/lit/ - Literature

>>21898434
/sffg/'s "official" chart isn't entirely devoid of truth, though it has some obvious bullshit biases.

>>20309899
>>20308786
?

Edition: Chart.

Previous Thread: >>19914976

>Recommended reading charts (Look here before asking for vague recs)
https://mega.nz/folder/kj5hWI6J#0cyw0-ZdvZKOJW3fPI6RfQ

>Archive
>>/lit/?task=search2&search_subject=sffg

>Goodreads
https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/1029811-sffg

>Discord
Don't care

The one true list.

>>19894744
Read Tolkien, Herbert and Bakker

>>19889369
It's generic fantasy. Read something better.

>>19874439
Whoa there buddy.

>>19869546
100 times is starching it. Wolfe is difficult because he has a very exoteric cryptic style of writing.

This chart sums it up nicely in my opinion.

>>19869555
Keep taking your meds then.

>>19803020
Hello Newfag.

Here's the canon.

>>19673873
That is how tier lists naturally take form. They're contentious and heavily debated and a mix of bad taste and soft trolling that is still accurate in a sense.

>>19657465
Gene Wolfe is the only unequivocally literary fantasy author besides Tolkien. If you want enjoyable standard faire epic fantasy, Robin Hobb's Farseer Trilogy was one of the few I thought stood out.

/sffg/ tried to make a chart. It isn't perfect but gives you a good idea of what is stellar and how mediocre the genre is on the whole.

Chartmoogies last update
I am not sure if he was scared away by the surge of toxicity

Contested books:
>Malazan down
>Hyperion up

Popular demands:
>Perdido Station down

If I read the consensus right then the next change should be swap Hyperion and Perdido and move Malazan one down

Alright, another round of update. I will keep to the 5x5 chart size and will have at maximum six books per slot. As you can see, there are some slots that are already full. If you want to suggest a book or a book series, and the slot that you want to put it is full, you'll have to either recommend moving something from that slot to somewhere else or otherwise explain why your book is more relevant to take over some other.

Some (directional) explanations on the classifications:

D
>Low literary merit
>Unoriginal
>Uninteresting

C
>If you like fantasy or sci-fi you'll probably like reading these
>Solid books, nothing out of this world
>Original works

B
>This is why people read speculative fiction
>Books that almost everybody can agree are good

A
>Trend-setters, Trailblazers
>Better than B tier but not worthy of S tier

S
>Books that change the way to look at the world
>Everybody can agree these books are amazing works of fiction

1
>Easy to get into
>No previous reading required
>Middle-schoolers can easily understand

2
>Probably should not be your first choice to read if you are a novice but its doable
>Will increase in complexity in story, characters, or setting compared to 1
>Some thinking is required on the reader's part

3
>Complex prose or books or a long series
>Complex setting
>One may need to look at dictionary

4
>Challenging works to read at times
>Dictionary may be a friend for ESLs here
>Many things shown in the books is not explained and will be up to reader's interpretation

5
>Most times require intensive reading and rereading to understand
>Checking online wikis almost a necessity
>Have your dictionary at hand

TL;DR
>Help me make the chart better
>You may also want to give a better description of the classifications