[ 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: 154 KB, 910x1024, 1572467567039.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18565039 No.18565039 [Reply] [Original]

dickens > thackeray > trollope > eliot > hardy

>> No.18565050

I've only read one Hardy but it was pretty good.

>> No.18565221

>>18565039

God damn that's a depressing picture.

>> No.18565227

>>18565039
>that pic
The Bhuddists on /lit/ would say, 'who cares it's all just maya'.

>> No.18565228

>>18565039
bing bing wahoo!

>> No.18565247

>super shame
Lmao

>> No.18565272

>>18565227
It’s cringe irl and people dislike it for that. You don’t have to slap a metaphysical meaning on top of it.

>> No.18565338
File: 157 KB, 820x849, 1625139521901.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18565338

so no one here reads?

>> No.18565361

I have only read Bleak House and Middlemarch from these authors but I thought the latter was better.

>> No.18565653

>>18565361
Horrible taste desu

>> No.18566748

>>18565039
correct order is eliot, dickens, trollope, thackery, and then hardy. hardy doesn’t really fit with the rest of these writers. general comparison between writers like this is kind of boring but whatever. dickens is pretty much the best novelist of the 1800s and eliot is one of the best novelists of all time.

>> No.18567406

>>18566748
eliot is unironically trash. it's like balzac-tier

>> No.18567469
File: 7 KB, 523x128, educated opinion.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18567469

you are all wrong

>> No.18567477

is Trollope worth reading? it's a very unaesthetic surname

>> No.18567480

>>18567477
only on a third or fourth pass, closer to the bottom of the barrel

>> No.18568447

>>18567406
that is just bad taste im sorry

>> No.18568453

>>18565039
>that pic

dude wtf :(

>> No.18568457

>>18565227
maya is a hindu concept redart

>> No.18568494

>>18565039
Very unaesthetic. If the kid liked video games, they should have had the venue decorated somberly and given him a Mario plushie or something. A touch of innocence in the gloom would have been much more effective at pulling the heart strings. As it is it's just tacky

>> No.18568536

Mama mia...

>> No.18568574

>>18565039
Another one sent off to Star Road

>> No.18568747

>>18565039
Died a house fire... poor kid.

>> No.18568775
File: 354 KB, 873x900, 1606329060427.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18568775

>>18565039
jane austen > dickens. im not even trolling. I hate how fucking bloated dickens novels are. WE GET IT you get paid by the word, now get the plot moving ffs. Austen's writing was concise, trim, and elegant. no excess fat on her prose.

>> No.18568810 [DELETED] 

>>18568775
was

>> No.18568819 [DELETED] 

>>18568810
is

>> No.18568831

>>18568775
Solid take. I think both Austen and Dickens are good, perhaps not great, writers, but Austin was a lot clearer with her prose than Dickens was.
>>18568819
I was doing a last-minute correction to my post by making the clause
>Austin was a lot more clear with her prose than Dickens was
past tense rather than present tense (since they're both long dead), but like the retard I am, I accidentally highlighted all the text and replaced it all with "was".