/lit/ - Literature

and by video game I mean literature

>>3491407
We've already tried it a few times, but it's going to be too subjective. Most of /lit/ doesn't want anything too "obscure" on the list. It would just be a list with the same two dozen authors that are already on all the other tier lists /lit/ has produced.

in short: there isn't one.

>>3491419
>Most of /lit/ doesn't want anything too "obscure" on the list.
why? that's part of the point. It's not like anyone knows who the fuck "PMA Azeez" is

>>3491407
Haneke needs to be moved up, I'd say. I know plenty of people who are aware of his name who aren't cinephiles.

It kind of implies that films that are less accessible are better, which is pretty absurd for the most part.

And we probably wouldn't have much beyond level 4, because who the fuck still reads intensely experimental literature.

Where the hell is Bergman?

>>3491444
FW

>>3491444
Examples of intensely experimental literature?

>>3491444
>It kind of implies that films that are less accessible are better
It actually explicitly denies that, top right

>>3491447
Finnegans Wake. It's not very obscure, but it's experimental, alright.

>>3491453
not hardcore enough

>>3491447
See, this is what I meant by no one wanting anything too obscure. Very few people on /lit/ read anything outside top 100 authors anyway. The number who read experimental authors who'd be beyond level 4 is likely less than a dozen.

>>3491447
Urmuz, Gellu Naum, Konrad Bayer, H. C. Artmann.

>>3491447
Finnegans Wake would probably fit. There are a lot of books from the 60s and 70s like that (that I can't recall at the moment) that mess with style and form to an extreme measure and are unreadable for the most part.

I think most of our great literature would fit somewhere between levels 1 and 4, and in general, there really isn't much of a correlation between how accessible it is and how good it is.. Even something 'out there' like Gravity's Rainbow isn't that inaccessible.

>>3491447
gravity's rainbow? dunno about intense

>>3491461
first comment meant at >>3491444

>>3491452
Oh, whoops. In my defense, it was pretty small.

>>3491463
level 1 and 0 is mostly shit though
Even LotR, popular as anything ever, would be level 2 because the way it was written.

>>3491447
I forgot the name of the author and name of the book but the book he wrote has a cover of some sort of tree-person in a weird "alchemical" style.

also he is german i think

>>3491447
Vivian Girls would probably crack the upper tiers.

>>3491447
probably a good few off of this

I'd say a good amount of foreign stuff would be past level 4 for English speakers.

>>3491499
The Kalevipoeg. I can't find a single full copy of it in Estonian, let alone English (to be fair, I haven't searched the Estonian net, because I can't read a word of Estonian) anywhere, off- or on-line

>>3491488
Upper as in deep or upper as in notdeep?

>>3491515
Upper as in 'deep,' though it's primarily there because of its oddness and obscurity, as opposed to actual depth. It was written by a seventy-year old curator with Asperger's, for Christ's sake.

>>3491528
I think the guy is sort of well known though, for being weird as shit

>>3491534
He's fairly well-known to people who care about random books, but mention him to someone on the street and they'll have no clue.
And good luck finding anyone who's read it.

>>3491484
requesting this

As we appear to just be discussing experimental or obscure literature for the more 'advanced' tiers, I'd put the Four Great Classical Novels ranging from tier three to five.

>>3491545
>Four Great Classical Novels
care to explain?

>>3491549
They're essentially the Chinese canon.

>>3491552
which is

>>3491540
>>3491484
Voynich Manuscript
That would be level infinity for sure

>>3491555
you can use Google, guy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Great_Classical_Novels

>>3491555
Dream of the Red Chamber
Water Margin
Journey to the West
Romance of the Three Kingdoms

>>3491556
nope, it was published in the 20th century

>>3491559
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Seraphinianus

>>3491560
close, but no cigar

>>3491561
was it intentionally weird for like, novelty value like that one? Or was it a crazy guy, or surreal/artistic aspirations?

>>3491564
>surreal/artistic aspirations?

this i think

i remember discovering it on a troll tier list on here

author is european, has a "tree-man" on the cove

>>3491569
cover*

>>3491569
I am interested now

>>3491572
also just remembered the troll image is by quentin

>>3491574
Well it has to be a popular book then, relatively. He never put anything too obscure on his images.

>>3491407
>Gallo
The Brown Bunny was shit.

>>3491582
cool

>>3491582
So, the brown bunny is an allegory for feces?

>>3491564
going by the wiki, one of the goals was to make you feel like a kid reading an encyclopedia that was way over your level of understanding, but you knew that adults could understand it

>>3491602
wait so you know what it's called?

>>3491582
but buffalo 66 was great. it balances out.