what, specifically, did you dislike about it-

>>25114317
not him but why would anyone want to read about some fucking druggie lol

>>25114317
>turn to page
>random verbal diarrhea about nothing

>>25114297
Do I have news for you

>>25114317
I'm about 1/3rd the way in and not impressed so far. It does have a grand scope and some interesting ideas, but the prose are a grind, the monotonous dealings with drug use in almost the same way with many different characters without adding anything of substance just becomes grating. I personally have never been addicted or even used hard drugs, so to me it's just a repeated exercise in misery porn for no apparent reason beyond hammering home the trap of drug addiction and the circumstances that drive a person to that state. It also has that stench on it of the author's own personal obsessions, not just with drugs, but with suicide itself, almost reminiscent of "The Bell Jar" where you can just tell the author was a lunatic (pejorative).

>>25114772
If you are actually reading it, you have terrible comprehension.

>>25114772
>misery porn for no apparent reason beyond hammering home the trap of drug addiction and the circumstances that drive a person to that state
The term “misery porn” often annoys me, it’s only apt when it feels like it’s over the top, like you see in fucking manga or something. Here however it’s a realistic look on how ruinous it can be to one’s whole existence

>>25114783
You have terrible criticizing skills if this is the best you can come up with.

>>25114799
I just finished the Poor Tony chapter where he lives for a few days in a bathroom stall as he goes through withdrawal. The chapter outlines him shitting himself in various locations, being in constant and increasing excruciating torment, enduring recurring thoughts of traumatic memories of his past, getting extremely sick and downing cough syrup until he runs out of that (leading to a second type of withdrawal), and finally culminates in him, the crossdressing prostitute, shitting himself on public transport in drag, diarrhea dripping down his leg as he collapses under the convulsions of a seizure as everyone in the transit edges as far away as possible, except some mystery person whose latex gloved hand pulls his tongue out of hit throat (which reminds him of how he has disappointed his father by taking so much gloved meat in his mouth). The whole chapter is deliberately grotesque in the extreme, reaching levels of grim, almost farcical heights of awfulness. It is a perfect, textbook example of misery porn.

>>25114984
Nothing was said to criticize.
>>25114987
There are maybe 100 pages out of its 1100 pages that could be called misery porn, but taking them as misery porn says more about you than the book; you are reducing it to its extremes and ignoring the context.

>>25114987
And but do you like David Lynch?
Too much to read about the ants in the lawn? Only really grotesque and affecting when it’s on film?
Because what it looks like to me is you’ve read a piece of art that’s had a real effect on you and instead of accepting that effect for what it was, because there wasnt a heaping spoonful pleasure in it for you you’re seriously bothered enough to come on 4chan and complain about what a defective commodity you’ve received. If you want to get your dick sucked by a piece of media go watch youtube shorts, you stupid fucking cretin.

>>25114992
You know which guy has two thumbs and doesn't want to read 100 pages of diarrhea?
THIS guy. (that means me)

>>25115014
Then don't read it, but don't try and justify it with meme level criticism, just say you don't want to read that sort of thing.

>>25114992
>Nothing was said to criticize.
Yes, thanks.
>100 pages of misery porn
So, you acknowledge they are misery porn but then say I am "reducing it to its extremes and ignoring the context". The context is a deliberate, prolonged dwelling on misery simply to wallow in how miserable it is. Context does not require this level of wallowing, at a certain point, it is just a manifestation of the author's own unhealthy obsession.

>>25115000
I had the misfortune of seeing some of two girls one cup, and it certainly "had a real effect on me", but it doesn't mean it deserves to be respected as "art". If you have a fascination with suffering and are drawn to depictions of it, more power to you and your weird Freudian complex. I will continue to critique the excesses of a piece of literature which, if you actually read my post, you would know I gave credit for having some good ideas and an impressive scope.

>>25115047
>Yes, thanks.
Ignoring context is sort of your thing, isn't it?
>So, you acknowledge they are misery porn
No, you misquoted me, that context thing again.
>There are maybe 100 pages out of its 1100 pages that COULD BE CALLED misery porn
Emphasis added. Just because they could be called that does not mean they are, which the rest of my post made clear, that context thing yet again. You are doing a great job of proving my conjecture about your comprehension.

>>25115054
You conceded that they do fit a conventional definition of misery porn, but you then tried to say that it is only 100 pages out of 1100, trying to downplay the total volume of misery porn. If you disagree on the definition, make a case for that, otherwise you must concede it is misery porn but that you think misery porn can serve a greater purpose. You need to pick an actual position instead of limply flopping between different vague ideas and then abandoning them when you've been shown to contradict yourself.

>>25115056
I never changed my position and I made it clear. I could call you a retard, does that make you a retard? Fine with me if you want to grant me that sort of power over your life just so you can pretend to be right.

>>25115065
Bro types out "there are 100 pages that could be called misery porn" and then gets annoyed that they are called misery porn. Wild.

>>25115070
What was the following clause in that sentence?
>but taking them as misery porn says more about you than the book
Not sure if this is the context again or the comprehension thing, possibly both. Do you understand how sentences work?

I am far from annoyed, just killing time while food cooks.

>>25115082
Again, you hide behind glib vagaries when you've been exposed as conceding the point.

>>25115116
Please just read the god damn book. It all has a point and half of the point is for you to actually take the time to work through it so you can finally go Wow, almost all that apparently horrifically excessive and useless content had a real purpose and point, mayhaps I should be a less whiney individual and attempt to seriously appreciate the world around me and approach its objects with patience and an interest in understanding them so I don’t go around projecting my inner vacuity onto everything and screaming and despairing over how shit it all is and making myself and everyone around me constantly miserable.
>Buh buh, the wax-on wax-off is boring Mr. Miaygi! Please fetch my binkey.

File: ebin.png (119 KB)

119 KB PNG

About ~100 pages in and I have only 1 question: Why was he so intent on associating "jew-" with the phrase "oral lyre"?
Doesn't he know they do it in writing too?

Just stopping by to say I won't ever read a loser who killed himself in the 21st century.

You read a loser you become a loser.

Bye.

>>25115214
This. Never read
- Gays
- Women
- Jews
- Suicidals

>>25115149
Why are you so defensive? Can you not tolerate another reader having a negative experience with a book you had a memorable and favorable experience with? Does this not seem like a profound failure on your part? Perhaps a bit petty and petulant? Again, I made a measured and fair criticism while acknowledging the book had certain merits to it. I made an observation about the creative choice of the author for specific chapters which I found garish, lurid, and ultimately to detract from the overall artistic value of the book. Your response was to waffle and quibble over minutia like what could count, but actually doesn't count, even though you said it could count as "misery porn". I'm still perplexed how you can say in one post "it could be characterized that way" and then in the next post say "but it isn't that way". Saying it could is to acknowledge the plausibility of that characterization, and to turn around and contradict yourself, all the while claiming I don't understand "context", is baffling.

>>25115116
So, you don't know how sentences work?
>>25115259
>he can't into voice
Probably best to avoid Gaddis.

>>25115214
4chan used to never be like this especially /lit/. Damn it you fools keep killing speech like its some grass to be mowed. One day you're gonna be eaten by satan itself and you will be a slave to it forever and ever and ever. This I wish upon you.

>>25115235
based

>>25115056
I like IJ but there's at least one idiot on this board that treats it like a sacred cow and throws a pisdy little baby fit if someone implies it's easy or not good. There's no use arguing with him.

>>25115259
Not the same poster is why you’re so perplexed. But again, too many words, not enough respect for the object you would bitch about. Go read it and then produce an opinion, it’s really not that hard. It’s actually in fact the most minimal degree of effort you should be expected to put into a book before spewing multiple paragraphs of vapid, ill informed criticism.
Also,
>Perhaps a bit petty and petulant?
>More like infinite turd. The author should kill himself

>>25115641
Huh? None of what you typed makes sense. I have read a decent chunk, several chapters of which fit a reasonable definition of misery porn, an over the top wallowing in extreme suffering to hammer home, time and time again, that drugs are bad mmkay? Also, for the 4th time in this thread I DID CREDIT THE BOOK FOR SOME GOOD IDEAS. What is with all the whiny babies jumping to defend this book? I make a measured comment which was balanced between "there are good qualities to the book and some bad" and then people like you hop in saying I haven't properly "respected the object" of my criticism. If I read the rest of it, and come right back here and say "I still didn't like the misery porn parts" are you going to suddenly say "wow, what a respectful and well produced opinion", somehow I doubt it.

>>25116188
>I said it has some good points, so you have to ignore everything else I said

>>25116240
I said it had some good points, which means I have actually considered the merits of the novel in a fair, measured, and balanced way. You, on the other hand, have just demonstrated that you are replying in bad faith.

>>25116436
>trust me bro, i am infallible