[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/lit/ - Literature


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


Pic related
>>
>>23538797
it was really good, but it will only reach transcendent peaks if you are like Suttree. Most aren't. They wont get it. They will feel alienated by it, and therefore it isn't 'The Great American Novel,' because it is too singular.
>>
>>23538809
Also I forgot to say it is a weak weaving together of short stories of vastly varying qualities, and it suffers as a "slam compilation." Moreover, Suttree's chief injury is a weak and stereotyped motivator, and his actions subsequent are more stereotyped than Catcher in the Rye's plot.
>>
>>23538797
Yes, it is great.

Greatly BAD
>>
>>23539652
Can you write that more cogently? This is a lot of words for not much information. What about Suttree is stereotyped specifically? Which "short stories" are bad and which are good, and why?



[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.