/lit/ - Literature

>>16226391
Or maybe it’s this chart. One of them has various /sffg/ authors on it

While I was posting this I realized that I was provided the old version of that rec chart and there was a newer version with one different book and with the removal of it saying it was the prototype version. So I guess I'll get that one book and post an addendum after a while.

>>13522903
Add this

The chart with 3 recs (2xWeeks, Rothfuss) is a shitpost, you can remove it.

>>13436843
Try this.
Completely degeneracy free.
Threadbare is the only litrpg and Cradle is western chinkshit.
Everything else is normal.

>>13403874
>Probably, but it's much harder to find out about those names, I barely know any of them.

>>13379560
He obviously meant the other self-pub chart anon, the one with good books and no degeneracy.

>>13379583
>Breeks anon
>>13379411 wasn't my post, that's someone else that had the misfortune of reading Brent Weeks and realized how much of a hack he is

Also, I'm highly disappointed that you haven't necked yourself yet like you should have.

>>13368039
This. Don't confuse it with the real /sffg/ chart which btw is superior in every way while also being free of any kind of degeneracy.

>>13349512
Still too much smut, yick. You should make a separate degenerate chart for smut and along with a normal chart. People are not going to take it seriously when over 50% of the books on a chhart are badly written wish fulfilment for horny teenagers.

I also don't know why you keep including Murderbot, it's not self published, Tor owns it.

Remember you shitting on Another Stupid Spell when I rec'd it a few months ago and now you include it in your chart....hmmm

Good taste including Starship Mage and Threadbare though, 10/10. I only finished the former yesterday and it was based af.

I might try Spellmonger, looks decent but I've heard mixed things about it though.

>>13341195
Start with Cradle, if you've already read it try Orconomics.

>>13267605
Been hearing that for weeks now, are you perhaps writing the books and then putting them on the chart?

>>13223043
Until then...

>>13209273
You've been whining for what, a week now?
Why haven't you made a single chart in that time then faggot?
Make the charts you want to see included or just fucking hang yourself but stop crying about it in every thread.

>>13191645
>and Prince of thorns was okayish-maybe.

That series wasn't okay-ish though, it was horrible and no I'm not bashing it blindly, I've read the books.
>The author's ONLY real purpose for setting the story in a post apocalyptic mediaeval world is because he is a hack and he likes to put the MC in impossible situations and bail him out at the last second with ancient technology that miraculously appear at the right time.
>For example, nobody knows anything about modern technology in the world but the MC somehow manages to discover the exact location of a hidden nuclear bunker from a fucking book, "convinces" the secure door panel to give him access and arms a fucking nuclear bomb and runs away to just the right distance to watch the explosion.
>In another instance when he's about to get his clock cleaned by an invading army, he calls for a parley, pulls out fucking gun that he dug up and shoots the enemy commander in the face and of course the enemy commanders troops all agree to follow him after that. I wish somebody shot me in the face before I had read this shit.
>The MC starts off as an evil edgelord teenager that rapes and kills babies, whatever it was cringy at times but at least it's not another do gooder coming off age story, or that's what I thought. Until the author pussies out, haha j/k the MC isn't actually evil he was only acting that way because some wizard fucked with his head, he's actually just edgy and has a heart of gold underneath.
It's one of the worst books I've ever read and I would be suspicious of any chart that recommends it.

>What about the rest of the books?
Of the ones I'v read and not mentioned previously..
>Emperor's Blades
Book 1 was okay but devolved into a convoluted and boring mess in book 2, dropped it after that. I liked the spin off novel though, Skullsworn
>Thousand Names
Thousand pages of troops moving from point A to point B. Nothing happens till the end.
>Shadow of what was lost
Shit version of WoT. The original cover was fire though, dunno why used the shit cover on the chart.
>Urban Fantasy
Urban Fantasy
>Ryria
Juvenile, convenient-idiot plot trash.

Get rid of these and all the authors I mentioned in my previous post and then the chart wouldn't be so shit albeit it would be a 60% lighter and better for it.

>>13178238
You're right, I didn't include it initially but I replaced Never Die, also by Hayes, at the last second because I didn't feel like it was good enough for the chart and put in Where Loyalties Lie. Got rid of it now, put in something else I remember being decent.

>>13178625
Then make new charts faggit, what the fuck are you waiting for?