hey /lit can someone post the high resolution version of this image?
thank you.
You're a retarded cunt m8
>>7706126
fuck you
>>7706120
Overall, it's not that bad a list. Proust and Mann should definitely be deeper, though.
>>7706136
faulkner is a little high
>>7706173
Agreed.
>>7706136
as a newfag, this makes me feel like shit
who is julian rios?
all i got from a quick google search was
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_(actor)
>>7706120
I still remember spearheading this chart in a chat 8 months ago. I lost contact with 2 of the conspirators and once of them had a temper tantrum and blocked me. Still I was the one who made the chart as half-bait (the obscure names in the dark part are random names I pulled from some meme asshole Nathan NR Gaddis' "BURIED EXPERIMENTAL BOOKS" pile on Memereads. The only obscure name I actually read some of was Julian Rios' Poundemonium and it's experimental trash)
I shall live forever thru this chart
>>7706191
What are examples of late Burroughs?
>>7706191
For what you were aiming for, it's a 7/10. That's good enough for me, and I'll re-meme it whenever I can.
>>7706191
Fked up bro, a better list would at least include some titles.
>>7706136
i thought mailer was hated by lit?
>>7706190
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juli%C3%A1n_R%C3%ADos
>>7706185
Don't. Only people who have devoted their whole lives to literature understand authors past 4.
>>7706190
The Mexican Joyce. Look him up on goodreads and read Nathan "N.R" Gaddis' review.
>>7706190
Though he's kind of eccentric, I appreciate what Nathan "N.R" Gaddis is trying to do.
>>7706222
Haven't read him. Wouldn't know.
>>7706231
Yes, which is why I think he should be deeper, around 4.
>>7706240
Our highs and lows were opposite
My mistake
>>7706185
Read what you enjoy anon. Do push yourself to find new preferences on occasion. Perhaps you will enjoy some /lit/ from this graph. Don't become hive-minded.
>>7706240
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1263469-gil-orlovitz
lol
>>7706208
Soft Machine / rest of the cutup trilogy
>>7706215
I mean most of the choices were serious, but charts always suck and are shallow. Some intentional bait is more like the sidebar, especially the "artistic internecine" line. Also the top caption of course. Anyways it has enough grounding to be meme'd
>>7706220
titles makes speculation (and meme quality) a lot harder
anyways I don't believe in the chart myself since I hate charts. They are p funny tho
>>7706136
I love how this list has all the trappings of your average ocean-depth infographic, but with none of the hyperbolic memery that pervades your average list. Leave it to /lit/, I guess.
