Just heard about this guy and thinking about reading some of his books. What does /lit/ think about him? Should I just start with The Collector?
>>25506083A while back I had the same question and someone said that he was the pseud's idea of the thinking man's novelist and that hurt my feelings because I loved The Collector. So I say start with The Collector. Love that book. But I've never been able to get that phrase out of my head and now you never will either. sorry
>>25506083>insert pic of [person]>[intro sentence] What does [board] think about [person]? [outro sentence]>insert a reply of two to make the post look organic and stimulate engagement>no need to ever engage with the replies - most anons are too bovine to notice that bit4chan is dead
>>25506096I heard of him because of the wikipedia page on "historiographical metafiction" hence I'm mostly interested in The French Lieutenant's Woman, but I always like starting with an author's earlier novels to see how their style has progressed. >he was the pseud's idea of the thinking man's novelistIn what way do you think this might be true?>>25506223If I'd read a book by the guy I'd at least make a post describing it and what I enjoyed about it. Anyway, I'd like to think getting /lit/ to discuss a specific author and his works is better than social media screencap threads.
>>25506083The Collector is his best work and I think it's the one most people read first when the want to get into Fowles. Everything else is too weird, experimental or cucked.
>>25506083Collector is excellent, definitely start there
>>25506700Cuckoldry is the thinking man’s fetish
>>25506700Interesting. The only one I'd actually heard of by him was The Magus. I tend to not like metafiction, not in principle because I do think it can be done well (eg Calvino) but most of the time it's just a lazy device that allows an author to navel-gaze endlessly.
