/lit/ - Literature

pic unrelated btw

>>1521728
>>1521734
OP here, disregard this, I suck cocks

>>1521734
op here, disregard that pic very related

This is one of those books people read too much into

>>1521737

Wait a darn minute, that's not OP....

inb4 gatsby

Catcher in the rye is a book people pretend there is deep meaning in but there simply isn't

I don't think Catcher is overrated. It's one of my favorite books. It's just that people who don't like it can't understand it, and MOST the people who do like it don't understand it either. It's a shame, because it's such a great read.

Wow you're just so fucking cool OP.

>>1521750

Yep. Point's still valid

>>1521756

Don't get me wrong, I love the book. People tout it too highly and take too much stock in it, tho. Great book, for what it is at face level.

>>1521758

K, thanks. Nice reasoned arguement

OP is such a Phoney

>>1521753
But most people dislike it..

>>1521766

Catcher in the Rye hatin' has become quite frequent on /lit/. It's pretty much a surefire way to start a flamewar.

>>1521775

Most emo 10-year-old love it.

>>1521766
His argument seems to be as good as yours.

>>1521779

"phage" goes in all fields

Whether you like Catcher or not, one has to acknowledge that Salinger is a pretty fucking good writer.

I loved Catcher, but his other stuff is better.

>>1521785

I agree. I love the stream-of-consciousness writing style in general. William Burroughs and Jack Kerouac are among my favorite writers.

>>1521778

Fag. Misunderstanding is not license to criticize

>>1521797

/thread

It's too bad that most the people who love Catcher don't actually read any other books. It gives Catcher fans a bad rep

Now I'm in the right place

>>1521812
Very much in agreement with my argument

btw, /thread

Why don't people like Gatsby? I don't think it's the best literature in the world but it's an interesting read.

I never even finished Gatsby. Most of the book was Fitzgerald using superfluous adjectives to describe objects of the physical world.

That's just not entertaining for me. If I wanted to be visually entertained I'd watch Avatar

Harry Potter

It borrows heavily from existing fantasy, the characters are flat, the plot is formulaic and predictable, the prose is tepid, it's not "dark," and there are so many parallels to Nazism and the holocaust it's insulting to the reader's intelligence.

>>1521820
Can't get anymore over-rated than that

>>1521865
Oh, please. Harry Potter is a children's book. No self respecting /lit/ geek would recommend that. It wasn't intended to be judged by the standards of quality literature. I stopped enjoying it when I turned thirteen.

maybe not the MOST overrated, but definitely overrated.

>>1521874
I think it deserves all the praise it gets, but that's me. YMMV.

>>1521870
>No self respecting /lit/ geek would recommend that.

Oh how naive. Back when /lit/ started there were Harry Potter threads every day. I think now the fans realize we don't take kindly to their kind here, but I bet they still lurk here, /lit/ on one tab, their Harry Potter fansite on the other tab.

>>1521866

Why so butthurt? I know hating on the Bible gets you mad Jugalettes in middle school, but seriously? The Bible is the foundation for so many pieces of important literature, to say the very least.

>>1521894
Yeah, but I still don't think Harry Potter is nearly as bad as Twilight. Harry Potter is meant for 8 year olds, and it serves its purpose pretty well. Twilight is meant for young adults, and quite frankly, young adults should be reading things of greater depth.

>>1521902
That's true. But then again everything looks better when compared to Twilight.

I remember sophomore year in High School I was forced to read this. I wanted to stab myself in the eyes.

It's not exactly overrated. I doubt anyone will say it's actually a good book, but nonetheless, I was sixteen and I was forced to read THAT SHIT.