>buy pic related. >expect a fast paced thriller with some psychological elements, good guy wins, the end

>buy pic related
>expect a fast paced thriller with some psychological elements, good guy wins, the end
>it's a proto-American Psycho-esque satire against the rich

  1. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Is this the one where the white chick cucks her boyfriend with a black bull? Or is that The Magus?

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Rent fucking free.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >t. hasn't read The Magus
        ok pseud, sorry you get triggered by a literal plot point of the novel

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          >be frogposter
          >get called out
          >furiously google "The Magus plot"
          >skim the wikipedia page
          >realize you are the pseud and you were wrong
          >start fuming
          >trying to think of comebacks in the shower
          >pic rel
          >it's you

          I rest my case.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        That literally happens in The Magus, you homosexual

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      no, this is the one where the lonely guy wins the lottery and kidnaps this girl he's obsessed with.
      Is The Magus any good? I'm on the fence about reading it

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Fowles is an amazing author. You should read all his books. He actually understands what postmodernism should do in a literary work, unlike Pynchon or the other American pomo retards LULZ shills.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          >postmodernism
          this is a can of worms, but what exactly is postmodernism? i've read that part of it is intertextuality but i'm certain there's much more to it than that
          I'll be sure to check out The Magus, I really like The Collector even though the second half can be boring at times (though thematically it makes sense)

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Literary postmodernism is essentially authors who exploit the tools of criticism for literary purposes. It renders their work largely impossible to analyze by any single school of criticism/theory, you analyze them on their terms or accept being filtered. The vast majority of post modern writers outline how you should analyze their work in the early part of the novel, essentially reading them is like reading a veiled essay on criticism, introduction outlines the analytical method, the bulk is exploring that method and the conclusion is where it differs, they tend to just open a can of worms and say "i taught you how to analyze it and now it is up to you."

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              I think this problem goes deeper than that. The problem isn't that authors are intentionally making their meaning obscure, it's that in a postmodernist landscape they will inevitably be obscure/impenetrable without assistance since we all speak a different language and operate in totally different frameworks.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                It is not a problem and it does not go deeper. Postmodern lit rarely preaches, just points. Their view would be that it is not their job to define or validate or invalidate your ideology, you need to think for yourself. They will say "here is this really interesting and complex problem in the world that everyone agrees is a problem in some way or another, lets explore it" they will not say "here is this problem and what I think about it, if you disagree than you are wrong and evil." If postmodern lit has any over reaching point that defines the entire movement it is that the reader is accountable for themselves and needs to draw their own conclusions, they will offer insight and various perspective but they are not your parent and you are not their child.

                tldr; grow up.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                so, just to make sure I'm getting it, postmodern lit is more subjective and vague with it's meaning and themes? a book like the collector would be vastly different from say moby dick or something in that moby dick wasn't written in that subjective and vague way? But one can still view a book like moby dick through a post modern lense? Unless moby dick is actually a post modern book lol

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                No, not even remotely close and you ignored the full context so you could meme, I said nothing regarding subjectivity and subjectivity has nothing to do with this. Almost all if not all schools of criticism allow for subjectivity and criticism is not writing. You absolutely can analyze Moby Dick through post modernism and I bet many have, it lends itself well to a wide variety of analytical methods and this is true of most works which stand the test of time with the post modernists being the exception since they used the tools of criticism against the critics if you will (really they were just theory and criticism geeks having fun with it).

                But as I said, criticism is not writing and as I also said the post modern writers exploited the tools of criticism, they were the first to do this to any real extent so Moby Dick would absolutely not be post modern.

                You seem to be missing the very simple fact that only a small minority of writers write to a specific school of criticism or theory and most which do are very niche. The modernists are not writers who all wrote towards the same end, they are just a group of writers who mostly can be reasonably analyzed through the lens of the modernist school of theory and criticism. There is some influence on writers by theory and criticism and writers have some influence on theory and criticism but they are almost completely distinct and separate things, with exception of the post modernist.

                You might be stupid.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >You might be stupid.
                no argument from me lmao. most of that was Greek to me. theory goes straight over my head

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                In your defense, the concept of “postmodernism” is more a darling of clever literary critics wanting to sum up sometimes wildly differing authors under one large banner, than it is something obsessively defined and catalogued by the authors themselves.

                It’s necessary for academics and critics to be able to endlessly go on making up clever names of schools of thought or terminology for certain tropes and devices of literature, or they’d go out of a job, but it’s doubtable many great writers are sitting there consciously going, “I want to make this work about skepticism of metanarratives”, instead of just having absorbed certain moods and attitudes from the underlying Weltanschauung
                of their culture. DeLillo, Barthelme, Pynchon and Fowles can all be classified as “postmodern” but the experience of reading any of them is wildly different.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                kek
                This is quite the ironic little twist.
                >Postmodern lit rarely preaches, just points
                I'm not preaching, I'm pointing.
                I'm not happy about this, nor do I wish for this to be the case, but it simply is.
                But you are preaching.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              In a sense, postmodernism is “old” — or, rather, aspects of it (such as the device of metafiction specifically) have always been in literature. Don Quixote, sometimes Shakespeare as in Hamlet (the play-within-the-play, the ambiguity over how much Hamlet is feigning madness or actually sometimes going mad), and, of course, Tristram Shandy.

              “The Magus” is a work that takes these precedents to a gloriously convoluted level yet while never losing the sense of “what a novel should be” (a really vague cop-out, admittedly, reducible, like pornography/obscenity in the famous court ruling, to “I know it when I see it”). It’d be cool if there were more threads on it. Conchis can simultaneously be taken (and also simultaneously NOT be taken, as Fowles/Conchis are adept enough to allude to and then point holes in these conceptions) as God (the original title of it was “The Godgame”), the author himself in relation to their characters, similarly Prospero/Shakespeare in The Tempest, a new type of director of a new type of experimental play where the actors and audience are one, and/or what the title suggests (a “magus,” a Crowley/Blavatsky/Gurdjieff-like figure who blends the lines between fraudulence, and authentic wonder/mystery/possession of some type of occult knowledge).

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >In a sense, postmodernism is “old” — or, rather, aspects of it
                Same as all literature. Post modernism did not introduce any new literary devices, it just used them differently. Metafiction, pastiche, black humor, intertextuality, stream of consciousness, free indirect speech, etc, the pieces had all be around for a good long while by the time they showed up.

                >You might be stupid.
                no argument from me lmao. most of that was Greek to me. theory goes straight over my head

                Lit theory is no different than theory in science, the theorists come up with all kinds of ideas and some of them the scientist (the writer) take and put into use but most are ignored, the scientists for the most part are pragmatic and rely on established practices, just work through it all on their own. Criticism is the peer review journals, they critique the execution of theory and practice by the scientists, draw conclusions based on what was learned, and suggest new theories which the theorists may run with. Post modernism is just the theorists saying fuck the writers (scientists) and putting all their ideas into practice to see what happens for themselves. The reader becomes the critic and completes the trinity. In some ways post modernism is less subjective than other literary movements.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      The one with the cuck is the magus. The woman fucks a negro.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      She was not his girlfriend and she was working for the greek dude.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        this one
        he wanted to teach the young man that the same woman he put on a pedestal was just some nagger's rape meat
        i'm looking at you, america

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      What?

  2. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >be frogposter
    >get called out
    >furiously google "The Magus plot"
    >skim the wikipedia page
    >realize you are the pseud and you were wrong
    >start fuming
    >trying to think of comebacks in the shower
    >pic rel
    >it's you

  3. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >No, I didn't get owned your honor!
    >I
    >REST
    >MY
    >CASE

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >expects genre fiction from fowles
      feeling better about the American education system.

      He was calling a plot fag. Sometimes frogposters get it right.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >feeling better about the American education system.
        lol. i'd heard collector touted as the first thriller so i guess i expected more of that genre vein

  4. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >>it's a proto-American Psycho-esque satire against the rich
    Inaccurate statement. It addresses class disparity as a theme but it is not at all satire or like American Psycho

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >class disparity as a theme
      In the context of 70s England from the perspectives of a female college student and a working class incel

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      I'll admit i may be reading into it too much and letting my own biases impact me.
      My whole "fuck rich people" reading of it comes from Miranda constantly bitching and moaning about how Frederick is this simpleton who doesn't honestly care about her pretentious art bullshit; she hates the fact that he's not like her class of people almost more so than the fact that he's a psycho. The girl's been kidnapped and she's concerned with the fact that he doesn't understand Catcher in the Rye or Goya? Really? THAT'S her big fucking problem 90% of the time?
      The more you read about what she thinks and how she's like I realize she's completely up her own ass. There's a journal entry where she bitches about "new people" being poor and stupid who don't get or care about art.
      >"I hate all ordinary dull little people who aren't ashamed of being dull and little."
      It's like she doesn't get that for all those stupid poor people, that shit means a lot to them because they've never had it. Frederick even says "She'll never understand that it was just about having" and that to him it didn't matter how she acted or what she did just that he had the security of keeping her.

      Miranda is the vapid stuffy rich who think so highly of themselves because they're above people and "do real things" like stand for political causes (which she even admits was only for her own self respect and not because she thought there'd be any change). Frederick is the poor that just want some security and don't really care for high society political/artistic shit because they know it doesn't fucking matter. Although my theory does kind of go to shit because Frederic collects butterflies, but he doesn't seem to put it on a pedestal like Miranda does with that fucking dumb pretentious drunk GP

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Maybe I'm a retard who didn't get it, but I think you just dunked on Fowles. My impression from lines about his collection obsession like (going from memory so the lines will be butchered and simplified)
        >when you collect things you are killing them and appreciating ownership over the dead object rather than the alive being
        Was a critique of people who don't appreciate life and instead worship dead objects that they have dominion over.
        I think that Miranda was a vapid cunt because Fowles went to the As Good as it Gets school of how to write women.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        and iirc (it's been years since I've read it) she realizes how hollow a lot of aspects of her 'free life' were, but those were the materialist aspects. Maybe I'm misremembering, it's a bit fuzzy.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        You aren't wrong but you're overreacting to what Fowles was trying to do. Yes he's exploring themes of class as one element of his novel, but he's doing it through the storytelling lens of the socio-sexual dynamics between a posh girl and a resentful sociopath. It's a brilliant portrait of a delusional 19 or 20 y/o college girl who barely knows anything about the world and is getting swept up in the political causes of the day. It's more about the characters than it is about the issues.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          so the book's more about the opposing forces of the characters as a whole, not just the class thing? I think I kinda took that for granted because the situation would naturally have that type of dichotomy imo

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            I think so, it's mostly about the characters, especially Miranda. I don't see it as a satement that her beliefs and worldview are correct. The thing is, everything the protag stands for is undercut by what he's done and especially the ending which I would say cements his evilness whereas up to that point you could understand him to some extent.
            But is Miranda right and good? No she's ignorant, she's gullible, she's a fool. She is completely unable to really understand the protag, not that she has to, but it could have saved her life possibly and she makes almost the worst decisions she could have made.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              >I don't see it as a satement that her beliefs and worldview are correct.
              i don't either, i just thought the point in the book was to make fun of her beliefs and point out how vapid and stupid they are, as well as how rich can be in general

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                My bad I lost the thread a little but it goes both ways I think we're supposed to sympathy with her too imo

  5. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Is the French Lieutenant’s Woman a good read?

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Read it and find out,

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *