Read, optional, avoid

How about Totem and Taboo?

Verbose jargon-laced drivel. Optional, not essential.

Agreed, it would be fine under optional

Veeky Forums is not a very fast board, thread will still be up when you're home.

...

Too lazy to macro.

Read: Lolita, Pale Fire, Ada, Transparent Things, Lectures on Literature, The Gift, Invitation to a Beheading, Pnin.

Optional: Real life of Sebastian Knight, Look at the Hareliquins, The Eye, Despair, The Defense,

Avoid: Mary, Glory, The Original of Laura

Some of the works on the avoid list are not necessarily bad, but lack the main traces of the author and some of the themes are better developed by others. I really enjoy White Nights, for instance, but the novella is full of romantic cliches to the point that it feels like a parody.
The optional are works that are less developed if compared to the ones on "read". Lots of key themes of his work are already present in the Double, but they are better developed on other works such as Notes from the Underground.

High castle is for sure on optional

What's so bad about Closing Time

where would you put a russian journal?

...

>Freud's obsession with homosexuality in psychology
>Peter GAY
kek

>Ubik is optional

Get this garbage out of my face

Ion is a must read if anything.

t. read his entire oeuvre

Joyce

Read

Grillet.
Read Jealousy and In the Labyrinth.
Voyeur is optional.
Avoid The Erasers.
That's all of his work I've read so feel free to add to it.

...

agreed

/r/ing DeLillo, and from someone who has extensively read DeLillo.

this is good from my limited experience but I'd put cratylus in avoid

lot 49 was awesome

it's the only one I've read

Switch Republic and Phaedrus.
The second is one of the most beautiful philosophical text ever. The Republic is the worst of his writings ideas-wise (completely goes against The Laws which is a masterpiece) and is only good because of a few references, so I'd put it in optional.

William Gibson
>Read
What he created in the 80's
>Optional
What he wrote in the 90's
>Avoid
What he produced in the 00's

>Joyce
>read whatever that play was

someone do The Big Bad Bard

put against the day in read and bleeding edge in optional :)

I would add Demons to Read, move Notes to optional.

Civilization and its discontents debunks the claim Freud is 'outdated'. It's more pertinent than ever.

In my opinion, Notes is one of his key works. Most of his work published after that should be on read anyway, but it did not have space.

Could you explain how Republic contradicts the laws?

Is Slow Learner any good?

r/ing a Vonnegut chart. I've read Slapstick, Slaugherhouse-Five, and Cat's Cradle.

...

thx user

Phoneposting like a fag atm, but here's my Murakami list.
>Read
The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle, Hardboiled Wonderland and The End of the World, Kafka on the Shore, Underground, and The Elephant Vanishes.
>Optional
After the Quake, After Dark, A Wild Sheep Chase, Norwegian Wood, 1Q84; and Dance, Dance, Dance.
>Ignore
Everything else. Reading Hear The Wind Sing and Pinball is recommended for Dance, Dance, Dance and Sheep Chase, though.

>Read
Underworld
White Noise
Libra
The Names
Mao II

>Optional
Point Omega
Americana
Great Jones Street (just for the imagery)

>Avoid
Everything else aside from Zero K (which I haven't read).
Not him, but it's okay. I was expecting it to be a bit more intimate, honestly.

Nick Land one professional made in MS Paint, complete with my favorite posts from the older CCRU hyperstition blog, Xenosystems, and Urban Future 2.1.

Hows his approch to literary criticism?

>Hows his approch to literary criticism?

If you are talking about Chasm 89, then his notes on literature are near the end. Here is a link to the book: slideblast.com/chasm_599d398c1723ddc399003db4.html

His manifesto on "abstract literature" starts on page 141.

I would say it covers two components: secrecy and horror, which are both tied up with each other.

On secrecy, it would help to read some of those posts and essays with topics on teleology, secrecy, camouflage, that essay on war, and so on. Very crudely, his approach to literary criticism is quite similar to some family resemblance position involving the following secretive styles of writing: esoteric writing, Russian literature's "Aesopian language," Abraham and Torok's "poetics of hiding," and the "hermeneutics of concealment". He goes further than these though, as many of those use rhetorical moves to hide what they are writing (often in esoteric writing, if you have the conceptual background similar to the writer, you can grasp what they are saying esoterically); while Land's concept of "abstract literature" is saying that both the language, epistemology, and ontology are all secretive, i.e. the surface writing is esoteric, but also that our knowledge about the object (usually something weird, eerie, or bound up with horror) is flawed because the object hides as well. See notes 108-112.

On horror, see notes 114-122. You'll also want to read his material on what philosophy is, human cognition/thinking, and GNON. His writing on horror is tied up with both secrecy and issues of non-representation. You'll probably want to read Fisher (aka k-punk) The Weird and the Eerie, as it goes over similar topics.

Id like to thank you for a very descriptive explanation and for the links you provided.
I dont know much about Land, Ive seen people recommending him as a dark enlightenment? author.
The genres of his fiction (sci fi, horror, steampunk) appeal little to me, the only essay I have read on weird is Lovecraft's, whose fiction I used to appreciate about 8 years ago, is there any similarity to his view of literature, his fiction and Lovecraft's?
Do you know his influences?

Thanks again

All that DeLillo, and no Falling Man?

Fuuuuck, I literally just bought it.

Falling Man is not bad at all, but I do think it's pretty much his most boring book along with The Body Artist. But like I said, not bad by any means.

Thanks, user.

>Freud
>every single work of his not in the “avoid” section

How far this board has fallen

Isn't Bobok only like 8 pages long?

Why avoid? Just started reading him minutes ago, so I'm wondering

Most of his theories are bullshit and his reasoning is extremely flawed. You will see it as you read him. That being said, he's still a good read and psychoanalysis is cool, its just his theories are either bullshit, rely on a whole lot of conjecture and assumptions, or unfalsifiable.

Navel-gazing Coke head pervert intellectualises his enormous failures. You’ll get infected by his thought patterns and you might never recover, because odds you don’t have the wits or the strength to cure yourselves from them and will in turn infect other people around you

Ratner's Star is legit DeLillo's best, breh. Ya dun goofed.

It an angry contrarian reaction to the fact that they made a dumb tv show off the book. Note how they put several of his literally who novels in "read" and put Androids and Ubik to optional. Man in the High Castle is good, and dealt with Dick's themes of flawed authenticity in a better, and more entertaining manner than Flow my Tears, imo. I think Valis is a bit overrated on here.

...

what about st anthony's temptation?

BLOODY JEWS!
They do my nut

I'd argue that the crying of lot 49 is pretty mandatory because it's a good introduction to Pynchon, but to each their own.

...

Switch V with lot 49 and you're good

Id divide memes , some of them are not optional

...

kekd

Against the Day and Bleeding Edge are his best IMO.

Wrong. Spook Country is fantastic