Why doens't lit ever talk about this book and his author? It seems like it would be a natural fit:

Why doens't lit ever talk about this book and his author? It seems like it would be a natural fit:
>overly long, complex and intellectual
>treats religion very seriously
>makes fun of hipsters while simultaneously being one
>does pomo better than most postmodernists, decades before
>contains racism and racial slurs unapologetically

where is there racism? there is some 'sho nuff' kind of shit with the butler, but he's one of the few people to make it out alive/sane if i remember. if an author did that now, had the only black character be one of the few to live, lit would be shitting itself stupid calling the author a nucuck. now if you had brought up homophobia, with the crossdressers and the many references to otto being gay to make him seem like even more of a wimp, that i could see as problematic, though personally i found that stuff really funny

well I mean the black character is some kind of grotesque caricature who speaks a broken english, is obsessed with vodoo and is not very smart. And his master outright calls him nigger - doesn't get much more racist than that

the character is racist, that doesn't mean the author was. thats saying nabokov was a pedophile level dumb

Sure, and that's why i separated the racism from the racial slurs in the op. Even admitting that the author is distancing himself from Brown when he refers to his butler that way, it doesn't make the butler any less of a racist stereotipe.

like i said, he lets that stereotyped caricature win. fucker literally sails off into the sunset last time we see him, dont see the racism in that

even Fryday in Robinson Crusoe wins in the end, do you not consider him racist too?

>1719
>"it's racist"

I'm not saying that we should burn it to the ground or not read it, but to argue that something can't be racist because it lets the black guy win seems crazy to me

is this as hard to read as Veeky Forums hypes it up? why? is it because of the style or endless references like in july-seas?

Veeky Forums talks about this a lot

>Veeky Forums
>reading

>Not Yule-y-sez

it's acc. ool-y-ses, according to joyce

ooleesays

The only really difficult parts are Gwyon in the beginning and Wyatt’s like 20 pages long stream of consciousness in the middle that has 5,000 references a page.

But it’s a really great book.

Why doesn't lit ever talk about OP and how new he is? Seems like it would be a natural fit

Newfag, unironically

>doens't

it's literally our 12th favorite book you retarded newfag

> 2 James Soyce novels and the bible in the top 5

Unacceptable

it is dubliners which doesnt deserve that place, not fwulysses

>hating on dubliners
but why user. it's so nice.
go back to r/books

well, a significant majority of blacks speak broken english and aren't very smart. are you saying he should have portrayed a black servant in such a way so as to avoid the most common iteration of black people? wouldn't that be racially dishonest?

sweet jesus we're so fucking patrician

no.

This will forever be the right chart, despite no one here reading Shakespeare, for accuracy I'd put Homer ahead of him just based on volume of discussion.
Seeing IJ in its proper place fills me with joy though

Should be higher on the list

...

seems like a more accurate chart.