/lit/ - Literature

>>16471689
midwit and *eyeroll* tier

>>16471702
Back to r*ddit.

We like most of those books here.

>>16471689
#1 and 2 are overrated, but honestly the list isn't terrible. Usually three books by Ayn Rand end up on these things.

>>16471689
Guess Austen is easier to read for midwits than Woolf.

Hohoho
It’s shit. It’s shit.
Hohoho

>>16471689
Looks like 60-70% is the same as any other top 100 with Americans bearing more weight on the poll. See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time%27s_List_of_the_100_Best_Novels
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Library_100_Best_Novels

>>16471689
that's my favorite book

>>16471731
number 2 is just liberal jerk off material, austen writes realism. Her work stands out for itself without relying on usual plot cliches that conform to Hollywood or really any at all

>>16471689
Compared with iMBD or Rotten Tomatoes, the lit top ten is much better.

>>16471833
Can't fit pow zim zam imageries in there to draw the flies in literature

>>16471820
if you can't appreciate 1984, you're not some kind of enlightened rebel, you're just ignorant

>>16471689
>middlemarch languishing at 51
fucks sake
i have read most of these books and like them, but middlemarch should be in the top 5 of any list of great literature

>>16471689
There are so many better choices for Steinbeck. I will never understand why Of Mice and Men is the work of his that is so worshipped. It's a great book, but his novel(la)s Tortilla Flat, East of Eden, the Pearl are better. Grapes of Wrath and Cannery Row blow it out of the water.

>>16471715
>we
develop your own opinions

>>16471689
Wuthering Heights and C&P are the only certified trash on that list

>>16472190
>t. delusional anglo

>>16471689
Worse than ImdB. Even worse, relative to the medium, than MyAnimeList.
How did they do it?

>caring about (((amazon))) owned goodreads

>>16472329
Please elaborate on why you think those are trash.

>>16471689
overrated
overrated
overrated
not very good
decent choice
overrated
overrated
decent choice
>steinbeck
overrated but decent choice

>>16471689
4/10

>>16471689
I loved Pride and Prejudice, but it's nowhere near the top.

>>16471689
Those are all good books, but they're entry level. It's basically just a highschool reading list, which makes sense since most people on that site probably haven't read literary fiction outside of what they read for school.

My favorite thing to do on goodreads is to go to some of the actual top novels of all time and read the reviews of people who were heavily filtered. The salt from people who just don't get Ulysses or TSATF is very enjoyable

>>16471689
>8/10 anglo
>nothing before 1800
Seems legit.
Honestly looks like a private high school reading list from an English speaking country, except for Lolita (that has nothing to do here) for horny points.

>>16471689

Surprised there's no YA on there

>>16471689
These are all required reading books except (usually) Monte Cristo and P&P. Makes sense because those are the first serious literary books that boys and girls tend to choose when starting reading for fun again. Spider-Man and Elsa lmao.

>>16472415
It's always just girls getting unreasonably and insanely furious that Odysseus, Fagin, or Falstaff weren't feminists lmao.

>>16471689
>old books bad

>>16472415
Post

>>16471702

>>16472329
Wuthering Heights glorifies the worst aspects of human nature relating to attachment. It's the typical "love triangle" where the woman chooses between a responsible but boring mate and a dangerous, outright abusive mate (take a guess which one she chooses in the story). It also has a flavor of edgy teenage girl "I'm hateful so I deserve a hateful partner" vibe because both of the "romantic" pair are overtly malevolent characters.

C&P is a completely redundant story. Man wants to be like Napoleon and murder without conscience, but then his conscience kicks in and he confesses. Um, okay? Don't commit murder if you have a conscience? Genius stuff there. Plus the story line about his sister rejecting the lawyer after a ridiculously contrived event where he planted money on a poor person to later accuse them of stealing, despite planting it in full view of a person who doesn't like him and is present at the accusation. Eye-roll-tier

But hey, these books are undeniably popular, so I guess there are a lot of chumps out there willing to eat up utter tripe like this.

>>16472370
Wuthering Heights glorifies the worst aspects of human nature relating to attachment. It's the typical "love triangle" where the woman chooses between a responsible but boring mate and a dangerous, outright abusive mate (take a guess which one she chooses in the story). It also has a flavor of edgy teenage girl "I'm hateful so I deserve a hateful partner" vibe because both of the "romantic" pair are overtly malevolent characters.

C&P is a completely redundant story. Man wants to be like Napoleon and murder without conscience, but then his conscience kicks in and he confesses. Um, okay? Don't commit murder if you have a conscience? Genius stuff there. Plus the story line about his sister rejecting the lawyer after a ridiculously contrived event where he planted money on a poor person to later accuse them of stealing, despite planting it in full view of a person who doesn't like him and is present at the accusation. Eye-roll-tier

But hey, these books are undeniably popular, so I guess there are a lot of chumps out there willing to eat up utter tripe like this.

>>16473057
>C&P is a completely redundant story. Man wants to be like Napoleon and murder without conscience, but then his conscience kicks in and he confesses. Um, okay? Don't commit murder if you have a conscience? Genius stuff there. Plus the story line about his sister rejecting the lawyer after a ridiculously contrived event where he planted money on a poor person to later accuse them of stealing, despite planting it in full view of a person who doesn't like him and is present at the accusation. Eye-roll-tier
Brainlet

>>16472381
>

>>16473057
Wuthering Heights is realistic, there is no point pretending that's not how it works

>>16473370
How sad you can't even come up with anything to say in defense of the vapid overdrawn mess which is C&P

>>16473419
maybe one day you'll learn how to interpret the work by yourself
read more

>>16471689
Looks fine to me

>>16473416
It may be realistic, but it is a realistic representation of the worst aspect of human attachment, as I said. You could render a very realistic description of a person taking an explosive diarrhea shit and carry the same merit as that tawdry novel

>>16471689
It's not a terrible list. Probably there are lots of good non-English-language works missing, but I'm not qualified to say.

Even with just a two-second scan, there are some silly inclusions and silly omissions. No Golding. No Conrad. No Henry James. No Suttree (and Blood Meridian is too low). There's a bunch of short stories by Kafka; I thought this was novels? Updike's Rabbit tetralogy gets counted as one book, which it really isn't. If you're going to have a D. H. Lawrence, it should be The Rainbow or Women in Love. And isn't it about time people stopped pretending To Kill A Mockingbird is any good?

>>16473421
I did interpret it myself, in fact, I shared that interpretation, unlike you who seems content to throw around pejoratives and not touch on the actual material of the book in the slightest. Again, how sad for you that you default to that level of mindset

>>16473446

>>16473450
Oh no, did a differing opinion intrude into your safe space? Were you not able to muster even the weakest defense of your own position on a piece of literature? Pathetic

>>16473467
Dial 8

>>16471689
cringe af

>>16471689
Obviously ranked by plebby Amerilards with no taste.

>>16471689
>the Average Goodreads member has read 16 out of 100 books on this list - how many have you read?
well /lit/?

>>16471689
Why doesn't this list have votes and scores? What does the order signify?

>>16471689
Gatsby, Huck Finn and Crime and Pnunishment are probably the only ones that deserve to be on the list

>>16473512
40

>>16473512
32

>>16471689
I pity the people that can't read and enjoy Goethe's Faust in German.

>>16472381
>steinbeck bad writer he suck donkey cock

>>16473529
None of those deserve to be on the list.

>>16473593
>i’m a contrarian retard
Ok, but keep it to yourself next time

>>16473640
You're the contrarian, Amerimutt.

>>16471820
>liberal jerk off material
It has nothing to do with either side of the political spectrum, why do I see so many posters recently not understanding this?

>Proust over Céline
This list is trash.

>>16472300
Most of those books are on the yearly /lit/ top 100s you retard

>>16473725
What should be top 5?

>>16471689
pretty bad. you can see that theyre mostly on there because of their relationship to 21st century pop culture rather than because of any notion of literary merit

>>16473835
i dont think very many of the people making worthwhile posts on this board participate in the /lit/ top 100s. the whole concept reeks of '/mu/ essentials'

Atleast Montecristo is based

>>16472281
I know that british schoolchildren are requires to read it for their GCSE english lit exam. Maybe it scores highly because most Britons have read it.

>>16471689
It's fine. Some books are under ranked (Ulysses and Death of Virgil are way too low, East of Eden and Middlesex too high, for example) but the list is fine.

My personal list:

1 - Madame bovary - Flaubert

2 - Salammbô - Flaubert

3 - Il gattopardo - Lampedusa

4 - Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man - Joyce

5 - Vidas Secas - Graciliano Ramos

>>16473057
WH doesn't glorify the triangle. They're all fucked up because of their past, not meant to appeal.

>>16473512
93 -- no Confederacy (yet), Native Son, Darconvilles Cat, Cats Eye, Jazz, Cancer Ward (yet), Life and Fate (yet).

>>16473057
>>16473437
Then what? Are only pretty aspects of human worth presented? Do bad things and mean characters make you feel bad so you hate literature that doesn't conform to your comfortable worldview? You say those books are certified trash but your opinion has as much worth as those parents who want to burn books because there're some niggers written in them.

>>16471756
Yes?

>>16475198
If you cared to actually read my post, I admonished it for being shallow and appealing to an edgy teenage girl's sensibility. I stand by that assessment, and if you like that kind of thing, thats fine, but I consider it to be trash.

>>16471689
i think it proves that the 19th should be repealed

>>16471820
>filtered by 1984
you sad fuck, how dim can you be?

>>16471689
anglo trash

>>16471689
Pretty good list, but Sun Also Rises and Farewell to Arms should be on there, and higher than Old Man; Handful of Dust should be there; and a lot more Henry James. Also missing The Waves and Portrait of the Artist

>>16473057
>glorifies the worst aspects of human nature relating to attachment
Stop trying to critique art, SJW

>>16471689
1. fine
2. fucking garbage overrated shit
3. see 2
4. fine
5. good
6. shit
7. fine
8. fine
9. kill yourself
10. holy based

>>16472415
I went to the Ulysses page in Goodread and what the actual fuck, people are giving Ulysses 1 star because they didn't understand it kek. Why not just say "I can't rate this because I didn't understand it"?

>>16475149
This. Just because dumb teenage girls who were forced to read the book in high school want to fuck Heathcliff and self insert as Cathy doesn't mean that was actually the point of the book. They're unambiguously portrayed as terrible people.

>>16473057
>It's the typical "love triangle" where the woman chooses between a responsible but boring mate and a dangerous, outright abusive mate (take a guess which one she chooses in the story).
She chose both lol

>>16475407
How is The Great Gatsby fucking garbage? Sure it's overrated because is the first "serious" novel of many people but saying that it is garbage is just contrarian nonsense.

>>16475422
maybe cause they're not pretentious cucks?

>>16475451
If they were not pretentious cucks they would say "Ok, I didn't get it so I can't write a review about this book" but no, in their minds if they don't get it then it has to be because the book is trash, there's no other possibility.

>>16471689
>top 100 list has female and non-white authors in it
I am going to go with cringe

>>16471689
>no Celine

>>16475566
Instead they went with Proust, textbook definition of quantity over quality

>>16475579
Both would be fine in a top 100.
Having that top ten above them is not.

>>16471689
>no Bible
>full of Anglo and american garbage

>>16472415
What would an exit level list look like?

>>16475391
The characters are all shallow, bitter, resentful husks. It's just badly written

>>16471689
I tell arthoes that I read Pride and Prejudice and even have an old used book of it at the very top of the bookshelf. I have no idea what it's about, I just say that at times it broke my heart and that the experience was so real. Their panties literally instantly drop down.

>>16475466
They didn't get it so they didn't like it so they gave it 1 star you pseud retard

>>16475631
I prefer to be a pseud rather than an arrogant fool who think that something is bad just because he don't understand it.

>>16471689
>1984
>literary
wut

Don't get me wrong I love Orwell, but part of his appeal is that his novels aren't literary.

>>16472435
It's because it's "Literary Novels". If you check any other goodreads top 100 list (voted by users), it will be filled with YA

>>16475698
>Don't get me wrong I love Orwell, but part of his appeal is that his novels aren't literary.

What? What are you on? The only reason people read him is for his criticism on authoritarianism and Soviet socialism.