[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 560 KB, 784x3888, A4858852-350A-4A31-A788-6E13B9B4BD55.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14237131 No.14237131 [Reply] [Original]

What does lit think?

>> No.14237141

>>14237131
Beckett isn’t that deep tho

>> No.14237274

I don’t read so I can’t give you a straight answer

>> No.14237488

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9yWb-ZmyrI

>> No.14237513

>>14237131
>stein that low
i read tender buttons in a pleb-tier american lit class in college and autobio of alice b toklas in high school

>> No.14238000

>>14237131
i dunno why the maker of this chart decides to start off the chart talking about s u b s t a n c e when it's supposed to be a chart about how experimental/inaccessible stuff is, they don't have anything to do with eachother tbqh

>> No.14238111
File: 666 KB, 1034x1053, 1574711951194.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14238111

>>14237131
Where's Lucy Ellman?

>> No.14238508

>>14237131
Why is Orwell up there? He chronicled interesting things and did so well, I thought. I've only read a bit of his work but my sense was there was more good Orwell waiting for me.

>> No.14238650

>>14237131
notice how /lit/izen's shit on entry-level books like "Dead Poet Society"? they deem it to be reddit, which is to some extent a valid socio-cultural analysis, namely that easy books are hyped on reddit, but folks like chart-creating anon ignore the simplest truth proposed by this book. Often truths given by parts about poetry and women, but in this case, truths like the one teacher Keating is giving when he tears out a page about quality poetry that recommends making graphs about x) how artfully a poem and its object is written, and about y) how important is the object of the poem. The chart in OP's post is even simpler and worse than that, by confusing accessibility on account of style and accessibility on account of substance. Even if we'd say it is a good idea to order literature that way, which it is not, the whole chart is poorly ordered. still interesting, but it would be funnier with faces of typical readers. rate 2 out of 5 stars.

>> No.14239757

>>14237131
pretty plebe since /lit/ only knows books with english translation and usually 19th/20th century

>> No.14239773

>>14237131
>no separation between melville(moby-dick) and melville(esoteric)
Shit list

>> No.14239812

>>14237131
It makes me cringe honestly.

>> No.14239821

>>14237131
Not very good

>> No.14240425

>>14238508
The problem with Orwell is that he didn't write that much, and while what he did write said some interesting things, none of his books ever really examine the themes and their implications on a very deep level, leaving it more to the readers imagination.
Orwell is still one of my fav authors though, and Burmese Days remains as one of my favourite novels.

>> No.14240459

>>14237131
>Austen 'lacks any semblance of substance'

>> No.14240507

>>14237131
Hey now you take that back about Tolkien not having substance

>> No.14240526

>>14237131
>Tolkien that high
Just because normalfags love action movies doesn't mean Tolkien "lacks substance," or that his metaphysics and mythopoetic grail quest are easily accessible. Already dropped this chart

>> No.14240761

>>14237131
By Late Gass do they mean The Tunnel?
Because it is not hard, or incomprehensible.

>> No.14240790

>>14237131
JRRT (surface level): level 1
JRRT (mythological and thematic level): level 3 at least

>> No.14241554

>>14237131
absurd list. to have chekhov and lermontov that early (especially the former) is obscene. so is omitting Pushkin

>> No.14241567

>>14237131
>Sterne
>Moderately unorthodox techniques
lol

>> No.14242868

>>14240790
This. and George Eliot should be in between 3 and 4. Pynchon needs to be higher or Gaddis needs to be lower.

>> No.14242885

>>14241554
>>14242868
>>14240790
>>14240459
This list is a fucking joke.

>> No.14242901

>>14237131
>Marinetti
What is there to read by him other than the Manifesto?

>> No.14242904

Very stupid.

Italo Calvino and Umberto Eco ranked as more deep than Bocaccio or Austen is a joke

>> No.14244746

>>14237131
McElroy as in Joseph McElroy? The author of Women and Men?

What makes him so incomprehensible?

>> No.14245249

>>14237131
>no Goethe

>> No.14246084

Switch Faulkner and Gaddis

>> No.14246098

>>14237131
Stephen King is actually much deeper. Even just reading his books takes significant investment from the reader for sheer length and complexity of the universes he writes and the social dynamics going on in the average King novel. He's also the lynchpin of the later, lesser horror movement. I suggest you to read Danse Macabre if you don't feel that King is deep, and re-examine his work through the lense of having read Danse Macabre. He is, at least, somewhere between cardboard-cutout-peddler Victor Hugo and Dickens, who is nearly as complex as King, but perhaps whose period lends itself to more complex interpretation than Kings post-ww2 america. I bet whoever made this stupid chart only judged King based on the # of female fans. Females know something you don't.

>> No.14247004

What is this list trying to accomplish? Why does fiction that reaches the level of art become literature? Can poetry or drama be literature, or is it only art fiction? Why does philosophy enter into the mix, in that case?

>> No.14247045

>>14237131
Are chart threads always bait? Never seen a chart thead without massive shittalking.

>> No.14247085

>Theroux
>incoherent

Presumably they mean Thoreau. Paul Theroux's works are hardly abstruse. Or do they mean his lesser-known brother?

>> No.14247094

>>14237131

Love the pseud statement 'at this level books become art'.

Ah yes, being opaque makes you deep I see.

>> No.14247100

>>14247085
Alexander Theroux. Darconville's Cat is /lit/
https://youtu.be/jezYAXCvM08

>> No.14247127

>>14237131
>dostoevsky below conrad
lmao

>> No.14247173

>>14237131
I don’t really like it because it conflates different kinds of difficulty. Just on a textual level, is it hard because of how the author constructs their sentences, or because of their vocabulary? Is it actually hard or just old?
Is it’s difficultly from its non-linear plot, or is it otherwise experimental in its narrative (or non-narrative structure).
And that all before the issue of the actual content and the difficulty of the ideas.

This chart kind of scrambles books that are conceptual difficult on a deep level but actually quite accessible on a surface level and books that really aren’t that deep but use aesthetically interesting experimental techniques.
Like Clockwork Orange isn’t a particularly deep novel, I’d argue even less so than Brave New World, but it’s style makes it very inaccessible to the causal reader, far more so than a more deep but superficially accessible book like Camus’s The Plague.
I’d also say that to the extent Cervantes is difficult it’s because he’s old and his book is long. DFW is also not difficult, Infinite Jest is just long as well. That definitely makes both ‘less accessible’ but not in the sense this chart is trying to show. Proust too.

Vollmann and Eco are both fantastic but frankly both are way lower than they ought to be. Ballard is one of my favourite authors but it seems wild to put him next to Dost and Tolstoy, and deeper than Chekhov.

>> No.14247810

>>14237488
Women are so retarded.

>> No.14248147

>>14244746
Seems to be another case of McElroy being so rare that he’s totally unread, and so people actually have no idea how easy or hard he is.

>> No.14249139

>>14237131
chart is pretty terrible really... like julian rios being at the bottom. if you actually read rios you'd realize that he isnt "hard" to read at all and easily enjoyable. late era gass isn't all that hard to understand, it's certainly not incomprehensible. whoever made this is just jerking themselves off

>>14238111
is it bad that ive masturbated to her before

>> No.14249465

>>14248147
His books also aren’t that easy to find for a reasonable price. I’d love to read them but I straight up cannot get my hands on anything he’s written.

>> No.14249731

>>14237513
Have you read The Making of Americans?