[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 181 KB, 660x900, dickens.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR] No.18620708 [Reply] [Original]

If you speak English as a first language and are of English descent, you owe it to yourself to read at least 5 of these writers.
Anons feel free to add names you think should be added.

John Bunyan
Johnathan Swift
Tobias Smollet
Laurence Sterne
Walter Scott
Lewis Carroll
Charles Dickens
Benjamin Disraeli
George Eliot
Thomas Hardy
Robert Louis Stevenson
George Gissing
George MacDonald
John Cowper Powys
Ford Madox Ford
JRR Tolkein
CS Lewis
HG Wells
Daphne du Maurier
James Joyce
Samuel Beckett
DH Lawrence
Rudyard Kipling
Evelyn Waugh
Graham Greene
Anthony Burgess
Mervyn Peake

>> No.18621617

No love for Anglo land?

>> No.18622010

Add Wyndham Lewis and Frederick Rolfe

>> No.18622022

>no Trollope
How English are you, really?

>> No.18622052

>>18622022
Don’t be such a trollop

>> No.18622091

No fielding?

>> No.18622127

This just looks like a collection of midwits and meme authors. I don't think Anglos were made for literature. They should stick to commerce.

>> No.18622170

>>18622127
Lots of these are as great as novelists from other countries. Not even Anglo.

>> No.18622207

>>18622127
You most likely haven't read even 25% of these writers.
>looks like
Indeed.

>> No.18622242

>>18622127
Anglos contributed Shakespeare, Melville and Milton. Automatic victory before looking at their many other commendable writers.

OPs list is weak though.

>> No.18622251

>>18622242
How many of those writers have you actually read?

>> No.18622266

>>18622251
of ops list:
40% ive not read
50% ive read and are for either children or midwits
10% are good

>> No.18622287

>>18622266
Put the authors into your list, with a sentence for each one explaining why.
Immediately.

>> No.18622377

>>18622207
Yeah, I haven't read most of them because they look boring. The ones I have read just confirm my suspicion. I don't see the point in wasting time with trash.

>>18622242
Name one good thing about Shakepeare without appealing to "muh prose" or "muh pre approved list of authors by soulless intellectuals and other midwit authors".

>> No.18622399

>>18622377
You're a ridiculous nonentity.
>boring
Embarrassing.

>> No.18622409
File: 5 KB, 166x249, brainlet.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>18622377
>Shakespeare
>prose

>> No.18622456

>>18622399
As I thought, there is no argument you people can offer so all you can do is seethe.

>>18622409
I don't really care about using accurate terminology because the subject bores me. I hope you can understand what I mean even so.

>> No.18622459
File: 35 KB, 600x600, 1300044776986.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>18622456
>implying you had arguments in the first place

>> No.18622472

>>18622459
If I didn't then why did you reply? Should have just ignored me if you thought I was just shitposting

>> No.18622509

>>18622456
>I hope you can understand what I mean even so.
Uhhhh not really
>Name one good thing about Shakepeare without appealing to "muh prose"
So I'm not allowed to say Shakespeare is good because his writing is good? I can only go based on the strength of characterization or something like that?

>> No.18622555

>>18620708
based