/lit/ - Literature

I haven't read all of those, but the ones I have I enjoyed immensely and always make for great conversations when I find someone who has enjoyed them too. What's your beef, OP?

>>3467278
fuck off butt

>>3467284
indicative of narrow tastes bound to western canon, the occasional seminal scifi/fantasy, and pop culture sensations

>popular books are popular

More news at 10:00.

This list and all lists like it are beyond pretentious. Just popping in to say that even though Lolita is one of my favorites, I'll never be the first one to mention it in conversation. I don't want to have to try to explain it to ignorant people.

>>3467300
>i'm finally beyond pretentious

>>3467288
>indicative of narrow tastes
Everyone needs to start somewhere, doesn't mean they're 'try hards'.

>bound to western canon
Now who's trying hard?

>the occasional seminal scifi/fantasy, and pop culture sensations
Yes, reading The Hunger Games or 50 Shades of Grey is infinitely better than anything on that list but hey, at least you won't look like a 'try hard'.

>>3467314
>post-tryhardism

You know who posts tryhard lists? Tryhards, that's who.

Nothing wrong with liking entry level stuff, you have to start somewhere.

wheres the fucking pinecone man

>>3467278
c>aring about whether people are "tryhards" or not.

No, Tim, you are the tryhard.

>>3467278
Endgame? srsly? I have a hard time imagining tryhards wasting their time with that kind of thing. People with a moderate familiarity with literature generally don't bother reading plays... as it seems to me....

It's a red flag for me when I hear someone complain about books not based on the content or the quality of the writing, but because of the frequency they're mentioned.

"You like X and Y? That tells me so much about you."

Why would you list books nobody has ever heard of to not be a "tryhard"? The reason the person asks in the first place is to see if they can relate to you. You list these books first because they're good and well known, then when you relate, you build on it with less common favorites.

>Kafka, and Joyce

>>3467522
>bumping the thread
>getting trolled

>Endgame
>not Waiting for Godot
>Cat's Cradle
>not Slaughterhouse Five
The Castle?
Stepphenwolf?
Fuck, Nausea?

Another red flag.

This is stupid. Where's your list for what people are "allowed" to enjoy, then?

>>3467561

A Confederacy of Dunces
Infinite Jest
Atlas Shrugged

>tfw "tryhard" is actually a thing

a lot of these books are much more popular here than with the general public

>>3467564
IJ is on OP's list

>>3467300
You mean non-pedos?

>>3467670
Yes. I'm only comfortable discussing with my fellow nymphet lovers.

I agree, but I really don't hear people talking about a few of those books IRL.

You also left out Hemmy.

>>3467278
dunno if it's been mentioned yet, but the naked lunch pic is the movie poster.

I get what you're saying, OP, but OTOH, maybe they're just new or haven't read much outside of standard required reading. doesn't make them a tryhard necessarily.

I think we ALL know who the tryhard here is OP.

Also,
>2013
>using the word tryhard

It's like I'm a preteen again!

>mentions books they like
>called tryhard

Look inside yourself, OP, and you may find yourself a hypocrite.

They're all fun to read books that have a large cult following for being a bit offbeat and different. Nothing wrong with that.

That Steppenwolf cover is so fucking ugly.

the second you judge what you do based on how it will make you look is the second that you are dubbed a tryhard. Therefore, making you a tryhard if you try to avoid these books. Read what you feel like reading, don't judge books based on if others like them or not. Stop becoming (dare I say it) hipsters.

Anyone who goes out of his way to read Camus can't be that bad

>implying anyone could hate gatsby

>>3467874
>his

>>3467923
women are people too, you know.

All of those are books /lit/ recommended at its inception. I read most of those books and enjoyed them. Therefore, /lit/ has made me a try-hard. Thanks a lot guys.

That's retarded.

However, Fear and Loathing '72 is better than Vegas. Too bad it receives little to no recognition these days.

>>3467278
Aka "list of critically acclaimed & (for the most part) challenging works that I can't get into, therefore if you like too many of them you are stupad"

>>3467968
Only about 4 of those books are remotely challenging

>>3467968
>challenging works
You can't be talking about Ham on Rye.

>>3467985
No I was thinking about Ulysses or Naked Lunch for toughness and then War & Peace and Brothers for the length and complexity

I hate so much these kind of lists, that's why I stop going to /mu/. Please, don't bring that obsession about others people's tastes to /lit/.

You know why people like them? Because they are GOOD, or maybe because they are just not that into literature and start with the "essentials", so to speak.
Stop being a cunt about that.

>>3467992
So only a third of the list then

>>3468002
How long have you been here. These kind of lists have been posted since the inception.

i really like russian literature, you know, tolstoy, dostoevsky, the list could go on...

>>3468007
Not for long, I admit. And of course, this is not first time this kind of image is posted.
But it doesn't change my point.

>>3468023
Lists are only pointless when people group them according to their personal taste and then start flinging their patrician/pleb monkey poo. Like the op just did.

If it's done properly they can actually help people discover new books and genres.

I need to try harder then :(

Fact: all but Catcher in the Rye are actually good though.

>>3467319

>post-tryhardism
>mfw

>>3467546

you're thinking less of try hard and more of edgefag.

this is stupid

>buys a copy of Ulysses and puts it amongst his average books on his shelf to look smarter than he is
>makes up some excuse as to why he hasn't read it yet

>>3467278
>but you know it's a red flag

It's only a red flag if they can't discuss the work(s) they've listed.

>>3467278

Lists are for /mu/ we don't need this kind of shit here, but everyone is getting extra mad ITT because they know this list is deadly accurate.

Welp, it contains my two favourite books, TBK and IJ.

>>3468095
Catcher is better than at least half of that list. Professing to hate Holden doesn't make you look mature, you know, it just makes you look like a bad reader.

No Proust?

You didnt have to make a list
You could have just said, good books

I bet OP is missing the irony of this thread.

Hey As I Lay Dying is fucking great.

>>3467288
Pretty much.

>>3468858
Catcher is worse than at least half of that list. Professing to love Holden doesn't make you look mature, you know, it just makes you look like a bad reader.

Why is every board on 4chan an elitist shit hole?

>>3470509
Welcome to the internet.

>>3470509

I guess i'm a massive fucking tryhard.

I don't feel like i'm trying hard, I just listen to the people who recommended books to me.

Many of those are good books, none of them are favorites of mine but if someone listed them as theirs I wouldn't judge them except for Lovecraft and Steppenwolf.

>>3470534
>I don't feel like i'm trying hard, I just listen to the people who recommended books to me.

You're what's wrong with everything.

>>3470554
Yep. REAL readers don't listen to recommendations, they don't listen to other people's opinion's, they don't care about the writer, they don't look at covers, they don't base their choices on fame, they don't read books that have been adapted to movies, they don't read commentary and they don't talk to people about books.

REAL readers ask someone to buy completely random books from a third world cheap book-cottage, remove the pages from the covers, burn covers, throw all the individuals pages in to a room, jump in as if it were a children's ball pit and read random pages here and there without any context.

Only this way can one understand, feel and appreciate.

Why Cat's Cradle and not Slaughterhouse 5?

>>3468858
Pretending to like Holden makes you look like a tryhard.

>>3470637
Cat's Cradle isn't as famous.

>>3467278
>Discussing popular, critically acclaimed books makes you a try-hard
It takes one to know one. You invested time into googling those books so you could get pictures of the cover art to paste into your image. I bet you even have a few of them saved in your images folder, just in case you feel the need to post them in a "what is /lit/ reading?" thread.

fucking bullshit

>>3467967
love it. Second favorite Thompson book.

I didn't want to start a new thread so I figured I'd just hijack this shit one for my own ends.

Is Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas a good Thompson book to start with?

Also, he's apparently really influential, right? What has he influenced?

>>3470933
It's the only one you need to read. If you really, really like it, his other stuff is worth checking out but not essential.

His greatest influence is seen in the 'Gonzo Porn' style. In which the cameraman documents the proceedings close up and there is little editing or superfluous, baroque ornamentations to the scene that so pervaded earlier eras in pornography.

>>3470933
>>3470948
No, no, no, fuck you nigger.

Start with Hells Angels. Then read some of his RS articles. Then move on to Vegas and '72.

Then if you're feeling up to it, his other stuff.

>>3467278
List should be renamed "25 Books commonly cited as classics that everyone should read."

you guys are queers

>>3467278
i don't understand

A lot of these books are favorites of mine. Does that make me a tryhard? Sure, whatever. I do not really give a shit what people think about my tastes. I like 'em, so I'll read 'em.

>>3471483
not giving a shit about what people think is the most tryhard thing you can do

>>3473652
go to bed op

>>3473652
giving a shit about what people think is the most tryhard thing you can do