/lit/ - Literature

u can tell /lit/ is getting more plebeian as the years go by by how far GR slides down the list, look at all the russian pseud garbage in the top ten, and all the commercial pop shit down at the bottom, this board is objectively worse

Here's the real/original chart for those wondering:

both lists are shit, i no longer wish to engage with this community, good day, sir.

>>17150821
This chart has nothing to do with the OP:
>The results were taken from a different poll
And I was among the first to notice the shit you just posted was using outdated data. So you can keep posting that shit all you want. It's a fake top 100.

filtering the Bible was a good idea

>>17150839
Why won't you make the correct list and post it.

>>17150845
I don't make the rules, anon. It's the real list whether you like it or not.

>>17150815
This, if I hadn't revisited this board after a 2-year hiatus and managed to catch the vote, M&D would have a meagre 4 votes. Meanwhile, Fyodor "babby's existentialist experience" Dosto is ranked 2 & 3. This board has objectively tanked in terms of quality. Both the results of this poll and a brief perusal of the catalog bear that out.

not enough LGBTQA+, femme, and BIPOC representation here. not even joking either

We should go back to the old way of polling. And I can understand getting rid of the meme answers like hitler. But fucking Lolita? And where the fuck is pale fire was this made by a seething dostofag?

>>17150821
Faggots never going to admit hitler like N.1 but they are the same that ignores all voting threads.

>>17150777
rollingjeet

>>17150852
I want to read it, but it's so goddamn long, and people complain about IJ

>>17151227
>>17150821
This is a thread for novels you retarded pol faggots.

Btw pic related is the real top 2020 books, unlike the outdated shit ones from these retard anons.

I support the proliferation of "true" 2020 charts as it invalidates all of them

>>17151044
>Pale Fire
pos. 25
>>17150815
If anything, you can tell everyone is a zoomer retard who's too dumb to read or use his brain for more than 2 seconds before posting.

>>17150777
What's the difference between OP and this one? Other than filename obviously
Nice get btw

>>17151978
couple of fixes (vote count for Flanders Road and author of East of Eden).

>>17150777
Why the fuck is crime and punishment ahead of brothers karamazov? Unless the ones who voted for the former had not read the latter yet

bump

>>17150986
cringe

>>17151487
>novels
>the bible
>iliad
didnt look much further than that but you're a grade a faggot

>>17151301
It's not that much longer, and since you don't really read it as a cohesive narrative it would be easier to read

>>17151487
Cope, the Mein Kampf one is real

>>17154209
No shit fake data

>>17154214
False

I like IJ but placing it above Gravity's Rainbow is absurd.

btw pic related is the books actually read in 2020

This chart kerfuffle is a ride I never want to get off.

>>17152296
because it's more thrilling and easier to read, all the b-plots are easier to ignore because you know the meat is in the raskolnikov-porfiriy petrovic mental fight
just because brothers karamazov is more philosophical doesn't mean it's better
t. russian reader

>>17150777
Is there a list for nonfiction stuff?

>>17154417
Not exclusively, but there's the general top 100 (of which there's multiple charts (posted itt also) - because of the shit with Mein Kampf being no. 1).

>>17154417
We should make a nonfiction top 100 next year

What the bible isn’t allowed now?

>>17154353
Cope

>>17154676
Hard, isn't it: reading?

Būmp

>>17150777
This is FAKE
>>17150821
This is CANON

>>17150777
This one is just an old chart.

>>17150777
mfw a post of mine started the Great Top 100 Chart War of 2020

Just stop already, 2020 was a lost year. Next year we will have a proper chart.

>>17157517
2020 is not lost. it's probably the year in which more books were read since 2000. here and in general.

>>17156358

>>17157836
don't (You) me again

>>17157859
Leviathan by Anon

>Is Hobbes' vision of the Common-Wealth compatible with a secular society?
>Bearing in mind most of his main ideas are set out in chapter 42 (in the "of a Christian Common-Wealth" section) is
it possible to have a sovereignty-based state without an overtly Christian dogma underpinning its structure?

Firstly, I’m not sure why you would think that most of Hobbes’ main ideas on “the common-wealth” are set out in chapter 42.
But it’s an interesting question nonetheless. This may be a little meandering but I do think that to answer this question we
need to have a broad understanding of Hobbes and his project first. In short, I do think that Hobbes’ conception of
sovereignty is compatible with a secular society, however it is unlikely that Hobbes believed that such a society could
exist. His goal was the subordination of religious authority under civil authority through the joining of both.
Hobbes’ arguments for natural law is essentially a way of giving civil power a religious authority beyond the possibility
of church interference by claiming them to be the “dictates of God through nature” (De Cive, 6). Contractualism is likewise
used to secure civil authority above religious. The commonwealth is just the contract between all members of the society to
lay down their arms and submit to a sovereign. The sovereign is just the representative of the people through this contract.
Though the laws of nature drive people to make this contract, and though these laws of nature are said to be the product of
God, they are ultimately just “a Precept, or generall Rule, found out by Reason, by which a man is forbidden to do, that,
which is destructive of his life, or taketh away the means of preserving the same” (Leviathan, Chap. XIV, 91). Such Laws are
deduced by reason, not divine instruction, and as such do not necessarily require a Christian, or even religious, dogma.
They should rather be seen as the essential laws for the upkeep of peace and society.

Post2016 /lit/ doesn't read. The chart is nonesense

>>17157952
that's all of 4chan. /lit/ is about 4500 lurkers, 500 posters, and about 30 guys shitposting around the clock.

>>17157952
to be honest the same thing happend with project chanology, it´s not something new

>>17157952
>>17158016
About 50% or more of the books on this chart are the same as the ones in the 2014 chart though.
The taste and reading habits haven't changed that much.

36/100

How do you do, /lit/? Any recs?

>>17158247
65/100

>>17158247
57/100
63/113

>>17158247
20/100

>>17158247
64/113

>>17153727
Jesus I hate being reminded how so many people on this board are barely literate and can't understand basic distinctions and context.

What should I read next. Between books.

>>17150815
mm it was better when it was infinite jest at no 1 followed by the stranger at no 2