/lit/ - Literature

It only describes itself as itself so yes it has to be accurate.

>>6779421
I like Mother Night much more than Slaughter-House Five.

However, a lot of people here don't like Vonnegut at all.

There should also be a play by Shakespeare in there.

>>6779421
>Fahrenheit 451
>Recommended by /lit/
Dear lord.

Anyone who seriously goes through all these before reading anything else they are honestly intersted in is a conformist fucking retard.

>>6779579
>conformist fucking retard
it's hardly a lifetime commitment reading 20 books, and the majority of people will have read some of these through compulsory school reading or at least seen the movie. If the person is bare basic entry level at least they will then be in a better position after reading these to form their own taste and explore it further

>>6779421
The idea of 'starter books' is fucking retarded. I got back into reading with The Idiot by Dostoevsky, then moved onto James, Woolf and the Romantics. It was great, because even though it was difficult I was interested in what I was reading and gained so much from them. I'm so glad I did it that way rather than taking advice from a "here are some easy books for plebs like you" infographic on 4chan.

>>6779421
Funny enough I did start reading again with lolita and catch 22. Not that I'd follow some silly arbitrary guide by people that don't even undestand dune.

>>6779628
>this method is stupid because I did it differently
/lit/

>>6779421
Lolita is the only good book on that list.

>>6779579
What are your favorite books?

>>6779628
Dostoevsky is painfully mediocre. Putting him on the "starter kit" would turn potential readers away.

>>6779421
You can skip Fahrenheit 451.

>>6779421
These are all works you should have already read by now, no matter if they're truly excellent or not.

>>6779742
>>6779574
You can read it in an afternoon, it's hardly a commitment.

>>6779777
Yeah, so one can one a song of fire and ice in two.

Read like five of those then move on to Dosto. That's what I did.

>>6779816
Followed by?

Genuinely interested because Dostoyevsky is one one my favourite authors at the moment and I want to read more within a similar vain, though the Christian stuff wears a bit thin.

>>6779823
Vein urgh

>>6779421
That's the high school starter kit

This is the /lit/ starker kit

>>6779840
>translations kit

i prefer this one tbh
eases you into the medium better

>>6779840
This is actually much more appropriate.

>>6779628
I don't think it's about getting into reading, I think it's more the idea that if you're going to start posting on /lit/ and you havent read the majority of these books, which are thrown around quite often, it's going to be difficult to really engage in discussions. You don't have to have read all of these to have good conversations and points to make, especially if the thread is just about a book you just read, but these are generally considered tyrants in literature, since theyre so famous and saturated in society, so reading them helps give you a rounded understanding of the state of literature and a general understanding of its evolution.

I would personally like some more foreign lit on here, but I would put that on something like an "intermediate" /lit/ kit

>>6779855
I felt the urge to read My Twisted World once, but I gave it up as Rodger was a narcissistic prick. What is superior killer ideology? Kaczynski?

>>6779421
wow I've actually read that entire list.

first time I've ever seen a list of books/films on /lit/ or /tv/ where I've actually seen/read every one.

that's how I know it's a shit list.

>>6779421
>do androids dream of electric sheep for a PKD book
>not based VALIS

VALIS is my favorite book ever written.

>>6779579
This.

>>6779865
>which are thrown around quite often, it's going to be difficult to really engage in discussions
Less than half of the books in that chart are regularly talked about on /lit/.

This one >>6779840 is more accurate to what gets talked about here.

Why are we encouraging people to narrowly read what /lit/ talks about though? That will just reinforce the repetitive, limited nature of discussion here. I'd prefer people explore on their own and bring their findings back here.

>>6779898
Yeah I was referring to >>6779840 its definitely way more appropriate.

>>6779886
I just read Ubik and I liked it more than VALIS, but both books were fucking top tieir.

They're all decent books and all worth reading just to give you a taste of what you may like/dislike, anyone who says different is just being a sourpuss/elitist. Fuck all wrong with going through them if you want to go through them all.

>>6779914
>Yeah I was referring to >>6779840 its definitely way more appropriate.

Oh wow, and you even quoted it in your post, no idea how I missed that. I guess that's what I get for following backlinks instead of the chronological order of the thread.