/lit/ - Literature

>>4907019
>>4907099
I'm at 71 and it says bookworm, sounds like it's the highest, so I assume the cutoff of somewhere between 43 and 71.

The quiz is bullshit, of course. It isn't so much the number of books you've read as it is the specific works you've read. Pic related, if you've read all of these, or even just the pre-20th century classics, then you're well-read, because you will have a sufficient understanding of the building blocks of Western literature that you can pick up nearly any book and the references it makes and the way it communicates ideas probably won't confuse you.

>>4722305

There are plenty of charts in the wiki, but there aren't any "established" /lit/core because our tastes are pretty varied. Infinite Jest, Gravity's Rainbow, and Ulysses are the usual answers, but discussion on Ulysses is waning. Is Stoner still popular?

We don't have any /lit/core. Some books are more popular than others but there's no overall dominating stuff here. Most of the generic classics are probably the closest we have.

>>4544191

>>4536309
Ah, the old Tom Robbins, or as we call him here on /lit/ ole' Niggletog Perriwog.

In general you can check the sticky but here is the image that I think gives you the best list of foundational texts. If you read these you'll be ahead of 95% of /lit/ easily.

>>4116254

Knowing a lot of literature helps for Ulysses but the only work I would call mandatory is The Odyssey for obvious reasons. I don't know if you have to read it (I'd highly recomend you do because it's great) but being familiar with the story and characters definitely helps. Also there's a big discussion about Hamlet early on.

You should know it's just as difficult as it sounds for someone who doesn't read much, at least for most chapters. IJ is probably easier to read but the plot is more complex.

Really I think most generic classics should be "deep" and "artistic" and "influential" enough. That's the reason they're classics!

Go to the wikia

Blah

I made a new classics chart.