|
Flann O'Brien can get considerably more difficult if you're not a native English speaker. I know I really struggled w/ it. Then again, my ex-colleague once explained me a joke from one of Flann's books for like five minutes, and at no point it came close to being funny, so maybe it's just my brain that's broken. Also, my copy of At Swim-Two Birds had a tiny font and the words were running together at some points.
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 07:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 07:32 |
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:All the Followed by Gabriel Urza Thanks. Last year?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 07:48
|
|
|
As far as translated books published in English, the two main prizes to look into are Man Booker International Prize (formerly Independent Foreign Fiction Prize as International Booker was author-only prize) for more straightforward 'literary fiction' - i.e., like the regular Man Booker or Pulitzer -, or Best Translated Book Award (for prose - they also have poetry award) for generally more daring and experimental stuff. There are exceptions, of course. I do recommend going through shortlists instead of just jumping straight to winners to see if anything seems particularly interesting to you there, as winners often are chosen as a comprmise, I guess. Both awards have recently announced their shortlists for this year, by the way, so you can check those out. BTBA: https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/98879.Best_Translated_Book_Award_Fiction_Shortlist_2016 MBIP: https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/98800.Man_Booker_International_Prize_Shortlist_2016
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 11:11
|
|
|
It's cool that people are talking about Agualusa
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 11:15
|
|
|
Burning Rain posted:As far as translated books published in English, the two main prizes to look into are Man Booker International Prize (formerly Independent Foreign Fiction Prize as International Booker was author-only prize) for more straightforward 'literary fiction' - i.e., like the regular Man Booker or Pulitzer -, or Best Translated Book Award (for prose - they also have poetry award) for generally more daring and experimental stuff. There are exceptions, of course. This is relevant to my interests. Thank you. And please stop trying to turn the ONE non-SF/F thread in this forum into a sci-fi discussion. I refrain from talking about Gene Wolfe and Sam Delany here, you should be able to stop yourself from typing the words 'Piers Anthony', jesus loving christ.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 13:59
|
|
|
Popular Human posted:This is relevant to my interests. Thank you. You have like 10 posts in this thread, gently caress off My favorite science fiction book is the Time Traveler's Wife. That book is so good
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 14:03
|
|
|
beergod posted:Thanks. Last year? Fourth of July Creek by Smith Henderson The Cold Song by Linn Ullmann Lila by Marilynne Robinson All the Birds, Singing by Evie Wyld A Girl is a Half-Formed Thing by Eimear McBride Land of Love and Drowning by Tiphanie Yanique The Kept by James Scott This Dark Road to Mercy by Wiley Cash
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 14:17
|
|
|
Lmao there's an author called Wiley Cash and he's a white american dude
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 14:24
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Lila by Marilynne Robinson How does this book work if a) you haven't read any of the other Gilead books and b) you don't care for fiction primarily centered around religion
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 14:53
|
|
|
blue squares posted:You have like 10 posts in this thread, gently caress off if we study your posts in this thread, we find an inverse relationship between number of posts and quality of posts. boom. roasted and toasted. The only literary prize I follow is the Nobel. There are so many important works that I haven't gotten around to that are like probably way more enriching or culturally significant than whatever won the Prix Goncourt or the Man Booker or whatever. Like would it be better for u to read Pilgrim's Progress or A Visit from the Goon Squat? There was an extremely short period in my life where I thought it would be cool to keep up with lots of book prizes. I did some cross referencing to see what books from the past several years won lots of prizes, and that Hilary Mantel book Wolf Hall won lots, so I read it, guess what it's not very good. But if you just follow the Nobel, then you only have to read like 2 new books every year to get a good feel for the winner's style and like have some skin in the game, and then you can go back to reading Pessoa or Borges or Bolano or whatever is kool & spiritually enriching.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 15:14
|
|
|
Reading new books is an epic fail
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 15:26
|
|
|
I agree that most stuff that goes up for contemporary literature prizes is awful middle-class divorce genre fiction, but Wolf Hall is phenomenal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 15:30
|
|
|
peanut- posted:I agree that most stuff that goes up for contemporary literature prizes is awful middle-class divorce genre fiction, but Wolf Hall is phenomenal. Enough people keep saying this that I'm thinking I might have to pick it up, despite the fact it really really doesn't seem to be the kind of book I'd like.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
Ras Het posted:Reading new books is an epic fail Ras het must be Latin for really stupid opinions posted in this thread
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
Ras Het posted:Reading new books is an epic fail actually it is the opposite! david crosby posted:The only literary prize I follow is the Nobel. There are so many important works that I haven't gotten around to that are like probably way more enriching or culturally significant than whatever won the Prix Goncourt or the Man Booker or whatever. Like would it be better for u to read Pilgrim's Progress or A Visit from the Goon Squat? The reason I like modern fiction is because classic literature has already been dissected and prepared. Its impossible to read Shakespeare, for example, without being influenced by 400 years of critical and cultural commentary. I find it hard to have a perspective on that kind of fiction I can call "my own" because I am not interacting directly with the text as much as I am interacting with other readings of the text. That is not an issue with contemporary lit. blue squares posted:How does this book work if a) you haven't read any of the other Gilead books and b) you don't care for fiction primarily centered around religion Gilead is the best novel of the 21st century and gently caress you rear end in a top hat read it. You can skip Home though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 15:53
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:actually it is the opposite! For me, it's because I live in a very different world than the authors of classic literature. I want to read artists commenting on life as it is today. I know many things about being human are timeless, but I just find art that engages with contemporary life directly to be much more interesting and rewarding.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
Saying you wouldn't like Gilead because you don't like books about religion is like saying you wouldn't like Gravity's Rainbow because you don't like books about war.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
Calm down, I'll read it this summer
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
I only read the second part Bring Up the Bodies, because I could get that for free, and it was A Good Book. A very well written and evocative historical fiction that explores the power mechanisms inan ineteresting way, but not much more than taht. If that's the greatest work of literature of recent years the isles have to offer, I do hope people will switch to translated stuff. That actually ties in with my interest in contemporary international lit. prizes: I follow them not necessarily because I think that there's a progression in literature, and books of 2015 are 40% better than books of 1957, but because I'm interested in new & different approaches to prose. Reading and re-reading Borges and Pessoa and Mantel, even if they're kool & good, would get me bored stiff. Scanning any shortlist - or especially longlist - of any BTBA, i find more stuff that seems interesting to me than most of the other stuff that you see in bookshops and online discussions, which is why I post about them here. Another plus is that intenratainal book prizes are different from regular Booker or Goncourt, or Pulitzer in that the books (or authors) generally tend to be a best-of selection of the last few decades of writing around the globe, as it takes time (and several failed attempts, usually) for books to filter through to publishers and make their way to English-language market. It's simply more likely that there are more great books among the global attempts of the last few decades than any particular year in any particular country or language. And if I find one, I do get excited - if nothing else, it's because it feels a bit silly to go around telling people, wow, I just read this Bolano dude, he's really good, you should check him out. serious posting in erious lit thread like a gangsta Burning Rain fucked around with this message at 16:14 on Apr 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
Is "intenratainal" a word? I don't feel like looking it up. It sorta looks like it could be one
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
I don't read modern American Literature because it seems to be almost entirely about poo poo I don't care about 
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 16:25
|
|
|
I really want to read The Dying Grass but it is an intimidating book. Long and difficult to understand. The Washington Post calls it the reading experience of a lifetime, but that may be because that's how long it takes to get through it
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
blue squares posted:Calm down no!
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
blue squares posted:I really want to read The Dying Grass but it is an intimidating book. Long and difficult to understand. The Washington Post calls it the reading experience of a lifetime, but that may be because that's how long it takes to get through it lol i looked it up and saw "1,356pp." and thought it was some weird thing like volume 1. 356 pages  prob still try to read it though
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
TheQat posted:lol i looked it up and saw "1,356pp." and thought it was some weird thing like volume 1. 356 pages No has ever accused Vollman of being concise
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
Ras Het posted:Reading new books is an epic fail This, ftw. If a new author is actually good, then ppl with good taste will talk about him/her and I'll get 2 it that way. Examples: Bolaņo, krasnahorkai (Idk how to spell it)
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
blue squares posted:Is "intenratainal" a word? I don't feel like looking it up. It sorta looks like it could be one it should be one
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
There should be a separate thread for the stupid people to talk about bad contemporary books about middle aged people dealing with the fact that rural America is a metaphor for the emptiness of their soul and this thread can be kept for the good posters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 16:32
|
|
|
david crosby posted:This, ftw. If a new author is actually good, then ppl with good taste will talk about him/her and I'll get 2 it that way. Examples: Bolaņo, krasnahorkai (Idk how to spell it) gently caress Roberto Baloney
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 16:33
|
|
|
CestMoi posted:There should be a separate thread for the stupid people to talk about bad contemporary books about middle aged people dealing with the fact that rural America is a metaphor for the emptiness of their soul and this thread can be kept for the good posters. so where would you go?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
CestMoi posted:There should be a separate thread for the stupid people to talk about bad contemporary books about middle aged people dealing with the fact that rural America is a metaphor for the emptiness of their soul and this thread can be kept for the good posters. The phiz book thread has a long track record of driving out americanbookdudes
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
blue squares posted:I really want to read The Dying Grass but it is an intimidating book. Long and difficult to understand. The Washington Post calls it the reading experience of a lifetime, but that may be because that's how long it takes to get through it I love Vollmann, but I read the first few vignettes and put it aside for a time in the future when I have no serious obligations for like a month. Which means I'll likely not pick it up again.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
I wish I were a good poster. At least I can properly employ the subjunctive.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
Burning Rain posted:And if I find one, I do get excited - if nothing else, it's because it feels a bit silly to go around telling people, wow, I just read this Bolano dude, he's really good, you should check him out. Why is that silly? I still get excited about Beethoven, Schubert, and Morbid Angel, why should I feel self conscious when making conversation about Art I Enjoy? even if it is old.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
That s true in some way: I've certainly had some interesting conversations about Don Quixote or w/e, but it's less likely you'll sell reading Cervantes to some guy or girl who haven't read him yet. Your voice would be just one of a million saying that this book is great. And it feels great to recommend an book to somebody you know is a big reader, and have him coming back to say: wow, that really was great, I'd never known about it. I mean, generally ppl don't read literature anyway, so it doesn't matter, but in this thread or other places where ppl are better read, I'd rather talk about something I've enjoyed that I haven't seen discussed as much before rather than saying, Pynchon is really cool, eh? it doesn't mean you shouldn't post about the big names, because it is real lit and all, but it generally doesn't get me going, ya know. With all these convos about McCarthy or DeLillo or w/e I feel like I'm at a party where some dude comes up to you and starts telling that you really should listen to Pink Floyd, man, it'd really blow your mind. I nod and we talk about favourite songs, but the odds are we've had this same convo a hundred times before, and it's not terribly exciting unless you've also only listened to them recently (which can be the case on SA and elsewhere) - or you are high, which is why there should be an automatic probation given to anybody who posts in this thread sober.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:The reason I like modern fiction is because classic literature has already been dissected and prepared. Its impossible to read Shakespeare, for example, without being influenced by 400 years of critical and cultural commentary. I find it hard to have a perspective on that kind of fiction I can call "my own" because I am not interacting directly with the text as much as I am interacting with other readings of the text.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
i bought a copy of Mason & Dixon a while back and i keep looking at it thinking i wanna read that but the missus bought me a kindle for my birthday and i cant be bothered to open real books anymore
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
What if Scribbler Moon is homage to Ernest Cline and Jim Butcher, designed to own all sci-fi haters of the future who have canonised Atwood. "Gotcha,LUL" We'll never even know mallamp fucked around with this message at 19:52 on Apr 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
Bandiet posted:Not all old lit is "classic." Of course if you like analyzing a work on your own you would not have much fun with the most famous writer in history. But there is also 400 years of lesser known fiction written after Shakespeare, and unlike contemporary fiction, you wouldn't be going in on it blind of its quality ok but why bother hunting down 400 year old books no one gave a poo poo about
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 07:32 |
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:ok but why bother hunting down 400 year old books no one gave a poo poo about "Well, I can certainly see why this didn't stand the test of time" * throws old rear end book into open trash can fire immediately after finishing it *
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 19:54
|
|
