Whose entire body of work is worth reading?
Hard mode:no Greeks
I'd nominate Nietzsche, Hume, Braudel, Kafka, perhaps Nabokov.
>>7454436
Marx
>>7454436
>I don't even like most of my top 10 favourite authors' works
k then
Frank Herbert.
Hegel.
Herman Hesse and George Orwell
>>7454436
Borges. (I haven't read all of it; I understand that some of his earliest work in particular doesn't speak beyond its time and place and isn't as worthwhile as the rest.)
Almost all of Dostoyevsky is well worth reading. (I've read all of his fiction. Less-worthwhile works are The Adolescent, Poor Folk, Novel in Nine Letters, 'The Jealous Husband,' and maybe a couple other short stories.)
I understand that Joyce's works outside of the main four aren't compelling. (I've read those four.)
Wallace: I found IJ, Pale King, Oblivion, A Supposedly Fun Thing, and Consider the Lobster worthwhile; I didn't think Girl with Curious Hair, Both Flesh and Not (as a whole), or Everything and More were. (I suspect that Brief Interviews is worthwhile, and that Broom of the System and This is Water [as a separate volume] are not.)
Lem: basically everything I've read of his has been worthwhile, and I would think the rest would hold up.
John Kennedy O'Toole
>>7454494
Borges wrote an enormous amount of essays, over 1000. Many are mediocre. Also a couple of his later stories are weak imo.
>>7454460
this and Heidegger, Wittgenstein and Merleau-Ponty.
John Kennedy Toole
>>7454494
>Almost all of Dostoyevsky is well worth reading.
so basically nothing past his 5 most popular novels is worth reading?
Salinger, Kafka, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Hume, Cioran, Raduan Nassar, Schopenhauer
unless the author has 2-3 works, no one.
what has Nabokov wrote that isn't worth reading?
>>7454713
Everything.
>>7454713
his short stories
>>7454580
I mentioned specifically what I think is less worthwhile and said everything else is worthwhile, which is much more than five works.
Gabo
Everyone loves to shitpost about le greeks, but I would heavily recommend Livy. He has no exact parallel in early Greek writers, but I would argue that he gives a similarly fun if biased/romanticized history as does Herodotus and maybe Xenophon. He isn't perfectly factual but, is a compelling intro to Roman history and culture.
Out of the ones that havnt yet been posted here
Bolano
Tolstoy
Burroughs
Hemingway
Camus
Konrad Bayer
Julian Gracq
>>7454436
I feel this way about Brautigan.
>No Shakespeare
I'm actually quite surprised, /lit/
Don't tell me you all actually haven't read Cymbeline or Coriolanus?
You've at least read The Comedy of Errors, right?
>>7454925
>that filename
>consularship
>not consulship
Which one of you illiterate retards did this
>>7454436
>Braudel
the historian?
nice i never see him mentioned here
op confirmed patrician
Epicurus, if only his works hadn't been lost.
>>7456399
No Greeks.
Camus
>>7456419
Fine.
The works of Marcus Aurelius.
>Wilde
>Joyce?
>Rand (in for a penny in for a pound)
