ITT: new unpopular opinions thread that you wholeheartedly hold regarding literature

ITT: new unpopular opinions thread that you wholeheartedly hold regarding literature.

Prepare to get ruffled edition.

Ryu Murakami is better than the other one.

Harry Potter, Twilight, Percy Jackson and Fifty Shades of Gray will be seen as the millennial's classic literature in 100 years because millennials for the most part haven't read anything else.

Reading poetry is more enjoyable than reading novels/novellas/short stories by a large margin.

For me it'd have to depend on the poem and the novels/plays. Like, I love epic poetry like Divine Comedy, Metamorphoses, Illiad, etc, and they'd definitely be on par with the greatest novels imo, but some poetry I find just doesn't quite match up to some of my favourite novels/plays. To each their own of course.

Who are some of your favourite poets?

I like the whaling information parts of Moby Dick better than the actual story.

Not them but I don't like narrative poetry. Something about the line breaks, and I am very aware that this is a shallow reason for not enjoying something.

I struggle to really laugh at books I'm reading unless if the scenario is so absurd, but even then it's more like a gentle chortle. It's not that I don't enjoy or appreciate humour or comedy in literature, it's just the laughter is more internal rather than audible. I hope someone gets what I mean by that.

>edition
Fuck off

Eat a dick, faggot

Nothing wrong with the use of that word.

Shakespeare, Keats, Donne, Eliot (I like each of their contemporaries too, but these are the best of each era. Nothing surprising here)

I also really enjoy Hardy and D.H Lawrence.

I used to dislike the Victorian poets, but I think this is because I was comparing them to the romantics they followed. I've recently been reading more of them and really enjoy their style. Browning is incredibly elusive and difficult but also rewarding. Tennyson is metrically virtuosic. Swinburne has a darkness that is similar to later Shelley and hardy that I like.

Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged was boring shit.

I also have a soft spot for sestinas and although there are only a few famous examples in English, I love them all.

While Stanislaw Lem had some truly innovative ideas that transcended the genre of science fiction exorbitantly, given the actual presentation and organization of his novels (particularly Solaris) it was perhaps an inappropriate medium to convey said ideas.

If you think you're too good for Vonnegut, you're a prick

Shakespeare isn't infallible and has a number of meh plays

If you don't read lit from other cultures that isn't Veeky Forumscore, your taste is lacking

British literature post-Shakespeare is astoundingly bad

Poetry not included

American Psycho, The Martian, A Clockwork Orange, Naked Lunch, Watership Down, Les Miserables, The Double, Frankenstein, Inherent Vice and The Great Gatsby all had film adaptations that were much better than the original novel.

>The Double
>Frankenstein
>Gatsby

BOO HISS

I disagree with les miserables

Never read Vonnegut so I can't have an opinion there but would agree with your other two points. I always think Veeky Forumscore is a good starting place and from there you should be able to discover works that'll appeal to you, and even better if they're from a vast variety of cultures.

Would agree that Shakespeare wrote an amount of plays that are worth giving a miss, but even then I think those plays certainly had their influence and a bad Shakespeare isn't dreadful, just not necessarily essential.

wew lad

>2012 Les Miserables was based on musical; not book.
>1998 Les Miserables movie was garbage.

Your claim, user, is objectively wrong.

Postmodernism is bad and the rejection of modernism is a regression of quality in art. Drugs are for brainlets who can't make a good, original idea without them (in regard to the Beats). Romanticism is the greatest, pure form of love and love is the root of human beings (not sex, Freud), so Romanticism is the purest form of literature. Philosophy after the Medievals kinda sucks. Nietzsche was right about Christianity. Roman Catholics make the best novelists and poets. Theology is the greatest field to understanding Western civilization (it's literally philosophy + history). Ancient Greek and Latin are the only dead languages worth learning. French, German, Italian, Spanish, Russian, and Japanese are the only modern languages worth learning. Black literature isn't worth reading for non-blacks (literally just about how being black). Only buy paperbacks because hardcovers are annoying to read without using a table. Translations aren't worth reading because you're essentially reading the translator, not the author (unless it's a famous translator like Heaney or a literal translation Lattimore or a famous translation like KJV or includes the original text). People that use these unoriginal phrases or words "desu," "desu," "bruh," etc need to stop or leave because it's annoying and dull.

Not all may be unpopular.

...

...m-m-maybe he's t-talking about the silent film adaptation...

delete this NOW

"desu" is what the abbreviation of "to be honest" filters to, I think, so it's not usually by choice that people keep posting it.

Oh, of course! The famed and universally acclaimed 1925 silent film that everyone raves about!

Of course the film that lacks dialogue rivals Hugo's poetic prose and captures the nuances of his social realism colliding with romanticism.

I guess that user was right, the movie is better than the book!

> implying the silent film wasn't universally acclaimed and famed at the time
> implying silent films don't hold the same cinematic legitimacy of the "talkies"

I mean, I know I was being facetious but damn, don't go dissin' the silent classics, my man. That film is astounding and worthwhile. It's not better than the book, of course, but it's pretty damn good nonetheless.

The 2 people you are quoting have opposite opinions, how can they both be wrong?

people who make these modish wallpapers need to stop removing the faces, it's creepy
the old Gatsby movie with Sam Waterston is pretty good

>or a famous translation like KJV
How exactly does a translation become famous if no one reads it (as you suggest in your post)?

Baz Luhrmann needs to modernise more classic literature for the big screen.

I really want to see a hip-hop adaptation of The Divine Comedy. The film would suck but that soundtrack would be top notch 10/10 the beats would be fire and brimstone

J.K. Rowling is a critically acclaimed and famous author.

Doesn't make her a good writer.

Well, it's more of a of personal "not worth reading." Sorry if it's not clear, like Arabic might be worth learning for someone but I would never consider it personally.

The Robert Langdon series is enjoyable and there's nothing wrong with reading a blockbuster for enjoyment.

>the rejection of modernism is a regression of quality in art
>Romanticism is the purest form of literature
wew lad

wew lad

Good thing the 4 hour silent adaptation of Les Miserables is good then huh.

azu-nyan a fuckin shit, sorry yui

you have autism?

I wouldn't think so. I can empathise and sympathise with characters pretty well, it's just humour within literature doesn't have the same impact on me as it might within a film or in a stand-up routine.

No one who's read both Murakamis would disagree with this.

Doesn't know how the canon works.

True patrician.

Agreed, the chapter about the whiteness of the whale is the best in the whole book. Most of those chapters have a bunch of symbolism to them, while the "story" chapters are pretty straight forward.

How is this an unpopular opinion? Also I know what you mean, only book I've laughed out loud to is Gogol's The Nose.

Literally everyone on Veeky Forums hates Rand, newfriend.

I find this to be true of most sci-fi literature.

Agreed. Sirens of Titan is great, and Shakespeare's earlier plays are mostly mediocre.

Finally, an actual unpopular opinion. I applaud you.

Doubt it.

Don't we all?

Fair enough, a film lasting that long won't appeal to everyone, and I know the silent era of film doesn't fascinate everyone either. I guess we shall have to agree to disagree, my man.

Where's the piano music?

>A Clockwork Orange
>Naked Lunch
>Frankenstein
>Gatsby
wrong.

say that again, motherfucker

Naked Lunch isn't really an adaptation.

>Black literature isn't worth reading for non-blacks (literally just about how being black)
that's exactly why non black people should read black literature.

>Romanticism is the greatest, pure form of love and love is the root of human beings

is this nigga serious?

>Drugs are for brainlets who can't make a good, original idea without them
>Romanticism is the purest form of literature
>Who is Coleridge?
>What is opium?

Coleridge wasn't a Beat and opium is better than smoking marijuana.

>Coleridge wasn't a Beat and opium is better than smoking marijuana.
Now, I don't do drugs, but how do you figure?

Top kek

Tell that to China

Beats didn't exist back then and smoke inhalation is worse for you than taking medicine. Plus, Coleridge overplayed his addiction and usage to boost sales.

user said drugs are for "brainlets who can't make a good original idea without drugs"
user said Romanticism is the highest form of literature.
Coleridge was a Romantic
Coleridge was addicted to opium.

you can't have it both ways, you can't say "drugs are bad mmmkay" then the next breath say one of the most drug fueled literary movements in history is the highest form of literature.

his entire post was incoherent pseud trash, just ignore it

I wrote "in regard to Beats." Maybe I should've left it out of its brackets. I never said drugs are bad either, just the Beat is bad. I take drugs all the time.

I think you have trouble in reading comprehension, that's all.

Nothing can be truly gained with philosophy or the arts. At best something can be lost. But none of it is truly necessary.

i agree with the user, your post is a mish mash of poorly articulated beliefs, ill-informed bullshit, and straight up reactionary ignorance.

Can you give a concrete example of what you're referring to?

1984 is so shit.

It reads like a dead monkey with the monkey equivalent of cholera

It's honestly one of the most overrated books I've read had the displeasure of reading. Anyone who says it's one of their favourites is a wet beg.

Would it be wrong of me to write two stories set in the same universe, one after the other? As in, I write on now, then write the other in a month or two. Then I simply mash the two stories together, with it going chapter A-B-A-B etc

Does this method work? not really /sff/ I know but I'm writing a /sff/ book so hopefully they'll be some input. Promise I'm not the user from last night asking about exposition.

tfw post in wrong tab

Don't experiment until you have the formula down. After you learn the formula is when you unlearn it.

those fucking pancakes tho

>Romanticism is the greatest, pure form of love and love is the root of human beings
this is nonsense, what are you even saying.

>Philosophy after the Medievals kinda sucks.
yeah relying on 2000 year old philosophers in the twenty-first century seems like an appropriate approach and not at all reactionary.

>Black literature isn't worth reading for non-blacks (literally just about how being black)
this is close minded as fuck, part of the appeal of literature is being able to experience a world you wouldn't experience from your own perspective, and it's likely this opinion is just plain racism.

>Only buy paperbacks because hardcovers are annoying to read without using a table.
way to make an imperative out of your own personal pet peeve.

>Translations aren't worth reading because you're essentially reading the translator, not the author
this isn't a reason to not read translations, you just should be aware that you're reading a translation.

It wasn't bad, it just wasn't great. I've read some genre fiction that was more perceptive.

i would fuck those pancakes, they're so thicc

Looks like I did exactly what OP asked for.

>this is nonsense, what are you even saying.
Love as an abstraction. Learn to read.

>yeah relying on 2000 year old philosophers in the twenty-first century seems like an appropriate approach and not at all reactionary.
Huh? When did I say that?

>racism
Mate...

>way to make an imperative out of your own personal pet peeve.
You realize this is an opinion thread and not something I'm commanding upon others?

>this isn't a reason to not read translations, you just should be aware that you're reading a translation.
It literally is a reason.

hey man you're the one who asked me to tell you what i thought was ignorant, irrational or incomprehensible.

>Love as an abstraction. Learn to read.
again, just saying bullshit that doesn't actually mean anything.

>It literally is a reason.
it's your reason, but it's not a very convincing one, and it seems to miss the entire point of literature i think.

>I think

t. never took an English course

Earn some credentials then respond to me critically.

I majored in english and philosophy but thanks douchebag.

1) The (Ancient) Chinese/Indians will come to be seen as far more philosophically significant than the Ancient Greeks.

2) Analytical Philosophy is realistically worthless.

3) The 19th century was the final one to produce great literature.

4) Nietzsche was wrong about a lot of things. More importantly, no one ever questions why exactly he wanted to go beyond (and thus outside the jurisdiction of) 'Good' and 'Evil' in the traditional sense.

5) German is a terrible language for everything, even philosophy.

6) The French literary tradition is the most self-indulgent, and the least worthwhile.

7) Confucius is the most useful philosopher to date. Whether his philosophy is 'true' or not, is another matter.

8) Huxley > Orwell

9) Post-Modernism is valuable, but too few people will sufficiently acquaint themselves with the language/concepts involved for it to ever be of use. Its linguistic impenetrability will be its own undoing.

10) Whoever boasts much about however much they read, thinks least.

Name calling. The lowest form of argumentation. Tsk.

you're the one who attacked my credibility first, so i gave up on having a reasonable discussion.

>postmodernism is bad
Arguable but okay.
>and the rejection of modernism is a regression in the quality of art
Absolutely not.
>drugs are for brainlets that can't make a good, original idea without them
Agreed on the basis of retards saying that LSD makes you enlightened.
>Romanticism is the greatest, pure form of love
Wew
>and love is the root of human beings
WEW
>so Romanticism is the purest form of literature
WEW LAD
Human beings are monsters my dude.
>philosophy after the Medievals kinda sucks
Are you implying the Medievals are good? It's mostly just scholars trying to force Christianity to conform to Aristotle with mixed and often illogical results.
>Nietzsche was right about Christianity
Didn't you just say that post-Medieval philosophy sucks?
>Roman Catholics make the best novelists and poets
Disregarding that almost all of the most frequent authors to show up in the canon are Protestant, Jewish or Buddhist I suppose.
>Theology is the greatest field to understanding Western civilization
It's been irrelevant for nearly half a millennium.
>Black literature isn't worth reading for non-blacks (only about being black)
That's why it's worth reading you mong. To gain experience.

>Translations aren't worth reading
It's always better to read the original but not everyone has the time to learn 16 languages.
>unless it's a famous translation like the…KJV
You mean, an awful inaccurate translation with pretty language?
>or includes the original text
That's generally a good thing but doesn't change the fact the reader is reading a translation unless they're semi-fluent in the original language.

Shit list desu senpai

*tips fedora*

Not exactly sure what's fedora about this as it seems the person I'm responding to is the contrarian.

yeah, wtf?

...

>It's mostly just scholars trying to force Christianity to conform to Aristotle with mixed and often illogical results.
Do you have an academic source the explicitly says that?

>Didn't you just say that post-Medieval philosophy sucks?
Nope.

>most
Most means best, huh?

>It's been irrelevant for nearly half a millennium.
Not an argument.

>an awful inaccurate translation with pretty language
Yes.

>Shit list desu senpai
It wasn't a list.

confirmed shitposting

It's only shitposting under your ideology. Remove spook. The reality is that I'm right and deep in your soul you can feel it.

What medium would be more fitting, in your opinion? I can't think of any. And then there's Cyberiad and, most notably, Absolute Vacuum, which are very different from a "regular" sci-fi

>The reality is that I'm right and deep in your soul you can feel it
whatever helps you sleep at night

Jason Segel was a good David Foster Wallace. The film was good. I think people only disliked it because of the rumours about Wallace's family not being keen on it.

d-dana?

Prince is dead.

But maybe some of his unreleased stuff found at his house can play when he's found in hell.

>More importantly, no one ever questions why exactly he wanted to go beyond (and thus outside the jurisdiction of) 'Good' and 'Evil' in the traditional sense.
Foucault did a whole thing man.

...

>Analytical Philosophy is realistically worthless.

t. Poetry-loving Continental

Explain.

I agree.

"no"

I think this is more applicable to Harry Potter than the others. Replace the other titles with George RR Martin because people gobble up his shit and praise it

I've always had the same problem user.
Recently I read "Life And Death Are Wearing Me Out" by Mo Yan and it's pretty hilarious shit (bunch of ridiculous scenarios as a dude reencarnates as several different animals while trying to find out why his human self was coldly assassinated), so I'd definitely recommend checking it out if you haven't already.