/lit/ - Literature

>>4101797
please stop this shit, we don't do powerrankings

Keep 'em coming, these are helpful.

>>4101917

>>4101927

The last time I posted this, 3 or 4 people threatened to kill me. Oh well, still a good chart.

>>4101929

>>4101927
horrible fucking chart

>Asimov, Wallace, Salinger "mid-high brow"'
>Pynchon on the same tier as Joyce
>Horrible choices to include on the chart, how were the names selected? By edgy people, I guess.
>horrible 20th century bias, like everything on /lit/
>horribly edgy bias, all the highly regarded authors have themes that would appeal to teenagers and young adults
>whole chart implies that more difficult = better when that isn't true. Shakespeare is better than anybody on that list, even if King Lear isn't as tough as Finnegan's wake

>>4101932

>>4101933
What is so good about shakespeare can someone explain

>>4101954
he is insanely inventive and rewards repeated readings. also, he has a huge body of worthwhile work

>>4101931
>Danielewski
>mid-high
nty anon

>>4101957
What should I read first to appreciate it?

I had to read a lot for school but I disliked all of it

>>4101810
Did you make this, anon?

I've had The Story of the Eye on my wishlist for ages but not got round to buying it.

>>4101965

I'm afraid not.

>>4101931
Everyone's getting pissed about these but I mostly agree with this

>>4101861
I don't think that graphic is a power ranking, though there are some of those in the rest of the thread.

>>4101927
where is Dostoyevsky? Does Martin refer to GRRM?

>>4102085
I was massively underwhelmed by The Man Who Was Thursday. Cannot understand its appeal at all, just a somewhat jaunty, lightweight, farcical, thriller-come-allegory.

Though the man himself was obviously extremely intelligent and interesting, I really can't understand the enduring and alleged historical influence of his work.

>Ellis
>Palahniuk
>usually a troll

I can discuss either with a straight face.

>genuinely liked Less than Zero and Rules of Attraction
>genuinely liked Survivor and generally like reading a Chuck book every now and then; bit samey, but so is Lovecraft and I don't mind either

/lit/ would be an awesome place if it was a place to discuss books instead of trying to compensate for one's bitter lack of self-esteem via book consumption.

If all the books you read feel like work, you're doing something wrong.

>>4102206

Lunar Park is my favourite Ellis novel.

It's much better if you've read LTZ and AP than as a standalone book though.

>>4102206
The reason ellis and palahniuk are in his 'generally trolls' tier isn't because their works are really shitty or anything like that. It's that they're extremely popular writers often hailed as kings of writing by people who don't know shit about anything and were likely only introduced to the novels because the films were also hailed as the greatest films of all time by people who don't know shit about anything.
They're perfectly decent writers but they're hardly amazing and the problem is that they've been so hyped up to hell and back that the majority of encountered fans are either extremely stupid or simply don't understand that they've only seen two things in their life, a rock and flower, and thus calling either the rock or the flower the greatest thing in the world would be extremely presumptuous (because they haven't experienced anything). And then of course you have the entire fedoracore crowd that, for the most part, consider fight club and american psycho to be the greatest novels/films, mainly because of both the fact that they are very popular entry-level films and that they vaguely fall in line with the fedoracore's naive philosophies.
SO BASICALLY
People aren't against so ellis or palahniuk (or ayn rand, or anyone else in the troll tiers of OP's image) because it doesn't hold up to other books, they're against the writers because people won't stop fucking saying it DOES hold up to those other books.

>>4102206
i read american psycho and thought it was great; bought rules of attraction and been meaning to read it but havent gotten around to it yet.

why is my reading list so long ;-;

>>4102278

Because you're still on /lit/.

>>4102266
And then obviously in regards to 'trolls', shitty trolls tend to appear as if they were one of those people, those who over-value some mediocre product to an extreme degree so it makes sense that the two books, being extremely popular and widely regarded as some of the greatest of fictional writing (mainly by people who have only seen a rock and a flower), would be a choice product to pick.

>>4101931
>Hugo in mid
>All of those fuckers in mid-high

top lel

/r/ing the picture that gives the page total of game of thrones and compares it to the page total of a bunch of classic epics like beowulf, iliad, gilgamesh, etc.

>>4101929
This is retarded.

>>4101797
OP's infographic is pretty good but where the fuck is Stirner.

>stephen king not under "always a troll"

>>4102976
Them's figthin' words, pal.

>>4102986
fightin' even

>>4101934
>Read All Stephen King's books

What.

>>4101797

If you remove Grr Martin from that pic, there's a 1:1 correlation between ugliness and writing ability.

>>4102966

>>4101797
is american psycho that bad? as in twilight tier?

>>4103122
the graph is about how seriously discussion of an author can be taken, not about how good the books are.

>>4101929
what's up with dubliners
what philosophy does dubliners have
other than the protestant and nationalists i dont see anything

>>4103027
are you saying ayn rand is the most beautiful writer of the bunch
because that's not right anon

>>4103116
much thanks, you are a cool guy

>>4102967
spoilers: it's a joke

>>4101934
>achievements for real life

I think you might be on to something there.
It might even make for a nice short story.

>>4105868
i don't really think this is necessary lol. joyce naturally went from entry level to boss level hard so you just kind of read him in chronological order

You still think it's only gonna be another Vineland or Inherent Vice, don't you?

>>4107754
you meant to post a new thread, didn't you?

>>4102973
Should be on "usually a troll".