Yes, she's much like J.D. Salinger in that regard.
Tryst Threads Sell Like Hot Cakes
Sort:
HolyFlame777 wrote:
One of Tryst's threads had over a quarter of a million hits!
That's because it was the 2013 Candidates' Tournament thread.
aaarrrgggghhhh salinger is not the right example. salinger sucks.. In terms of selling like hot cakes Tryst is more comparable to the other lady who wrote the Harry Potter series.
But J.K. Rowling wrote a lot. F. Scott Fitzgerald is probably a more appropriate parallel.
fitzgerald sucks big time
macer75 wrote:
But J.K. Rowling wrote a lot. F. Scott Fitzgerald is probably a more appropriate parallel.
The problem with using Fitzgerald for the similie is that The Great Gatsby (1923) was a critical and commerical failure until after his death.
I stand by my reference to Salinger.
i dare anyone to say they actually enjoyed Catcher In the Rye.
HolyFlame777 wrote:
fitzgerald sucks big time
Can you tell me why you think F. Scott Fitzgerald "sucks big time?"
trysts' posts gain following because she is funny and very clever, and because she's willing to defend her controversial opinions.
HolyFlame777 wrote:
One of Tryst's threads had over a quarter of a million hits! She writes them once in a blue moon but every one of them draws an immense audience. I am deeply impressed. Why do Tryst threads sell like hot cakes Joe? How come Joe?
the name trysts keeps me coming back; so intriguing
read The Great gatsby and tell me u enjoyed it, it sucks big time! by compaison read The Bonfire of The Vanities by the Wolfe fellow, that is lively innovative writing.
HolyFlame777 wrote:
i dare anyone to say they actually enjoyed Catcher In the Rye.
is this like, a double-dog dare? is there anything in it for me? b.c. I enjoyed Catcher in the Rye. Depressing, but I enjoyed Holden's intolerance of phony people
"Sucks big time" doesn't give me much t address. I don't wish to knock Wolfe at all, but Fitzgerald is known for his Distintive writing style. He is like Hemmingway in this respect but less prolific and less influencial. If you chose "Bonfire" to compare to "Gatsby" because both catch the spirit of an era, I think you made a good choice.
catcher in the rye was an austerity not a pleasure, some people like the darndest things
bonfire was a pleasure to read by comparison plain and simple, fitzgerasld and salinger give u no entertasinment for the reader's time and attention
HolyFlame777 wrote:
bonfire was a pleasure to read by comparison plain and simple, fitzgerasld and salinger give u no entertasinment for the reader's time and attention
well entertainment is not the sole purpose of literature; it's mostly supposed to be about enlightenment; I know, I know, most people turn up their noses at that; if you just want to be entertained, I agree, you'd better stay away from Salinger, Fitzgerald, and there ilk. On the other hand, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (Twain) and To Kill a Mockingbird (Harper Lee) are both literature that both entertain and enlighten. Most people will pee all over what I just typed, but I find it to be true.
yes i agree mark twain and lee are worth the time and effort to read, u will come away rewarded, from salinger and fitzgerald ? a few well crafted sentences but overall as a work of art, fffzzzzz! u will come away jipped of your time.
One of Tryst's threads had over a quarter of a million hits! She writes them once in a blue moon but every one of them draws an immense audience. I am deeply impressed. Why do Tryst threads sell like hot cakes Joe? How come Joe?