https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/533688-william-gass-s-fifty-literary-pillars
Is he patrician?
>>7703864
stop smaipping this BITCH!!!!!!
>>7703875
>smaipping
I-I don't understand.
what a fat ugly bitch
>the entire history of letters to choose from
>Joyce x2
>Beckett x2
>Svevo x2
>Flaubert x2
>H. James x2
>Rilke x3
>a horrifying list of significant authors x0
What is the source of this list, aside from 'Jimmy on Goodreads'?
>>7703907
try reading the next post you retard
>>7703907
>http://omeka.wustl.edu/omeka/items/show/3351
>>7703907
>implying joyce/beckett/james/flaubert aren't significant
>>7703907
Do you have a problem with these selections?
It's as if Eric Cartman grew up and decided to become a writer. What a load he is.
>>7703920
>>7703922
Any list is going to be controversial of course for what it includes, what it excludes, how it ranks items, etc. I don't have any criticism against any individual items on the list, but the doubling and tripling up of writers makes it 14% less comprehensive/diverse.
>>7703914
The next post mentions items endorsed by Gass and not on the list, which throws the list in to question in the first place.
>>7703915
Thank you
>>7703864
He is listing Wittgensteins Tractatus, rather than the Philosophical Investigations, so no.
>>7703969
that was actually the thing that jumped out to me when i first read the list
but whatever, to each his ownthe literary selections are more important than the philosophy mumbo jumbo anyway :^)
>>7703945
diversity isn't inherently good/bad, and a 50-book can't hope to reach comprehensiveness anyway, so there's no point in setting that out as a goal to begin with
>>7703969
Considering the fact that Gass was, for a time, Wittgenstein's protege, I trust his decision.
>>7703978
Sure, a 50-book list is of course going to be comprehensive, and I never said it would be in the first place, but a list with 43 authors, deliberately leaving seven out when spaces are at such a premium, is a fatal flaw.
>>7704011
well my point is that given comprehensiveness is a fool's endeavour in this case, maybe that wasn't even a consideration at all, and the difference between 43 and 50 is minimal
>>7704016
That sounds good basically. I bet we're really more in agreement here than it would seem.
>>7703864
>https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/533688-william-gass-s-fifty-literary-pillars
>Gertrude Stein’s Three Lives
hahaha is that a fucking joke?
>>7704077
Be honest with yourself Gass would absolutely demolish you in this arena.
Gass' list is great but his distaste for great realists like Tolstoy is unforgivable.
>>7704105
>great realists
Nice oxymoron
>>7704090
>>7704096
I've read everything Stein wrote, and she literally had no discernible talent. Stein is a laughingstock in academia, as is a lot of the fiction Gass writes. It's torn apart for being overly academic, obscurantist drivel.
And before you say "but have you read the Tunnel", yes, I have. I spent a good month tearing it apart, reading Gass's arguments for his 12 part structure, his ridiculous sentence length and semi-colon jumble.
This Gass posting lately needs to be stopped before people think he actually has any talent as a fiction writer.
>>7704462
>she literally had no discernible talent. Stein is a laughingstock in academia, as is a lot of the fiction Gass writes.
Neither of those statements are true, which leads me to believe that you have not, in fact, read either of them, or, if you did, failed to understand them, which, mind you, isn't an insult, as both are, even with the aid of supplementary materials, incredibly difficult to understand. To give you a chance, though, answer me this: do Kohler's coworkers--Culp, Planmantee, Herschel--exist?
