Thread 24695765

Do you agree a major book has to digest for 1+ year before you can have an actual real opinion on it?

>>24695765 (OP)
Kek, that's an embarrassing opinion. How slow is this guy's mind, how limited is his frame of reference, that it takes him multiple years to come to an opinion about a McCarthy book? I hope he's being ironic.

I loved The Passenger.

>>24695765 (OP)
I usually form my opinion on a book within the first quarter of it. You shouldn’t need a year to form an opinion on a book, unless it’s extremely complex. Certainly not the passenger, one of McCarthy’s worst.

A year after I have read a book, I’ve forgotten 90% of it (at the very least), so no, makes no sense. I only retain more than 10% if I form reflections on the the material, otherwise my brain fails to register them as relevant data

Opinion on a book should be formed as you read it, if you expect it to leave a lasting impression

>>24695788
That’s what I was thinking. I could understand Blood Meridian or even The Crossing. Those are probably the only novels where McCarthy blatantly outlines his vision. But the Passenger…..

Is Lawton a pseud?

>>24695765 (OP)
more like 1 page

>>24695765 (OP)
/lit/izens are too insecure to read anything written in the last twenty years so whether they'd like to admit it or not they're even worse than this guy.

>>24695765 (OP)
If it's genre slop, no

not necessarily, but honestly a lot of the time is can take weeks for me to digest something, then a second read through to truly 100% appreciate

there have indeed been times when i've left a book feeling disappointment, or at least uncertain/unsatisfied, only to come back and love it after mulling it over in my head for a few weeks

>>24695765 (OP)
>>24695836
>Is Lawton a pseud?
>A long book by a MAJOR writer demands...
He admits to, borderline brags about, judging books by the fame of their author and not on their own merit, so, I'd say yeah, absolutely.

>>24696012
Some books you immediately love. Some books you immediately hate. But the best kind are the ones you have a complex relationship with. The ones you grow to acknowledge, or even love.
That said, the twitter tranny OP is quoting is a fag. You WANT to form an opinion early to see how it evolves over time.

>>24695765 (OP)
He couldnt crowdsource his opinion yet so he had to defer it until consensus was established

John Cowboy dives into deep sea at dead of night. One passenger missing from submerged plane and yet how. X-Files theme plays.

Alice in Lalaland talks to Machine Elf Billy. He talks plain nonsense, occasionally summons his infernal buddies for looney tunes vaudevilles.

John Western walks around a lot, goes to bars, talks to his buds. Witty dialogue, erudite references. Sheridan was the cool guy's name I think.

CIA guys after John. Or was it FBI. Brief mention of aliens. John drifts from place to place, fleeing his persecutors. Keeps talking to people at bars. Long dialogues, colorful characters. That one guy in the filthy trailer with the obese girlfriend.

Alice talks to ghost midget. Names renowned mathematicians. Works on her math shit. Midget bumbles around, babbles nonstop.

The gold in the basement. The logistics involved. Scifi mystery never resolved. John wanders aimlessly. A McCarthy novel after all. The implied incest. Or outright stated. And so on.

What determines whether a writer is major or not?

Have you guys listened to his most recent podcast? This dude is a major faggot. He was joking about fascists/nazis very casually there. I wonder why he threw a shitfit on plebbit over le heckin nazi website 4chan.

>>24696805
>"/lit/ is full of anti semitic nazis"
>is currently translating an anti semitic nazi
hmm

>>24695765 (OP)
he is just waiting for the crowd to decide if its problematic before he utters any judgment, wise

>>24695765 (OP)
Max Daniel Lawton's protracted literary meditations should be encouraged if only because it's a good idea to keep someone with that 'stache engrossed in books instead of letting him walk around school playgrounds.

>>24695765 (OP)
Waiting a year at least gets a review over initial hype / publisher interference / the online mob. As intuited by this homo >>24696855
>>24695813
If a year later you're still thinking about it, that's a good time to skim it again and review it.

>>24695765 (OP)
You simply have to understand it well enough, which takes however long it takes

the thalidomide kid tho

>>24695836
Just look at his pfp

>>24695765 (OP)
No, that's retarded. You have an opinion even before you start reading it. You might well recognize it's still subject to change, but to pretend you don't have one is cowardice, a pretense simply to avoid having your beliefs scrutinized.

>Oh lawd dem digested books!
I can have an opinion whenever I want. And then as I think more about it I can refine and change my opinion. Fuck this pseud. What does he do? Just navel gaze for years and then pompously announce his final opinion?

>>24696994
Nah you either have a good experience with it or you don't. Have you ever actually changed your mind about a work that you hated after someone explained to you why you should like it?

skill issue. my opinion is formed 1+ year before I read a book. in fact, why would I even read a book if I didn't know it was good?

>lawton has to shill on lit to generate interest for shittyfroh
how the kiky have fallen

>>24695765 (OP)
An opinion is formed by one's experiences with the book, and one's experience with the book is a synthesis of the book's content with the reader's present context. No experience stays the same and therefore no opinion stays the same. It's why people re-read Moby Dick and feel like they just finished a different book. It's why opinions change between the first chapter to the last, and all the plot twists and epiphanies that come with it. So no, you don't need a year to form an opinion because an opinion's life cycle ends the moment you thought about it. It only lives on as a memory; its accuracy has long been gone, turned into a memorial to be aggregated into your new context for the next book you'll read

>>24695765 (OP)
"Fascinating. No opinion on it."
But that's an opinion.

>>24697209
NTA but, if the book is easy-reading slop, then no.
But some books (especially nonfiction) don't always explain the basic foundation from where I should start. I'll give an example: Shaybani's law of international relations, published as "The Islamic Law of Nations". When I first read this I didn't understand it, because I was new to the field. Then I read Bernard Lewis' book "Political Language of Islam". When I went back to Shaybani, now I understood it.

Lawton is a huge faggot who cares what he thinks

>>24697439
Based postmodern-reader

Lawton is in a huge fucking pile of shit. Considering how much he boasts or has retarded opinions, his novel better be really fucking good otherwise it is going to be a brutal awakening for him.

No, such a opinion is just engagement bait.

Which is why you posted it here, only unlike them you did it for free.
So lame.

>>24695766
You have never read a book properly.

>>24698731
>engagement bait.
>42 likes from 2022
Ok Lawton

>>24698754
We're not all as slow as you anon.

>>24695765 (OP)
Bro holy fuck McCarthy’s been dead for two years. Where did the time go?

I believe it takes exactly four hundred thirty nine days.