Reading Tiers

[Anonymous No.10211630]

How accurate is pic related?

[Anonymous No.10211648]

>>10211630

As you keep reading you'll eventually find that all fiction is various levels of easy compared to the really difficult stuff out there.

Joyce - "late era" or not - would still be a cakewalk compared to a thinker like Alfred North Whitehead..

[Anonymous No.10211654]

>>10211648

Meme tiers are all pointless btw.

Avoid them and just read whatever it is that you personally find interesting. Don't let /lit/ melons meme on you.

[Anonymous No.10211660]

>>10211630
>tip of the iceberg tier
>lacks any substance
I think that's an unfair way to put it. The problem with most of the listed authors is that their books are good arguments and absolutely nothing more.

For the most part I think the black to white divide is fine at least. I'm surprised Camus made it below ocean level.

[Anonymous No.10211736]

In these tiers stuff at the bottom if not good is at last interesting, that's why I like them, sometimes they are accurate but you shouldn't take them seriously (everyone is elitist in some way but at a certain point is REALLY childish). They can work as a cluster of recommendations which is also nice.

[Anonymous No.10212536]

>>10211630
This shit again

[Anonymous No.10212540]

>reading for the "difficulty"
you guys are missing the entire point of art

[Anonymous No.10212566]

>>10211630
It's retarded.

[Anonymous No.10212586]

>>10211648
>alfred north whitehead
>disgraced mathematician that began publishing laughable neoplatonist garbage

[Anonymous No.10212593]

>>10211630
Bukowski, whilst barely becoming incoherent or complex is still artful in the way he presents his vision, dare I say, much like Hemingway.

Therefore, they both transcend the tier system as the tier system only counts complexity and not originality.

[Anonymous No.10212605]

>>10211630
>implying "early era" Gass doesn't contain The Tunnel
>implying Alexander Theroux is worthy of being on this list
>Gertrude Stein at the bottom of the fucking chart when her "difficulty" is her tedious repetition
>spanish wannabe joyce deeper than McElroy
>Schmidt not lower than Joyce
>Coover "difficult"
>Gaddis level 4
>Woolf lower than Pynchon
>Calvino lower than Faulkner
>DFW lower than McCarthy
this was written by a literal retard

[Anonymous No.10212641]

>>10212586

>Platonic metaphysics
>laughable

Get thee behind me, brainlet.

[Anonymous No.10212754]

>>10211630
Joyce is overrated af

[Anonymous No.10212944]

>>10212754
joyce put the bar so high it ruined it for other writers.

get over it

[Anonymous No.10212953]

>>10212593
what the fuck are you on about? you think ulysses and finnegans wake are only complex, not original? joyce created a whole new dimension in literature

cervantes is not original? tolstoy? dante?

those you mentioned are not high because the chart doesn't consider "originality", but because they were nothing special, specially bukowski.

[Anonymous No.10212963]

>>10211630
i fixed your picture

[Anonymous No.10213095]

>>10212963
>Rowling
>not Kaur

[Anonymous No.10213171]

>Not exclusively reading accounts records from the Babylonian Kassite dynasty era in cuneiform inscribed clay tablets

[Anonymous No.10213190]

>>10213171
>Ever reading anything other than proto-Chinese bone carvings from 4,000 B.C.E.

[Anonymous No.10213240]

>>10211630
They put Sartre over Camus. Enough to make me disregard.

[Anonymous No.10213246]

>>10212605
What’s wrong with Theroux

[Anonymous No.10213612]

>>10213190
>intellectually consuming any item other than Neanderthalian cave paintings circa 50,000 bc

[Anonymous No.10213619]

>>10213190
>intellectually consuming any item other than Neanderthalian cave paintings circa 50,000 bc

[Anonymous No.10213647]

>>10212540
This

[Anonymous No.10213933]

>>10212963
kek

[Anonymous No.10214077]

Where is Pessoa?

[Anonymous No.10214083]

Dfw is atleast tier 4

[Anonymous No.10214088]

>>10211630
Dostoevsky on level 2 while Woolf is level 4.

...Ok...

[Anonymous No.10214181]

>>10211630
>Tfw haven’t gone any deeper than Bolano

[Anonymous No.10214947]

>>10214088
>realist easier to read than modernist
>...Ok...

[Anonymous No.10215001]

>ranking literature based on it's difficulty to read

[Anonymous No.10215130]

Tolstoy is suprisingly low on the list.

[Anonymous No.10215160]

>>10211630
Why is Beckett so low? He's such a boring brainlet.

[Anonymous No.10216017]

It must be a sad life to value literature based on how removed it is from reality rather than how connected it can make you feel to it

[Anonymous No.10217794]

>>10216017
>>10215001
the only tier that is said to be worse than any other is the first one

[SAGE No.10218062]

>>10211630
>no Verne anywhere in that graphic

Go fuck yourself OP. SAGE

[Anonymous No.10218870]

Can't speak for myself as I have read comparatively little, but a prof at my local university with a PHD in lit said that after Finnegan's Wake nothing seemed challenging to read anymore, so he moved on to astrophysics.

So if you read books to be challenged(and some do) this list is at least party accurate.

[Anonymous No.10218923]

>>10218062
reported and bumped

[Anonymous No.10218942]

>>10211630
>Orwell
>Tier 0, lacking substance

Glad that was the first thing I saw, otherwise I'd have had to actually scroll through what I presume to be a tremendous waste of time.

In the event that you're not a troll, here's a tip for you, OP: find something that interests you, such as a particular genre of fiction or nonfiction, and start reading books associated with said subject. You will quickly discern what you can appreciate in literary works that coincide with that particular topic, and what you cannot.

Falling for the "/lit/ approved" meme is going to stifle your education if you hinge every literary decision you make upon what a shitposter (who you [more often than not] can safely assume hasn't read the book you're inquiring about) says.