[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 141 KB, 814x1190, Dickens_Gurney_head.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15728489 No.15728489 [Reply] [Original]

I'm reading A Tale of Two Cities at the moment and it's boring as fuck. I'm at page 166. Does it get better?
and Recommend me a good book, please. Something published after 2015.

>> No.15728558

>>15728489
I read David Copperfield a while back, it was the most boring thing I'd ever read for the first 200 pages, but then I really loved the next 500 or so. Obviously it's up to you but I would recommend carrying on with it.

>> No.15728585

>>15728489
The secret to keeping interested in Dickens is to cut the book into the sections that he serially published them, and mail them to yourself. After reading one you'll not be able to wait for next week's episode

>> No.15728605

>>15728558
>I would recommend carrying on with it.
I will. It is a boring book but I want to adjust myself to read books like that.

>> No.15728624

you’d enjoy if you were familiar with the French Revolution

>> No.15728636
File: 419 KB, 828x563, BBCBEA35-F194-4CD5-8E04-2DD33C3CD42A.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15728636

King of Dogs, 2019.

>> No.15728645

>>15728624
I actually know the history of England and little bit of France.

>> No.15729414

>>15728489
Lincoln in the bardo

>> No.15729455

>>15728489
It's Dickens. What did you expect, Dostoevsky? Victorian literature is awful. All his characters are bi-dimensional. They are either good or bad. Books for children.

>> No.15729466

>>15729455
Is Dostoevsky good? I haven't read any of his books.

>> No.15729536

>>15729466
The reason Dickens' book is so long is because he got paid per installment. So naturally, there's going to be a lot of fluff in there. But you can't really blame him. He was very poor so he needed the money. And he actually sold a lot during his lifetime. If you're unfamiliar with Russian literature, start with Dostoevsky, then Tolstoy. Personally, I'd say that they have no competition in the Western world.

>> No.15729675

>>15729536
>because he got paid per installment
Isn't that also the case for Dostoevsky? Or did he publish it serially and get paid for the whole thing?

>> No.15729707

>>15729675
Nah I'm pretty sure Dostoevsky got paid monthly too. He was always in need of money or summat like that.

>> No.15730055

>>15729536
>Personally, I'd say that they have no competition in the Western world.
You're fucking embarrassing

>> No.15730198

>>15730055
elaborate please

>> No.15730357

>>15728585
love this idea

>> No.15730397

Some people are just naturally indisposed to dickens. I'm one too. Just read tolstoy

>> No.15730844

>>15728645
what the fuck does that have to do with you not being able to appreciate the historical context of the book, which is crucial to the story?

>> No.15730850

>>15729466
is Dostoevsky good?

oy.

Dostoevsky’s equal has yet to be born.

>> No.15730854

distaste for Dickens is the mark of the philistine

>> No.15730856

>>15730198
You make me embarrassed by saying that

>> No.15730871

>>15729536
I am so sick of this bullshit. PLEASE, someone point out the obvious “fluff” to me. A Tale of a two Cities, Our Mutual Friend, The Brothers Karamazov, Crime and Punishment, and countless more, all published serially, and all great. Are they long? Fuck yes? But that doesn’t mean there’s fluff. Quit with this nonsense.

>> No.15730916
File: 2.91 MB, 828x1792, F56AF9A6-C9C5-4573-9F48-31F7A5BF3C7A.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15730916

>>15728489
newer to reading? cool.

thought you’d start with Dickens? cool. He’s famous and gets you style points; I got it.

But start with books you enjoy, and don’t neglect learning history. Especially with books where the historical setting is so important. There are tons of books published before 2015 that are worth reading; why you decided to judge every book published prior to that based on your impression of AToTC is beyond me, but it’s not smart.

Find your niche.

>> No.15730923

>>15729455
plebeian opinion

>> No.15730931

>>15730856
why? I'm not the guy saying that. I'm new to literature and I'm looking for interesting books to read. Charles Dicken's A Tale of Two Cities is fucking boring. I also read Jane Austin's Emma. It was also a boring book. These kinds of books alienate me from reading. If you know any interesting books or authors let me know. I also want to read 21th century literature. 18th century gentleman faggority is not my cup of tea. I want some edgy shit.

>> No.15730952

>>15730931
You're unironically an idiot and need to educate yourself more before attempting serious literature

>> No.15730977
File: 2.87 MB, 828x1792, FE3CA01C-A4A1-42AB-8884-41C7FA6DB83D.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15730977

>>15730931
yikes.

go read Angela’s Ashes, The Martian, and Fight Club.

>> No.15730988

>>15730977
of the only one you appreciate out of those three is Fight Club...


/lit/ won’t be for you for a while.

but keep reading and expanding your literary horizons. or trying to.

>> No.15730997

>>15730931
18th century? you’re 100 years off.

>> No.15731024

>>15730997
What do you mean?

>> No.15731038

>>15731024
do you not know how centuries work?

>> No.15731050

>>15730923
>It was the best of times, it was the worst of times
kekeke
get out of here with your moralistic narrator, kid

>> No.15731052

>>15731038
Book takes place in the 18th century. I know it was publish in pieces in the 19th century.

>> No.15731059

>>15731050
moralism is important, otherwise you end up with post-modernism

>> No.15731063

>>15731052
*published

>> No.15731066

>>15731050
yet again, a reference to the The Terror of the French Revolution, which you guys are missing. The French people had overthrown the monarchy, killed Louis XVI, but with Robespierre in charge and paranoid of anti-revolutionary conspirators, the Revolution was beginning to eat it’s own. It was the best of times (a move toward a republic) and the worst of times (but in the process, things were nastier that’s they ever were under monarchical rule).

for the love of all. half the people on this board just need to go.

>> No.15731075

>>15731052
you mentioned gentleman faggotry; not AToTC.

and if you are claiming they’re one and the same, you’re a fucking idiot. Sydney Carton’s death in AToTC is one of the most badass things I’ve ever read.

>> No.15731104

>>15730856
Dostoevsky: soul.
Dickens: soulless.

>> No.15731109

>>15731075
>I'm at page 166.
I'm not there yet.

>> No.15731129

>>15731104
You probably can't even read Russian

>> No.15731138

>>15730931
Go read shit like Sanderson or whatever YA/Fantasy/Romance is in vogue at the moment. Trust me, you'll get more out of that than you ever will out of real literature.

>> No.15731139

>>15731109
you won’t get there

>> No.15731162

>>15728489
why do you care if it's boring?
I hope you're not one of those who read for f u n

>> No.15731203

>>15731162
I'm studying English literature and I thougt it might be interesting.

>>15731139
You are such an arrogant asshole!

>> No.15731270

>>15731203
I'm sorry to have to do this to you but most english literature is terrible, joyless and a pain to sit through, the only consistently enjoyable english-based literature stems from america

>> No.15731287

>>15730871
i liked crime and punishment, but the bit where he rants about socialism at the party couldve been taken out, i mean sure its cool i guess, but like we dont really need it do we

>> No.15731316

>>15731287
razmukhin is based. he wasnt even railing against socialism anyway it was people who dont form their own opinions and just follow the crowd of whats the current taste of the zeitgeist

>> No.15731321

>>15731270
idiot

>> No.15731336

>>15731321
the truth hurts

>> No.15731342

>>15731336
No, you're just not educated enough to appreciate English lit

>> No.15731371

>>15731336
Dickens is the shit. If you experience pain while reading him, I suspect you’re an idiot.

That’s a lie.

I suspect you’ve finished nothing of his

Has /lit/ always been full of people who can’t read?

>> No.15731386

>>15731342
I'm sorry but I won't sit through bad and boring stuff so that I can feel superior because I learned to "appreciate" it like I wouldn't care about flaunting my taste after learning to appreciate rotten shark meat through months of pain and barfing, personal taste must be refined and cultivated but to force it because of what is deemed "good" is idiotic

>> No.15731396

>>15731371
if you actually think dickens is good you either have shit taste or more probably need validation through forcing yourself to appreciate "classics" without differentiating between the good and the bad ones
there's also the possibility that you genuinely like him but that doesn't make him good and doesn't make people who don't idiots or unable to read

>> No.15731444

>>15731386
You're not refined or cultivated, you're an idiot who offhandedly dismissed the entire canon of English literature. You clearly don't know what you're talking about.
>>15731396
What makes Dickens one of the bad classics, exactly?

>> No.15731467

>>15731444
not my fault if most english literature is bad, and I didn't say *I* was refined or cultivated, just that refining and cultivating one's taste is necessary and natural but one shouldn't force things on it because of the opinions of others

>> No.15731485

>>15731467
You don't have the education to appreciate literature, come back when you do.

>> No.15731502

>>15731485
do you think so highly of yourself that anyone who disagrees with your personal opinions and tastes must be ignorant or intellectually boorish?
I think we're just different people with different tastes

>> No.15731523

>>15731502
I think anyone who dismisses English literature as "bad" and Dickens as "boring" is ignorant and intellectually boorish, yes. Only a banal idiot would make such blanket statements.

>> No.15731554

>>15731523
I said that most english literature is bad and it was a mixture of an expression of my taste and an inflammatory observation as befitting lit, personally I never found as much joy when reading english literature as I did with almost any important literature from other countries, might just be a fundamental incompatibility between the "soul" of their culture and me, but I don't think that having good taste means perfectly matching the list of "classics" or "good books" as determined by the academia or lit's lists or whatever

>> No.15731574

>>15730931
Honestly, War and Peace is so easy to read and is exciting to me. Way more than Dickens or Austen. It has a healthy dose of 19th century gentleman and tea in there, but Tolstoy makes it feel relevant to the modern day too. Plus there’s military stuff in it. But if the length puts you off, Hadji Murad is basically as good

>> No.15731586

>>15731554
So in the future instead of saying English literature is bad to satisfy your ego just be more honest and admit you don't like or understand it.

>> No.15731612

>>15731586
where do you think we are?
not to mention that everyone with some sense of decency's sentences start with an implied "in my opinion", if there exists objectivity in art it's certainly not on a board to talk about a common interest and exchange opinions that one will find it

>> No.15731624

>>15731612
I'm not a relativist and believe there is some objectively good and bad art and Dickens belongs in the former category

>> No.15731647

>>15731624
Are Disney productions good too?

>> No.15731650

>>15731647
Some of them

>> No.15731688

I read A Tale of Two Cities a couple weeks ago and no, it doesn't. I thought it had some interesting bits about life in Paris during the revolution, but the characters are not very interesting, in fact, they're pretty hollow. And Dickens constant use of obfuscation, like refusing to name Louis XVI and instead referring to him as "the king with a big chin," and constantly referring to blood as wine felt like a really dumb artistic choice.

I recommend Thomas Carlyle's "The French Revolution." Dickens used it as a source material for his book, and you can see where he lifted from it. Dickens constantly calls the starving French peasants "scarecrows" and he got that from the first or second page of this book. It's much better written and goes into much more depth, whereas ATOTC is like an extremely abridged and simplified version of the history. And it doesn't have any stupid caricatures like Lucy Manette or that maid with the cockney accent.

>> No.15731916

>>15731688
Carlyle’s history has dubious passages. I’d recommend Doyle.

>> No.15731928

>>15731688
AToTC isn’t meant to be a history of the Revolution. It’s a story taking place within a short timeframe during The Terror.

What are you going on about?

>> No.15731984

>>15731928
I'm not saying ATOTC is a history book. I'm saying the history book is better than ATOTC. Not because it's more informative, which it is, but because it's written better.

>> No.15732000

>>15731984
so you’re just naming a random book that’s “written better” than ATOTC?

>> No.15732180

>>15732000
No, it's not random. It's about the same subject, and it influenced Dickens. Why would you think it was random?

>> No.15732654

>>15728489
Read "Cherry" by Nico Walker if you're looking for some good fiction written after 2015.