that wasn't me, this is >>11063236

just tried thinking of what to say, hope to continue our conversation on Dostoevsky (don't know why this has sparked up in a GoT thread but I don't mind)

[Anonymous No.11063255]

>>11062409
Also
>More Targshit history
I would rather learn more about pre-conquest history like Valyria. He already explained most of the important Targ history in the World of Ice and Fire.

[Anonymous No.11063288]

>>11063239
I mostly agree with you, I guess I was too clickbaity with calling it a sitcom, but when I read his books sometimes I get this impression
It's there, but it's not that big of a detriment - I tend to overlook a lot of bad writing when I read and look for something that's good despite it, and with Dostoevsky it seems I would have to look for something bad despite the good parts, however the bad overly dramatic parts are still there

>everyone working or living in the apartment building who potentially saw Raskolnikov leave or enter is detailed to assist in cross-examining who killed the old woman
I did not find the cross-examination itself very relevant at all, it was more of a plot backdrop
I think the main reason for frequent descriptions is the intent to give a full range of psychological descriptions of how and why people hit rock bottom, to explore the worst responses people can have to suffering, to make the reader understand and sympathize

The reason why I don't like brain fever is that it feels cheap, and only happens to people who are unraveling at the seams, for plot convenience and gravitas.

[Anonymous No.11063298]

>>11063209
so reading any every novel based on characters development and drama is like watching friends?
that's a retarded opinion my friend

[Anonymous No.11063309]

>>11063066
That would be a travesty. Not everything needs to adapted to television or cinema.

[Anonymous No.11063314]

>>11063298
well, Dostoevsky doesn't give me a boner

[Anonymous No.11063409]

>>11063314
>dosto waifus didn't give him a boner

[Anonymous No.11063442]

At this point he can only disappoint with the next book.
Its like the Duke Nukem of /lit/.
If I where him I'd just postpone it indefinitely and that is probably exactly what he does.

[Anonymous No.11064818]

>>11063089
lel'd

[Anonymous No.11064876]

>>11063061
Literally who on /lit/ admits they like these books? They’re far to low-brow for the pseuds of /lit/.

[Anonymous No.11064903]

>>11063061
>This guy is known for taking ages with each book of his
First three books he completed in four years, then in the fourth he took five years and six for the next one. He got mired down in his storylines and became a lazy fuck who prefers to travel to cons and write companion books rather than his novels.

[Anonymous No.11064913]

>>11064903
First three books he PUBLISHED over four years. He'd started writing them long before. He's slowed down, but not as much as you might think.

[Anonymous No.11064916]

>>11062409
JUST

[Anonymous No.11064917]

>>11063209

[Anonymous No.11064940]

>>11064917
SEETHING

[Anonymous No.11065187]

>>11062409
>reading genre fiction
Oh anon... No no no no. Sweetie, please.

[Anonymous No.11065246]

>>11065187
dumb frogposter