What are some good examples of terrible books propagated by canon slaves and buyers of academic and critical propaganda...

What are some good examples of terrible books propagated by canon slaves and buyers of academic and critical propaganda? I'll start.

Moby Dick is tedious, gay, and precious. That calling of New Yorkers "Manhattoes" is so cutesy it should have come from JD Salinger. Moby Dick appeals to ponces who confuse girth with complexity, and benefits from a century of imagined depths granted to it by opportunistic critics. Because it is such a lengthy, turgid read, they know most people will never transit the novel, and therefore their assertions will remain unchallenged. The author was such a mooning calf of an asshole that Natty Hawthorne told him to stop coming around. I think Melville bad touched Julien, but i can't back that up.

the great gasby
I tried again and again, I think it must be around 5 reads, I come back to it every 2-3 year to see if I have changed and like it
Nope, I still find it boring and stilted, characters are so shallow and stereotypical, the narrator is fucking faggot

Read Moby Dick as a comedy and you will understand its genius.

Hemingway's iceberg theory is just a wordy excuse for poor writing.

>OP thinks moby dick is lengthy
We're reaching new levels of brainletism

>822 pages isnt lengthy
You could read an actual masterpiece like Tristram Shandy in that time

>And poor little Flask, he was the youngest son, and little boy of this weary family party. His were the shinbones of the saline beef; his would have been the drumsticks. For Flask to have presumed to help himself, this must have seemed to him tantamount to larceny in the first degree. Had he helped himself at that table, doubtless, never more would he have been able to hold his head up in this honest world; nevertheless, strange to say, Ahab never forbade him. And had Flask helped himself, the chances were Ahab had never so much as noticed it. Least of all, did Flask presume to help himself to butter. Whether he thought the owners of the ship denied it to him, on account of its clotting his clear, sunny complexion; or whether he deemed that, on so long a voyage in such marketless waters, butter was at a premium, and therefore was not for him, a subaltern; however it was, Flask, alas! was a butterless man.
this is human comedy in the first degree. i don't see how anyone could read MD straight.

Christians meme the Bible as being a lot better literature than it is because their experience is enhanced by actually believing it and/or they feel a religious obligation not to admit any of it is less than spectacular.

I'm not much of a fan either, but I think that's pretty much what it's trying to portray. No matter how many times you read it it's not going to suddenly become an exciting adventure. You have to change your mindset to wanting to explore the empty decadence of that world if you want to get more out of it.

Dubliners is terrible. It's yet another example of the modern autist tendency to set all one's otherwise unrelated stories in the same fictional (or fictionalized) location so as to build up a kind of metatext with which one can lampshade otherwise awful writing. Paradoxically, the more disparate the stories, the more coherent the illusion of talent; early 20th century critics were fooled into thinking works like Dubliners, Portrait, and Ulysses accurately depicted the life of the people living in the Dublin that was being parodied solely by virtue of the fact that they a) have never lived there and b) were easily impressed by the dissimulation of an imagination this technique presents. In fact critics today still haven't seen through the play acting of the moderns, as praise for Joyce and his ilk continues to be piled on in heaps by contributors to and editors of pseudo-intellectual pop-lit publications the world over. I suppose that alone is a testament to the moderns' genius. See Faulkner's yoknapatawpha county for another shining example of this charlatanism.

Meant for

>Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.
>What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun?
>All things are full of labour; man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing.
>The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
>Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.
>There is no remembrance of things past; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.
baka desu senpai

We get it, it's a bit hard for you to grasp. Maybe in ten years buddy.

Why are there so many canon slaves on Veeky Forums? Do you think you sound intelligent calling on the authority of delusional yid cuckslaves like Harold Bloom rather than being able to form your own aesthetic opinions and taste?

I don't even like Harold Bloom, nor do I take heed to his Western canon, or any person who claims to be a hegemon in the field for that matter. What made you to concoct that assumption? Sounds like a contrarian at work with a serious case of projection. Have you read the works by both of the authors you mentioned? I would be pleased to hear more concrete criticism regarding their works rather than just pungent and baseless acrimony.

moby dick sucks in terms of form I suppose, but the white whale metaphor just holds true to so many things in life.

Dubliners is great pleb. It's barely even full modernism, more like Picasso's blue period.
I'm afraid you've outed yourself as a pleb

And you've just outed yourself as a buyer of the academic-publishing complex's propaganda, congrats.

you're both plebs for reading literature instead of STEM + philosophy

pseud... easy on the ad homs

>Canon-Slave
Pseudointellectual buzzword which says far more about your lack of taste than any sort of vague publishing conspiracy

Haha, what a PLEB and a PSEUD! I bet you haven't read Harold Bloom's The Western Canon yet, it tells you exactly what's you should read so you don't have the wrong opinions. We don't have an inferiority complex to STEM or anything, Bloom has just empirically proven that Joyce's prose (THE PROSE) is the greatest of all time :)

>not loving art and beauty
>being a rounded intellectual
Pick one

Keep slurping on that tit boy, maybe one day you'll be an associate professor at the University of Montana

Just goes to show your projection really. No one but you and a few cuckoos think like that. And I believe that Bloom reserves all his adulation for Shakespeare, not Joyce.

Cherry picking. Ecclesiastes is the exception, not the rule.

Stoner.
It's not that it was bad, but for me it was the bare minimum that a novel requires to be enjoyable. Everything was good but not great, and they were selling it as "the best novel you never read". I felt like it was a thing resurrected by academics because it talked about themselves.

Keep on posting. You have zero argument to refute anything anything I said. Ah yes monsieur, it is like Picasso's blue period *sips wine glass* or maybe more like Goya's black paintings...

Song of songs, book of psalms, job etc.
Nope the bible is great literature

not an arguement, soyboy

At least my buzzwords are original soyboy bugman faggot. "Not an argument" Just like your original post, huh? Dont bother filling out the captcha if you have nothing original to add other than the same stale regurgitated opinions stolen from who knows where.

SEETHING

this is your last reply

I get that from nature and historic architecture

Pleb Uprising

listen, i get what your original point was. i think you missed the mark, however: the people whose primary aesthetic appreciation would be based on their christianity are exactly the type of people who don't read the bible to begin with. again, people who are afraid to admit the bible's "fallibility" (as if it were the koran!) are fundies who either don't read or hugely distort the bible. more often than not, people pay the bible lip-service because they want to be conformist or contrarian (in different circles).

my only point was: there is a legitimate claim to the bible as one of the highest works of literature, which can only be strengthed if your reading is far from your belief.

look at all this wasted energy, like masturbation in that you spilled your seed on the barren earth. why are you so mad? you are bringing your personal issues into this thread without even trying to disguise them as creativity.

did your wife leave you for someone you think was dumber? have you yet known a woman?

>they feel a religious obligation not to admit any of it is less than spectacular
Really tho? You'd have to be pretty deluded to think that there aren't parts of the Bible that drag. The good bits are spectacular, though.

nOt aN ArGuMEnt

Less than 10% of Veeky Forums has read more than 100 books. Less than 1% has read over 1000. The majority here are poseurs who want to look educated and newfags who haven't read enough to develop their own literary tastes so they just agree with consensus to fit in.

Some highly rated books I dislike;
In Search of Lost Time
>waah my girlfriend is a lesbian slut also I might like cock myself for 3000 pages
Anna Karenina
>muh leaving my husband and son because I am a thot that believes in love at first sight and kills myself after 800 pages for that melodramtic ending! (I felt like doing the same after finishing this overrated dogshit)
A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man
>It's a weak Bildungsroman novel, there are dozens of better examples of the genre but this one gets hyped up because Joyce wrote it

I'm the guy known on this board for using the term pseud cred. I have seen two novels itt that I like (stoner and great Gatsby) but I understand the opinions. I don't see the disagreement as a sign of brainletism.

Books I have read fully that are shit:

Great expectations
Nicholas nickleby
The brothers Karamazov
Crime and punishment
A hero of our time

Ones that I didn't finish:

Wuthering heights
Oblomov

I am currently going through war and peace, which is ok, but once I finish it I will never go through a boring book for the pseud cred ever again

>but once I finish it I will never go through a boring book for the pseud cred ever again
is that because you're finally going to off yourself? thanks

I've never seen a good post (be it here or the internet in general) about why certain established work is overrated. It always fall on insulting the work without ever suggesting why and how it failed, or insulting the people who like it with a smug sense of superiority (haha you're only following academia/century of writers and critics got it all wrong, not i/kys pleb). The most pathetic form of "criticism" is to use your feelings "so boring... like 200 pages and nothing happened dude"
>Stoner
Low brow trash pandering to mediocre pseuds who see themselves in stoner. Awful writing.
>The Great Gatsby
High school tier. Vapid. Second-rate. Awful writing. Some amusing scenes but in general, uninteresting characters with purple prose.
>Siddhartha
Reddit.

Kafka's self assesment of his own works was right, they should have been burned and never been allowed to see the light of day

Dubliners is great pleb. It's barely even full modernism, more like Picasso's blue period. I'm afraid you've outed yourself as a pleb.

Dubliners is great pleb. It's barely even full modernism, more like Picasso's blue period. I'm afraid you've outed yourself as a pleb.

keks BTFO

Infinite is tedious, gay, and precious. That calling of Palm fronds "Rod Stewart's hair" is so cutesy it should have come from JD Salinger. Infinite Jest appeals to ponces who confuse girth with complexity, and benefits from a century of imagined depths granted to it by opportunistic critics. Because it is such a lengthy, turgid read, they know most people will never transit the novel, and therefore their assertions will remain unchallenged. The author was such a mooning calf of an asshole that Jon Franzen told him to stop coming around. I think Wallace bad touched Zadie Smith, but i can't back that up.

This but unironically.