What do you think of his prose, /lit/?Opening:>When I was a small and new boy, I'd sit outside the house with the animals. The animals were all over. Dog here, pigs around, horse grazing right next to the house, chickens underfoot, and no one thought anything of it. It didn't bother my mother or father, the animals being all around, nor did they take any pleasure in it. Animals were part of the home and part of every day. Feed the dog. Slop the pigs. Lay seed on the ground for the fowl, and tend to the horse in all the ways a horse needs tending.
>>24893814Seems funny. Has anyone read the book
>>24893814Is he trying to write like Hemingway? This is so bizarre.
>>24893838What was funny to you in that passage? I'm waiting.
>>24893843The way narrator seems like an underdeveloped child. The line about his parents drives it home in an odd way.
>>24893814Unironically better than Stephen King
I liked him better when he was writing dirty jokes.
>>24893854It seems like he's more self-aware than the average child. I didn't get a sense of being underdeveloped.
>>24893864Fair enough. Still wondering if anyone's read it? I saw journalists bitching it but didn't want to read too much about it
>>24893854>When I was a small and new boyIt sounds more like what an old coastal jew thinks a whimsical southern Huckleberry Finn character is supposed to sound like.
>>24893865>>24893884Actually I realize he's describing when he was a boy, not necessarily how he felt back then. I don't know how old the narrator is supposed to be.
>>24893814I've seen worse
>>24893814it's hokey. conspicuously aping mid-century American lit.
>>24893994Holy shit he looks 20 years older than he is. Just sad...
>>24893814something about this reads very off and I can't quite put my finger on what
>>24894075yeah, i naturally want to defend him because he wrote a novel which is more than 99% of gay retards here have done, but the incredibly basic language is super clunky>Dog here, pigs around>part of the home and part of every day>a small and new boyhe's taking very basic ideas/images and describing them twice for some reason
>>24894078I think that's a good summation. A lot of writing suffers from too much descripton of environment, or practically none at all. This is the former. If the prose was better, it wouldn't be a bad thing, but the language is too plain to justify using that many words to capture a simple setting
>>24893814I'm two sentences in and it's already getting repetitive
>>24893814One of the obvious issues with a famous person trying their hand at a new artform, is that they immeadiately get staged to the highest level. Louis didn't have to write for years, editing, getting notes, being rejected from publishers, trying again, etc. He probably just called his agent, said he wanted to publish a book, and had another call with a publisher within the day, who were probably surprised he didn't just want a cashgrab autobiography.Is this book good? Probably not, and I don't feel any inclination to read it. But people bitching about famous people getting to do projects immeadiately, then self-righteously denouncing how bad they are, is just old to me at this point. At least this was an honest attempt at something artistic, he could've far more easily had his name thrown onto a ghost written memoir that would have made more money. Is there something inherently vain about thinking you can write the next great American novel? Yeah, but any art you attach a name or makers mark to has a level of ego
>>24894075It has the feel of a beginner trying to set a scene in the way "you're supposed to" set a scene, just listing off elements without an actual artistic function or depth. For instance, "tend to the horse in all the ways a horse needs tending" is pretty lazy and would be better if he got a bit more concrete about those ways; how were the dog and pigs behaving apart from just being here and around? After all, he was sitting outside with them and presumably observing them. Maybe he continues to describe more, I don't know, but he should jump in right away instead of doing laundry list writing.
>>24894075It's too monology and written by someone who did zero research on homesteading. I like Louis CK's stand up but that doesnt necessarily translate to being a novelist.
>>24893994>typewriterCould you be more performative?
>>24893814Isn’t this what we were discussing in another thread about multimedia artists? They’re good in one field and then they show their ass thinking they can be good in another.
>>24894078>>24894110>>24894142Its not that its too much description, its that he’s cynically trying to imitate the simple laconic speaking style of the American heartland, when in reality he’s a neurotic big city pervert that would be extremely uncomfortable and self concious around the type of person he’s depicting.
>>24893814Looks like AI, reads like AI.
>>24893814Louis C.K. tries so hard to write Faulkner that he accidentally writes David Lynch’s Old Yeller.I can’t stop laughing at the metaphors.Tree legs.Brick animals.Dirt cuffing my feet.Men in ropes-of-cloth-tied-snug-to-the-neck.Is anyone else laughing like a retard to this or am I insane? This is The Room of books.
>>24894260No way. AI can write better than this. He talks about walking into a courthouse like being eaten by a brick animal.A brick animal. That's too corny and bad for an AI to write.
>>24894267>brick animalif pynchon wrote that you'd all look the other way and not even question it
>>24893814>When I was a small and new boyAbsolutely bizarre to say "a new boy" to mean "young" and no one talks like that>The animals were all over. Dog here, pigs around...Bad practice of summarising what you're about to say before actually saying it, should have removed "the animals were all over" entirely>The animals were all overNo one would say "all over" instead of "everywhere">Dog here, pigs around"Dog here" is a bizarre clause, maybe it could have been redeemed if the next part was "pigs there" ("here and there")>pigs around"Around" is the worst word choice in the entire excerpt, NO ONE has EVER written "Pigs around" like this before now, and for good reason>, and no one thought anything of itShould have been its own sentence, not the end of the list, i.e., "... chickens underfoot. No one thought..." or else it becomes part of the list of animals.>no one thought anything of it. It didn't bother my mother or fatherAgain, writing what he's about to write; no need to write "no one ever thought anything of it" before "It didn't bother my mother and father", should remove the sentence entirely>the animals being all aroundStrange repetition of "around" considering it was one of the words paired with one type of animal and now it has become the word associated with all of the animals>Feed the dog. Slop the pigs.Sentence fragments are always hideous>Lay seed on the ground for the fowlNo need to specify "on the ground"I'm not sure about the word "fowl" - shouldn't he just write "chickens"? Would this barely literate character know the word "fowl"? Is he now referencing ducks as well as chickens?>Feed the dog. Slop the pigs. Lay seed on the ground for the fowl, and tend to the horseSomehow this list has started with two sentence fragments and then it joins the parts about fowl and horses so overall the passage is imbalancedOverall we could say that the shitty narration is part of the character's voice and that this narrator would make all of these ugly errors and so the errors are "good", but I don't think that's really an excuse. It seems like the author is aping authors who he has heard were "classic" so the prose come across as forced and ingenuine. He just wants everyone that has also heard about such authors (who they don't really like but have learned to pretend to respect) to pretend also for his work. No one has ever naturally spoken or told a story in the way that he's written it here; he's just going for a certain lauded style without really understanding what might make the prose shine. The criticisms per sentence are not necessarily all that damning - it's just that when taken together the real problem reveals itself: the work is pretentious, performative, and fake, as symbolised by the photo of him with his faggy typewriter here >>24893994Good on him for trying though!
>>24893814Is this cover AI slop?
>>24893814almost misread that as "Instagram"
>>24894290kek
>>24893814american ruralist literature is so fucking tiresomeseems fine. I've read dozens of openers that are exactly like this
>>24893814This is on par with BJ Novak's short story collection where I legitimately can't tell if he's doing some tongue-in-cheek mockery of the style poorly or he actually thinks this is good writing.
>>24893814>When I was a small and new boy, I'd sit outside the house with the animalsWhy does it feel like he copied Fitzgeralds first line?
>>24893814>judge a work by a single paragraphDump the epub or fuck off.
I laughed so much at the free chapter online, I had to order the hardcover. I expect this book to bring me many chuckles.
>>24893814There are several people ITT right now that have to go back.
>>24894131It's a little self-inflicted because pseudonyms exist
>>24894260Is the AI in the room with us right now?
>>24893994>He also coerced a group of female writers to watch him jerk off. He likes baseball and candy.
