/lit/ - Literature

>>20889871
Film and Music are for plebs. Fuck off back to >>>/mu/ and >>>/tv/, you retarded faggot

>>20889871
That's because literature is a bigger and older medium than film. Film was invented when my grandpa's mother was a child. Fairly young.

>>20889875
trying too hard.

Name one television and film

OP here, I'll try another approach: there are many books, and you want to make sure that the time you spend on reading is spent on the best books possible. What is your process for finding books to read?

>>20889871
Most big lists are biased based on whoever compiled it and as far as I know, no one ever done one where they tried asking people form all across the world to suggest books for such a list. The closest I found is this list that combines many smaller ones.
https://thegreatestbooks.org/
The result is similar to what we get on /lit/ every year with a bit more anglo-american "normie" leaning and I think this is as close as we'll get to a list of all time great books. Of course the order can be argued, it's not that important in my opinion, and there's still bias in this one, but again, we can't get much closer than this and whatever list you come up with, someone will disagree.
>>20890002
As for this, I kind of gave up on the idea of reading the best books possible. I read most of the big classics and many lesser known brilliant books (and plan on reading the rest), but I don't hold myself to this anymore. I usually read whatever I'm in the mood for while still keeping quality in mind. I also like to read more books from writer's I like, so if I really like a Bolano book for example, I read more from him, even if not all of his books deserve to be on the greatest of all time list. I suggest you try a similar method.
In the end, you won't be able to read all the books worth reading in one lifetime, but if you don't abandon regular reading you can read most of the greats and can explore everything that interests you specifically.

>Literature?

>>20890036

That actually looks like a really useful link. Thank you so much. Hope to hear other people's resources and approaches as well

i think its impossible. What about short story collections of some writers for example "Kafka selected tales". What about poetry anthologies for example "Best polish poetry 45-89". What about books that were never translated like Inifinite Jest? So much good literature taht would not appear on such list

>>20890002
Check out Harold Bloom's Western Canon list.
But really the answer is there are simply way too many good books to be able to read them all in a lifetime. You likely already have a sense of what the celebrated classics are. Read them.

This is exactly what you are looking for OP.

https://thegreatestbooks.org/

It is a composite of "great books" list to give the definitive list. Almost like a Metacritic for books. Go down the list and you'll see it's pretty accurate.

>>20890002
You are so obsessed with consuming the “best” pieces of art that you are so far up sniffing your own ass that you are blinded to the fact that you have shit taste in everything, hence needing to be spoonfed books

>>20889871
Sorry, but how is Jeanne d'Arc below Vertigo? It's the greatest film of all time, case closed.

>>20889871
>why isn't there any serious and beautiful list of "200 books of all time"?
Oh boy, here we go.
-No person or group creating such a list has lengthily and rigorously defined the criteria by which they are determining what is 'best'. It certainly is too much to ask for an encompassing unified theory of literature, but it is not too much to ask for a systematic (and processually neutral) approach, so far as is possible.
-As an addendum to this first point, a list created by a single person cannot possibly be comprehensive, because no single person is well-read enough to know and understand all plausible candidate works, certainly not at the maximum possible depth (let alone the issue of knowing them in their original language). A group can mitigate that disadvantage, with the caveat that the members of any such group cannot possibly be equally-good readers, and a group is in some ways more prone to intractable biases; most lists of greatest books (or anything else) are tainted by the self-flagellating cult of diversity, and this is by no means the only bias that may manifest itself.
-It is extremely difficult to define the right scope for a list of best books. Does one include compilation works or not? For some authors this is prudent given the format of their writing, particularly short story authors or poets, but instantly becomes an exercise in carving out idiosyncratic exceptions. Go too narrow and you leave out some of the best pieces of writing ever crafted; go too broad, and as OP notes, it fails to provide the desired quality signal. Another problem with relatively short lists of greatest books is that certain authors, like Dostoyevsky or Shakespeare, command or should command several spots—in practice most list-makers choose cosmopolitanism over ruthlessly including as much of such authors as the works actually merit.
-It might be better to rethink and reformat the entire endeavor: I haven't given it deep thought yet, but I would tentatively propose a spreadsheet-type list of authors instead of 'books' per se, with lists of their best/most essential works, and criteria/scores/rationales for inclusion. Such an approach allows for more accessible additional forms of categorization: some works may be more influential but nevertheless worse, and it also allows one to avoid the absurdity of trying to singularly rank-order books that are so different from each other as to be not comparable. As an example, I submit that it doesn't make much sense to compare The Bible to History of the Peloponnesian War, or either of these to the Diary of Samuel Pepys or Plato's Republic. A spreadsheet approach also makes it easier to note/keyword cross-references between works.
-Ultimately this would make for an organized corpus with which to make a list that effectively tries to answer this question:
>What are the minimum necessary works I need to read in order to be 'well-read', and in what order should I read them?
That's the real question.

>>20889892
IT

>>20889875
fpbp

>>20890156
You know how

Bump for more resources and discussion

>>20889871
Scaruffi's list
Harold Bloom