[ 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: 125 KB, 1193x845, guidetobookfiction2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3554413 No.3554413 [Reply] [Original]

Have a look tell me, what you think. Added in some names, streamlined it, and 'promoted' or 'demoted' a few people.

>> No.3554436

>>3554413

Anyone? I think /lit/ will like this one a lot more. Uh, maybe even like it.

>> No.3554442
File: 9 KB, 126x115, sunhawk.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3554442

>> No.3554447

>>3554442

Don't listen to this guy. This is a good chart that /lit/ as a board can get behind?

>> No.3554449

Stop making these tier charts with shitty criteria, you thick cunt.

>> No.3554457

>>3554449

Why not? Every other board has them.

>> No.3554470

fuck.yourself.sunhawk

>> No.3554476

>>3554457
Because you have no idea what you are doing.

If you really have to do this, come up with a model for assessing brow height. I mean, really? "Danger zone, Lot's of fun to be had, hand-holding, obscure references..." Your main criteria is prose complexity, non-linear structures, merged with the authors you have been are good. If that's what you like, then make a chart of prose complexity without attaching a good/bad dichotomy to it.

If you want to do this properly, outline realistic attributes and form a model... Form a range of spectrums between traits, have them intersect, and you will be able to plot books in this map by their varying characteristics.

As it stands, I know you have put a bit of effort into it, but the picture you have made is ridiculous.

>> No.3554482

Heller on there is Joseph, right? What would you recommend of his work beyond Catch-22?

>> No.3554489 [DELETED] 

You should put Milton, Donne, and other Sons of Ben in the High Brow tier.

>> No.3554490

>>3554476
>I know you have put a bit of effort into it, but the picture you have made is ridiculous.

Aww, leave him alone, he's been working on this for about 6 months. Just humour him like everyone else.

>> No.3554493 [DELETED] 

Milton, Benson, and the Sons of Ben should all be in high brow. Most of their works consist of thick alchemical texts which require much research to even begin to interpret properly.

>> No.3554494

Milton, Ben Jonson, and the Sons of Ben should all be in high brow. Most of their works consist of thick alchemical texts which require much research to even begin to interpret properly.

>> No.3554502

how in the name of god did you change this and still get nabokov's name wrong

it's also complete garbage, by the way

>> No.3554505

>>3554502
I think he's talking about Vlodomor Nobokov, the lessor known Ukrainian playwright that shares a similar name to the Russian author.

>> No.3554515
File: 22 KB, 205x300, Nobokov.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3554515

>>3554505
>Vlodomor Nobokov

>> No.3554512

>>3554413
>Asimov in mid-high brow tier

Is this real life?

>> No.3554520

this board doesn't need shitty charts, fuck off and take your autism with you

>> No.3554528
File: 63 KB, 660x440, Wolloce.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3554528

>>3554515
>Dovod Fostor Wolloc

>> No.3554547

>>3554528
I kind of want to hate you, but the fact that Diaz and Munro are on there warms my cold, cold heart.

But Atwood above Murakami? Lol.

>> No.3554561

>>3554482
Not the OP but I wouldn't recommend anything beyond Catch-22
In my opinion he's basically a one hit wonder. It truly is a hit, though- I love Catch-22.

>> No.3554703
File: 45 KB, 567x576, bertcomputer.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3554703

I as a contributing member of /lit/, I believe it is morally wrong and outdated to stand behind something that compartmentalizes a serious art such as literature into high-brow or low-brow tiers. It is for this reason that I will always disagree with Sunhawk's image. The authors presented are not the issue, rather the underdeveloped view on the classification of art that always seems to throw my jimmies into maximum over-rustle.

As >>3554476 pointed out, the criteria by which you assign your good/bad dichotomy is absolutely laughable. Do you really think complexity determines quality? Do you really think that's what Pynchon and Joyce explored in their works? From your list, it can be assumed that you read Gravity's Rainbow and counted the obscure references, then measured them against how hard it was to meander through Infinite Jest, and declared that Pynchon was a better writer. I'm exaggerating, but I hope the point gets across: you can't measure quality this way.

It never ceases to amaze me how Sunhawk--for someone who is very well-read--can show such ignorance when it comes to considering literature on the whole as an art form. It's depressing to think that, despite all the books, essays, articles on literary aesthetics, people still think it boils down to accessibility. And of all places, on a literature board.

/thread

Note: I didn't even comment on the pretentiousness of the word choice because it's not my intention to sound mean, this is only because I so vehemently disagree with the rationale behind this. But yeah, you should be sounding more grown-up; trying to sound casual when discussing smart-people things makes you come across as saying 'I don't know how to put this, but I'm a big deal'.

>> No.3554722

One of the primary objectives of postmodern literature---which you profess to love so much---was breaking down the exclusionary boundaries between 'High' and 'Low' culture. Pynchon would be fucking pissed off he caught you labelling him 'High Brow'.

>> No.3554797

>Murakami
>Low-mid brow

No.

>> No.3555039

>>3554505

Oh for God's sake, I fixed the name. Good. The world can start spinning again.

>>3554512

Try reading the Robots books, and particularly Foundation, and tell me he isn't mid-high-brow. I mean, the sheer cleverness and nuance of the Third Laws, and pyschohistory, are excellent. You can understand his books reasonably well the first time through, but you have to read them many times to fully understand, especially the Foundation Trilogy.

>>3554703

First of all, let me say thank you for actually communicating with me, unlike most of /lit/ flaming me without explaining exactly why. Secondly, I would say that this is the chart I wanted to make using the criteria I wanted to use, and I'm okay with it. Only real problem is the lack of authors listed, but this is still plenty.

>> No.3555042

>>3554797

I agree. He should be in the red

>> No.3555045
File: 124 KB, 1193x845, guidetobookfiction2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3555045

Here.

>> No.3555048

>>3555042

Lulz.

>> No.3555056

>>3555039
>I would say that this is the chart I wanted to make using the criteria I wanted to use
Then keep it to yourself and stop spamming /lit/ with it. Either create a coherent chart, or keep your nonsense to yourself.

Why didn't you include hair colour, dental fillings, and shoe size? Big feet, brown hair, and gold fillings can be high brow authors, right?

>> No.3555062
File: 113 KB, 909x713, girlinlibrary.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3555062

Could someone do me a favour and report or link to that weird /mu/ chart? I'm not sure if it's their 'official' chart, but it was interesting (if poorly thought out).

>> No.3555065

>>3555056
lol, he's Sunhawk. There isn't much logic in what he does.

>> No.3555800

>>3555039
The thought that anyone can think that highly of Asimov makes me smile sardonically.

>> No.3555823

stupid chart,stupid tripfag

>> No.3556248

Why does every post on 4chan seem to have undertones of posing, ego, and snobbery? Can you not just appreciate something and enjoy it, does reading have to be about placing yourself above someone else in some way? I don't no what happened to that you felt the need to fill the hole in your self esteem by spouting petty intellectualism and boasting, but I pity you, I really do.

>> No.3558045

>>3556248

Well,it's 4chan. And it's a specialist board. Those were always worst. Like at /mu/, or /fit/. Or /lit/.

>> No.3558086

>>3556248
Because people here are mostly isolated nerds with shitty self esteem and use a hyper inflated ego as a defense mechanism.

>> No.3558093

>>3556248
because anonymity

>> No.3558095

>>3556248
>>3558045
>>3558086
>>3558093
Just shut the fuck up Sunhawk

>> No.3558135

Going along with this laughable, retardedly fun nonsense:

Move Salinger and Asimov to midbrow. Jorge Luis Borges, Kazuo Ishiguro, Salman Rushdie, and John Barth could all go in their place. Take DeLillo off there completely. Nobody should ever read him.

Needs more highbrow abstrusity: Kafka, Beckett, Barthelme? Umberto Eco? Italo Calvino? William S. Burroughs? Georges Perec?

Confused as to why Auster, Heller, Selby Jr, and Yates are on there since they're not widely read or all that notable. By "Smith" you mean Zadie Smith? Include first names imo.

I can tell from this that you get the majority of your opinions from /lit/. That's unhealthy. At the very least start browsing some forums or actually read a wider variety of writers. /lit/ has an extraordinarily narrow range and deifies marginally-important writers.

>> No.3558138

lol! toasting in another epic sunhock bread! archive quick!

>> No.3558141

sunhog bumps his own threads anonymously, doesn't he?

>> No.3558143

>>3558135

>Move Salinger and Asimov to midbrow.

No way is Salinger mid-brow.

>Take DeLillo off there completely. Nobody should ever read him.

He's a decent writer. Maybe not good. Decent.

>Confused as to why Auster, Heller, Selby Jr, and Yates are on there since they're not widely read or all that notable.

Lol @ thinking Joseph Heller and Richard Yates aren't fairly widely read.

> By "Smith" you mean Zadie Smith? Include first names imo.

This saves space, and a good reader will know who you generally mean.

>> No.3558148

>>3558135

>Take DeLillo off there completely. Nobody should ever read him.

Kill yourself.

>> No.3558149

>>3554413
classics, milton, latin, greek, epic poems, shakespeare, victorian poets = high brow

ts eliot = mid high brow

classify : VS Naipaul, Coetzee, Hilary Mantel, Ishiguro

list first and last names
redesign the whole thing not in mspaint or I'll recreate and and slap my name on it

>> No.3558153

>>3558138
I was almost afraid you won't show up.

>> No.3558166

>>3554413
list is too small. needs at least 50 authors

>> No.3558171

>>3558143

>No way is Salinger mid-brow.

Muh subjectivity. I like him, but by your own criteria he doesn't fit into "mid-high brow." There's nothing in terms of theme or content that a smart high-schooler couldn't understand.

>He's a decent writer. Maybe not good. Decent.

Muh subjectivity, encore. You shouldn't include writers who purport to be literary but have few ideas and don't know how to execute them. They are worse than the Grishams of the world.

>Lol @ thinking Joseph Heller and Richard Yates aren't fairly widely read.

Joseph Heller, fair enough, but I'd argue that he isn't notable or important enough to include among the others on the list. It would be easy to pick out a dozen one-hit-wonder authors that would be better in his place. I wouldn't say Richard Yates is very widely read; he only gets exposure here because of Tao Lin. I mean, come on, you didn't include Woolf, Hemingway, Faulkner, Updike, or a couple dozen other writers that would fit the list criteria better.

>This saves space, and a good reader will know who you generally mean.

So this is a list for people who are already familiar with those authors? Then what is it supposed to accomplish?

>> No.3558176

>>3558171
Salinger writes to an audience of WASP-Jews. Terrible shit. I hope no one reads Zoey and Franny. The characters were worse than some Mexican novella.

>> No.3558177

Hey Sunhawk, why did you drop your trip to start >>3556811?

>> No.3558184

>>3558176

It's historically notable because it delved into the pantheism thing before Alan Watts and Psychonauts Inc really pervaded the zeitgeist. Gotta look at it as more of a philosophical novel imo, although the bathtub scene is great.

>> No.3558185

>>3558143
>a good reader will know who you generally mean
The only use of charts like this (preferably not one so pretentious) is to introduce people to new authors. If the reader has read books from all of these authors already then your chart will mean nothing to them. Also leave /lit/ or drop the trip. No one likes you here.

>> No.3558189

>>3558184
>a hindu-american reading the WASP interpretation of pantheism

I didn't know when to gouge my eyes out.

>> No.3559244

Sunhawk I don't like your usage of "mid-brow" in this. Middlebrow has an entirely different meaning than what I was hoping you're looking to convey with the usage. If I were to read Joyce, I'd be a middlebrow because I'd be doing it for the prestige.

>> No.3559300

>>3554413
I fucking hate these charts. I never realized it was you that was making them Sunhawk but that sure explains their miserable quality.

>> No.3559410

>>3558148

I agree with this. fuck these people.

>> No.3559464

>>3555800
The thought that anyone can think that badly of Asimov makes me smile sardonically.

See how easy it is to poop on something without giving a justification?

>> No.3559700

>>3559244

Is it your honest opinion that all readers of an author are doing so for the same reason? Why haven't you got past this mindset yet?

>> No.3559704

>>3559464
The thought of giving justification makes me poop sardonically.