/lit/ - Literature

>not much of a reader
>pointlessly reflective
do you expect us to be surprised?

>>14402522
Now hold on. The Stranger is good but it's not top shelf. It's on par with Vonnegut or Hemingway or Orwell. It's good. Now, what sort of book are you looking for? Obviously something absurdist and bleak wasn't the right pick. What sort of books are you looking for?

>>14402541
I don't mind bleak. It just seemed completely un-insightful.

I've read one book by Hemingway (Old Man and the Sea) and two books by Orwell (1984, Animal Farm). I wasn't impressed by any of them, but they were mildly interesting.

>The Stranger is good but it's not top shelf. It's on par with Vonnegut or Hemingway or Orwell.
I just picked the highest ranked book that wasn't a meme. Pic related.

Should I be looking at a different list? What exactly do you guys mean by "patrician"? I always assumed that it meant something like "complex", "rich" and "deep".

>>14402560
It's really a matter of taste. I'd personally say, from that list, Siddartha, Thus Spoke Zarthustra, and Walden. and not Illuminatus but Wilsons other book, Promethius Rising.

>>14402560
That list is more of a popularity contest, and the most popular books are rarely the best. That said, there are lots of good books on that list. Try Hunger by Knut Hamsun. Of, if you want something complex, rich, and deep, maybe try something by Thomas Mann such as The Magic Mountain. None of the books you said you read are really 'patrician'.

>>14402522
Not even Camus' best.

>>14402560
Proust, but you'll come again in a few days opening a thread about how the plot doesn't progress and nothing really happens in the book or some other stupid shit.

>>14402522
It was complete shit

>>14402560
>harry potter books
Holy shit, this place is retarded

>>14402579
>None of the books you said you read are really 'patrician'.
That's what I figured about Hemmingway and Orwell. I seriously thought that The Stranger was patrician, though. Huh.

Is pic related a better "patrician" list?

>Hunger by Knut Hamsun
I'll probably try this one.

>>14402576
>Promethius Rising
I'll also try this.

>>14402522
Maybe you should try to engage with the story instead of just passively reading it. Perhaps you are focusing so much on the obvious absurdist themes of the book that you forget to reflect on how you personally may relate to them emotionally or philosophically, which may make for a more compelling experience for you.

>>14402639
No, that list is bait. No 'patrician' list is going to have anything written by Tao Lin, Ayn Rand, or Murakami. Again, there are some great books included but only to make it more believable. Those William Gaddis books are patrish, though, as are some of the big classics like Faust, Ulysses, In Search of Lost Time.

>>14402639
>patrician
>ayn rand #3
the absolute fuck

>>14402666
>No, that list is bait.
I was wondering about the inclusion of Ayn Rand.

What about this image? I've only heard about two of these titles. Is this also a bait/troll/whatever image?

>>14402678
That's a more genuine list. I haven't read everything on it but the ones I have read were all good, though very bleak.

>>14402522
The problem isn't that you're a pleb, but that everyone on /lit/ is a pseud. Truly patrician literature is inspiring, educative, makes you interested in new hobbies, concepts and lines of thinking.

>>14402560
You're clearly too smart for books, play video games instead.

>>14402678
>Kornél Esti
>Exit Level
Nibba, it's a fucking collection of novellas taught in highschool.

>>14402692
And that makes it bad because...?

>>14402693
Nice reading comprehension, faggot.
It's not bad, it's just not "exit level".

>>14402689
What video games are patrician?

>>14402693
Not him, but I'd imagine that anything accessible to typical high school students isn't "exit level".

>>14402705
What's the point of marking random literature as "exit level"?
>>14402707
Even Gravity's Rainbow is accessible to high school students if their brain is so fried that they can actually sit through that bullshit.

>>14402719
I don't know you asshat, I didn't make the chart.

>>14402720
>criticizing a random chart when you don't even know what it's supposed to represent
Clap clap clap

>>14402560
There are two basic definitions of 'patrician', at least to my mind. The first is an exclusive club of obscure books which people can jerk themselves off over reading. The other is a group of profound or otherwise meaningful books that invites deep and complex discussion, allowing people to broaden their understanding of the world and the people around them. Problem with /lit/ and the charts it produces is that the two definitions of 'patrician' often get hopelessly blended and you get a confusing mess. So there's actually a fair bit on the lists that is easy to understand and discuss, there's just very little way of telling.

>>14402719
(Full disclosure, I'm OP, and thus the pseud-faggot, or whatever /lit/ calls me)

>What's the point of marking random literature as "exit level"?
In my case, it was because I was curious about reading super complex and rich fiction. Which I haven't ever done. So I need a list of super complex and rich fiction.

>Even Gravity's Rainbow is accessible to high school students if their brain is so fried that they can actually sit through that bullshit.
Firstly, that's the point. I'm sure that part of being "patrician" or "exit-level" is being able to understand/remember long books.

Secondly, I've never read Gravity's Rainbow, but I suspect that you're over-estimating the average high school student. Half of them avoid reading the books that were assigned, anyway. They just use cliff notes.

>>14402756
>I'm sure that part of being "patrician" or "exit-level" is being able to understand/remember long books.
Long books are mostly a waste of time. There isn't a single book in the world that couldn't be made more concise and thus better at the single thing they're ultimately supposed to do, which is sharing ideas and facts. Books like Gravity's Rainbow glorify obfuscating and mystifying ideas, which only serves to the detriment of those ideas.
>Half of them avoid reading the books that were assigned, anyway. They just use cliff notes.
Thus even the supposed entry-level literature is too much for them.

>>14402755
>Problem with /lit/ and the charts it produces is that the two definitions of 'patrician' often get hopelessly blended and you get a confusing mess.
Ah. Would it help if I took the list in this image >>14402560

and then subtracted all the books in pic related? Or is the "exclusive club of obscure books" much, much broader than this list?

>>14402774
Naked Lunch isn't deep at all, but it's fun.

I would read down and out in Paris and London before Hunger if I was someone who didn't read alot.

I can not take any man seriously who shits on Hemingway.

Thou hast no taste.

read the myth of sisyphus

>>14402597
seconding this desu

>>14402678
>stoner
>exit level
??????????????????????

>>14402954
>shits on Hemmingway
Where? Here? Hardly seems like "shitting".

>>14402560
>I've read one book by Hemingway (Old Man and the Sea) ... I wasn't impressed by [it], but [it was] mildly interesting.

>>14403016
Stoner wasn't even that good.

>>14403016
>>14402756
>>14402719
>>14402705
>>14402692
The joke is that the books make you want to kill yourself, thus "exit." It's not exit as in "very hard" or some dumb shit. Looking at literature on a difficulty curve is for plebs.

>>14402522
https://discord.gg/5K6hxF9

>>14402522
I also disliked the stranger. Unironically read Dostoevsky, he's my new favorite author.

Okay Anon from reading your post it's pretty clear you got Asperger's or this is some sort of bait thread due to your fixation with charts and the word patrician. If you really wanna know what you should read then follow your own interests and read something that you think will enrich you.

>>14402579
>Knut Hamsun
Have you ever read Tom Kristensen’s Havoc (or Hærværk in case it’s English title isn’t just a direct translation)?

>>14402522
>tfw no brown gf

>>14402522
the themes of the stranger are pretty simple but 'patrician' books aren't meant to be read just to summarize the themes of the book objectively. you should be relating emotionally to the themes presented.

>>14402522
START
WITH
THE
GREEKS

>>14404009
Yes, it's an excellent book.

>>14402774
a lot of my favourite books are mentioned here. I think tryhard doesn't mean what I think it does (not a native english speaker). Btw OP if you're an angsty young person (or used to be) read catcher in the rye