/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.3259917]

Surely we should also put on "For Whom The Bell Tolls" under Hemingway? Other than that, it's pretty good.

[Homerid !NLqByHLcRc No.3259923]

'We' did not make that. One guy did, and a few other guys made derivative charts.

Please don't ever think we come together to make this shit.

[Anonymous No.3259935]

This one is more accurate.

[Anonymous No.3259942]

>satan tier
Thanks for the laugh, OP
>she isn't even that bad of an author, the plots in her stories are fine, just nothing to rave about.
Objectivism is another story though, and has to be taken with a grain of salt.
Hell, if some faggot is going to work hard and act elitist, let him. Better than some hipster who works at starbucks and tries to be elitist.

[Anonymous No.3259945]

>>3259935

Except for not at all.

[Anonymous No.3259953]

legitcore coming through

[Anonymous No.3259955]

I can't believe Chabon actually has a fan.

[Anonymous No.3259973]

Here, I made it more accurate for you all.

[Anonymous No.3259975]

I feel like Joseph Conrad should at least be in the good or okay tier.

[Anonymous No.3259976]

>>3259973
Nicely done.

[Anonymous No.3259989]

>>3259973
pretty good.

[Anonymous No.3259993]

>>3259973

Well done ol' boy.

[Anonymous No.3259996]

Would you think less of someone if you found out they read "pleb" literature as well as some other recommended books?
I'm genuinely curious as someone recently told me that if they found out someone had read Twilight, even ironically or for critical analysis, they would immediately think less of them.
I've read a lot of really shitty series and genuinely enjoyed them alongside more highly regarded authours, I don't see a problem with maybe reading A Song of Ice and Fire if you're aware that, hey, maybe this isn't a shining example of good writing.
Though if you read Ayn Rand and like it you should probably kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.3260003]

>>3259973
Very nice.

[Anonymous No.3260006]

>>3259996
Everyone has their guilty pleisures. You can only read so much philosophy before a new episode of Jersey Shore comes on.

[Anonymous No.3260018]

>>3260006
>Jersey Shore

Don't fool yourself into thinking you're an intellectual, despite having read some philosophical texts. You're just a rube pretending to be an intellectual. Jersey Shore. Jesus.

[Anonymous No.3260020]

>>3260018

implying jersey shore isnt the best way to observe the human condition

[Anonymous No.3260021]

>>3259973
murakami needs to be "usually a troll"

[Anonymous No.3260025]

>>3260020

I tell people that feel and sadfrog is the human condition distilled in to its purest essence but these plebs think it isn't art.

Whatever guys, I'm with Nabokov. If you read for anything other than the prose then you're a pleb.

[Anonymous No.3260038]

>>3260018
>Don't fool yourself into thinking you're an intellectual, despite having read some philosophical texts. You're just a rube pretending to be an intellectual. Jersey Shore. Jesus.

>being so insecure in your intelligence that you're terrified of listening to anything but classical music
>using the term intellectual as a badge of honor
>intellectual/rube dichotomy
>implying people who drink single malt are not allowed to enjoy a lager as well
>being to only kid to wear an (awkwardly fitting) suit in high school
>being this bourgeois and aspiring upper middle brow

[Anonymous No.3260041]

>>3260018
>>3260038
The autism in this thread is palpable.

[Anonymous No.3260047]

>>3260021

I'd like to think that, but from most of the Murakami threads I've read the writer is serious. People are actually quite fond of Murakami on /lit/ for reasons I really don't understand, while the same cannot really be said for any of the other troll authors.

[Anonymous No.3260055]

>>3260025
tht isn't what nabokov believed you total idiot

[Anonymous No.3260056]

>>3260038
This is what pseudo-intellectuals actually believe.

[Anonymous No.3260061]

>>3260047
He used to be popular, but the consensus seems to have shifted recently, as reflected in >>3259953

[Anonymous No.3260069]

Why are all the female authors at the bottom?

[Anonymous No.3260080]

>>3260069

Because /lit/ doesn't regularly talk about any female authors positively? The charts aren't saying that Austen, Bronte, Woolf, etc. are bad, they're just saying that they aren't part of the core literature discussed on /lit/.

[Anonymous No.3260088]

>>3259917

No Steinbeck?

And no I'm not talking about grapes of wrath or east of eden (though amazing)

Log to the Sea of Cotrez and Cannery Row are awesome.

[Anonymous No.3260093]

Where's Jack Kerouac, JK Rowling, and Neil Gaiman?

[Anonymous No.3260134]

>>3260093

There aren't many Harry Potter threads on /lit/ in my experience. Gaiman might be underrepresented in threads considering his rabid fan base. You have a point with Kerouac, but who would you replace to fit him on?

[Anonymous No.3260154]

>>3260152
Oh, and I read Twilight in middle school because back then I had a fetish for emo girls.

[Anonymous No.3260152]

>>3260134
Not sure. don't even really know where they'd go, seeing as I last read Harry Potter when the last book came out and have only read a little bit of Gaiman and Kerouac, and haven't read anyone on that listr except for the author of the Hunger Games (which I hated).

[Anonymous No.3260160]

>>3260154
I hated Twilight. I also tried to read some John Greene and couldn't get through the second chapter.

[Anonymous No.3260170]

>>3260093
pleb tier

[Anonymous No.3260184]

>>3259996
If Twilight was amongst the only things they read (the others being 50 Shades of Grey or whatever), I probably couldn't help judging them harshly.

If however they read make their own mind up on it, I would find that

Either way, who cares what I think or if someone likes 'shitty' books. I like a lot of YA fiction but eh, their problem if they don't like it.

[Anonymous No.3260187]

>>3260184
*I would find that respectable.

[Anonymous No.3260193]

>No Poe
>No Graham Green
>No Josheph Conrad

YA BLEW IT