Partway through reading this and not having fun I realised I don't give a fuck about prose and just want the information. This book will waffle on and on about pointless details that never come up again. It made me realise that most readers don't care about what they're reading, they only care about the presentation. Style over substance. From that point forward, every time I pick up a (fiction) book, I read the free preview on amazon or flip through to a random page if at the store. If the author spends more than a few sentences describing the scenery, I put it away.This saved me from reading AGOT, thank fuck.
The medium is the message. If you don't believe that, you can just browse Wikipedia summaries.
saddest post on /lit/ right nowleave
>>24882417the medium is the massage
>>24882423>>24882417You prosetards think you're so special and cultured for consuming drivel and loving it just because it was presented to you with flowery language. You would read a 300 page book on paint drying if the author played word games well enough.
>>24882431/lit/ - literature
>>24882434Non-fiction doesn't have this problem.The Bible doesn't have this problem.Agatha Christie doesn't have this problem.This is the book equivalent of those "film buffs" who insist that watching black and white student films is the only valid way of enjoying film.
>>24882431I believe a good writer can make any topic interesting, that's true. I thought we all do. I don't know if I would call myself an aesthete, but reading only things that you find 'useful' seems like a sad way of approaching art.
Did you actually want to know what books changed the way people read or did you just come here to rage bait
>>/v/
>>24882442i don't believe you've read the bible or any non-fiction older than 150 years or so. also what you're doing here is more like complaining about painting from the perspective of technical draftsmanship.
>>24882457Please tell me where in the gospel of Mark the author spends a page describing the scenery. I'll wait.
You like the Bible because it doesn't have "filler"? Holy convert
>>24882467goalpost shifting and probably bait. but: parable of the sower.
>>24882479New testament, with the possible exception of the book of revelation, legit doesn't though, you can have problems with it but this isn't one of them.
>>24882417Books that emphasize detail vs books that emphasize plot aren't different mediums.
Idk about Pynchon or AGOT but a lot of 19th century authors have that problem where they're describing every single hair follicle because they were paid by the word, and it is indeed dogshit. But spending a single page describing the scenery should not be annoying for anyone who reads more than a few pages a day.>It made me realise that most readers don't care about what they're reading, they only care about the presentation. Style over substanceThis has nothing to do with what you're describing. An author can have immaculate prose and not spend a billion pages describing shit you don't care about. You remind me of myself after first reading Zola as a readlet, and hating anything that wasn't fast-paced enough as a result. I then proceeded to read more books and found out that Zola is just shit, that most good authors don't do that stupid shit, and that there are also ways to describe the scenery while making it engaging. You can't paint an idyllic picture without describing the environment.
>>24882722For me it's not so much about detail as it is about the relevancy of the detail. If you go at length to describe a room because you want to show how much of a degenerate the room's occupant is, or how much of a clean freak he is, that's fine. But if you're describing food just for the sake of describing food and it never comes up again, what was the point?
>>24882408Worst book I've ever read. I have to this day never seen a point argued so poorly. Made me realize that "If everyone else is the problem, then maybe you’re the problem" is a completely bullshit statement and the masses really are just fucking dumb, that's the only way I can explain the 5 star ratings on this piece of shit.
>>24882754Yeah I agree, if it serves zero purpose whatsoever that's the same "paid by the word" kind of bullshit that is just annoying for 99% of readers. It's excusable if it's something exotic the reader has never heard about (or seen, but in this case with the internet nowadays it's useless), or even if the prose is hypnotic enough that you don't care about what's being described as long as you're reading but otherwise it just feels like padding.
>>24882431>You would read a 300 page book on paint drying if the author played word games well enoughAnd why not? Imagine how skilled such an author would have to be. Paint drying anyway is a large part of life for people that paint. The everyday experience of a painter or artist is something worth depicting simply because it's a part of life, even if you don't see any "value" in it (the purpose of art isn't to be useful, but that's besides the point). Mess around with time and visuals, plenty of potential for an interesting read. Of course, not many authors can write such a book, and so most have to lean on plot as a crutch because the writing itself is just average.If I had to choose between a well-written book and a well-plotted one, I'd choose the former everytime.
Read Hemingway and Bukowski
>also the last book you ever need to read
>>24882917you're changing the cover design you're spamming? is this like changing a youtube thumbnail to bait people into paying attention to it again cause they think it's new? actually, don't answer, just rope
>>24882408Just admit you got PYNCHED and move on.
>>24882431
>>24882467Bible isn't literature thoughbeit
>>24882486But why did he curse the fig tree, there's a huge dropped plot point there
>>24882417>you can just browse Wikipedia summariesThis is unironically better than reading 99.9999% of fiction books. The summary and discussion surrounding the book is often better than the book.
>>24882670Medium is not just "book" or "novel", nor even "genre", but rather the specific form and style in which the information is presented in a given work.
>>24882408Real. I re-experience this over and over again with both fiction and nonfiction. It peeved me to no end while reading A Landscape Painted with Tea that I stopped after part 1 and I feel it now while reading 2666. I'll probably stop reading after the 2nd part.
>>24882408This was the first book that I got horny while reading, so there's that.
>>24882670People here haven't actually studied media theory, especially not anything written in the past ten years. They just regurgitate McLuhan.
>>24882408>If the author spends more than a few sentences describing the scenery, I put it away.I feel the same way. Just give me the gist and I'll make up the rest in my head. As an explanation for all the seething in response to this thread, you must keep in mind there are people who can't see the apple, let alone in colour.
Is this book as bad as the review say it is?
>>24884448Yes.
>>24884448It's actually very good.
>>24884448It's not a very good book, but it's not near as bad as the reviews make it out to be.
>>24884448I really like it, it's one of my favorite Pynchon books.
>>24882408>waffle on and on about pointless detailsThat and describing the scenery all the time are instant turn offs
>>24884447no. i will impose my image unto you as a writer. you will not resist. you will enjoy it.
>>24882408>This book will waffle on and on about pointless details that never come up again.this bit gives away that op's that kind of anime-watching, video-game-playing retard that doesn't like to read but forces himself to try in a hare-brained scheme to "become smarter" and then gets frustrated because of course it doesn't work that way. it's a common type. he doesn't like reading and cannot even imagine what it would be like to like reading, so he needs reading to be always justified by some other purpose, here for example things need to "come up again" as a kind of restitution for the pain he had to endure in his tiny brain when reading them. genre fiction anticipates and tries to mitigate this dysfunction. if the character being described at least turned out in an epic twist to be the protagonist's time-traveling future self then the pain of reading would be "worth it," but to read just in order to read because reading is good - that is unimaginable to this type of retard.
>>24884783>this bit gives away that op's that kind of anime-watching, video-game-playing retard that doesn't like to read but forces himself to try in a hare-brained scheme to "become smarter" and then gets frustrated because of course it doesn't work that wayAt least he seems to recognize that it doesn't work, there are millions of midwit women who subscribe to the "reading makes you smarter" line after childhood and will consume the fiction and propaganda sold in bookstores, believing themselves to be superior.
