did i fall for the /lit/ meme?
Yes, but they're all worthwhile readsexcept maybe TCOL49.
>>7463065
and really hard
>>7463065
how does it feel not having will of your own?
>>7463065
yes just read these and consider yourself "well-read" and move on to the next meme in your life
between each one, read something you haven't seen on /lit/, or you are doomed to be a meme yourself who can receive no personal enrichment.
It's ok, OP. I did too
yea, and you made a shitthread about it.
>>7463092
But Reddit has good taste. Have you even gone to /r/ books? Don't knock it til you try it.
>>7463113
1. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams. (UP:1443 | WS:2210 | Total:3653)
2. 1984 by George Orwell. (UP:1447 | WS:2090 | Total:3537)
3. Dune by Frank Herbert. (UP:1122 | WS:2140 | Total:3262)
4. Slaughterhouse 5 by Kurt Vonnegut. (UP:967 | WS:1750 | Total:2717)
5. Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card. (UP:931 | WS:1680 | Total:2611)
>>7463114
Good job proving his point.
>>7463122
hello reddit
>>7463065
>Notes from Underground
Reading it right now because of /lit/, I cannot be fully sure why people talk about it so much - it's overall a weak book compared to other Dostoyevski's books (Demons for example...).
The same thing happens with The Stranger. Not a bad book, but is also a very weak Camus, The Fall was much better.
Looks like for the most part /lit/ read the baby books of well-known or 'hard' authors to think better of themselves, reinforcing this view each one to the rest in the community until the whole group suffers from the same mindlessness.
>>7463114
>>7463133
>That one shitposter on 4chan who can't help but self-consciously mention his hatred for reddit in every post
>>7463114
Come on now, you guys have to admit this is p bad.
>3 scifi (not that it's even bad sci-fi, (except enders game) but still)
>1984, or, Reductive Representations of Power Under the Juridico-Discursive Model: The Book
Vonnegut is honestly okay, but p entry level obviously, and doesn't exactly indicate a board full of deep thought and interesting taste
>>7463122
>>7463113
samefag
inb4 inspect element editing out one of the yous
>>7463065
>so much P&V
>>7463145
>that ONE redditor who also tries to go on 4chan
>>7463168
yeah i wanted to stick with a single translation for the Dost man, and decided to go with P&Meme
>>7463177
>I'm not so fucking delusional to pretend that because I didn't like it it's a bad book
If you don't feel comfortable saying something you dislike is bad (assuming you don't have some obvious bias) you're a bad critic
>>7463159
>you guys have to admit this is p bad.
I wouldn't use the word 'bad', nor I am sure that IF the list is bad, you would be able to tell why it is bad without appealing to authority or the superficial knowledge that characterizes /lit/ so much.
>>7463177
>Dune
>Ender's Game
>good
the rest are well known to almost everyone as classics
>>7463177
here's the next 20. now, i posted what reddit believes as a collective to be the best 25 books in all of literature. let that sink in
6. Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. (UP:1031 | WS:1530 | Total:2561)
7. The Catcher in the Rye by J. D. Salinger. (UP:907 | WS:1320 | Total:2227)
8. The Bible by Various. (UP:810 | WS:1230 | Total:2040)
9. Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson. (UP:603 | WS:1220 | Total:1823)
10. Harry Potter Series by J.K. Rowling. (UP:1169 | WS:560 | Total:1729)
11. Stranger in a Strange Land by Robert A. Heinlein. (UP:610 | WS:1090 | Total:1700)
12. Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! by Richard P. Feynman. (UP:483 | WS:1130 | Total:1613)
13. To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee. (UP:473 | WS:1070 | Total:1543)
14. The Foundation Saga by Isaac Asimov. (UP:519 | WS:960 | Total:1479)
15. Neuromancer by William Gibson. (UP:449 | WS:960 | Total:1409)
16. Calvin and Hobbes by Bill Watterson. (UP:664 | WS:710 | Total:1374)
17. Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond. (UP:455 | WS:870 | Total:1325)
18. Catch-22 by Joseph Heller. (UP:402 | WS:880 | Total:1282)
19. Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert M. Pirsig. (UP:388 | WS:890 | Total:1278)
20. Siddhartha by Hermann Hesse. (UP:466 | WS:790 | Total:1256)
21. The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. (UP:403 | WS:830 | Total:1233)
22. Godel, Escher, Bach: An eternal golden braid by Douglas Hofstadter. (UP:400 | WS:790 | Total:1190)
23. Tao Te Ching by Lao Tse. (UP:334 | WS:770 | Total:1104)
24. House of Leaves by Mark Z. Danielwelski. (UP:347 | WS:720 | Total:1067)
25. The Giver by Lois Lowry. (UP:429 | WS:630 | Total:1059)
>>7463181
I've read everything on the list besides dune. Second rate. Not even "bad" books, just not amazing ones. I wouldn't want to talk about books on a forum that holds Enders Game in really high esteem for some reason.
why did you buy brand new copies of books that've been in print for literally decades? are you retarded? you know you could've got all those for $3 of $4 each, right?
>translations
You're not even trying, are you?
U done did it
>muh in group
god you're fucking children
>>7463184
>Harry Potter
>All that sci-fi
>Zen/Motorcycle maintinence
>All that middle school-core
>Fucking "Calvin and Hobbes"
>FUCKING Guns Jerms n Steel
>FUCKING1 DAWKINS
Come on now, just admit it's horrible
>>7463179
>I don't know how to differentiate subjective bias from objective flaws of a book
I didn't like Hitchhikers because I'm not into satire British humor in a sci fi setting. But wait, that's what the book wants to be. It excels at that. But it doesn't appeal to me. Doesn't make it bad, just not fit my tastes.
>>7463201
>Harry Potter
>Calvin and Hobbes
it's obvious that they aren't voting on these based on merit, they're voting for what they liked as kids
Fun stuff > boring garbage like the Greeks, Ulysses and Infinite Meme
Reddit wins again
>>7463141
I was amazed when I read it. I really prefer Dostoevsky as a psychologist to Dostoevsky as a philosopher, and I saw the best psychology in Notes from what I've read of Dostoevsky.
I don't think it had anything to do with wanting to fit in. You can assume that about strangers if you want, but it's an astonishing book. I also don't think anybody would claim it is hard. It's not at all. I'm not trying to say that to sound erudite, but the book is short and to the point.
>>7463184
>Tao Te Ching by Lao Tse
Impressive. Most of /lit/ haven't even heard of that book.
>>7463212
Ulysses isn't fun? Fuck off pleb.
>>7463212
I will admit Ulysses is shit
I have no idea why /lit/ likes it
>>7463211
>it's obvious that they aren't voting on these based on merit, they're voting for what they liked as kids
i now understand reddit
>>7463211
The poll isn't asking "what did you like as a child"
And plenty of pleb adults read that shit
/lit/ mostly reads pretentious books to feel superior and intelligent, whereas Reddit just reads whatever books they enjoy.
>>7463211
>it's obvious that they aren't voting on these based on merit, they're voting for what they liked as adults
FTFY.
Reminder that /lit/'s top 100 from last year included Harry Potter as well. There are idiots among us too and their threat is far more visceral.
>>7463212
Why don't you just go back to the kids' table then and let the grownups on /lit/ talk about real art in peace?
>>7463231
>you fell so deep into the meme hole you actually think you like that garbage
lmao
>>7463227
This is true.
Just like /m/ watching chinese cartoons from the '70
>>7463234
Your soul is dead to beauty. You might as well just kill yourself.
>>7463065
>mfw I read Infinite Jest then found /lit/ and found out it was a meme book
>mfw I listened to In the Aeroplane Over the Sea and loved it, then visited /mu/ and found out it was a meme album
I like On Avery Island more today though
>NotU
No you did not.
>>7463082
>go to a community who talks about something
>be curious about what they are talking
>want to try it by yourself
>"how does it feel not having will of your own?"
>>7463345
>he thinks we're a community
Yes, you fell for the meme of reading eight 8/10+ books. Enjoy, and make sure to expand into the genre of whichever one you like the most!
All great books but if this is your first "haul" after browsing /lit/ for a week you may struggle with Pynchon and Joyce.
>>7463353
>he thinks there isn't some kind of collective spirit between us.
>>7463190
not everyone is poor or wants to brag about a vintage collection
>>7463223
>not enjoying calvin and hobbes no matter how old you are
What the fuck, anon. I get the other criticisms you're making but c&h is fucking great.
>>7463360
>tfw yoba will never eat my toenails ;_;
>>7463360
the only problem is that postmodernism hits a dead end real fuckin fast. gravitys rainbow is arguably the only post modern novel with any substantial thought put into it
>>7463377
There isn't. Also I'm the one and only true fan of Pynchon on /lit/
The rest of you are phonies who read chapter summaries to buff your literary personas
>>7463114
>people are defending this
reddit pls leave
>all this hate for the Crying of Lot 49
I liked it
>>7463184
How do we fix this?
>>7463141
>why do entry level books get mentioned so much?
>lit must be a bunch of plebs
if you really cant figure this one out kid...
>>7463416
/lit/ IS a bunch of pseudo-intellectualized plebs
>>7463455
definitely!! rofl xd
I couldn't stand Gravity's Rainbow.
Granted I read it in college for an independent study and read it in a week along with 5 other books for my other courses, but still. It just didn't click with me.
I love postmodernism too, is the thing.
Do I just have shitty taste?
>>7463564
Not really. It's a pretty specific kind of book. I can fully understand how lots of people wouldn't like it.
What did you take away from it thematically?
>>7463211
>he doesn't think Calvin & Hobbes is the shit
Disgusting
>>7463179
>implying critics aren't giant pussies who shite on others' work while making nothing of their own.
>>7463564
yeah
>>7463599
But I do
I own the the entire collected works
I don't think it's serious literature, though
>>7463651
No. It is a comic book. An incredibly good one though.
>>7463416
>entry level books areentioned on Reddit
That's bad
>on here
That's good!
>>7463659
Yeah. It's definitely lighter fare. Not very dark in nature.
>>7463416
explain then
>>7463727
>being discussed often isn't the same as being one's favourites
Then just go to Reddit, talk about them there and tell them that they're not your favourite. Not very respectful, is it?
>>7463674
I wouldn't say that. Of course some, even the majority are, but i remember some that were quite aggressive and even many of those that were jokes denounced certain characteristics of our society, it reads differently from when you were a kid.
>>7463727
>being discussed often isn't the same as being one's favorites.
Have you read a 'favorites thread' recently?
>>7463733
>Then just go to Reddit, talk about them there and tell them that they're not your favourite
you literally have no idea what we're mocking reddit about do you?
>>7463674
This one for example isn't really meant for kids to enjoy or understand. That first line, I'm Significant, holds more than just a punchline to a joke
>>7463746
You're mocking them for liking entry-level books yet you admitted to liking entry-level books. You're just being a contrarian. "Reddit is too mainstream."
>>7463752
Yeah. That can seem a lot more depressing with age. The drawings are done in a light hearted way but the jokes are philosophical.
>>7463755
>you admitted to liking entry-level books
quote me
>>7463065
Most of the people posting in this thread are overly self-conscious. Infinite Jest is gold. Lolita is gold. Everything Dostoevsky wrote is gold. I haven't read Ulysses or the Pynchon books but I'm sure they're excellent as well.
>>7463767
>being discussed often
You didn't say you liked them but you did say that they are discussed often. If they're discussed here, you may as well go to Reddit.
>>7463769
Read Ulysses this summer. It was worth it.
>>7463778
>You didn't say you liked them
thank you for admitting to being an intellectually dishonest piece of shit :)
>>7463756
>>7463782
Okay, messed up one thing but it is true that you said entry-level books are discussed here. Why not just go to Reddit to discuss them there? Answer: It's mainstream, so it's not cool anymore.
>>7463187
I totally agree with you anon, I enjoyed Enders Game but its not that good. Here have an upvote!!
>>7463184
>Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! by Richard P. Feynman. (UP:483 | WS:1130 | Total:1613)
>>7463190
> Embodying all author's corrections
>>7463767
>but anon! We discuss entry-level books here because we don't like them
>>7463065
You only fell for the meme if you bought them only because of /lit/ and not out of actual interest in them.
>>7463599
i actually have a signed copy of There's Treasure Everywhere
>>7463065
Yes, but they're good books. Mirin Dostoyevsky.
>>7463065
who cares
>>7463065
CAN SOMEONE PLS EXPLAIN THAT EDITION OF ULYSSES I KEEP SEEING IT AND ITS IRKING ME CUZ I CANT FIGURE IT OUT. IS THIS GIRLY HANDS MAN POSTING AGAIN WITH HIS SHITTY SCRIBBLED COPY? REEE
>>7463190
there's absolutely no reason to own so many German books in English. Just learn German and read the originals of Kafka, Jünger, and Hesse.
>>7463065
>that quilt
how's grade 12 and snowboarding instead of skiing?
>>7464752
>Just learn German
Oh, right. I suppose I have an afternoon free.
>>7463065
>No greeks
Are you even trying?
>>7463082
Are you suggesting that recommendations are bad and that every last individual should be expected to manually sift through millions of texts, most of which are bound to be shit, for the ultimate purpose of basking in a narcissistic love for their own precious individuality?
>>7463834
It just means its the original uncut/unabridged manuscript.
>>7464877
this, pleb
>>7463640
this tbhf
>>7464655
Holy shit, didn't even notice that. What the fuck kind of edition has missing letters on the cover.
>>7466071
Seriously? Someone actually let that book through and didn't realize that half the fucking word was missing?
>>7466124
yes ;)
it's similar to infinite jest too if you think about it, the thing was published when so unfinished the guys had to make 300+ footnotes
>>7466130
kek
What did you mean when you said the thing about the answering lying the last word of the book. What's the last word?
>>7466153
Wasn't me, was another anon.but the last word is ''farts''
>>7466162
You can't be serious.
>>7466221pasted from the physical copy I have here:
my mountain flower and first I put my arms around him yes and drew him down to me so he could feel my breasts all perfume yes and he was going I will fuck all of them every single of your farts yes I will Molly my dirty little fuckbird I will I said farts.
fairly new to /lit/...can someone directly explain in what way this is a meme? I'm getting mixed messages here tbqh
>>7463190
Not everyone here has Jewish ancestry.
Even considering what site this is, the discussion here about the Ulysses cover is desperately stupid, especially since 1) >>7466071 provided the actual answer and 2) everyone here has access to the internet.
>>7466292
Have you been on /mu/?
all these books are like ITAOTS,
Have you been on /a/?
These books are like NGE/EoE
Have you been on /tv/?
These books are like Kubrick films
>>7463381
Fuckin this. C and H is timeless
>Pevear and Volokhonsky translations for all three Dostoyevsky works
Holy shit OP I can't believe you fell for marketing hype this bad. P&V are complete shit
>>7466511
Not the guy you are replying to, but I can relate to the /tv/ part. Are you saying that they are entry level patrish? Could you direct me to something more substantial if that is the case?
>>7463184
>17. Guns, Germs, and Steel
It hurts
>>7463065
Wait, that Ulysses cover is actually that disgusting? I've only seen it once before in a haul thread, so I figured the white lettering had fallen off or something and the black letters had been filled in manually.
Wow, fuck that cover then. I like the Dostoevsky covers though. I don't know if you fucked up actually buying the meme trilogy all at once. You probably did though.
Also I feel that GR and TCL (and probably ATD, though haven't read past the first couple pages), while of good reputation, are definitely similar in their lack of proper characters. At least, on the first read. I haven't reread either but I can imagine it might change that. Books like V. or MD are maybe considered not as Pynchonesque (especially the latter) but are more traditional in their characters and more readable(?).
>>7464752
>implying you've moved to germany knowing five words and became fluent
>implying you're me
>>7463402
come on, man
>>7463076
you did but they are all great books that everybody should read with the exception of crying lot desu
>>7463216
Extremely underrated post 2bh. Lao Tse wasn't a Greek whi they can circle jerk over so /lit/ wouldn't read him.
>>7463184
>16. Calvin and Hobbes by Bill Watterson. (UP:664 | WS:710 | Total:1374)
What. This is what /r/books considers the best of literature? These are truly dark times.
>>7464752
nice meme
>>7466931
Yes, but it is accessible to adults and children in different ways. That is why it was chosen. You can get different ideas from it based on age.
>>7463145
I've been in a slump as of late - Seasonal Affective Disorder, what with winter days being 4 hours long in Scandinavia.
For that reason, I hadn't showered for a few weeks - nasty, I know. Went to reddit, saw pic related, and it just motivated me to go shower. I felt so viscerally disgusted.
Thanks reddit, I guess.
>>7466938
reddit pls
defending Calvin and Hobbes as being superior to works of Faulkner, Joyce, or even Morrison is fucking unbelievably ignorant and laughably naive
>>7466959
How the fuck did that inspire you to take a shower?
By the way, there's nothing wrong with living an average life? Fucking reddit and their rampant narcissism.
>>7466972
Disgust. Visceral feeling of disgust. Immediate recoil from the computer.
The panel where he dreams of writing a book exemplified by going of fucking Oprah is what got me.
>>7466966
1. You have to give them credit. They rated books they actually read instead of choosing some obvious bait.
2. They choose modern, easily accessible works that the average man could enjoy.
3. They choose works that are going to easily age well, so that future generations can also enjoy.
4. They choose good writers over meme writers. (Ex. They included Lao Tzu but not Socrates. No start with Greeks meme)
5. They paid attention to all genres.
Tl;dr: They choose good/ easily-accesible over meme/ what will make me look smart
>>7463184
I'm surprised there isn't anything by Steinbeck. He manages to write accessible literature without sacrificing profundity.
>>7466977
Did you ever fantasize about going on Oprah?
>>7466994
No.
>>7467003I did
>>7466983
Do you choose the books you read just to avoid memes? Why didnt they include any Victorian era lit? /lit/ never discusses Dickens or Eliot or Hardy and those authors are above and beyond the shit Dawkins writes for the masses (who David Sloan Wilson called "just another angry atheist, trading on his reputation as an evolutionist and spokesperson for science to vent his personal opinions about religion," which should be proof enough that his works written for mass audiences are founded on bullshit, but if you dont believe me, read the article I took the quote from, I'm sure reddits never looked into it)
The average man can enjoy a lot more than just trendy pop-sci and highly saturated fiction.
If I could embrace your retarded appeal, I'd say "there's truth at the core of all of /lit/'s memes!!" Discounting Pynchon because /lit/ makes fun of him is retarded. We're not the jewish media forcing opinions on you. Tell us why Socrates is worse than Lao Tzu then, fuckface, I bet you fucking cant.
>>7467034
I don't think you understood what I meant. I didn't mean Pynchon is bad. I meant that the books they mentioned are easier, more mainstream and not influenced by trying to look more intelligent than everyone else. They choose books that can be understood and saved for future generations.
Protip: I don't hate Pynchon or Socrates but many attest to liking them without actually reading, understanding or caring about them outside of a superficial level.
>>7467065
Lots of books can be at least "understood"
I get that you're saying being able to say "I read Stirner, Gaddis, Joyce, etc..." is a right of passage on /lit/ in order to have your opinion validated, but there's something to it. The books I read when I was a child I thought were good, but they pale in comparison to real literature that I read after /lit/ recommended me books.
Which will be the books that are saved for future generations, btw. GR and Ulysses have achieved an immortality in scholarship. Guns, Germs, and Steel, The Giver, and House of Leaves won't even be a blip on the radar in 10 years.
>>7467081
I see what you're saying. It comes down to the demographics of Reddit being different. /lit/izens are overall more professional. Redditors are the common man and as such, they enjoy works that the common man can get in to. 1984 and Tao Te Ching are classics (not necessarily hard) but they are far easier to understand than Finnegans Wake, so they communicate ideas easily to the commoner. (You can't expect everyone to understand Pynchon, Joyce, etc. It's unrealistic.)
>>7463141
>unironically reading Camus at all
>>7467115
It's unrealistic to expect, but that's why its ridiculous. The regular person hasn't been exposed to good literature, which is why to us, putting Hitchhikers Guide in the number one spot (which implies a lot of pseudo-intelligence because that book revolves around a lot of wordplay and scientific vocabulary) seems insanely unjustified when Tolstoy, Saramago, Bellow or DeLillo aren't even mentioned (those I can expect everyone to understand, they are not difficult to understand, if anything Tolstoy is intimidating because he is lengthly, but you could argue he is the clearest writer of all time, even in translation)
I doubt /lit/ wants our snooty lit to be the standard, but in a perfect world, people wouldn't say Harry Potter is one of the best books of all time if they haven't read Bleak House.
Wrong edition of Ulysses, bro. Get the facsimile version.
>>7463212
>implying the greeks aren't comfy and dank as shit
Easiest way to identify plebbitors that have never even touched on the greeks beyond wikipedia summaries
>>7467135
Yes, but many Redditors and common people find those books needlessly old, antiquated and upper crust. Perhaps if DeLillo and such were given more exposure to Reddit they would enjoy it. 1984 and Hitchhiker's Guide are overall given more exposure.
>>7467152
Y-yeah. Wait, what are you arguing? I feel like we agreed that this list is typical of reddit because reddit users have read less good lit so don't know whats good outside the New York Times bestseller list, r-right?
>>7467164
Yes. I agree. I was saying Reddit doesn't know about DeLillo, Tolstoi because they read from New York Times and High School curriculum core. Not the books problem but Reddit's for not looking hard enough in the right places.
>>7464800
you are an idiot. stop tryharding
>>7466557
Yes, they're (the meme trilogy of Infinite Jest, Ulysses and Gravity's Rainbow) entry level "patrician" books, but you should still read them because they are legitimately great
The next step in acclaimed books /lit/ jerks off too would be something along the lines of Moby Dick/Stoner/some Aeschylus
>>7466656
>not cluing in to theyesreference
>not recognizing it as an aesthetic expression of the synthesis of higher/lower
>literally judging a book by its cover
>>7467234
never read ulysses so im not surprised i missed something
>all these redditors shitting on /lit/
>continue to post on /lit/
LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT
Why are we getting so many board-hoppers lately?
>>7467034
is this pasta
>>7463168
Who do you recommend for Dosto, then? I got a P&V for TBK and McDuff for C&Pinb4 "go learn Russian", I'm trying
>>7467315
>say anything in defense of Reddit
>fucking board hoppers
>>7467457
I think some older translations have their place. Magarshack is pretty good in that regard. Garnett I'm leery of, despite how nice her wording is, because she omitted and editorialized in her work, in addition to homogenizing a broad variety of authors into works that read a lot alike. (Matlaw produced a revision of Garnett's Brothers Karamazov for Norton which is a good solution.)
For newer translation work, my general recommendation would be either McDuff or Avsey. Another translation of Karamazov that I thought was rather good was by Andrew MacAndrew.
>>7463114
>h2g2
>bad
Go shitpost on /tv/.
>>7467457
Constance Garnett
>>7463159
>except enders game
You need to read Enders Game before you can read Speaker for the Dead which is wonderful sci-fi. Like, really great sci-fi actually.
>>7464434
little jelly
I think my lack of knowledge of philosophy (and really no desire to know anything but the bare basics) let me down when reading the first part of Notes on the Underground. I thoroughly enjoyed the second part, a lot more than the first. Whilst I did feel the sharp irony of the Underground Man, it's unclear what Dostoyevsky is hinting at, although I read in the introduction it was censored. A reaction against the youthful nihilists, I suppose. A reaction against the fall of Christian society that I suppose results in existentialism. On the right lines? I know you take away whatever you take away from a book - you'll never truly understand it first time round - but eh eh.
>>7467065
>trying to look more intelligent
>>7463821
>tfw my dad read that book to me when I was a kid
>>7467685
It's true. They don't claim to be intelligent on Reddit.
>>7463114
/r/books is way better than /lit, unless you want to meme.
>>7463410
Me too. It was a lot of fun. Definitely the most fun I've had reading in a long time.
>>7463065
I hated The Crying Lot.
>>7463065
>that godawful copy of Notes
>>7463214I really liked reading the Double as an exploration into a deteriorating state of mind. The disjointed speech of Golyadkin and his Doctor is fucking incredible and honestly ahead of its time. It also spoke to me because I read it about a year before I experienced a psychological breakdown myself.
>>7466295
wow cunt you just went full on ku klux klan fucking kill yourself i hope you get raped faggot
>>7463204
My god you are reddit as fuck. Do you go into art museums and read the descriptions of the paintings, glance at them for 3 seconds and move on to the next?
>>7463065
almost all are good books. TCOL is just OK, I'd save it for last, I actually found it kind of boring. Lolita, Gravity's Rainbow, C&P, Brothers Karamazov and Notes are all great. I've only read bits and pieces of Ulysses but I've been traveling the world and I struggle to read stuff like that when I can't dedicate serious time, very lyrical and beautiful prose. Infinite Jest is basically a Stephen King novel wanting to copy Pynchon and has all these ham-handed themes and lame scenarios, probably the most boring thing you have there (by far). Replace it with 100 Years of Solitude by Marquez.
>>7465013
yes, thank you
>>7468769
Oh god. I do.
>>7468769
>going to museums
reddit as fuck
>>7463065
No, you did good anon. All fantastic books nothing wrong with this board introducing you to things.
>>7463216
>>7466920
What's with this /lit/ attitude of thinking nobody here knows jack shit? The other day someone was happily amazed that I knew about Khayyam, now people don't think Lao Tzu is read here, even though there have been several threads on him, I've seen translation discussion threads with 30 or so posts, etc. You're either trolling or don't actually browse /lit/ at all. Plus, the Dao De Jing is incredibly well known, Lao Tzu was in Epic Rap Battles of History, and it's like 20 regular pages if you were to stick it all together. Why wouldn't people pretend it's their favorite book to seem impressive? especially reddit..
>>7463214
>and I saw the best psychology in Notes from what I've read of Dostoevsky.
Go to sleep Neitzsche
>>7467604
too bad sci-fi itself is shit compared to the rest
>>7467447
> cannot accept liking the same shit reddit does.
> calls the truth pasta when he can't digest it.
Fuck off to reddit really.
>>7466557
The fuck. Lurk moar idiot. Look at the reddit shit tier list. That is entry level shit. /lit/s list is pretty good compared to that shit. Just because we keep making fun of these books doesn't mean they're shit. Learn to wade through newfag.
>>7466561
Yet here you on 4chan you post. You grandpa failed.
>>7469010
Thanks for the useless reply you faggot. I was hoping to get some non-meme recommendations from someone who doesn't pretend to be cool on /lit/.
Whatever, I'll just read books off the recommended wiki. And fuck doorstoppers.
>>7468784
> I've been traveling the world
doing what anon?
>>7469000
>calls the truth pasta when he can't digest it
>can't digest it
>pasta
I don't know why I found that funny
>so many salty cunts in this thread
>there are people that think books are memes and that makes them bad and if you read them you "fell for a meme"
>none of these books are unique to /lit/ in any way and are all critically acclaimed, often classic works of literature
>>7463184
>the selfish gene
Is it three just because memes or is there actually a good reason for this?
>>7463380
>Ulysses
Ha
>>7469994
>is it just because memes
You're thinking of the God Delusion sonny :^)
>>7463402
hahah,
I dig you.
You're rad.
>>7468964
It's just that /lit/ always talks about certain books and writings. Though, when you have favourites, that's bound to happen. Also, Poe's law. Trolling and shilling have made it hard to discern true stupidity from pretending to be retarded.
>>7463821
God that book sucked. And I have a BSc in physics.
>>7469142
ok. here is the list. welcome to /lit/
