Thread 24670894

Here are some things I've read and liked. I'm mostly into short stories, but I am open to whatever you guys think I should check out. I read for fun on my phone mostly.

You can include a pitch if you want, but I understand that most things are best enjoyed with no context

>Ted the Caver was pretty great
>"Its a good life", 1950s short story about a child with god like powers
>Ted Chiang had a bunch of interesting things I liked (I doubt ive read everything from him)
>Greg Egan also has great stuff (again I doubt ive read all his best works)
>I've read quite a few online creepypasta, a lot of them are bad or lose quality as the story goes on. but "Left Right game" had a really cool premise. I think id be open to reading some more of these even if they get bad quickly.
>I liked some of Stephen King's stories growing up, I thought the Mist was fine
>did not finish house of leaves, I think I liked the premise but it didn't hold my small attention span.
>I have no mouth was fun


I'm fine if the recommendation is light on metaphor and is just an interesting tale. Also as many recommendations as possible would be sick, even if some of the entries are not that good

>>24665417
Here is a thread from a day ago. There were some excellent offerings inside. You should obviously read Borges. You owe that to yourself. It is like discovering a clockwork city, full of ghosts.

>>24670898
thank you homie

>>24670894 (OP)
Are you the guy that posted in /sffg/ with his list?

>>24670940
Don't think so I barely use 4chan at all cause it sucks now, I had to search to even find what you were talking about I thought it was a board I'd never heard of. Why do you ask is there a guy with similar tastes?

this was a good collection of scifi stories. short stories aren't usually my thing but I liked all the stories in this.

>>24670894 (OP)
Dubliners, James Joyce. The Dead in particular
Piazza Tales, Herman Melville. Bartleby in particular
Ficciones, Jorge Luis Borges

Saunders falls flat compared to most of the writers mentioned ITT (and on this board in general) but analyzing his work may be helpful for your writing process. Can’t deny it’s impressive what he can do with a few paragraphs, and I think it’s motivating to see a simple story like this and go “I could probably do something similar.”

>>24670894 (OP)
Ray Bradbury nigga

Harlan Ellison nigga

>>24670894 (OP)
anything by bruno schulz, but i don't know how good are english translations, they are very poetic despite being written in prose

>>24671917
>Saunders falls flat compared to most of the writers mentioned ITT (and on this board in general)
Why is /lit/ like this? If someone asks for hip-hop recommendations on /mu/, nobody sheepishly posts Injury Reserve while saying "well obviously they're no Wu-Tang Clan but this is fine, I guess, I don't even like them anyway really, but some of their songs are catchy"

It's like you faggots are so concerned with what other /lit/ anons think of you that you have to pretend to disavow anything published after 1990.
>that's because it's all TRASH
Grow up.

>>24674415
>Sperging out over nothing
Lincoln in the Bardo was ass. Saunders wrote his best work decades ago. You don’t read enough to understand why I added that nuance to my response, and it’s evident in that you don’t recommend anything, and start talking about another board. What an embarrassing and histrionic response.

>>24674444
Quads of truth. Removing Lincoln from by TBR list.

>>24674444
quads of truth on Lincoln in the Bardo desu, it wasn't great and didn't deserve the praise. Saunders's best work is probably Tenth of December, which came out in 2013. Hardly decades. Also
>heh, he's finished, his best stuff came out decades ago
Faggot this entire board is discussing writers that died centuries ago, who gives a fuck if a living writer's best work was in 2013?
>well I added nuance so there
You didn't add any nuance lmao you just said he's no Joyce or Hemingway. No shit. That's not nuance, that's you masturbating while pondering how well-read you think you are
>talking about another board
Do I have to explain the concept of "by comparison" to you
>you don't recommend anything
OP should read Denis Johnson's "Jesus' Son." It's got metaphors but it's short and excellent, full of interesting tales about unrepentant fuckups in horrible situations
>you so mad n sheit heh
Again, grow up

>>24670894 (OP)
>I read for fun on my phone mostly
A few people have recommended Borges; he was a genius but to be honest seems like a bad suggestion. His stories are short but extremely dense and intellectual, and if you're a casual reader (no shame in that) you'll probably just find it frustrating. OP, feel free to try something from his Ficciones/Labyrinths if he still sounds appealing, but you've been warned.
Some stories I recommend:
>Flannery O'Connor- A Good Man Is Hard To Find (the title story, or whatever you want from the collection, it's all good)
>Washington Irving- Rip Van Winkle, Sleepy Hollow (if you like those, Dolph Heyliger is as good or better, but longer and less important)
>Tennessee Williams- One Arm
>Ring Lardner- There Are Smiles (romance) or Harmony (sports story)
>James B. Hall- Ace in the Hole (might be hard to find, but it's the bee's knees)
>Tao Lin- Three-Day Cruise

>>24674764
>OP should read Denis Johnson's "Jesus' Son."
Forgot about this one; solid suggestion.

>>24674764
>More histrionic seething over nothing
Preemptively trying to predict what others are going to say, as if that will stop me from abusing you, makes you look spectacularly schizophrenic. You need to stop being so fixated on others’ responses and just say what you need to say.
>That's not nuance, that's you masturbating while pondering how well-read you think you are
More projection. I never mentioned a single other author. I just said Saunders already wrote his best work, and even that even that pales in comparison to the other authors mentioned here. Which you clearly agree with, but for some reason you keep reacting with hostility. Your entire demeanor is like an abused dog, did someone hurt you in /mu/?

>>24674764
>Hardly decades
>Civilwarland in bad decline
Retard

>>24674867
>I never said that I never said that I never said that
>he falls flat compared to other writers mentioned ITT or on here
Let's not pretend that you don't know what "implication" is
>even that even that pales in comparison to other authors
And those authors pale in comparison to Shakespeare. So? What's your point? You seem to think you're coming across as incredibly well-read but you're just grunting that [classic writer] better than [contemporary writer], aka every other thread on /lit/
>you so mad n sheit!
Grow up. This board used to be good. You could have long, involved discussions about literature and serious books. Now it's filled with faggots like you regurgitating whatever the last anon said
>just say what you need to say
When you do make a genuine recommendation like Saunders you have to preface it with some faggy bullshit like
>well of course as we all know Saunders is not as good as [classic writer], which we all know, being learned and intelligent, of course, but nevertheless
It's just throat-clearing so you can maintain your self-image. Again, you think this makes you sound smart. It doesn't make you sound smart, it makes you sound like an insecure faggot

>>24674906
>This board used to be good
Hilarious that you lack that much self awareness. You’re deliberately shitting up the board by sperging out, in response to my recommendation, and you don’t even disagree with me about Saunders. You deliberately make yourself into a retard by mentioning a book from 2013, when I said “decades ago.” Your dysgenic mind just seems hardwired to hallucinate contention where it doesn’t exist.
>You seem to think you're coming across as incredibly well-read but you're just grunting that [classic writer] better than [contemporary writer], aka every other thread on /lit/
Or maybe I’m prefacing my recommendation after other people right before me recommended Joyce and Melville. I can’t imagine how miserable you must be to have to reframe everything to fit such a retarded mindset. Such a sad, pathetic life lmao

>>24674923
>You have to do this song-and-dance routine about how [contemporary writer] isn't as good as [classic writer] so you can sound like you've read a lot of books
>I never said that I never said that I never said that
>Okay maybe I’m prefacing my recommendation after other people right before me recommended Joyce and Melville
Hilarious that you lack that much self-awareness.

>>24674935
>You have to do this song-and-dance routine about how [contemporary writer] isn't as good as [classic writer]
It was a few sentences. What you’re doing is a whole three act play in comparison.
>Saunders's best work is probably Tenth of December
You think Tenth of December compares to Ulysses? Is this entire carousel of you cyclically seething and embarrassing yourself just a round-about way of you think Tenth of December is as good as Moby Dick?

>>24674935
>You have to do this song-and-dance routine about how [contemporary writer] isn't as good as [classic writer]
It was a few sentences. What you’re doing is a whole three act play in comparison.
>Saunders's best work is probably Tenth of December
You think Tenth of December compares to Ulysses? Is this entire carousel of you cyclically seething and embarrassing yourself just a round-about way of saying you think Tenth of December is as good as Moby Dick?

>>24674967
>a whole three act play
It's okay, but it's not as good as Shakespeare, obviously, which we all know and we've all read entire, or Marlowe, as is plain, which of course we have read, or Ibsen, who is sublime, and being learned as we are, of course, we know this, having read all of Ibsen blah blah blah
>oh yeah? oh yeah? do you think these two books are the same thing huh?
Can you read? Show me where I said or implied that Tenth of December and Ulysses were on the same tier. This entire exchange I've been saying that it is patently obvious books like Ulysses and writers like Joyce are better than books like Tenth of December and writers like Saunders, so there's no need to reiterate it for the ten thousandth time. The only reason you would do that is because you're insecure about your own reading habits or you want anons on /lit/ to think you're cool, and both are pathetically retarded
>you so mad n sheit, again
So tiresome

>>24674985
>I never said that I never said that
>You have to do this song-and-dance routine about how [contemporary writer] isn't as good as [classic writer]
Let's not pretend that you don't know what "implication" is. If you are in contention with me prefacing that Saunders isn’t comparable to Melville, then the conclusion you’re implying is obvious. Hilarious how cowardly you are.

>>24674992
See, this doesn't work because I wasn't implying that they were the same. Here, I'll make it easy for you
>You didn't add any nuance lmao you just said he's [Saunders] no Joyce or Hemingway. No shit.
Honestly don't know how I could've been clearer here, other than typing "it is obvious that Saunders is not comparable to Joyce or Hemingway," but you would've found some way to misread that too.
>If you are in contention with me prefacing that Saunders isn’t comparable to Melville, then the conclusion you’re implying is obvious.
Again, no. I made this explicitly clear here
>This entire exchange I've been saying that it is patently obvious books like Ulysses and writers like Joyce are better than books like Tenth of December and writers like Saunders, so there's no need to reiterate it for the ten thousandth time
You're feeling embarrassed because you got caught out earlier here >>24674935 and you know it. It's okay. There's nothing you need to prove to me, yourself, or the other anons on this board

>>24675020
You’re clearly mentally ill. Let’s look at it this way. You can either admit you think Saunders is as good as the classics. Or you can admit he isn’t, and that you’ve been in agreement with me the whole time, but you still decided to shit up the board for no other reason than to soothe your fragile sense of self.

Whatever pretensions you think I have are not nearly as alarming as the insecurities that exude from your every reply. Pretending otherwise is pointless when people can read the thread and see you chimping out, even as you’re agreeing with me. Have some restraint before you embarrass yourself so thoroughly next time.

>>24675028
>oh yeah? oh yeah? well I'm gonna pretend that you said this retarded thing I just came up with
>no u! no u! no u! no u!
You have to be 18 to post here

>>24675043
Even here: >>24674764

Retardedly talking about the tripcode and agreeing with me on Saunders. Then switching back to arguing as if you weren’t just agreeing with what I had said to begin with. Are you bipolar?

>>24675049
For the third time, you're not a faggot because you think Saunders is worse than Joyce. I agree with you there
>quads of truth on Lincoln in the Bardo desu, it wasn't great and didn't deserve the praise.
You're a faggot because you can't recommend Saunders without anxiously assuring yourself and everyone that he's not comparable to the other writers mentioned in the thread. You say this here >>24671917
>Saunders falls flat compared to most of the writers mentioned ITT (and on this board in general)
and I make fun of you for it here
>You didn't add any nuance lmao you just said he's no Joyce or Hemingway. No shit.
You get upset over this, we have a back and forth, and then you say this
>Or maybe I’m prefacing my recommendation after other people right before me recommended Joyce and Melville.
Which is exactly the faggotry I'm talking about. You know this, and you feel embarrassed you that you fell for it so easily, which is why you're now fighting against something you're pretending I said/implied

>>24675080
>Uh I agree with you that its “patently obvious,” I just wrote 30 paragraphs for no reason
Every tragedy in your life is self-afflicted. If a mere recommendation is enough to send you spiraling like this, I can’t imagine how an actual problem would impact you. At the very least you are amusing to watch.

>>24675093
Which is it, anon? Are you so intelligent you can recognize what nobody else can -- that Herman Melville is better than George Saunders -- or are you legitimately so retarded that you can't understand English? This tack you're taking only works if you take one approach or the other. Trying to do both simultaneously makes you look even more retarded and embarrassed

>>24675108
Another pathetic attempt to mirror my language, because you’re at a loss for words. You know there was no real contention to justify such hilariously disproportionate vitriol. If only you learned how to stop projecting your insecurities onto others.

>>24675120
>say something retarded
>get told how retarded it is
>argue that it's not retarded for several replies
>put foot in mouth, get made fun of
>more retarded arguing
>realize mistake, invent a phantom to rail against
>get made fun of for that too
>realize second mistake
>pretend like you were always above it all anyway
This is what someone does when they know they were being retarded but can't admit it kek

>>24670894 (OP)
>short stories, neat!
>open thread
>nope.jpeg
Well that was efficient.

>>24675131
This line-by-line breakdown of your thought process in this thread was quite informative. I really don’t know why you would mention a book from 2013 when I said “decades,” but I’m glad you realized that was a mistake on your end.

You’ve wasted your time arguing over a statement I made that you thought was retarded, even though you agreed with it. I’m glad you realize how this is at best hypocritical, and at its worst a self-indictment that betrays an unhealthy predilection for self-loathing. I hope you can get over it.

>>24670894 (OP)
these look good

>>24675153
>This line-by-line breakdown of your thought process in this thread was quite informative.

>>24675164
>wojak on /lit/
I accept your concession.

>>24675175
No go back to doing the thing where you're acting smug over something you pretended I said, I liked those posts better

>>24675182
>something you pretended I said
>you're not a faggot because you think Saunders is worse than Joyce. I agree with you there:>>24675080
Imagine spending all your time arguing with someone you agree with. Talk about pseudery: you can’t even keep your own story straight without stumbling on your words. I don’t know how it goes on /mu/, but you don’t have to stay here now that you’ve conceded.

>>24675242
Yeah, that thing, can you keep doing that? Maybe if you do it enough you can get someone to agree with you and you won't feel so embarrassed

>>24675256
>Yeah that reply of mine you quoted isn’t me
Next level delusion. Probably the closest you’ll get to admitting you got BTFO. Besides of course responding with a wojak on a board about “involved discussions about literature,” hilarious.

>>24674395
Even if I only read him through English, Spanish and French translations I have no sufficiently emphatic words to convey how much he and his world mean to me. I go back to him regularly, not only as a kindred spirit but with the mounting awe once feels in presence of a master.

>>24675268
It might take a few more replies, so don't feel shy or inhibited or anything. Of course you're no Wilde, as we all know, having read Wilde, who is superior to you, which is obvious, of course, as we know

>>24675297
Of course Wilde is. And anyway, how is admitting to like an inferior author like Saunders an indication of pretension? You won’t respond to this materially, because you know it was all projection to begin with.

>>24675303
>Of course Wilde is.
You're saying you think you're as good as Wilde? Incredible delusion

>>24675347
>You won’t respond to this materially, because you know it was all projection to begin with.
You make this too easy.

>>24675355
You said you're just as good as Wilde right here >>24675303. Do you really think you're as good as Oscar Wilde? Is this entire carousel of you sperging out just a roundabout way of saying you think your posts are comparable to Oscar Wilde's witticisms?

>>24675372
I’m glad my words left such an impression on you. If you told me it would have been this easy to break your mind, I would have done so earlier.

Off the top of my head, Grace Paley, Haruki Murakami, O. Henry, and Raymond Carver all wrote pretty good short stories. I liked Italo Calvino's Invisible Cities, which is kind of a collection of related short stories or vignettes.

“The Weiner Man” by Tom Perrotta

A Swim in a Pond in the Rain, despite being hosted by /lit/'s apparent antichrist George Saunders, is a very good short story collection featuring some of the best of Chekhov, Gogol, and Tolstoy, and should definitely go on your tbr list. Say what you will about Saunders as a fiction writer, but as a teacher and guide he's very encouraging.

>>24670894 (OP)
Clark Ashton Smith

Paul Bowles - The Delicate Prey

>>24675372
>>24675384
Read this whole autistic argument and I’m not going to reply to every post you faggots made. But you’re both faggots. >>24675384 is a faggot for not just saying Saunders and for the whole fake smug bullshit, >>24675372 is a faggot for just generally acting like a faggot instead of moving on.

>>24676868
>Say what you will about Saunders as a fiction writer
Wow….why not just recommend Saunders? What’s with this qualifying statement? Say it with your chest man, this is /lit/ after all.

>>24677206
>Of course, Saunders is no Shakespeare...

>>24677901
It begins again…..