/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6088859]

What do you think of David Mitchell?

[Anonymous No.6088867]

>>6088859
Brian Michael Bendis

[Anonymous No.6088872]

So many new shitty threads.
It's so obvious people are just trying to get the 8's.

[Anonymous No.6088880]

>>6088872
Also check em

[Anonymous No.6088882]

>>6088872
I didn't even notice there was a get on the horizon, I got on here only to post this thread because I'm honestly curious.

[Anonymous No.6088887]

get

[Anonymous No.6088888]

Hi

[Anonymous No.6088893]

>>6088888

[Anonymous No.6088894]

Passable writer for young boys, better alternative to Stephen King, read his book about troo-troos poo-poos or something it was alright 10/10

[Anonymous No.6088900]

>>6088888

[Anonymous No.6088909]

>>6088888

[Anonymous No.6088911]

>>6088888

[phallicassortment No.6088936]

>>6088859
damn, I just finished reading Cloud Atlas and this is the first thread I see. Must be fate.
I can't say much about the author though, CA is the only book I read from him. It's pretty fun, but I wouldn't call it great. Sometimes the book feels kinda derivative. It's inspirations show very clearly, specially in Sonmi's story.

[Anonymous No.6089015]

I've only read Cloud Atlas and it's put me off reading more.

For all its experimentation it feels incredibly bland and risk-averse. I can tell Mitchell has a very narrow, deeply-instilled sensitivity for what constitutes literature, making his works good but not great and of course readily hailed by columnists because of how transparent its intents are. Anyone with a college degree can read it and 'get it' and feel good about getting it since the themes are very liberal and feelgood.

Which is not to say its themes are unimportant, just that they're explored in a shallow way. What he has to say is good intentioned but it's not said in any way resembling freshness but it feels like he thinks it is. For all his thinly veiled (via purple prose) politics in the end he's just writing. It's such a frustration to read an entire book about visionary characters doing visionary things from a guy who just sits and writes to an audience who already pretty much thinks the same.

It strikes me as writer's guilt, that if he doesn't write about important things relevant to our sick culture (in need of a cure, from him of course) that his choice of creating words on a page is selfish and not valid on its own merits. And so he doesn't have a honed aesthetic because aesthetics for its own sake is too 'self-involved' for him and the culture he wishes to speak against (but really, is actually speaking with).

The film was loads better because it omitted a lot of the overt rambles and self-reference. The Wachowskis did a great job axing off almost every bad idea. Every divergence, meander, really boiled it down well. Not to mention the idea of inter-editing the sequences avoided us being trapped for too long in any narrative (because this is my biggest problem with the book, its lack of page-by-page interrelation that isn't contrived). Plus it's just more entertaining, stylish, and deeper by (almost all) omission of the chronically overt passages.

I can't tell you how many moments in the book he basically gave it all away. What's the point of a "puzzle book" laced so liberally with answers? Especially when his prose is mediocre.

[Anonymous No.6089036]

>>6088888
these are some epic quints

[Anonymous No.6089041]

>>6088888

[Anonymous No.6089406]

>>6089015
I haven't read the book but I thought the movie was pretty amazing stylistically. The way the Wachowskis explorer the different genres of film is really impressive. I mean it's impressive in it's own right to "master" many different types of film across your entire career but it's another thing to do it in one movie. Each of the 6 stories has a very different feel to it, that fit distinctly with the genre they were trying to capture, but the movie as a whole feels unified in tone rather than scattered, like it could have easily became. Plus it's really fun to watch.

And after reading your comments about the book I think I'll pass on reading it. I thought the movie was wonderful and I'd rather not ruin my perception of the story by reading a subpar novel.

[Anonymous No.6089411]

>>6089015
>puzzle book
It's supposed to be a puzzle?

[I'm a Cat No.6089534]

>>6088888
Grandiose quints.

[Anonymous No.6089567]

>>6088888
perfect amount of 8's, couldn't have meme'd better myself.

[Anonymous No.6089586]

>>6089411
It was marketed as such.

[Anonymous No.6089601]

>>6089406
Yeah there's just so much better stuff to be reading. Great movie, average book.

[Anonymous No.6089605]

>>6089601
This. The book isn't bad, it's just a waste of time to read it. If you are in the mood to read a "best seller" I'd say this one of the better ones.

[Anonymous No.6090775]

>>6088888
LOL

[Anonymous No.6090799]

>>6089605
you're underselling the book. it's very well written. criticize the book itself. don't give worthless tripe like 'there's so much better to read'

[Anonymous No.6091595]

>>6089406
I thought the Wachs only handled one or two of the narratives and the others were directed by others?

[Anonymous No.6091680]

>>6088888
gr8 quints m8 I r8 em 8/8

[Anonymous No.6091697]

>>6091595
They handled three and another guy handled the other three.

[Anonymous No.6091698]

>>6090799
Yes but 'well written' doesn't add up to much when there are many greater books also well written. It's not a terrible book but it's not worth time you could be spending on canonical works or even just better pop fiction.