/lit/ - Literature

I am better than these peeple

Wow I was just expecting some regular plebby inoffensive YA fiction but Jesus Christ

>1. Atlas Shrugged

Some Rand and Hubbard fansites would have bombarded it with votes for their beloved dreck. There's no other way you'd get 4 Rands and 3 Hubbards in the top 10, particularly as half of those books aren't well-known.

There's a few Nevil Shute novels on the list too. Where the fuck those are coming from I don't know. Has anyone actually read a Shute book since the 60s?

This list makes me realise how entry level /lit/ is.
pracitcally everything discussed here is found on that list.

> 1998

>>4523721
The stuff that gets discussed the most is stuff that many people have read, so there's enough to keep a thread going. Threads about other books get started, but never go anywhere as there's fewer people to comment on them.

>>4523729
Fair enough, but still, boards like /mu/ discuss the more abstract works of music, given that it's easier to listen to an album for an hour than to read a book, it's still odd to see that a literature board on 4chan would discuss such ''mainstream'' literature.

>>4523435
The Board's List isn't too good either.

>>4523769
This post is retarded at every level

>>4523769
Unlike large sections of music fandom, book fandom isn't usually about seeking out ever-more-obscure writers.

>>4523769
I disagree, /lit/ discusses Proper Literature, whereas /mu/ plebs discuss mememusic and so they know nothing about music (if they did they would circlejerk over classical composers rather than kanye and neutral milk hotel)

>>4523790
True, but there's a difference between "not too good" and "sweet-mother-of-god retarded"

>>4523801
Yes, that's true.

>>4523769
I don't visit /mu/, but I have quite a few hipster friends, and my taste in music can be described with some accuracy as "pitchfork"

The thing about literature is that, unlike music where the situation is exactly reversed, *only* the "mainstream" literature is good. There are so many no name bands that only have a shitty bandcamp with an album or 2 with like 5 downloads total, and they are amazing. There are roughly 0 equivalent situations in literature

>>4523790
le patrician face

>>4523813
>an obscure author can't be good

>>4523790
I honestly think that any "best of" list that is democratically chosen is going to be subpar, even if the group surveyed are experts. Reason being that even if we had a handful of absolutely brilliant writers and critics who had really refined aesthetic sensibilities, their tastes would still be divergent enough to cause only the talked-to-death and overly visible classics to gain communal reverence.

If instead each of these people made their own lists, we'd see a lot more surprising and insightful choices.

>>4523822
I think what he's meaning is that the book equivalent of some unknown new band (who may be really good) is self-published fiction (which is almost never good).

>>4523820
I agree with you, top 100 lists that were obviously created via some kind of votes=points=rank system are drained of all vitality. I get better recommendations from people's favorites shelves on Goodreads than I get from most published best lists.

>>4523795
Thanks for that great contribution to the discussion.

>No Arthur Gordon Pym

Sometimes I feel like I'm the only person who loves the shit out of that novel.

>>4523435
>Don Quixote isn't on either list

this is a joke right?

>>4523894
I think it's a list for english language novels.

>>4523813
Comparing literature to "pop" music is impossible in that instance.

You can't accidentally make a good 500 page book, you can on the other hand accidentally make a good five minute song.

Pop music is held to an extremely low standard compared to classical music or literature, that is why you can have an obscure good band.

> Hubbard
> Rand
...I see a pattern.

>>4523800
But what's wrong with neutral milk hotel?

>>4523908
>you can accidentally make a good five minute song

>>4525297
/mu/ pls go

>>4525338
But /mu/ is a shit hole. I was just asking a question.

>>4525340
I don't see how it even needs asking

>>4525361
but In The Aeroplane Over the Sea is one of the greatest albums ever made

have you every actually listened to it?

>>4525369
I know irony is all the rage with teh hipster kids but you can drop it

>>4523800
Yes, classical music is the only music worth listening to, no other genre has ever been good, only classical. There has never been any composer of talent outside of the classical world.

>>4523661
even more appalling:

>4 of top 10 are rand

>>4523800
there's regular classical music circlejerks on /mu/
the people who post in them are some of the worst people on the board

>>4525369
M8 pls. The title track is amazing and it's a solid OK. MUH OPINION DOE

>>4525414
Considering that just 2 Rand books have any kind of public profile, I suspect shenanigans.

>>4525417
>going on /mu/

>>4525388
I agree, I suppose this hold true for literature too. all talent and innovation died many decades-hundreds of years ago.

>>4525388
This doesn't go far enough. Whilst all non-classical music is terrible, so is the vast majority of classical music.

now I see why /lit/ and /mu/'s relationship never worked out.

>these books are entry level and mainstream

I've only read about a third of them, and most of those were close to the top of the list. There's books on there that I've barely heard of. I've been posting on /lit/ for years and I've never heard anyone mention "Loving" by Henry Green or "The Ginger Man" by J.P. Donleavy. I sure as fuck haven't read them. I guess being a true patrician is not all fun and game.

>>4525414
I think there's been some sheanigans at work.

>>4525388
>Talking shit about the blues

>>4525523
>never even read Brave New World
are you ok