/lit/ - Literature

>>302584214

>>6827548
>>>/v/302584214

>Hugo and Dickens so low

Dumb. The further down the fewer I recogmize but then again I don't know shit. It's missing Joseph Conrad.

>>6827570
He's right there at 0/1 border you blind fuck.

>>6827374
Where is Wolfe

>>6827604
4

>>6827374
>artistic internecine

>>6827602
Right. I see now. That position is ludicrous though. Hesse is more complex than Conrad? Impossible. Read a chapter of Siddartha then compare it to a chapter of Nostromo. He should easily be at the bottom of level two.

>>6827630
Siddhartha is literally Hesse's most (second most?) accessible book you fucking pleb.

>>6827374

Who is "Young"? Pls no bully.

False dichotomy on the chart. A high level of accessibility does not directly correlate to a lack of substance or "art".

>Bradbury
>king
>Tolkien in level 0
>no real SF&F authors in the list at any level
Bait

>>6827374

>lacking any semblance of substance

Isn't that a bit harsh? The only authors in the babby tier I would completely trash are coelho and tom clancy

>>6827651

Marguerite Young

>>6827621
>Woolf

>>6827662
I know I didn't misread you. They're both 4, Wolfe just isn't on the chart.

>>6827374
>/LIT/
I'm triggered.

>all these old white males
triggered

>>6827636
Fine, compare it to one of Conrad's short stories or Lord Jim. There is still a world of difference.

pretty harsh to say stephen king has no substance at all..yes hes a genre fiction writer, and he writes very accessible, but he also writes very well. He is pop art at its finest.

>>6827697
Compare Magister Ludi/Narcissus and Goldmund with anything Conrad wrote.

But you probably never read either of those.

And also they're both 1's so who gives a shit, just cause they're the only two authors on the list you know anything about doesn't mean you have to fixate on one of them being half a level higher than the other.

>>6827374
Too many Americans, far too skewed toward the 20th century and far too few poets.

>>6827662
So it's misspelled or someone made a joke with the barking sound, what

>stein that low

Learned about her in my freshmen year of college english class

>>6827721

cool, did you read all of Making of Americans too? Did you learn about Finnegans Wake in freshman year too?

>>6827716
It's a prose only chart.

>>6827722

i just dont think shes that esoteric, her style is very well parsed by academics. this chart makes it seem like people that low on the list are near metaphysical and indecipherable

>>6827721

>showing your hand this badly

get a clue pleb

Somebody forgot to include Solzhenitsyn.

>>6827736
high 1/low 2

>>6827736
Mid 1 at best tbh
also
>impying all authors need to be included

>>6827729

>>did you read all of Making of Americans too?

>uh.... h-her style is very well parsed by academics

Just stop you posturing pseudo.

>>6827749
Who are you quoting?

strives for clarity
strives for clarity
strives for clarity
winds up reading Joyce

>>6827653
They're -1 at best.

>>6827374
where should i start with beckett?

>>6827875

Waiting for Godot

>>6827875
Molloy

>>6827887
thanks.

Why aren't young people good writers?

>>6827652
This. I got triggered by Carver's placement.

>>6827374
>Tzara
That motherfucker is hard

>>6827374
Where is it being crossposted?

>>6827944
Because they have no worthwhile life experience and thus nothing to write about with any meaning.

>>6827875
Seconding Molloy

>>6828001
This, we all are living more or less the exact same lives and we know this because of social media.

>>6827944
>>6828001
I think it's more that they tend to be hasty at some step, either thinking they're better than they are or that they need to push their work out fast, or otherwise that whatever easily flows from their mind is necessarily good because it flows easily, and so that it should not be deliberated upon or edited.

By contrast any half decent writer at least deliberates carefully or edits rigorously, usually both. I personally don't see how life experience would directly impact writing technique very much beyond granting an understanding of people/characters.

>>6827374
>Vonnegut
>no substance

such a shitty meme. This chart is shit

>>6828258
anon you fool, the only substance literature can have in this era is intentionally awkward or stilted post-modern obliteration of convention

>>6827374
>At this level books become Art
>Greene
Dropped.

>>6827653
clearly says at the top level zero comes after YA, so genre fiction is strictly out.

>all the fucking autists ITT who cant read and make posts which assume the chart equates artistic merit or skill with depth


Every time.

What's a good gateway book to deeper/inaccessible lit? Furthest down on there I've read is probably Lot 49

>>6828406
looks like Dixon for you anon.

>>6828258
It's not a meme it's true go back to r/books lmao.

Faulkner and Pynchon have to go lower and Eco has to go up

>>6828393
it straight up says level 0 has "no semblance of substance", so it's leading you into that assumption.

it's just a shitty /mu/ meme pic that made its way into other interests, anyway

>>6827374
too american

>>6827374
No Shakespeare?

>>6828014
>This, we all are living more or less the exact same lives

>>6828447
P R O S E
R
O
S
E
only

>>6827374
>never heard of Julian Rios
>look him up

wtf op

>>6828465

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juli%C3%A1n_R%C3%ADos

>>6828472
Ooooooh. Thanks buddy

>>6828426
There's quite a few french writers. Desnos is funny, I don't know if he's "deeper" than Queneau or Mathews but I'm happy to see him there.

>>6828425
>this tier still lacks any semblance of substance
>chart is about elements of inaccessibility
>bottom level lacks elements of inaccessibility

anon are you retarded?

maybe you really should stick to level 0

>>6828462
He is prose

>>6828485
As you just pointed out, the chart conflates inaccessibility with substantiality - at least an aspect of artistic merit and the only one represented on the chart, if not meant to mean artistic merit entirely.

>>6827374
these kinds of charts are generally what brings about a boards demise.
>some people will actually start to take this seriously

for an example just look at what happened to /mu over the past 4 years

>>6827374
Pretentious PoMo hipster bullshit: the list

>>6827636
You seem like a massive unfulfilled dick.

Does /lit/ hate Cocteau? I've never seen him mentioned on this board.

>>6827374
>Tolstoy below Dostoyevsky
Dosto wrote a lot more uncomfortable topics than Tolstoy did, and he is also less accessible. Tolstoy just tells amazing stories with great grasp of emotion and scenery. Dostoyevsky is the one who writes about murderers, socially inept weirdos, cucks and gamblers in detail. There is no way he should be above Tolstoy in this chart.

>>6827374
This demonstrates the problem with the postmodern approach to literature: "Difficulty" and obtuseness get erroneously correlated with quality, and so the gnomic mumblings of some worthless scribblers end up getting hailed as genius.

This shit's all muntarded.

donde esta Lovecraft?

>>6828822
Above the water.

>>6827662
Meme Woof

>>6828850
>Lovecraft

>lacks any semblance of substance

inaccessibility =/= quality

Lovecraft deals with more complex philosophical ideas than just about anyone in the first 2 levels. Hell, he essentially created speculative realism 80 years before it had a name

>>6828776
>Cocteau
>/lit/ knwoing anything about french literature besides that one ebin Celine copypasta

>>6827374
is there a chart that gives levels of fanbase weirdness like /mu/ has?