/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6516220]

who are your top 5 fav writers?

recommend some of the dudes above you some books and other writers they might like
if you catch some dip posting his fav stuff for attention only and not giving recs then ignore his ass

most patrician taste in the thread will get a merit badge personally sewn by my sister
will send it in the mail monday

[Anonymous No.6516234]

Donne
Shelley
Joyce
Woolf
Musil

[Anonymous No.6516237]

sneak peek

[Anonymous No.6516242]

Yeats
Shakespeare
Crane
Faulkner
Whitman

[Anonymous No.6516255]

Keats
Lowry
Faulkner
Carver
Pessoa

[Anonymous No.6516257]

John Fowles
Patrick Suskind
J. M. Coetzee
Hunter Thompson
Hemingway

[Anonymous No.6516262]

>>6516234
D. H. Lawrence

>>6516242
>>6516255
IGNORED

[Anonymous No.6516264]

>>6516255
Shit, I forgot Melville. Apart from Keats he could replace any of them.

[Anonymous No.6516268]

>>6516257
SHUNNED

[Anonymous No.6516272]

>>6516262
I read Sons and Lovers and thought it was a bit meh. The Rainbow is on my to-read list.

[Anonymous No.6516278]

>>6516272
Have you read any of his shorter works like The Fox? I highly recommend it. As for the rest of you in the thread, I recommend you nothing because you recommend nothing.

[Anonymous No.6516283]

>James Joyce
>Thomas Pynchon
>David Foster Wallace
>Robert Anton Wilson
>Samuel Beckett

all memes aside, that actually is my top 3 btw

[Anonymous No.6516298]

>>6516278
No, I haven't,only recently started getting into short stories. If you like British modernism check out Katherine Mansfield's stories.

[Anonymous No.6516317]

>>6516283
Based on Pynchon and RAW: Eco.

[Anonymous No.6516326]

Musil
Musil
Musil
Musil
Trakl

[Twiggy !!ErZLYHNhXgZ No.6516346]

Thoreau, Emerson, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Wittgenstein

I am looking for what can best be described as philosophical romanticism, especially its pre-cursors and its seepings into the 20th century. Philosophy as a way of life, with an emphasis on the refinement of perception and awareness. I want a more poetic and vivified state of mind and experience. Preferably odd recluses in the forest, not academics like Rorty or Cavell. No Kierkegaard. No Schopenhauer.

[Anonymous No.6516349]

>>6516283
Will Self - Umbrella.

[Anonymous No.6516354]

>>6516346
Embarrassing tbh

[Anonymous No.6516367]

Currently, these are probably my favorites, but it changes a lot, and there's still a lot I haven't read.

George Eliot
Herman Melville
Jorge Luis Borges
Gabriel Garcia Marquez
Saul Bellow

[Anonymous No.6516369]

>>6516346
>Philosophy as a way of life, with an emphasis on the refinement of perception and awareness. I want a more poetic and vivified state of mind and experience

This is what I love about the Taoist philosophers I've read.

[H.Q.S.S.G No.6516375]

>>6516346
Absolutely awful taste m8
Read some Whitman and some Crane

[Twiggy !!ErZLYHNhXgZ No.6516396]

>>6516354
I detect jealous resentment in you. What time did you wake up this morning? Did you go on an early morning walk? If you check the archive, you will come across some of my "Twiggy Do's and Don'ts." I hope you take the time today to search for them and change your life your life around.

>>6516369
Thank you for pointing this out.

[Anonymous No.6516400]

>>6516396
Embarrassing

[Anonymous No.6516408]

>>6516346
>>6516396
Do you ever find yourself bogged down in the "theory" of life rather than opening yourself to the experience of it as it hits you? Whenever I read Thoreau or Emerson I felt like they were so far gone into this meta-life that they weren't really living anymore. It's like the more you think about it, the further away from it you get.

[Twiggy !!ErZLYHNhXgZ No.6516409]

>>6516396
>>6516375
>change your life your life around
change your life around*

[H.Q.S.S.G No.6516415]

>>6516409
I just got home from the gym and I woke up at 7:30 am. Consume a scrotum, Twigboy.

[Anonymous No.6516416]

Robert Fisk
Christopher Hitchens
David Foster Wallace
Rick Perlstein
Stephen King

[Anonymous No.6516463]

Kafka
Faulkner
Yeats
Wilde
Hemingway or [spolier]Wallace[/spoiler]

also, haven't read Proust yet but supposedly he captures everything I love about modernist writing.

[Anonymous No.6516473]

>>6516242
>>6516255
>>6516463
Assuming you guys are invoking The Sound and the Fury, I wonder: Besides the innovative structure - what makes the book not shit? I find it basically unreadable.

[Anonymous No.6516483]

>>6516220

Nietzsche
Schopenhauer
Dostoevsky
Hamsun
Hesse

[Twiggy !!ErZLYHNhXgZ No.6516485]

>>6516408
>>6516408
In my experience, bogging yourself down in theory opens up new worlds later. There is a more cerebral version of what poets feel emotionally.
It is difficult to describe but I like to use theory as a tool in order to open up new lights in which I experience everyday reality. Theory in itself and for itself is dead and grey. Unfortunately, it is unavoidable unless you were able to keep yourself completely isolated from birth.
On the other hand, there is something off-putting about always resorting to escapism, when you leach yourself to the distorted visions put down on paper by others.
The best in Thoreau and Emerson is not in their writings.

[Anonymous No.6516487]

>>6516473
My favourites are actually Light in August and Sanctuary. They're a bit more straightforward than The Sound and the Fury or As I Lay Dying.

[Anonymous No.6516526]

>>6516473
Why do you find it unreadable? How far in are you? I can rattle off a list of things I like if that would help.

[Twiggy !!ErZLYHNhXgZ No.6516543]

>>6516415
http://www.choosemyplate.gov/food-groups/downloads/results/MyDailyFoodPlan_2400_9to17yr.pdf

[Anonymous No.6516551]

>>6516543
>not eating animal fat and caribou and whatever else you can suck out of their bones

fuck diet plans, i'll cook your dog if it shits on my lawn

[Anonymous No.6516557]

>>6516526
Most of the dialogue is either painfully inane, or downright nonsensical
The story jumps around, a little here, a little there, without really ever going anywhere - the plot doesn't emerge so much as it languishes in the boring lives of boring people.
Also, this is more of a personal thing, but I hate the southern dialect - reading it is almost never rewarding as I get the impression that it boxes the speakers into a certain perspective from which there is little to be gleaned.
That said, I've heard from friends who liked the book that it needs to be read and reread to be truly appreciated, but at this point I feel that sort of devotion is totally unwarranted.

>select all the sandwiches below
>tfw burgers are sandwiches

[Anonymous No.6516598]

>>6516557
I'll respond to you in a sec lad. I'm on mobile and there's nothing I hate more than typing long posts on mobile.

[Anonymous No.6516641]

>>6516557
Haven't read The Sound and the Fury, but I felt kind of the same way about As I Lay Dying. Wooden dialogue, average prose.

[Anonymous No.6516738]

Franz Kafka, Heidegger, Rilke, Foucault, Carl Schmitt

So basically modern poetry, post-metaphysical philosophy, political philosophy in the continental tradition, and ambivalent workings with modernity in literature.

[Anonymous No.6516753]

>>6516346
Arendt, Agamben, and Levinas for when you realize that Zarathustra had to go down and become man again in order go up.

[Anonymous No.6516761]

>>6516738
Please stop being retarded.

[Anonymous No.6516779]

>>6516557
>>6516598
Alright, thing about this book is that it literally requires close reading. it's very difficult to enjoy (or at least appreciate) it if you take it as literally as I presume you are doing.

>Most of the dialogue is either painfully inane, or downright nonsensical

You've got to think figuratively to get anything out of it. Most of the dialogue IS inane on a literal level, but if you closely examine Faulkner's literary techniques (mainly diction from my experience), you'll be able to see the story and the characters in a bizarrely serious third dimension--one that contradicts the inane nature of the dialogue. If you want to reread it, I'd pay close attention to Benjy's section; that's where the novel "begins" and where Faulkner gets a chance to establish all the symbols that get used throughout the book (eg. water/rain, fire, floral/natural imagery), and most importantly, it's the most OBJECTIVE picture you ever get of the major events in the novel (despite the fact that the order in which these events are structured are not chronological or even logical at all). For example, notice Faulkner's word choice in the scene where Caddy and Quentin are splashing each other with water and she gets her drawers dirty. There are other scenes like that, but that's probably the most immediately striking example of effective language in Benjy's story.

>or downright nonsensical
that's actually one of the strong points of the novel. The old "Tomorrow and Tomorrow" soliloquy from which the novel's title is taken calls life "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing", and indeed, Faulkner fucks around with POV by using three literal idiots to tell the story. Besides [perhaps] diction/figurative language, POV is probably the most important literary technique in this book, as each character perceives Caddy and events revolving around her in a different manner. Differences in perspective flesh out the novel's themes (especially the ones related to Sex or Sin), and ultimately, as every narrator is flawed in his perception (as Benjy is retarded, Quentin is too idealistic, and Jason is too cynical), none of them can present a morally comprehensive account of Caddy's literal fucking around. It's a destructive novel, tearing down and dismissing the characters' ideologies and, in turn, forces the reader to figure out how morality and sin are meant to work in a situation like that of the Compsons. I'm being vague since I don't have the book to pull out quotes, but basically, POV contributes greatly to the reader's perception of the decline of the family.

>The story jumps around, a little here, a little there, without really ever going anywhere - the plot doesn't emerge so much as it languishes in the boring lives of boring people.

Again, the story feels mainly allegorical with all the language choices and symbolic motifs used throughout. It's not a plot-driven novel so much as it is a character-driven one.

[Anonymous No.6516800]

Ken Bruen
Phillip K. Dick
David Mitchell
Phillip Pullman
Lemony Snickett

[Anonymous No.6516812]

>>6516761
Are you upset that someone actually devotes a good portion of their time to reading beyond Time's 100 best novels?

[Anonymous No.6516868]

>>6516738
patrician taste dude

[Anonymous No.6516872]

>>6516242
>>6516283
>>6516346
>>6516738

Tryhards ITT

[Anonymous No.6516880]

>>6516800
gtfo of /lit/

Shakespeare
Shakespeare
Shakespeare
Dostoevsky
Keats

[Anonymous No.6516898]

>>6516557
one of my friends read As I Lay Dying six times

[Anonymous No.6516904]

Wallace, Nabokov, Tolstoy, Whitman, Verne

[Anonymous No.6516928]

>>6516872
try harder

[Anonymous No.6516967]

>>6516220
>John
>Green
>tickled
>my
>scrotum

[Anonymous No.6516975]

>>6516220

Faulkner
DeLillo
Ballard
Powell
Munro

[Anonymous No.6519248]

>>6516220
>Rowling
>Green
>Rothfuss
>Collins
>King

[The cats No.6519304]

>>6516283
William Gaddis seems the obvious choice

[Anonymous No.6519366]

>>6519248
Come on don't be too obvious. Stick ONE of those in with greats.

[Anonymous No.6519386]

Nabokov
Le Guin
Pynchon
Michael Lewis
David Graeber

>>6516975
Flannery O'Connor if you haven't already

>>6516904
DeLillo's more serious stuff, try Libra or Underworld

[Anonymous No.6519412]

>>6516346
>Thoreau
>Good

pick 1

[Anonymous No.6519454]

Tolstoy
Dostoevsky
Pushkin
Gogol
Turgenev

[None !!lZetafI6z8s No.6519464]

max stirner, tony duvert, emile armand, david hume, lieh tzu

[Anonymous No.6519476]

i dont make top 5s, this is idolatry and should not be encouraged

[None !!lZetafI6z8s No.6519481]

>>6519476
fag

[Anonymous No.6519492]

>>6516463
I can't speak for what you like about modernism, but proust is absolutely wonderful

[Anonymous No.6519498]

Twain
Hemingway
Melville
Hawkes
Pynchon

It's weird, but I actually think Americans are the very best novelists in English. If I were considering all writers, however,a few Frenchmen would be on that list.

[Anonymous No.6519570]

>>6516257
Try The Holy Innocents by Gilbert Adair (the rewritten version The Dreamers is probably easier to get hold of), A Month in the Country by J.L. Carr, and The Water of the Hills (Jean de Florette and Manon des Sources) by Marcel Pagnol.

[Anonymous No.6519910]

>>6516283
Whats so great about Beckett

[Anonymous No.6520200]

>>6516220
Milton
Dante
Joyce
Shakespeare
Eliot

[Anonymous No.6520206]

>>6519498
I respectfully disagree: they are some of the crudest, least inspired, and thoroughly least talented writers, especially that hack Twain. Plus they can't spell colour properly

[Anonymous No.6521358]

>>6520200
Absolutely disgusting

[Anonymous No.6521361]

>>6516812
Stop being retarded.

[Anonymous No.6521455]

>>6520200
Gigantic sheep detected.

[Anonymous No.6521599]

>>6516483
Platonov

[Anonymous No.6521608]

>>6520206
Have you even read any of those aside fron Twain (who you probably don't understand anyway.)

[Anonymous No.6521613]

>>6519454
Lermontov

[Anonymous No.6521615]

Melville
Woolf
Pynchon
McCarthy
DeLillo

[Anonymous No.6521617]

Nabokov
Proust
Flaubert
Marquez
Faulkner

came close to making the list : Loti / Joyce / Mishima / Pushkin

[Anonymous No.6521640]

>>6520206
>I respectfully disagree:
>goes on to use the same three adjectives to describe 5 completely different prose stylists
lol isn't it past your bed time?

[Anonymous No.6521644]

>>6521617
Do you also read non-litcore?

[Anonymous No.6521649]

>>6521617
Why is this board so bougie sometimes? GOD THOSE AUTHORS BORE ME TO TEARS. Should have put Pushkin on the list. Way better than Nabokov without the underserved hype. Joyce, meh, could live in a world without his ever existence.

[Anonymous No.6521683]

Pynchon
Steinbeck
Kafka (can read german, translations of Kafka are impossible)
Hesse
Hemmingway

[Anonymous No.6521695]

>>6521649
>Should have put Pushkin on the list
Never understood why people consider him to be the God of Russian literature at all. He always seemed fairly average to me.

[Anonymous No.6521703]

>>6521695
Every national poet is horribly overrated for patriotic reasons. Just look at the idolatry for Shakespeare.