Most accurate chart

[Anonymous No.13799834]

that was fun doing

[Anonymous No.13799863]

>>13799834

This is cringe as hell man

[Anonymous No.13799885]

>>13799834
this graph has a massive crush on the Bible

[Anonymous No.13799889]

>>13799863
Why?

[Anonymous No.13799892]

>>13799834
>Borges having no formal proficiency
How?

[Anonymous No.13799902]

>>13799892
In my opinion his stories are just thinly disguised philosophical essays

[Anonymous No.13799910]

>>13799834
Hemingway right where he should be, based graph op

[Anonymous No.13799930]

>>13799902
Pretty weak opinion. Are you willing to substantiate it?

[Anonymous No.13799935]

>>13799834

[Anonymous No.13799964]

>>13799935
accurate

[Anonymous No.13800189]

>>13799935
Nice political compass. I align myself more with thematic interest

[Anonymous No.13800208]

why is houllebecq included in this...you might as well add Stephen King

[Anonymous No.13800229]

>>13799834
who the fuck is that boomer who you think is better than shakespeare? are you fucking dumb?

[Anonymous No.13800231]

>>13799834
>Hemingway so low
>Hollaback so up

Lmao lit is so retarded man

[Anonymous No.13800303]

>>13800229
You didn't understand the chart obviously. Shakespeare is way better than him in terms of style, craftsmanship. Secondly, Houellebecq is more interesting because of the issues he deals with and the arguments he makes; that's what validate his edgy location on the horizontal line.

[Anonymous No.13800349]

>>13800231
Hemingway is awful. His prose/style is tedious and he has nothing interesting to say about anything

[Anonymous No.13800360]

>>13800303
no, you put a guy higher than shakespeare in terms of formal proficiency, i'm not talking about houellebecq

[Anonymous No.13800428]

>>13799834
WHere's my boy Stephen King on this chart?

[Anonymous No.13800477]

>>13800349
You gotta learn how to read in order to critizice, man.

[Anonymous No.13800682]

>>13799834
is this from the textbook in dead poets society

[Anonymous No.13800702]

>>13799834
>profinciency
Not very proficient

[Anonymous No.13800703]

>>13799902
I am partial to the lyricism of Joyce's prose, as well as the clean and scientific prose of Borges

[Anonymous No.13800812]

>>13800702
Shit...

[Anonymous No.13801070]

>>13799834
so 3% of pynchon is worth reading?

[Anonymous No.13801132]

>>13801070
op got filtered

[Anonymous No.13801142]

>>13799892
As well as Huxley with no formal proficiency. Huxley graduated from College in 1916, I don't know of a single person who has a relative with a college degree from that time period. My grandfather was born around the same time and was instead in the US Army and became a sheet metal worker. Huxley was very well trained.

[Anonymous No.13801147]

>>13799935
LMAO the bantz!!!

[Anonymous No.13801152]

>>13799834

>profinciency

[Anonymous No.13801161]

what does formal proficiency even mean?

[Anonymous No.13801165]

>>13799834
>bible max thematic interest
>koran almost lowest
this is purely a dogmatically informed chart, I suspect the creator never actually read most of the material present

[Anonymous No.13801191]

>>13801070
Inherent vice or the cry of will perfectly do. You'll get the idea of him
>>13801142
Huxley is interesting but he writes like shit
>>13801161
The form, the how of the novel, is good
>>13801165
Quran is shit. And btw - i actually read much of it in the original. Still shit.
>>13801152
Yeah I got a frickin typo, what's the big deal anyways

[Anonymous No.13801206]

>>13801191
>Quran is shit. And btw - i actually read much of it in the original. Still shit.
lol you are full of unadulterated bullshit

[Anonymous No.13801213]

>>13801142
Less people being trained in that time =! people who were trained were well trained. Very few people attended university in the time of Poe, but most of his classmates in the university of Virginia spend their days playing cards and drinking.

I have no doubt Huxley was proefficient however, though I'm not sure he was much of a technician.

[Anonymous No.13801221]

>>13801206
كيف تعرف ذلك؟
انا باحكي معك بكل صراحه

[Anonymous No.13801229]

>>13801221
وأنا أتصل بك كاذب

[Anonymous No.13801254]

>>13801221
>>13801229
ffuck of niggers. get the fuck out.

[Anonymous No.13801264]

>>13801229
اسمع عزيزي. فقط هنا، في الانترنت، نستطيع أن نقول الحق بشكل مباشر وواضح - القرآن الكريم ليس جيدا. وخصوصا من الناحية الادابية

[Anonymous No.13801271]

>>13801229
Houellebecq actually said it himself: "l'islam est le plus con religion"

[Anonymous No.13801274]

>Nabakov isn’t worth reading
>Proust isn’t worth reading
>Pynchon isn’t worth reading
>thinks Hemmingway is boring
>thinks Borges had no proficiency
>thinks Marquez is boring
>thinks Houellebecq is that interesting
>thinks Bolano is boring
You just filtered yourself OP

[Anonymous No.13801287]

>>13801264
الآن اسمع هذا الصديق ، لا ترفع الكتاب المقدس بدلاً من القرآن. التخلي عن كليهما

[Anonymous No.13801298]

>>13801254
أسعى فقط لتحقيق السلام

[Anonymous No.13801311]

>>13801271
Houellebecq is not really an authority on anything, especially not on religion.

[Anonymous No.13801313]

>>13801298
>>13801287
>>13801271
>>13801264
fuck off no one speaks french here

[Anonymous No.13801410]

>>13801274
You know what, perhaps it is actually a harsh dichotomy.
Just imagine there's another oblique line, parallel to the green one, which says "okay to read too". It goes from under Steinbeck and cuts a bunch of writers up until under Proust.

[Anonymous No.13801425]

>>13799889
Because Level Two is a swamp that only allows you to live in a besieged, permanently defensive posture.

[Anonymous No.13801450]

>>13801410
Houellebecq is different from Chuck Palahniuk only because he has a sense of humor and has started conversations about deep things. Both use ugliness as spectacle, both make contentious assertions about deep things. H at least writes from life where P just scavenges anecdotes and urban legends, stitching them together to make a pulp nugget and call it a book. Neither really belong on the graph and Lovecraft doesn't either.

tldr Houellebecq at least moves people.

[Anonymous No.13801484]

>>13801425
capitalism only goes to level two, doesn't it?

[Anonymous No.13801650]

>>13801484
I think there are some devotees of -isms that feel like they are hitting level four. Ideology does that to you, which can lead you to imprison and execute crowds because you truly feel like you are serving some ultimate value. Usually monsters just SAY that's what's going on in order to dominate and control those around them.

Ideology is a fast track to kidding yourself.

[Anonymous No.13801753]

>>13799834
>Proust having NO thematic interest
Yeah, maybe if you have no soul

[Anonymous No.13801765]

>>13801191
>Inherent vice or the cry of will perfectly do. You'll get the idea of him
>recommending IV of all things
op you are such a pseud, holy shit. I hope this chart and entire thread is ironic because this hurts to look at.

[Anonymous No.13801830]

What do you guys think about Upton Sinclair? I just read The Jungle, and while I think there are better writers in terms of writing interesting plots and character arcs and etc., Sinclair's style, his way with words and attention to detail, is some of the best I have ever read in my life.

[Anonymous No.13801853]

How the fuck do you recognize all these peoples faces when you are supposedly reading their books? Are you studying the pictures in the insert or what?

[Anonymous No.13801915]

>>13801853
by lurking at least 13 years before posting

[Anonymous No.13801932]

>>13799834
>Lovecraft is worth reading
>Proust is not
>Lovecraft having equal formal proficiency to Beckett
Lmao

[Anonymous No.13801940]

>>13801650
That's a cynical presumption. The four stages actually illustrate different ideologies themselves, so you're self-refuting.

[Anonymous No.13802000]

>>13799834
>McCarthy higher than Gass in formal proficiency
>Nabokov has little thematic interest
>Dazai equal to Beckett in Formal and surpassing him in thematic
>Salinger high formal proficiency
>Salinger low thematic interest
>Vonnegut nearly equal to Woolf

You need to completely scrap this chart and pass off the responsibility of rebuilding it to someone more who knows anything about fiction.

[Anonymous No.13802004]

>>13801165
>dude he gets on a pegasus and flies away
>dude he has a wife that's 8 years old

Really thematically deep.

[Anonymous No.13802012]

>>13801264
>t. جرجس عبد المسيح

[Anonymous No.13802433]

>>13800349
>sees tip of iceberg
>thinks this is entire iceberg

[Anonymous No.13802543]

>DFW more thematically interesting than LNTolstoy

Holy Mother of LaughingGirls.jpeg

[Anonymous No.13802587]

>>13802004
>most of the bible is literally jews conquering and enslaving other people
so thematically interesting

[Anonymous No.13802598]

>>13799834
>Dante and lovecraft almost equally formally 'pronficient'
holy shit you are the dumbest nigger

[Anonymous No.13802599]

>>13802587
Yeah, I agree. The koran and the bible are both garbage.

[Anonymous No.13802604]

>>13799834
>McCarthy being more proficient and worth reading than Shakespeare

[Anonymous No.13802663]

>>13801165
This is a strong argument in favor of the chart, guenonfag. Go back to retroactively btfo Whitehead.

[Anonymous No.13802673]

>>13801753
It has the themes of a slice of life anime.
His sincere love for his grandmother is unironically the only thing I cared about.

[Anonymous No.13802748]

>>13799834
>Conrad
>low formal proficiency

[Anonymous No.13803118]

>>13802000
>>13799863
>>13801753
>>13801765

Okay if my choice of writers and locations is so bad I want to see how you guys do it

[Anonymous No.13803211]

>>13803118
It unironically was horrifically bad, and you should feel bad.

[Anonymous No.13803221]

>>13799834
bait? or idiocy?

[Anonymous No.13803287]

>>13803211
Stfu the concept itself is great

[Anonymous No.13803318]

>>13802673
>Proust is like anime
Can’t make this up. READ A BOOK

[Anonymous No.13803692]

>>13799834
all those authors are worth reading. stop trying to cope your laziness.

[Anonymous No.13804786]

>>13803287
It really isn't.

[Anonymous No.13805156]

>>13801264
>>13801287
>>13801298
>>13801221
>>13801229
كس امك

[Anonymous No.13805189]

>>13801206
I do not think the quaran is shit, but most of the big important novels of western society do not really draw much or any inspiration from the quaran. On the other hands biblical allegories are pretty ripe all over. Of course this largely has to do with the culture of the west having more Christian roots than Muslim, but themetics wise, yes the Bible is More important than the Quaran for literature.

[Anonymous No.13805671]

>>13799834
the positioning of the two religious books in your charts instantly gave you away as a pseud.
yeah, I'm an atheist, but I don't deny the formal proficiency in the Quran. It's loaded with mathematical allegories. Thematic interest wise both the Qur'an and the Injel are trash, though.

Ask me now how I know you're an edgy m9ri 3li 3awadh ibn 63myah teen who thinks he's badass and he unlocked the secret to life from his shitty one room flat somewhere in Cairo by listening to podcasts and forming street tier opinions on religion.

[Anonymous No.13805681]

How can you judge formal proficiency if you don't know most of the languages used by those authors?

[Anonymous No.13805869]

>>13805156
كول خرا