Really?
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /lit/ - Literature
You are currently reading a thread in /lit/ - Literature
Really?
>>7731020
Considering its just a ranking of authors' obscurity, it's not that bad. And the bottom is good for finding experimental writing.
>>7731020
No its shit meme
>>7731020
It's ranking how hard they are to understand. Regardless of whether you like a certain author or their work is part of the canon, it ranks how easy it is to read.
>>7731020
>Vonnegut
>Lacking substance
When will this meme end
It was entirely made as bait, but it's actually not that bad, not as bad as it could've been.
>>7731073
This.
Some of the placements and descriptions of the "levels" are questionable. Like metafiction isn't necessarily a component of difficult books and Vonnegut, as an example from the first "level" already uses it.
Still, it's not as bad as it could've been.
>>7731020
>sartre
>level one
Level 4 is literally perfect and harmonious
>>7731095
>it's true
>"a meme"
>>7731020
>Elliot Rodgers not at Level 4.
>>7731020
It's one man made list. All /lit/ 'lits' and 'charts' are are work of one individual, we simply don't have the manpower of number for them to be anything else.
I'm responsible for one posted in a sticky and it's 95% my entries.
Anyway to the list. It's by US author. That's for certain by the number of Japanese authors, and huge amount of american trash that noone even considers literature outside the continent (burroughs, cappote...), and off course, low placement of Conrad. But if you are taking it only as a list of difficulty, and not of quality, then it's a little bit accurate.
Again, Conrad low, Russians that shouldn't even be there since author is certainly talking about translations, at that, Tolstoy above Dostoevsky (lol), trolling with Pynchon, and plenty of other nonsense aside, it not among our worst...
>>7731426
>hating on burroughs
stupid bourgeoisie
>>7731426
To add on, the authors on the list were taken from the shelves of Goodreads user Nathan "N.R" Gaddis, whi curates the UNEARTHED book club, a group that reads and preserves books by obscure authors like Rios and Orlovitz.
>>7731020
>DFW more depth than Cormac McCarthy
Triggered
>>7731095
It won't. Disliking vonnegut gets you too many patrician points.
>>7731455
they're both shit it doesnt matter
>>7731429
I'm not hating, he just doesn't exist here. Beat Generation is your thing, noone else sees any value for their own culture here, so it's taught and mentioned only when someone gets to study of american culture.
Same as you don't even acknowledge our own period stuff, we don't care about your.
>faulkner not even level 3
What in the fuck
>>7731528
he's entry level as fk desu
>>7731095
He really doesn't have "substance" though. All of his books are predicated on cheap sentimentality and juvenile sensibilities. It's more than a stylistic choice; it's what's at the core of his writing.
>>7731020
If you can improve on the chart, then do so. If you can't, stop bitching. Because people will perpetuate this "good enough" infograph regardless of your stick-assedness.
The only problem is the level descriptions are written by somebody who assumes harder = better.
>>7731020
where the fuck is robert graves, sage this shit thread
>>7733694
It's a ranking of accessibility not quality. It solely your insecurity that brings quality into into the ordering.
>>7731020
All of these are entry level undergrad books.
>>7734750
>Look, Mom, I did it again!!
>>7734750
None of those are books. They're authors.
>>7731020
how come Borges is level 3?
>>7734789
Hes' farther down than Faulkner. Fuck it, the whole chart sucks anyways. This is what happens when you live in an illiterate society, where most adults can only read at an 8th grade level (seriously, look it up).
>>7734815
what a true patrician you are, so intellectually superior to the common man
you truly belong in the upper echelon of functioning society above the brainwashed masses
>>7734871
he's right though
>>7731020
Which Schmidt is that?
>>7735303
the fact that you have to ask means you're like a level 2 at best
>>7735303
I assume Arno, and since none of his works are accessible and or translated, nobody here has read him. He is literally the most gimmicky writer in the world. He is a German Danielewski.
Lol is orwell even on there, I read 1984 when I was 7.
