Other than Min Kamp...

Other than Min Kamp, what works written in the last 10 years are destined to be considered all-time classics 50 years from now?

>tfw a bit over 50 years ago, it'd be something like "Other than Lolita and Catcher in the Rye (...)"

Other urls found in this thread:

nybooks.com/articles/2016/10/27/rafael-chirbes-masterpiece-from-muck/
theamericanconservative.com/dreher/the-wonder-working-laurus/
1917.com/Marxism/Trotsky/HRR/1-1.html
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Gilead

>'85
>'87
>the last 10 years

>black writer
>female writer
>worth a fuck

>female writer
>good

So nothing other than Min Kamp and 1Q84?

Laurus by Vodolazkin

The amazon reviews really make me want to read it.

2666, A Brief History of 7 Killings, Solar Bones, Counternarratives, Muerte Subita (Sudden Death), Living in The End Times, Pond.

>min kamp
>anything other than tabloid tier blogging

>2666
That counts.

>A Brief History of 7 Killings
Hell no.

>Solar Bones
>muh no punctuation, 200 page-long single-sentence novel
Not even Joyce, García Marquez or Faulkner were that pretentious.

>Counternarratives
>nigger writing about muh slavery
No shit? Man, I never thought I'd see something like that. Most original work ever, 10/10, would self-flagellate again.

Read Michael Walsh's White Cargo instead.

>Muerte Subita (Sudden Death)
Won't lie: this sounds pretty nice. Like an Akagi-influenced Infinite Jest.

I might read it if I find piracy of it en español, or if I find a cheap copy in a feria del libro or a used bookstore.

>Living in The End Times
Sadly, you might be right with this one.

Zizek might be a hack, but the retards who think communism is a good idea are like a loud as fuck virus, so this piece of garbage will most likely be considered a classic in 50 years.

>Pond
>Female writer
>lots of reviews complaining about pretentiousness and more references than Lucky Star
Color me surprised.

According to most reviews I read, it looks like Pond is to literature what Sunset is to vidya.

>spics, niggers, potato niggers, filthy commies and cunts: the list
Faggot.

The spic novels appear to be pretty damn good though. I mean, 2666 was great, and even though Muerte Subita does sound pretentious as fuck, it at least looks like a great dank meme, so hey.

Linda pls.

Pls.

I know it looks bad at first glance, but those I mentioned are pretty good. Counternarratives reminds me a lot of Borges in it's historical knowledge and eruditeness, it is not only about slavery, there is real merit in it. Solar Bones is awesome, the one sentence structure thing has been done before by Behrnard but the prose is really good and it's an honest portrayal of this guy's experiences in his country.


You sound really bitter user, you have not read half of these and choose to dismiss them after a surface glance. Why?

>You sound really bitter user, you have not read half of these and choose to dismiss them after a surface glance. Why?
Because I have wasted enough time in similar garbage enough times.

You're clearly virtue-signaling. You're like the kind of person who'd consider Invisible Man good, or even outstanding.

>Videogames

Outstanding. You nullified your entire post with one sentence. go back to /v/.

A person can have multiple hobbies.

I also referenced ultra-moe anime. All while discussing Pond. As ironies.

oh wow ur so eclectic!

>looking at the amazon reviews for sudden death
why is Veeky Forums always right?

Maidenhair by Mikhail Shishkin
i agree that Gilead probably will be as well, maybe also "a girl is a half formed thing" although i don't care for it much

this, earnestly.

retard

If only head had read this.

>if only head had read this


What DID he mean by this?

Wow. Nice counterargument.

And they said gender studies majors were shit at debating.

/pol/ strikes again. yall ever get tired of derailing threads?

Nigger, I'm both OP and I'm explaining why those books won't (or will, in the case of 2666 and, sadly, Living in The End Times) be considered all-time classics 50 years from now.

How can you be a clearly proud Veeky Forumsizen and have such a shit reading comprehension?

You call that explaining?

>muh niggers!
>muh womyn cant write!
>muh not having read half the books in that list!
>muh not contributing to the thread at all!
>starting with Min Kamp

are all these (You)? because they look like they come from the same nolife.

>muh niggers writing about slavery yet again!
>muh womyn writing pretentious, over-verbose yet mundane as fuck drivel yet again and (((somehow))) getting all the praise in the world for it, at least according to the majority of reviews
>muh not having read half the books in that list, but noticing a total of 0 white writers. Why is that, I wonder?
>muh not contributing to the thread at all! Other than making it and discussing other books like 1Q84 and Laurus (which I picked up and am loving) in it, not to mention all the books in the post that rustled your brainwashed art college jimmies
>starting with Min Kamp, because it's the obvious choice for a work written in the last 10 years are destined to be considered all-time classics 50 years from now

Yeah. I'm But I'm clearly not contributing to the thread in any way, shape or form.

invisible man is good. how is it a badly written book?

I liked 1Q84, it's one of my favorite of Murakami's, but I dont think it stands up to the ones I mentioned, you're arguing about niggers writtin bout slayvureeh again AHYUCK! but you bring up Murakami? one of the most fromulaic and repetetive writers in a genre that needs some serious fresh air??? C'mon son. and I dont have anything against white writers, I just havent read something really truly compelling from a white dude in a while, never said there wasnt either, you're the one that started posting "spics" and "niggers" and "Women cant write". Yeah yeah dude, we've seen this shit before, it's not impressing anyone. I know my little rant here is not gonna change your mind, but you should still know, you look like an idiot.

thinly veiled rec thread devolves into autism

The prose is... OK, I guess? Nothing outstanding. He's no Nabokov. Hell, even Delany has written more beautifully from time to time.

The subject matter, however, is garbage. Just another hurr muh oppression book written by a coon. As a spic whose favorite writer is Asturias, I can tell you he'd be shit if all of his books were hurr muh american imperialism versus righteous indio guerrillas. It's great that, even though they gave him the Nobel for it, Men of Maize is the only one that takes it to that extreme. It's his second most beautiful, complex, interwoven, dream-like prose (the first one being Mulata), but the subject matter makes it garbage, not because the subject matter by itself is garbage, but because it was clearly agenda-pushing. I'm just glad that Men of Maize isn't his most popular work, because even if The President is somehow about a dictator fucking over his people, it's actually not about that, but about the people themselves being not necessarily oppressed by the dictator, but by their own stupid nature, making it not agenda-pushing, but taking a revolutionary-friendly idea and turning it into human drama for the sake of human drama. But still, he has many other books that deserve much more praise.

Same with Invisible Man. It certainly is nowhere near as complex as Asturias or as approachable with the perfect amount of beautiful, flowery prose as Nabokov, so even if it's not "a badly written book", it doesn't stand up to the really outstanding ones prose-wise. And the subject matter coming from such an author is nothing but propaganda. Not that it wouldn't be propaganda coming from anyone else, but at least Steinbeck was writing for the sake of literature and not for the sake of "combating oppression" or whatever.

>this fucking post.

what happened to this place?

>Yeah yeah dude, we've seen this shit before, it's not impressing anyone
That was my point about
>niggers writtin bout slayvureeh again AHYUCK!
and
>Women cant write

Though of course, I'm only memeing with that. I like black writers like, say, Sowell (though economics != literature, but he's still the best living economics writer). I also like female writers, like say, Anne Leckie. But Counternarratives and Pond, at least according to the reviews in Amazon and Goodreads, taking from both the 5-star and 1-star reviews, are nothing but more of the same. What you'd expect from a nigger or a woman. Ain't nothing insta-classic about that.

As for Murakami, 1Q84 is, I believe, the best magical realism of the last decade (but Laurus is actually giving it a run for its money). And as you might be able to gather from , I'm very much into magical realism.

lmao of course you like Sowel, he's borderline racist.

We're all "racist", no matter your definition of the word.

But if you go by the originally widely accepted, "negative discrimination on the basis of race" concept, there's no worse racism than that of lefties/cultural marxists against whites.

And I'm not even white. But I can see a parallel with how indios being racist (under the given definition) as fuck against mestizos in latin america in order to, just like with "minorities" vs whites in the US, "combat [your own definition of] racism [which is inherently racist under the definition I gave]".

Sowell is said to be a racist because, for example, he's against affirmative action and food stamps. But he's against those because, as an economist who's run a number of proper studies on the subjects (plus empirical, anecdotal stuff like him saying, as a nigger, shit was better for blacks, economically and culturally, before those things were implemented), he's found them (and similar policies) detrimental to his race.

Discussing economy books counts as Veeky Forums, right?

Guess what maricon de mierda, I'm a spic too and I dont give a shit about Scott Card's anti gay attitude, i enjoyed the trashy YA tier Ender's series, and Lovecraft cracks me up when he goes full-on Xenophoggoth, why? because I can separate the artist from the art. You say you love Murakami and Magical realism, but you dismiss A Brief History of 7 Killings? who are you kidding? what the hell goes on in your head?

so it's a good book but so you judge it purely on biographical grounds? what a pleb.

>You say you love Murakami and Magical realism, but you dismiss A Brief History of 7 Killings? who are you kidding? what the hell goes on in your head?
What I said. Going from the reader reviews, even the 5-star ones, I can see the usual pattern.

There's nothing interesting about a jamaican writing about Marley's assassination attempt and the tales of poor, oppressed jamaicans.

Now, as you may see, although I was certainly dismissive of it, I wasn't as strongly dismissive as the rest. Just said "Hell no" without expanding on it because of what I already explained, but if you can seriously recommend it, if you can seriously tell me, with a straight face, it's not propaganda, I'll go ahead and check it out once I'm done with Laurus.

But can you? Can you seriously? After sitting and thinking about it for a minute?

>so it's a good book
No.

I said the prose is alright (but not outstanding in any way, and even Delany has been better, which says a lot) and the subject matter is shit.

It's not so much a thing about biographical grounds as it's a thing about intention. Was it written for literature or for propaganda? If it's the second one, it's shit. Notice how I even dismiss my favorite author's Nobel-winning novel on the same grounds, them being not biographical but intention-related?

yeah, its hybrid modernism aside, it's prose is better than ok. steven king writes ok prose. intention is biographical. by your standards everything is propaganda. no writer writes "for literature". that's impossible, literature is when a writer sets out to write about something and does it in a literary way.

>yeah, its hybrid modernism aside, it's prose is better than ok
It isn't.

Again, it doesn't have the complexity of Asturias (which is that of Faulkner or García Marquez, or even somehow Joyce) or the readability yet grace of Nabokov (which is that of Murakami. 日本語をも喋る). It tries to be both and more and falls way short.

OK is good enough.

>steven king writes ok prose
Stephen King is readable yet graceless prose, which is better than Ellison's. I'd take Harlan any day of the week, and I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream is utilitarian prose at best.

>intention is biographical. by your standards everything is propaganda. no writer writes "for literature". that's impossible, literature is when a writer sets out to write about something and does it in a literary way.
Ah, marxism. Why must all your proponents be so disingenuous?

If you write to make a beautiful book, your intention is that of literature. If you write to promote an agenda, your intention is that of propaganda.

>b- bh- but you can write both to make a beautiful book and to promote an agenda
Then you're using your beautiful book (which most likely won't be beautiful, though sometimes it works like with Orwell. Not with Ellison though) as an agenda-pushing piece of garbage, which detriments from it through intention. That's my whole point against those books. And the reason why I don't go against 2666, though I'd've gone against TSD. Why, despite it's amazing prose only surpassed by Mulata, Men of Maize is more of an overgrown pamphlet than a novel. Why Invisible Man is garbage with an OK (at best) prose.

>Implying writers dont have agendas
>comparing Murakami to Nabokov
>muh Marxist!

imbécil. Retardado de mierda. Te deseo lo peor. Que se cagen en tu madre. Que se te caiga la verga. Que te violen 30 negros, en frente de tu abuela, moribunda por la oportunidad de mamarsela a uno de los negros. no vuelvas.

See But you're read Murakami in japanese, so clearly you can judge his prose the way I can.

"grace" is a matter of taste and complexity is a laughable measure of good prose. i.e vagina woolf is complex to a fault.

king is better than ellison? lol. you're so plebeian. your taste is ideological, which is fine, but don't pretend to great literary judgement.

marxism? it's a new critic argument. unless you think critics like harold bloom are marxists.

>"grace" is a matter of taste
It's not. It's a matter of finding the sweet spot for flowery language that doesn't feel self-indulging.

>complexity is a laughable measure of good prose
By itself? Absolutely. You're right about Virginia Woolf, and I'd even categorize Joyce there.

Complex prose becomes outstanding when, despite its interwoven nature, it's still grammatically sound, and even better if it's got a ring to it. That's what makes García Marquez and Asturias the stars of the latin american boom, and they clearly got inspired to write that way, and perfect it, through Faulkner, who clearly got inspired by Joyce.

But yes, if the prose is complex for the sake of it instead of for the sake of a sort of hypnotic, lyrical, grammatically sound mastery of language, then yeah, complexity is a laughable measure of good prose by itself.

>king is better than ellison?
Yes, and I already explained why.

You can read King without rolling your eyes. Which doesn't necessarily mean Ellison's prose is less than OK. It's still OK. But so is King's, in a different way.

They're both loved by plebs though.

>your taste is ideological
It's the opposite.

I dislike "literary" works that, instead of being literary, are ideological.

>marxism? it's a new critic argument. unless you think critics like harold bloom are marxists.
What do you mean by that? I'm having a bit of an issue with your vagueness.

Are you trying to tell me Bloom has said something along the lines of "authors can't separate their work from their background, and the all have political motives for their books", which is more or less what you were saying with "intention is biographical" while arguing against my dislike of literature written to further an agenda instead of written for the sake of literature? If that's not what you meant, could you be more specific?

>>its not
>>finding that "feel"

you didn't explain why. you just said you find king more readable and used "grace" again, which you define as a feeling. as I said, a matter of taste.

you don't like a book because of what it's about and it's authors biography. that's ideological.

That's not what I said. I said, writing "for literature" is impossible. That's not the same as "authors can't seperate their work".

New critics, like all formalists, recognise the separation but as formalists also recognise devices like "plot", which is to say, writers write about something.

Harold Bloom agrees with this but goes further to say that a writer cannot escape the influence by the things that came before.

Therefor he must be a marxist by your definition.

give it up, there is no arguing with this dude, let him have his shit thread.

>that "feel"
Again, grace is not about subjective "feeling". Sure, the whole point is to elicit (objective) feelings, but that is not what it's measured by. It's about domain of language and restraint - again, of finding the sweet spot for flowery language that doesn't feel self-indulging.

That's why I'm using Nabokov as benchmark for grace. His books, objectively, can be called graceful, or even the pinnacle of grace in modern english, by any reader with a basic domain of modern english. Because his color autism thing helped him understand the tonalities of language that made modern english sound elegant, but not too elegant. Just elegant enough.

>you don't like a book because of what it's about and it's authors biography. that's ideological.
I didn't like Invisible Man, and many other books including the one that got my favorite author a Nobel, because the subject matter approached by clearly agenda-pushing authors feels cheap, even if the prose is nowhere near cheap (like in the case of Men of Maize. Invisible Man's is pretty cheap).

Slan was about oppressed, telepathic quasi-kikes, and I loved it. Because it was written from a retired, objective point. A muh six gorillions ADL-calling ultra-kike would've written a much different, much more pamphlet-like book.

And again, one of the few exceptions to this is Orwell, most likely because he himself was a marxist (in a way) writing to BTFO marxists (in a different way), so maybe that's why it feels like it does find that sweet spot.

Maybe that's why I like Asturias' Banana Trilogy. It's about the abusive relationship between american fruit companies and latin american countries, but told from both sides, both the gringos and the indios, and even some mongrel here and there, all with much compassion. You'd never find such a thing in Ellison's work. Or John Keene. Or, after reading more reviews, Marlon James. Or even early Steinbeck.

Because they're not about the human drama. They're all about that propaganda.

>That's not what I said.
Again, please be more specific. I'm really having a hard time replying to your vagueness, which is why I'm having to assume your argument.

>I said, writing "for literature" is impossible. That's not the same as "authors can't seperate their work".
If writing for literature is impossible, then authors can't separate their works from their backgrounds/political agendas.

Except writing for literature, that is, writing separate to your background/political agenda, IS possible.

But yeah, your vagueness renders me unable to understand what you mean in the last 3 paragraphs.

lol vagueness. lol objective feelings. good meme.

good advice.

I can only imagine the type of factor who would save this image

>lol vagueness
This is the third time I'm asking you to be more specific, in order for me not to have to assume your argument.

But I guess gender studies majors can't be concrete.

>lol objective feelings
Yes.

We're talking Nabokov, so let's say Lolita because it's what we all have read: you're supposed to put yourself on Humbert's shoes. To understand how he feels ('til your second or third read, when you understand you're actually being jewed). So objective feelings are trying to be elicited.

>good meme
Good argument.

>there is no arguing with this dude
Yes. This dude will not argue with you. This dude will clearly not try to ascertain your position and either agree on common points or present counterarguments for points he disagrees with.

No arguing with this dude, man.

Austerlitz
Disgrace
Submission
Laurus
On the Edge
2666
Maybe Dream of the Celt
The Remains of the Day
Voices from Chernobyl

Brief History is a fantastic book
>but if you can seriously recommend it, if you can seriously tell me, with a straight face, it's not propaganda

Firstly, James is a disgusting SJW. Do not follow him on social media. But his writing style is excellent in that he bestows upon his characters real depth, even ones that he shouldnt be sympathetic too, like CIA operators or white journalists in jamaica for the black cherry. His protagonists are all involved in the street war that is going on behind the Jamaican national elections, and have nothing to do with typical post-colonial whining, and doesnt even touch upon afro-american victim narratives. What makes me think it wont be a "classic" is that for all its interesting components and insight into human nature, it is ultimately a crime epic ala scarface or the godfather, and as such is on the wrong side of the genre fiction aisle. This does not detract from his work, and his slave witch revenge fantasy, The Book of Night Women, was also pretty fucking good.

What are you implying

That's a pretty good list.

I guess I'll consider giving Brief History a read, but the reviews I've been reading the last half hour or so really make me think twice. But you sound like you know what you're talking about, and you're actually addressing some of my qualms, so hey.

But then again, 600 pages of what I might dislike doesn't sound compelling. I dismissed the reviews complaining about violence and graphic sex (got nothing against them), but the complaints about the language tailor-made for confusion are what I'm weary about. Something like this:
>
It’s not my general lack of interest in reggae, Bob Marley in particular, or Jamaican politics and gangs in the 1970’s; one reason I read is to learn new things. It’s not the violent and oppressed world and the unflinching use of the language of that world; another reason I read is to travel to other worlds. It’s not just the lengthy cast of characters, although a helpful list is provided. I’ve read plenty of books with tons of characters and factions and managed to keep track of who’s who. I can even read books that would have me sympathize with gangsters and thugs; they are human and have stories too.
>But combine all of those things, then fold in a disjointed, stream-of-consciousness writing style and extensive use of Jamaican patois for almost 700 pages. My eyes are glazing over. I made it to page 74, well short of my 100-page rule, and I can’t even tell you what’s happened, or to whom. Abandoning.

But on the other hand, I loved The Sound and the Fury, so... I'll consider it. Thanks.

No problem. The stream of consciousness stuff only happens in chapters where the character in question is having internal dialogue, there are tons of more traditional prose, and only absolute bottom tier niggers speak patois. He even has a petty bourgeois family that speaks bad english that they think is upper crust, and crafts his prose stylings differently depending upon the character. Like I said, I doubt it is high literature, but it certainly is an impressive effort on the authors part.

>On the Edge
Whose?

Chirbes RIP

nybooks.com/articles/2016/10/27/rafael-chirbes-masterpiece-from-muck/

there's no point. you think grace is a quantifiable criticism and accuse me of vagueness due to critical ignorance. you don't even understand the central question of marxist literary theory, which is not whether the author and book can be separated, but rather can a book be separated from the culture.

...

>The Corpse Exhibition and The Corpse Exhibition Other And Other Stories of Iraq Stories Hassan Blasim of Iraq Hassan Blasim

sounds pretentious as fuck

Its basically Borges in Baghdad as a young man in 2004. Bad bad things.

lmao, fucking Brainlets. Brief history is super accessible, even with all the slang style.

I aim to write something of that nature.

...

I know, I have it, and read the first story, I liked it but so far I got a more Kafka vibe than Borges. Wither way, OP wont like it becaus a "shitskin" wrote it.

niggers can't write anything that portentous

Considering international events from 2001-2017, I think a literary examination of violence in the arab world in a unique format will hold great import for scholars of the future.

lol

>you think grace is a quantifiable criticism
Of prose.

>and accuse me of vagueness due to critical ignorance
I'm accusing you of vagueness because you refuse to quote what you're referring to.

>you don't even understand the central question of marxist literary theory, which is not whether the author and book can be separated, but rather can a book be separated from the culture.
Neither of which have I addressed. Neither of which matter.

My point was, when a book is written to further an agenda instead of in order to present a story and explore the language (or when the agenda matters more than the story and what it entails, and the language as prose), you can notice it, and it cheapens the book.

And Invisible Man suffers from this.

Maybe the issue here is that you're to rooted in that "central question of marxist literary theory", and are unable to see things objectively.

Agreed. Came here to say this.

>Stephen King is better than Harlan Ellison
>Comparing Murakami to Nabokov
>Min Kamp will be considered a classic
>dismissing works because black or women authors

How can you be so idiotic? Also, you bring up black narrative being repetitive because "it's only about slavery" but then you mention Murakami and you gloss over the fact that, while his books are entertaining and can at times be great, his narrative has a very formulaic approach and are all very similar. You also bring up Marquez and as if you were lobotomized since childhood you omit that GGM also wrote about slavery, poverty, and oppression, as well as repeating themes in all of his works, which stemmed from personal experience in his childhood and his journalistic career. Not only that but you mention Asturias who also wrote about oppression. What the fuck OP?

>Stephen King is better than Harlan Ellison
I meant Ralph.

>Comparing Murakami to Nabokov
Murakami's prose in japanese is clearly heavily inspired in Nabokov's english prose.

>Min Kamp will be considered a classic
Of course it will.

>dismissing works because black or women authors
I mentioned I like some black authors, like Sowell and Delany up to a point, and some female authors, like Anne Leckie or Agatha Christie or, truth be told, Jill Murphy.

I'm dismissive of Claire-Louise Bennett, only having read reviews of her novel, because it's clearly yet another tryhard Woolf wannabe, and Woolf herself was shit.

>you bring up black narrative being repetitive because "it's only about slavery" but then you mention Murakami and you gloss over the fact that, while his books are entertaining and can at times be great, his narrative has a very formulaic approach and are all very similar
That's why I mentioned 1Q84, which broke the habit.

>You also bring up Marquez and as if you were lobotomized since childhood you omit that GGM also wrote about slavery, poverty, and oppression, as well as repeating themes in all of his works, which stemmed from personal experience in his childhood and his journalistic career. Not only that but you mention Asturias who also wrote about oppression.
Yes. I explained why in post like this one and this one There's a difference between writing to tell a tale, and telling a tale to promote a narrative/agenda. As I said here and here , you can tell when (((the narrative))) is more important than the story, and that cheapens the book.

Yes. As I said, Asturias won a Nobel for a book about guerrillas of indios fighting against american imperialism, and I dislike that book for that, but his other books, many of which also heavily dealt with oppression when looking at them through modern eyes, weren't written to deal with oppression, but to present a story. Again, The President might've somehow been about a dictator fucking over his people, but what it really was was a pastiche of crazies and beggars, of those living in abject poverty and those living in comfort, of those with so little character they'd lie under oath just because and those with so much character they'd refuse to lie even after days of torture. All seen objectively and with compassion. Or the Banana Trilogy, which I already discussed a bit.

As for García Marquez, 100 Años de Soledad is as different from Memoria de Mis Putas Tristes as it is to El Coronel no Tiene Quiene le Escriba or El General en su Laberinto and what have you. There might be some repeating themes (military servicemen, for example), but Aureliano Buendía's character and experiences are in nowhere similar to the Colonel and the General.

But with nigger books it's always the same (and I beg you to understand I'm being hyperbolic): "hurr the MC(s) are being OPPRESSED! Isn't it horrible? Shouldn't we be making the white man do something about it?"

the invisible man broke with traditional black writing in it's skepticism over the worth of integration. to call it formulaic is to be poorly read.

>the Ferrari La Ferrari broke with traditional super car manufacturing by being a hybrid. To call it a super car is to be poorly read about cars

Laurus is great.

Welcome to OP's thread: Confessions of a Zika Baby. Please stay a while, let's see how far he takes it.

Picked it up yesterday.

Read Cognition in one sitting.

could you try maybe being a little less racist? not for the world's sake, but for your own? im worried you'll die alone and bitter.

Pass.

Racism is just a buzzword invented by russian communists to counterattack the west complaining at their genocides. It can pretty much mean whatever the fuck you want.

But if you use the common, first widely-used concept of "negative discrimination solely on the basis of race", I'm not a racist. There is no racial bigotry here. I do not look down on niggers, kikes, wops, or greasers. Here, you are all equally worthless.

you should try harder op.

It is not only a solid novel, but the final section/chapter is 2x better than the entirety of the rest. I really hope that the identity obsessed western literary press acknowledge it soon.

theamericanconservative.com/dreher/the-wonder-working-laurus/

Have you read Invisible Man though? The message was pretty much the exact opposite. It completely deconstructs the idea of a racial identity based around getting back at white people or society in general.

>b-but Ferrari

>Racism is just a buzzword invented by russian communists to counterattack the west complaining at their genocides.
Source on that?

What?

c l o u d a t l a s
only semi-ironically

Op doesn't care how innovative it is because its still written by a darkie and therefor is shit only marxists like

I fucking love this post man, never change lmao.

Sad! I love black people, and let me tell you, black people love me. This is a very bad Hombre.

Not relevant but does anyone have recommendations for good books that fetishize both winter and New England / Northeast? Pic related, I liked that one a lot. Catcher in the Rye also comes to mind.

start your own goddamn thread.

Hybrids are the niggers of the automotive industry

The first written record of the word (in other words, the coining of the word) comes from this document, written by Trotsky:
1917.com/Marxism/Trotsky/HRR/1-1.html

OED does not agree with you senpai

The Fault in Our Stars