/lit/ - Literature

>>17678190
The intermediate step is making your own chart

>>17678190
Impressive, how long did it take you?

If you unironically read all those books, you have a low sex drive. Why do you think most young men dont read? I'm willing to bet you're on SSRIs or antipsychotics to have read that whole stupid list. I haven't wasted my time with a single one of those books. Only books I read are non fiction to make money. If I wanted to read for leisure, there isn't a point when you have a girlfriend or porn but you obviously have a low sex drive so you wouldn't understand. Ever wonder why most normal young men don't read? Here's the answer. Theres nothing wrong with them. Theres something wrong with you. Especially worrisome considering some of these books are. Leisure readers belong in a mental hospital or retirement home and your post only proves it.

>>17678190
>he didn't like blood meridian
/lit/erati status REVOKED
good day to you sir

>>17678219
I had a head start by having read Lolita, The Great Gatsby and One Hundreds Years of Solitude in HS. I started reading from this chart (along with a few non-fiction books) in 2019. Finished it by completing Borges' Ficciones today. So 2 years.

You literally checked off these books like it's a fucking Bingo card. It's totally embarrassing.

>17678247
>>17678285
Leave. Books are not for you, only for the intellectual elite caste. You're obviously a plebeian that must have gotten lost in his search for the red boards.
Run along now, your intellectual superiors are discussing important matters.

>>17678288
No, books are not for you. You aren't even discussing any of these books, you're just peacocking like you won some trophy, whereas most people here have read these books without the need to tell everyone about it.

Now you can read a non-meme chart OP

did you nowhere along the line develop your own tastes and interests?

>>17678190
>INTJ sheep discovers literature

>>17678295
Nope. I'm a sad sack.

>reads 20-something books in 2 years
>considers himself a member of the literati
>feels the need to share it with everyone

>>17678190
>He didn't start with the greeks

>>17678190
lol I never followed this chart yet I read 80% of them (all aside from Faulkner's, Dubliners, Blood Meridian, Catch-22, and Grapes of Wrath)

Most were pretty trash OP, read >>17678294 . The Iliad, the Athenian dramatists, and Plato are much better reads. Then read actual classics not just shitty 20th/19th c. novels

I am quite saddened by the amount of crabs in the bucket mentality on display here.
You are clearly trying to bring me down because I took the effort to read all those books and my post reminds you that you post on /lit/ yet don't read.

>>17678310
there's nothing wrong with those books, it's just when i read and enjoy things i end up fixating on a particular author and want to read everything they wrote and everything i could about the world they lived in.

>>17678357
We're bringing you down because this is a bullshit thread where absolutely no literature is being discussed. This is no different than a totally vapid shelf thread. It contributes nothing and it is everything that is wrong with this board.

>>17678357
Congrats OP! Now you can start reading actual literature and maybe participate in /lit/ threads!

>>17678340
I actually did, I read Hesiod, The Illiad and Odyssey, Hamilton's Mythology and the Theban trilogy. I stopped and switched to the starter pack because The Republic and The Histories are very long. I'm not reading the supplemental materials, I don't need some crusty academics telling me what to think.

>>17678294
This

>>17678400
Based, but the Republic is not long at all. You're doing well OP, but you still read "the Theban trilogy" which is an academic invention and cringe.

>>17678247
honestly dude just stfu. Glad you don't read, but why does that make you special?

>>17678400
>He hasn't read Heraclitus
>He hasn't read Parmenides
>He hasn't read Zeno of Elea
>He hasn't read Zeno of Citium

>>17678434
Nigger are you stupid? It's bait, he's not being geniune, he specifically tailored it to make you mad because he wants you to reply

>>17678451
that's honestly fair

>>17678434
Looks like I hit a nerve.
>>17678451
Not bait. I'm dead serious. There is something mentally or physically wrong with someone immersed in books for the sake of leisure. There are thousands of pages and hundreds of hours that went with that chart. OP and people like him are sick and should be reminded of it.

>>17678400
The Histories is worth it, try reading it next super comfy read, especially Tom Holland's not the landmark.

>>17678294
then do the essentials (troyes, shakespeare, dante, cervantes, faust, milton, etc) and the other non meme charts
>PIE linguistics chart
>bronze age chart
>pic related
then read as you please

>>17678357
Imagine thinking reading books makes you smart and superior. Is this only a checklist to you? 20 books in 2 years is not impressive btw.

>>17678641
>There is something mentally or physically wrong with someone immersed in books for the sake of leisure

What the fuck makes you think OP reads for "the sake of leisure"? He fucking reads according to a chart he found on the internet. He marks them off one by one like he's playing a game. This dude doesn't read for leisure. He reads for pseudo-intellectual "credit," which is far, far worse.