/lit/ - Literature

>>20182527
I'm not reading all that from a redditor

>>20182527
Wall of text
Reddit

Pass

>>20182527
I’m not going to read a whole post of Reddit seething about us. The points I did read were bogus. He says Aristotle should be there if Plato is but that shows he fundamentally doesn’t understand /lit/‘s top 100 books list. It’s not based on any theme. If we were making a list of philosophy books then of course we would include Aristotle, and many /lit/ guides have done so. But the top 100 books list is just a list of books that users vote in. Of course it’s not going to be thematically consistent.

>>20182527
lol
How he simps for things that are historically significant to a degree, but not all that “great” kinda outs him as a psued.
Like tell me one saga that should bump out anything on the list.

>>20182527
That fag’s insecurity is palpable.

>>20182527
And we care why?

>>20182527
post the thread OP

>>20182527
I haven't read more than 3 sentences of that post but his seethe seems pretty unjustified. If this redditor understand how a poll works he would see that most books would be easily recognizable classics. Obscure works don't get as many votes.

>>20182527
Who even peddles around those lists and claims it to be the reduction of literature's greatest? They aren't even taken all that seriously on /lit/ to begin with.

>>20182527
>plebbitus textus

>>20182527
>any of the Four Great Classical Novels of Chinese literature
Are you fucking kidding me?

>>20182552
>>20182555
>>20182556
>>20182571
>>20182591
>>20182601
>>20182603
>>20182615
>>20182709
>>20182734
>>20183280
/lit/
>God the people on this board are such fucking PSEUDS with SHIT taste!
also /lit/
>WAHHH A REDDITOR INSULTED THE TASTES OF THIS BOARD WAHHHHHHH

Guess you're all feeling exposed, huh? Retards.

>>20182527
this is what Adderall looks like

>>20182527
I don't care

>>20183297
Thank god we're spared the smell

>>20183289
Sir, this is a Wendy’s

>>20182527
He was BTFO in the comments. You cannot make a top 100 of books and not miss lots of other good books. Also he misunderstands the purpose of the list. Also, 'hipsters', really?

>>20183323
The dude was just seething because he ranks lesser-known works as better than universally acclaimed ones to seem more intelligent. He just wanted to show off that it's actually him who is intelligent and a real reader. His entire post is a "No true Scotsman" fallacy, while trying to set himself up as an authority on literary greatness. His whole seethe was about why are people voting for famous and widely read novels instead of these lesser-known gems which aren't as widely read today.

He honestly sounds like a lot of posters on here who just start fights to prove they have a bigger intellectual peen. He probably browses here and posts retarded opinions.

>>20183306
No it's not

>>20183420
yes it is

>midwit retard doesn't realize that any unweighted poll of a community is going to be extremely broad as the base of the pyramid drowns out the higher tiers
I already think these polls are reddit as fuck and never participate in them but it's obvious that my predilection for the plays of Calderon de la Barca and Giovanni Cecchi are not going to be represented in a poll of /lit/ users that mostly attracts lurkers and semi-lurkers anyway. It's going to be all Dostoevsky and Hemingway.

The lowest of the low on /lit/, the retard base of the pyramid, reads or at least sets its sights on reading Dostoevsky and Hemingway. Reddit's allergy to quality control and gatekeeping measures means that it has no pyramid, because the base swallows everything above it and drags it down to its level of undifferentiated mush. If it can't completely drown out some form of excellence, it accuses it of being elitist.

>>20182527
Yeah /lit/ is retarded, hence why I only visit once every few months, but I'm still not reading that.

>>20183455
See you tomorrow, fren

>>20183412
This post is correct but unfortunately I'll have to have you put down for unironically claiming someone is making a No True Scotsman fallacy.