Thread 24692929

I'm like halfway through neuromancer at this point and this book fucking sucks dick. I've noticed something with these alleged classic books that started new genres, they all suck. Lord of the Rings is boring as hell. Neuromancer sucks dick. Starship Troopers was literally just Heinlein shitting out half assed political theories (which he completely contradicts in Stranger in a Strange Land, a gay hippie fantasy). All of these so called classics are garbage. And no, it's not just because I don't like the genres they created or whatever. There's plenty of sci-fi and fantasy books I do like. But most of the classics seem pretty bad.

>>24692929 (OP)
You sound like a woman yet you write like a man. A troubling sight to be sure. At least tell us about your favorite books in the genre OP, what set them appart from the classics?

I personally thinks sci-fy classics like City by Simak (could be said to pioneer the Pastoral scify genre) is beautiful because of the future it imagines. Its an exercise of pure imagination.

>>24692929 (OP)
I read about half of Neuromancer and dropped it
Idk why people praise it so much. I'd rather read some Phillip K Dick or Isaac Asimov

I also got bored and stopped reading Neuromancer.
I’m sure it was cool when it came it out

>>24692929 (OP)
I got bored of reading OP halfway through. Does it get better in the end?

>>24692929 (OP)
>Lord of the Rings is boring as hell
It's not a book that actively goes out of it;s way to keep you entertained. If that filters you then it's your own fault that you don't know how to read. There are countless slow burn books out there, both classics and new works, and both the general public and critics find a lot of them very good.

>Neuromancer sucks dick
It is objectively poorly written, but it's aesthetics are extremely powerful and original. If you can't appreciate that then it's your own fault that you don't know how to read.

>Starship Troopers was literally just Heinlein shitting out half assed political theories
Correct. That's half of what makes it memorable. Not the quality of the expressed political theories, which are not half-assed as you said, they are rather straight up full complete ass. ST are based for how blatantly and boldly young dumbass Heinlein uses his overall decent and functional plot and original scifi world to just straight up scream his political power fantasy at your face. Few people have the balls to be so authentic about it.

>he completely contradicts in Stranger in a Strange Land
The only thing consisten about Heinlein is that redheads always made his peepee hard. Dude was a convert zealot of a new ideology every weekend. Also based.

>There's plenty of sci-fi and fantasy books I do like.
Name 5.

>>24693301
>Name five
Book of the New Sun
Dune (first 3 books)
The entire Dying Earth series
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep
A Scanner Darkly
The Foundation series
Roadside Picnic

It's more than five but whatever

>>24693301
>ST are based for how blatantly and boldly young dumbass Heinlein uses his overall decent and functional plot and original scifi world to just straight up scream his political power fantasy at your face. Few people have the balls to be so authentic about it.

>If that filters you then it's your own fault that you don't know how to read.
>If you can't appreciate that then it's your own fault that you don't know how to read.

could you possibly be any more of a pretentious fag

>>24693526
It is pretentious (not to an unreasonable degree, IMO) but it is not r*ddit. Gatekeeping like that anon did is not heckin wholesome chungus enough for r*ddit.

neuromancer is a "you had to be there" book that's basically nonsense to anybody that wasn't alive in the 80s/90s but if you can't figure out the timeless appeal of lotr then i'm afraid it's over for you

>>24693541
Perhaps anon, perhaps. I will make a small concession- it's possible that the books were ruined for me by the movies, and general overexposure to derivative works. So much fantasy slop is based on Tolkien that the world was very uninteresting to me. All the archetypes with the heckin beautiful ancient elves and the stinky orcs and the greedy dwarves all just felt like shit I'd seen a billion times by the time I actually got to read it

>>24693553
>Reading Tolkien for the fantasyland archetypes and worldbuilding

>>24693514
The Foundation is written objectively worse than Neuromancer tho.

>>24693553
>it's possible that the books were ruined for me by the movies, and general overexposure to derivative works. So much fantasy slop is based on Tolkien
Anon, in case you haven't noticed, you named Herbert, Asimov and Dick among your favorites. Show at least some self awareness.

>>24693553
>All the archetypes with the heckin beautiful ancient elves and the stinky orcs and the greedy dwarves all just felt like shit I'd seen a billion times
...you mean the archetypes that Lotr basically invented?

>>24694436
Yes thats the point

>>24694435
Whats your point

Listen maybe I didn't make it clear enough. I acknowledge you guys are probably right about Tolkien, LotR is probably a good series if you haven't already had it ruined by the movies and LotR derivatives (basically all fantasy). But I still think neuromancer, starship troopers, and also things like Ringworld (ringworld was HORRIBLE) suck.

Welcome to classics in every genre. They’re always polarising, you just have to make up your own mind.
Kafka is a depressed whiny faggot, Marquez has brain worms and the bible is Jewish schizophrenia with a veneer of myth yet all 3 are on /lit/‘s top 100.

>>24694900
Try C.J. Cherryh

>>24696157
She does high fantasy and hard science fiction better than any of the so-called "masters" of those genres, has unbelievably strong characterization, unparalleled worldbuilding, actually really interesting and creative stories, and always writes strong endings. She's a smart lady.

>>24692929 (OP)
>All of these so called classics are garbage. And no, it's not just because I don't like the genres they created or whatever. There's plenty of sci-fi and fantasy books I do like. But most of the classics seem pretty bad.
most of them are objectively bad (no real point in denying this) but starkly delineated the genre's boundaries, aims, and possibilities

>>24696162
>furries
How much yiffing is there?

>>24696165
Whoops, out of order. This is a duology about people left behind on an alien planet to colonize it, but their resupply ships never come, so they revert back to a much more primitive level of civilization, but they have another huge problem: the animals on this planet have psychic powers and many of them are ravenous predators who can play lots of nasty tricks on people's minds, forcing most people to stay hidden in walled cities. But the strongest animals in the psychic ecosystem are sort of a lot like horses . . . and some of them really enjoy forming psychic bonds with certain humans, called Riders, who can ride the horses through the wilderness and scare lesser predators away long enough for regular humans to extract and transport metals, lumber, and other necessities to sustain themselves. People need the Riders to survive, but they also inherently distrust them for spending so much time in the wilderness.

It's fucking rad.

>>24694875
>Whats your point
Those authors have orders of magnitude more influence on cinema and other popular media than Gibson or Tolkien. There are six Bladerunners on screen and five screen adaptations of Dune, plus seven video games for the latter, and more of it all in the works. LoTR has one live action adaptation and one cartoon. Neuromancer was never adapted.

>>24696210
Not as much as I would like, actually.

No sex scenes, but some romance, only between characters of the same species. It's not furry smut, and I say that as someone who wishes it was. There are scenarios that you could perhaps re-imagine in your own mind to make them smuttier than they are . . .

>>24696157
>>24696162
>>24696165
>>24696243
>>24696250
Fuck off Cherryh is legit trash.

>It's not furry smut, and I say that as someone who wishes it was.
QED

>>24696247
Six bladerunners? Aren't there only two? The difference is that those movies don't follow the exact events of the books like LotR and The Hobbit do.
I've never seen any of the Dune movies, so maybe the books would be boring to me if I had.
>seven video games for the latter, and more of it all in the works. LoTR has one live action adaptation and one cartoon
Now you're just being disingenuous. Are you really pretending not to know about the many LotR games out there? Do I need to list them?

>>24696247
Also I wasn't talking about neuromancer when I made that post. Neuromancer is simply shit, it has nothing to do with derivatives or adaptations. That would have been a disingenuous argument too since there's an entire subculture called cyberpunk, a game by the same name that references things from the book, ect

>>24696286
>Neuromancer is simply shit
Filtered desu.

fag