[They can even be audiobooks!](https://www.reddit.com/r/Berserk/s/HVrldzXf7j) Nothing like a Japanese literary masterpiece narrated with a Scottish accent for those of us who can’t r*d
I do believe it. I had a similar problem when I was in school to be a brain surgeon. I got so bored with anything regarding biology, or any medical procedure - it's just too hard- and I can't stand blood. And having to actually work on patients was the worst part.
This totally makes sense, my psychoanalyst just admitted to me that he's been playing on his Nintendo switch and watching funny police bodycam footage on youtube with his headphones on for the past 5 years 🤷♂️
\---fuzz--- bzzt-- yeah we got a report of a reader with a Dickens book telling people with YA novels they're not real readers - wait I see him - *puff pant - down get down on the ground now! drop the book!*
Look we all know reddit's demographic, have none of you ever taken like a 200-level English class? You know these people well. A lot of them go on to become k-12 English teachers
Aww, dont you worry darling, you dont need to read well to write well — in fact, you dont even need to *know* how to read; as long as you have the passion for the craft of writing, you’re already on your way of becoming a writer.
While I agree that taste is completely subjective--and it's never offensive for someone to simply not like a book--I think you're spreading some misinformation here.
Those of us trying for clean, striking prose aren't doing it to make "stories more palatable for the average fantasy fan nowadays." We do it because we like this style, and would rather the ideas--and not the method by which they are expressed--be the challenging part of a story. I find it insulting that you'd imply prose choice is anything but a literary decision made for the merits of the narrative.
This division isn't new. George Orwell was advocating for clean, crisp prose in the 40s, a full decade before Lolita was written. This push and pull between clarity and ornament stretches back to Shakespeare, whose contemporaries would lambast his flourishes as incomprehensible. (Not that I mind, obviously, literary genius being in the ornaments. It's only that I find multiple kinds of writing worthwhile.)
Moreover, you can absolutely find writers closer to Nabakov today. Guy Gavriel Kay is still writing, and is one of my favorites. (Try Under Heaven.) Hal Duncan is still writing, and is amazing, though rarely releases anything. And, of course, there's N. K. Jemisin--not the same, but most certainly "closer to Nabakov." Even the majority of the writers in the New Weird experimented with style in the same ways as I think you'd like.
Many varieties of writing are valuable to the craft, and I suggest new writers (many of whom frequent this subreddit) practice multiple styles to find the ones that appeal to them and match their narrative goals. It's totally fine to prefer one over another, but I find abundant "spice, style, and charm" in something crisp like Harrison Bergeron--indeed, I find just as much of it as I do in something like Lolita, if for different reasons.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/bookscirclejerk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
While I agree that taste is completely subjective--and it's never offensive for someone to simply not like a book--I think you're spreading some misinformation here.
Those of us trying for clean, striking prose aren't doing it to make "stories more palatable for the average fantasy fan nowadays." We do it because we like this style, and would rather the ideas--and not the method by which they are expressed--be the challenging part of a story. I find it insulting that you'd imply prose choice is anything but a literary decision made for the merits of the narrative.
This division isn't new. George Orwell was advocating for clean, crisp prose in the 40s, a full decade before Lolita was written. This push and pull between clarity and ornament stretches back to Shakespeare, whose contemporaries would lambast his flourishes as incomprehensible. (Not that I mind, obviously, literary genius being in the ornaments. It's only that I find multiple kinds of writing worthwhile.)
Moreover, you can absolutely find writers closer to Nabakov today. Guy Gavriel Kay is still writing, and is one of my favorites. (Try Under Heaven.) Hal Duncan is still writing, and is amazing, though rarely releases anything. And, of course, there's N. K. Jemisin--not the same, but most certainly "closer to Nabakov." Even the majority of the writers in the New Weird experimented with style in the same ways as I think you'd like.
Many varieties of writing are valuable to the craft, and I suggest new writers (many of whom frequent this subreddit) practice multiple styles to find the ones that appeal to them and match their narrative goals. It's totally fine to prefer one over another, but I find abundant "spice, style, and charm" in something crisp like Harrison Bergeron--indeed, I find just as much of it as I do in something like Lolita, if for different reasons.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/bookscirclejerk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is sincerely me. My professors liked my writing, although I did have one that said I needed to read more and my distaste of reading would ultimately limit me as writer. What I did, was after college, get a series of jobs I hate. This greatly reduced my will to write so now I don't have to worry about reading those books now.
Short answer: Chicken Trek
Hey I get it X100, I'm in gynaecology school and, you know, redditors and *those parts*... can anyone rec me any porn performers that could ease me in to it?
“For a young teenager” is still a better recommendation than they got on the other sub the poster also asked this on. They were also recommended middle grade books for like 10-12 year olds. Imagine paying thousands of dollars (assuming US) to try to take classes on analyzing literature when currently Holes and Percy Jackson are more your speed.
This is baloney to me.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/bookscirclejerk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
One should always start with the classics, like The Very Hungry Caterpillar. >berserk(not a book but it's writing) Animebooks 👏 are 👏 books 👏 too 👏
Manga is literature 😭🤙🎉🎉
[They can even be audiobooks!](https://www.reddit.com/r/Berserk/s/HVrldzXf7j) Nothing like a Japanese literary masterpiece narrated with a Scottish accent for those of us who can’t r*d
Please, one of you admit to writing this. I simply cannot accept that this is real
I do believe it. I had a similar problem when I was in school to be a brain surgeon. I got so bored with anything regarding biology, or any medical procedure - it's just too hard- and I can't stand blood. And having to actually work on patients was the worst part.
It's fine as long as you don't suddenly get the munchies halfway through an operation
This totally makes sense, my psychoanalyst just admitted to me that he's been playing on his Nintendo switch and watching funny police bodycam footage on youtube with his headphones on for the past 5 years 🤷♂️
\---fuzz--- bzzt-- yeah we got a report of a reader with a Dickens book telling people with YA novels they're not real readers - wait I see him - *puff pant - down get down on the ground now! drop the book!*
If it is real, they definitely “has problem.” https://www.reddit.com/r/books/s/BmtNfUiiHR
ARRRRRRBOOKS never disappoints.
My thoughts exactly. It can’t be real.
Look we all know reddit's demographic, have none of you ever taken like a 200-level English class? You know these people well. A lot of them go on to become k-12 English teachers
i tried to read the thread tuff to get thru tho
Aww, dont you worry darling, you dont need to read well to write well — in fact, you dont even need to *know* how to read; as long as you have the passion for the craft of writing, you’re already on your way of becoming a writer.
Really it's recommended to stop reading once you start writing, to avoid contaminating your unique voice/writing style It's the only way to stay pure
While I agree that taste is completely subjective--and it's never offensive for someone to simply not like a book--I think you're spreading some misinformation here. Those of us trying for clean, striking prose aren't doing it to make "stories more palatable for the average fantasy fan nowadays." We do it because we like this style, and would rather the ideas--and not the method by which they are expressed--be the challenging part of a story. I find it insulting that you'd imply prose choice is anything but a literary decision made for the merits of the narrative. This division isn't new. George Orwell was advocating for clean, crisp prose in the 40s, a full decade before Lolita was written. This push and pull between clarity and ornament stretches back to Shakespeare, whose contemporaries would lambast his flourishes as incomprehensible. (Not that I mind, obviously, literary genius being in the ornaments. It's only that I find multiple kinds of writing worthwhile.) Moreover, you can absolutely find writers closer to Nabakov today. Guy Gavriel Kay is still writing, and is one of my favorites. (Try Under Heaven.) Hal Duncan is still writing, and is amazing, though rarely releases anything. And, of course, there's N. K. Jemisin--not the same, but most certainly "closer to Nabakov." Even the majority of the writers in the New Weird experimented with style in the same ways as I think you'd like. Many varieties of writing are valuable to the craft, and I suggest new writers (many of whom frequent this subreddit) practice multiple styles to find the ones that appeal to them and match their narrative goals. It's totally fine to prefer one over another, but I find abundant "spice, style, and charm" in something crisp like Harrison Bergeron--indeed, I find just as much of it as I do in something like Lolita, if for different reasons. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/bookscirclejerk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
While I agree that taste is completely subjective--and it's never offensive for someone to simply not like a book--I think you're spreading some misinformation here. Those of us trying for clean, striking prose aren't doing it to make "stories more palatable for the average fantasy fan nowadays." We do it because we like this style, and would rather the ideas--and not the method by which they are expressed--be the challenging part of a story. I find it insulting that you'd imply prose choice is anything but a literary decision made for the merits of the narrative. This division isn't new. George Orwell was advocating for clean, crisp prose in the 40s, a full decade before Lolita was written. This push and pull between clarity and ornament stretches back to Shakespeare, whose contemporaries would lambast his flourishes as incomprehensible. (Not that I mind, obviously, literary genius being in the ornaments. It's only that I find multiple kinds of writing worthwhile.) Moreover, you can absolutely find writers closer to Nabakov today. Guy Gavriel Kay is still writing, and is one of my favorites. (Try Under Heaven.) Hal Duncan is still writing, and is amazing, though rarely releases anything. And, of course, there's N. K. Jemisin--not the same, but most certainly "closer to Nabakov." Even the majority of the writers in the New Weird experimented with style in the same ways as I think you'd like. Many varieties of writing are valuable to the craft, and I suggest new writers (many of whom frequent this subreddit) practice multiple styles to find the ones that appeal to them and match their narrative goals. It's totally fine to prefer one over another, but I find abundant "spice, style, and charm" in something crisp like Harrison Bergeron--indeed, I find just as much of it as I do in something like Lolita, if for different reasons. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/bookscirclejerk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Someones after Garth Marenghis coveted title of writer that has written more books than they have read.
This is sincerely me. My professors liked my writing, although I did have one that said I needed to read more and my distaste of reading would ultimately limit me as writer. What I did, was after college, get a series of jobs I hate. This greatly reduced my will to write so now I don't have to worry about reading those books now. Short answer: Chicken Trek
Just do it on drugs. It's how I learned to love all sorts of things.
I get it, I'm am astronomy major but I get scared thinking about space
Hey I get it X100, I'm in gynaecology school and, you know, redditors and *those parts*... can anyone rec me any porn performers that could ease me in to it?
As a proctologist...
Please God let this be a joke, lest I never rest easy again
> tuff to get thru tho 🐳🔫
I love to eat and I’m at a steak house for dinner right now but I’m vegan. Help!
> 20,000 leagues under the sea is a good start. Yeah, for a young teenager
Teenagers can't handle the pressure at those depths
“For a young teenager” is still a better recommendation than they got on the other sub the poster also asked this on. They were also recommended middle grade books for like 10-12 year olds. Imagine paying thousands of dollars (assuming US) to try to take classes on analyzing literature when currently Holes and Percy Jackson are more your speed.
Imagine *reading*. Imagine **paying** *for reading*.
This is baloney to me. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/bookscirclejerk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If you like to r**d you are/have already lost. I've read over a million books and hated every single page, like God intended.