I want to read novels that deal with, either heavily autobigraphical or plain fiction, with the childhood of an author...

Because, dude, the whole first part went so high over your head I can't even begin to explain. Proust is not complaining about childhood you moron, he's nostalgic about it, the obsession with the goodnight kiss introduces a theme that the latter parts will pick up time and time again. Proust longed for the days of his childhood. And he wasn't middle-class, his family was rich as fuck, just not aristocratic-tier rich. Goddamn, how do plebs like you even pick up a book?

A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man
In Search of Lost Time
Infinite Jest, sort of

...

>Proust is not complaining about childhood you moron, he's nostalgic about it,

but it's absolutely lame, boring and it does not give me no value whatsoever.
other kids are living through poverty, being beaten by their parents, not having what to eat, seeing their family suffer, not even affording love, and he is writing pages upon pages of being obsessed with a GOD DAMN FUCKING KISS on the forehead?

You don't seem to understand literature as a whole at all.

Why should only poor people write about some kind of struggle? You don't even understand what Proust is doing because you didn't even bother trying to dig deeper thant he surface narrative, and you even misunderstood all of the narrative. Proust is trying to grasp the workings of the human memory through writing, all the details and associations are supposed to be returning points for his experiences later. That leads me to the next point, his prose. His prose and writing style are absolutely immacular, but his real strength is that he isn't using his outstanding style in a masturbatory way. He's an analyst, connecting the details of the inner workings of humans. For example, he will come back to the goodnight kiss in Swann's part and compares it to Swann's obsessive antics, showing the roots of the romantic confusion that will appear again and again throughout the novel. Proust's novel is a masterpiece, one of the few flawless pieces of art and your criticisms are absolutely degrading, you should especially reconsider your reading comprehension and think about what you want out of literature. This isn't about edginess and cheap thrills; this is about pure, undying beauty and understanding.

>You don't seem to understand literature as a whole at all.
You probably insinuate that I only read for entertainment, but that is completely wrong.

I am sorry for the hideous form I articulated my comments so far, but you have to believe me that reading this book made me physically angry to the point of a mental breakdown. Same can be applied to Virginia Woolf, and some passages from Joyce.

Before diving into these authors, I read about their modern and unique approaches to writing, about stream of conscious, about the reflections on human minds. It made me very excited and I could not wait to absorb all of this knowledge. But, unfortunately, the medium where all of these techniques were applied (the plot) was in my opinion of the lowest quality.

Yes you could argue that reading for the plot is lousy and superficial, but these books had a plot nonetheless. If you were to stripe these fancy analyses, you would end up with a poor constructed product.

In other words, I do not believe that the main character's feelings were worth of analysis. A boy whining that he did not receive his goodnight kiss does not belong in a novel, no matter how elegant or outstanding the style you wrap it in is.

The best reflection of existence is often found in things that may not seem "worthy" of being part of literary fiction. The modernists sought art that was truthful and fully realized in style, tension and escapism may have their values but ultimately better belong in genre fiction. You just don't seem to get that reading isn't always purely entertainment but a search for truth and poetic beauty.

>truth and poetic beauty.
You can't get truth and poetic beauty out of nothing. You have to create that based on a human experience. Obviously it's hard to reference that to a system of values and appraise which is better, but you simply cannot exclude some common sense.

You previously said it's not masturbatory, but that's exactly how I see it. A good analogy would be having an empty canvas and praising it to be the most pure and beautiful piece of art. If it was an abstract, avant-garde, indecipherable mess of colors, forms, shapes, materials, I would believe your words, even if I don't get it. I would then try my hardest to comprehend it. But if you show me an empty canvas I can't take you serious.

Again, I repeat, the techniques and reflections of human memory presented in book are in theory, an amazing approach to understanding humanity, but unfortunately they are applied to the wrong foundation.

You should really read it for a bit longer, Proust paints the largest canvas of emotional life in literature, that's the appeal. I mean, I love Faulkner and the symbolists too but literature doesn't have to be full of pathos and drama to be enjoyable in my opinion.

Confessions of a Mask

MIN KAMP desu

You are an idiot. Your sad attempts to try to justify your ignorance and stupidity just make you look even worse. You are just another example of the ego-driven, "I am always right" attitude that is destroying the humanities. It is not that the classics are not good enough for you, it is that you are not good enough for the classics. If Proust did not meet your standards, it is because your standards are idiotic and representitive of someone with little understanding of literature. Please read more and keep a more open mind in the future.

An American Childhood

>keep a more open mind in the future
But that's the strange part, I do. Plenty of times I have read books which I recognized from the beginning that are way above my head and I respected that and I gave them all my attention when reading, even though it wasn't a joy.

Look, I'll go all out here. I'll give you the most intimate argument, and it will very easy to shit on me.

My favorite author is Dostoevsky. I love everything that he wrote, and it all resonates with me, not only on a person level, but also on a more philosophical and conceptual plane.

I think we can both agree that a vast part of his work was about the human spirit, the mind, the inner workings of humans. But no matter how much I try to open my mind or humble my ego, the experiences and feelings portrayed in Proust's works are a thousand times less intense, thought-provoking and a thousand times more banal and forgettable than any of Dostoevsky's.

NO MATTER how elegant, stylish, intelligent, delicate, artistic, modern you describe this kid whining about not getting his goodnight kiss, he will never even come close to the emotions of (for example) losing your parents, extreme poverty, being forced into prostitution, killing somebody, falling in love with a prostitute, losing your lover, losing your siblings, seeing your mother beg for money so you can eat, etc.

>muh emotions
by this merit any melodramatic tv soap opera is better than proust, might as well go watch some mizoguchi or some shit what are you even doing on this board lol

>by this merit any melodramatic tv soap opera is better than proust
Only if they are more mature and developed than a kid whining about not getting his goodnight kiss.

Portrait of the Artist as a Young Dog by Dylan Thomas.

which is the case for every melodramatic tv soap opera go read about culture industry

I'll just state the obvious again: You don't seem to understand literature as a whole at all.

>I want to read novels that deal with, either heavily autobigraphical or plain fiction, with the childhood of an author.

Your grammar is bollox.

he had no other life. Guy literally spend half a life in bedroom

see pic related. it's the most pure and true piece of art. if you don't appreciate it, you don't seem to understand art as a whole at all.

so did the main character in Notes from the underground, yet the novel has 100 times more substance

holy shit, Proust is not an empty canvas. It's more like you're dismissing a masterpiece because the subject isn't thriving with misguided pathos. Why do people like The Night Watch? Rembrandt just painted guys standing around with a cute dog. There's children dying right now! You're absolutely retarded, there's no hope for you left, just leave this board.

you're right, it would have been nice if it was an empty canvas, that way I can imagine a better story

by the way, I'm writing a book about my breakfast, about the type of bread I bought in the supermarket, about walking to work, about how I miss my cat, and how my life of having a house, a loving family and a stable job is just so so so so soosososos saaad. :(((
hopefully, it should be one of the most influential books of the 21st century.

You're really starting to trigger me, good job. Lost Time isn't supposed to be sad, Proust is just describing his emotional reactions to his memories. Nowhere does he want the reader to feel sorry for him. If you want to read a tragedy, go read a tragedy you juvenile faggot. Just don't expect literature to cater to your retarded need for drama. Pro tip: ALL writers were privileged, rich kids. They just added more self-pity and melodrama for philistines like you that marvel in the misfortunes of others. You are a fucking disgrace to this board and I won't reply anymore.

but whatever man, I agree, it's wrong of me to dismiss the entire book, it has plenty of value. But I just can't agree with it being one of the best books of the 20th century.

peace

thanks for insulting me, but I still can't agree with you more than 15%

this

> want to read novels that deal with, either heavily autobigraphical or plain fiction, with the childhood of an author.

There is a genre for that:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Künstlerroman

My Childhood by Gorky
I was wondering why this book wasn't mentioned earlier until I realized I was on Veeky Forums

>muh Infinite Jest
It's so obvious you've read fuck all in terms of literature