[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 133 KB, 981x586, Shakey.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19541709 No.19541709 [Reply] [Original]

Unpopular /lit/ opinions
>continued from >>19526804

>> No.19541721
File: 84 KB, 1024x519, Prince of Nothing.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19541721

Bakker is a terrible author and writer and its easy why he got dropped by his publisher. His books just appeal to edgy teens who think they know the world by 13.

>> No.19541758

>Camus was a crypto-Christian
>For Whom The Bell Tolls was a suicide note by Hemingway
>Woolf is better than Joyce and Mrs Dalloway was better than Ulysses
>it largely doesn’t matter if you read a book in translation

>> No.19541781

>>19541709
The Eragon series was very derivative and all but it gets more hate than it deserves. Paolini’s descriptions of settings is something I like.

>> No.19541836

>>19541758
>For Whom The Bell Tolls was a suicide note by Hemingway
explain

>> No.19541842

>Lewis's Space trilogy is better than the Sci-fi crap constantly shilled on here. Lewis also has better prose than Tolkien. Narnia > LOTR
>Ligotti isn't great. Clive Barker is a poet. King is decent when he cares.
>No black and hispanic or latinx writers are worth reading. 100 Years of Solitude sucks my ass.

>> No.19541854

>>19541842
>100 años is bad
filtered racist brainlet, and I bet you didn't even read it in the original spanish.

>> No.19541906

>>19541709
>All continental philosophers are failed fiction writers and function to inspire art they cannot create.
> Camus is miles superior to Sartre in every way
> The Wheel of Time is one of the worst fantasy series and is largely responsible for the state of fantasy today.

>> No.19541917

>>19541842
>no latinx
cervantes is good, m8

>> No.19541927

>>19541836
I’m sorta joking but suicide is a major current throughout the book. There are 3 (maybe 4) suicides and a couple times the suicide weapon was passed on to another person who saw bad luck in them. This is especially true for Robert Jordan’s dad and Robert throwing the gun away, and his conversations with his grandfather. Once you realize that Hemingway’s dad killed himself in real life, as Hemingway later would, it adds an interesting perspective. Robert Jordan is what Hemingway wishes he was, depending on what you think happens at the end. Sorry if this is confusing

>> No.19541931

>>19541709
Tolkien is a terrible writer

>> No.19541932

>>19541854
>calling someone a racist because they dont like a book in your language
Pitiful behavior

>> No.19541936

>>19541842
>No black and hispanic or latinx writers are worth reading
Cervantes and Borges
Ralph Ellison is good, also Toni Morrison is decent

>> No.19541941

>>19541917
>Cervantes
>Latinx
Are you fucking retarded?

>> No.19541952

>>19541842
>No black and hispanic or latinx writers are worth reading. 100 Years of Solitude sucks my ass.
Objectively wrong. Delete your post and go into the dunce corner.

>> No.19541956

>>19541941
are you?

>> No.19541964

>>19541941
sorry my bad, didn’t know cervantes was a crypto-jew converso. i’ll do better next time

>> No.19541965

>>19541842
is narnia worth reading in bongspeak?
I read caspian in Spanish and thought it was utter shit

>> No.19541968

ohnonono anglobros...we got too cocky...

>> No.19541974

>>19541709
You learn more as a writer by reading books in an area you're interested than by reading a broad array of non-specific classics

>> No.19541975

>>19541842
>>19541917
>>19541941

Have you guys really never heard of Borges, Donoso, Arlt, Cortázar, Bolaño, Rulfo, etc. etc.?
Do you even read?

>> No.19541976

>DFW was the best writer of his generation

>Harold bloom had some good takes but his Jewish tendencies betrayed his judgement

>The divine comedy is the greatest work of literature, ever

>Philosophy after Nietzsche or Kierkgaard (Pick one) is largely worthless

>Marxists and communists are not okay in the head. If you find yourself defending Stalin or Mao, you should really take a look at yourself in the mirror.

>Early modernist poetry is actually good

>Pynchon is a good writer but overrated beyond measure. All his books are formulaic wastes of time.

>DH Lawrence is top 10 writers of the 20th century

>a lot of the older classical literature is boring and useless. Literature started becoming actually good with Dickens and Dostoevsky.

>> No.19541990

>>19541976
>Early modernist poetry is actually good
Is that controversial?

>> No.19541991

>>19541976
>early modernist poetry is actually good
GMH bros finally redeemed
>DH Lawrence is top 10
but still uses clumsy and unsubtle symbolism to make his point.

>> No.19541996

I cannot understand something from within the core of the Iliad, which is the disrespect for human life. Yes the elevation of some men among others is simply life as it was back then and is now but I don't understand the treatment of Zeus' son Sarpedon in particular - he for sure deserved a funeral pyre and a truce in the fighting. Achilles was far too much of a brute in his treatment of Hector, but I guess that's kind of the point with the follow-up being his meeting with Priam, coming to value human life again.

>> No.19542005

>>19541709
>the only greeks worth reading are aristotle and plato
>every single english book is better read in any other translation, even jap*nese
>there is nothing worth reading from black and jewish authors
>there's nothing worth reading from american authors since the beginin of the century
>borges is subhuman tier "literature"

>> No.19542032

>>19541990
It's controversial here because of an anon that likes Swinburne and invades every Eliot thread with terrible opinions
>>19541991
GMH and Eliot are my favorite poets. Alongside HD. I also really like Shelley.

>> No.19542096

Frank Herbert sucks. God Emperor is fucking boring and only the first Dune book showed promise until the second half. Gene Wolfe is okay, but also boring. I am Legend was poorly written. Roadside Picnic was garbage. I dropped Dying Inside. Haven't read Hyperion, but apparently it's about people telling stories -- the BTAS episode Almost Got 'Em (Canterbury Tales), but with obnoxious characters. Dropped Canticle of Leibowitz because there are apparently 3 unrelated stories collected in one book. Dropped Hitchhiker's Guide because it read like one long Reddit post. Dropped Ender's Game because it went on for fucking ever and I got tired of the Gary Stu. Dropped Neuromancer during the wake up sex because I knew I got another lame old white author self-insert. Ringworld was shit.
Asimov, Clarke, Philip K Dick, and Heinlein are completely skippable. Christ, Asimov was a terrible writer.

>> No.19542097

>>19541996
>a humanist can't comprehend that human life has no provable value

Many such cases! Sad!

>> No.19542105

>>19542005
this is just autism, not unpopular opinions

>> No.19542118

>>19541842
King was only good when he was on drugs.

>> No.19542143

>>19542096
this is just schizophrenia, not unpopular opinions

>> No.19542147

>>19541854
>>19541952
>>19541975
el hombre moreno hierve

>> No.19542153

>>19542105
>>19542143
This is just same faggotry, not unpopular opinions

>> No.19542255

Wagner > Milton > Dante > Chaucer > Home > Tolstoy > Cervantes > Shakespeare

>> No.19542261

>>19542255
>Home
Homer

>> No.19542294

>Disdain for translation is the mark of a small mind and little culture.
>Robinson Crusoe is the greatest English novel.
>Poetry does not need to be read aloud to be fully appreciated.
>German philosophy ruined French philosophy.

>> No.19542295

If there is such a thing as "the greatest writer of all time" his writings haven't survived.

>> No.19542316

The best use for esoteric literature is toilet paper

>> No.19542345

>>19541842
>latinx
kys

>> No.19542358

>>19542255
Based double dubs. Not sure about the ranking, but there should be twenty other names in front of Mr. Bacon

>> No.19542385

>>19541758
>>19542294
What language do the two retards know to make this statement?

>> No.19542389

>after a certain level, art becomes subjective
>Hemingway is the greatest American writer
>Ficciones sucks…too gimmicky for my taste
>P&V are fine translators and a safe option for any Russian classic
>postmodern literature is largely soulless
>Charlotte Bronte is one of the finest prose writers in English, and in general, the Bronte sisters would be right there with the giants of literature if the didn’t die so young
>some writers and books that don’t get enough respect are Germinal, Henry Miller, Ken Kesey (Sometimes A Great Notion), Lonesome Dove, Sons And Lovers, Winesburg Ohio, and Sebald
>Murakami is a fun writer and The Wind Up Bird Chronicles brought me much enjoyment. Everything else is a step below that though

>> No.19542460

>Novels are mostly terrible, and the best novels are either only valuable for the prose or are philosophical fiction.
>Poetry > Prose
>Every American writer after 1900 is at best mediocre, but mostly bad
>Every female writer is at best second-rate
>There is no English writer post-WW2 worth reading in depth. The best is Graham Greene.
>Modernist poets are frauds and embarrassments
>If you know English, there is no reason to read translated works written after Middle English has been utilized
>If Joyce or Nabokov is among your favorites it is indicative of having no taste and being a pseud.
>If your favorite writers were read entirely in translation you are an idiot and never actually read them

>> No.19542473

>>19542147
Y el blanco enardece

>> No.19542561

>>19542096
You could've just said Genre fiction is trash and I agree

>> No.19542590

>>19542561
>>19542096
Read Moorcock. Genre fiction that doesn't pretend to be more than it is in an literary sense, but also includes ambitious creative ideas like Dune, Hyperion, etc., without the pretense.

>> No.19542626

Modern poetry (20th century onward) is much better than old poetry (before 20th century). The quality control of eg Seamus Heaney is vastly higher than eg Browning. Roethke is a better poet than Milton
Most of the English classics like Blake, Wordsworth, Shelley, Coleridge are garbage apart from those few anthologized pieces you'll quote to try and prove me wrong.
The Prelude is dull and awful. Blake's long poems are shit.
The language is fake and forced and not enjoyable to read

>> No.19542676

>>19541842
>Ligotti isn't great. Clive Barker is a poet. King is decent when he cares.
i don't think this is all that controversial. maybe "a poet" is a little strong but people like barker

>> No.19542695

>>19541758
>>Camus was a crypto-Christian
?

>> No.19542718

>>19542385
Idk but based on the wording of your post I'd reckon English isn't the first you've known. Cope and seethe.

>> No.19542745

>>19542626
>Most of the English classics like Blake, Wordsworth, Shelley, Coleridge are garbage apart from those few anthologized pieces you'll quote to try and prove me wrong.
True, but also true of the modern poets you praise.

>> No.19542746

>>19541976
>>Marxists and communists are not okay in the head. If you find yourself defending Stalin or Mao, you should really take a look at yourself in the mirror.
Not controversial at all, normie take indeed.
Read books.

"Merito immenso, storico, secolare, delle armate organizzate dal genio di Giuseppe Stalin. [...] Noi credevamo che i processi fossero falsi, le testimonianze inventate, le confessioni estorte. Ecco che oggettive informazioni americane assicurano che non si trattava di un falso e che i sabotatori non erano truffatori volgari, erano "vecchi cospiratori idealisti" [...] che affrontavano la morte piuttosto che adattarsi a quello che per loro era un tradimento del comunismo originario. [...] Quando vedo che mentre Hitler e Mussolini perseguitavano degli uomini per la loro razza, e inventavano quella spaventosa legislazione antiebraica che conosciamo, e vedo contemporaneamente i russi composti di 160 razze cercare la fusione di queste razze superando le diversità esistenti fra l'Asia e l'Europa, questo tentativo, questo sforzo verso l'unificazione del consorzio umano, lasciatemi dire: questo è cristiano, questo è eminentemente universalistico nel senso del cattolicesimo."
(Alcide De Gasperi, 1944)

>> No.19542755

>>19542676
Ligotti is praised to high heaven on here. Barker is always in horror conversations but I think he deserves the attention he gets.

>> No.19542760

>>19542718
So you only know English, but you KNOW that translations to English are as good as the original? KEK

>> No.19542770

>>19542746
Chiamare Stalin un cristiano è la cosa più ritardata che abbia mai letto su questo forum.

>> No.19542810

>>19542096
>I keep reading genre fiction and none of it is good how could this be happening to me?

>> No.19542823

>>19542770
Dillo al fondatore della DC, otto volte presidente del consiglio, servo di Dio di cui è stata avviata causa di beatificazione.

>> No.19542845

>>19542760
Where was that implied in any of the posts you're bitching about? ESLs (particularly those from the Southern hemisphere) are so insecure lol.

>> No.19542866

The Lord of the Rings movies are amazing but the books are impenetrable. The Hobbit movies are terrible but the books are alright
Poetry sucks as a genre.

>> No.19542892

>>19542760
Literally no reason to learn another language if you aren’t going to speak it and use it often. Unless you are doing academic work, who cares that it’s not the original? It’s a hobby for fun.

>> No.19542893

>>19542866
85 IQ

>> No.19542948

People are so desperate in the scramble to find the best book, so as to one up everyone else, they don't realise that finding it is impossible.

Instead it should be "the one I like most" or "the one a lot of people I think important like most".

>> No.19542955

>>19541709

I HATE READING FUCKKKKK. I prefer cartoons, anime, sensual moving pictures with the brightest and nicest colors! And I like it when homos cum in my mouth!!!

>> No.19543209

>>19542892
Is that supposed to challenge the point at hand in any way lol...

>> No.19543222

>>19542892
way to dodge the issue faggot

>> No.19543240

>>19542389
>>after a certain level, art becomes subjective
Whooooooaaaa big college freshman on site!! Is anybody going to suck this guys dick or what??? Anybody?

>> No.19543257

>>19542096
Check out Poul Anderson, Cordwainer Smith, Jack Vance, China Miéville, Roger Zelazny, Samuel R. Delany, and >>19542626
There are a hundred amazing Sci-fi writers out there but /lit/ seems to focus on the same dozen shitters.

If Sci-fi isn't your thing, that's okay too.

>> No.19543262

>>19543257
Wrong post link. I was referring to >>19542590

>> No.19543302

>>19542005
Filtered hard by a blind old man. You should be ashamed anon

>> No.19543327

>>19541932
>No black and hispanic or latinx writers are worth reading

>> No.19543428

>>19543327
Tbf ebonics isn't english and broken english isn't English.
And welcome to 4chan. I hope you enjoy /b/ and /pol/
And welcome to 4chan.

>> No.19543502

>>19541976
retard
normie
bitch

>> No.19543641

French lit > German lit

>> No.19544169

>>19542460
Thes are literally the most average /lit/ takes I have heard

>> No.19545354

>>19541976
>Marxists and communists are not okay in the head. If you find yourself defending Stalin or Mao, you should really take a look at yourself in the mirror
marxism = teenage tankies on reddit apparently

>> No.19545356

>>19542389
jesus christ this reeks of basic white freshman chick

>> No.19545387

>Liu Cixin is the Shakespeare of Science Fiction
>David Eddings was the Shakespeare of Fantasy
>William Peter Blatty was the Shakespeare of Horror
>J. G. Ballard, Ira Levin, Manuel Puig are among the greatest writers of the 20th century and deserve more attention than Pynchon
>David Mitchell, Dennis Lehane, Jeff VanderMeer, Gillian Flynn, and Ian McEwan are the greatest writers in the past twenty-one years.

>> No.19545396

>>19542460
>The best is Graham Greene.

Hilarious opinion. Read more postwar literature.

>> No.19545399

>>19541758
Mrs.Dalloway might be the worst piece of fiction I’ve ever read. Ulysses is so much better. I guess I can relate to it because one is written by a rich sheletered w*man and the other by a smart middle class man. I guess it’s more of a “rich sheletered” problem rather than “woman” problem but I guess that might’ve played a part in it

>> No.19545446

>>19545387
Ian McEwan is a trashy screenwriter, but VanderMeer and Mitchell are good.

>> No.19545521

>>19542626
Translation issue and a logical conclusion to an ever-evolving language. Languages sounded differently and had a more distict rhythm to them compared to what you what you experience today.

>> No.19545892
File: 122 KB, 800x619, 35BF0A4C-1CDC-4D7A-9054-4D1E49F4F4DC.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19545892

>French lit is generally better than Russian lit
>Reading is only worth it if you enjoy it
>Jane Eyre is superior to Wuthering Heights and one of the greatest books in the English language
>Outside of Heart of Darkness, Joseph Conrad is underrated as a writer — HoD is one of his weaker works in fact
>Victor Hugo was one of the greatest writers to have ever lived and deserves the reverence that Melville gets here
>Woolf is superior to Joyce
>Dostoevsky is good, but extremely overrated
>Chekhov is the greatest Russian writer
>There’s nothing wrong with the prose of Henry James or Thomas Carlyle, and people who claim otherwise were just filtered
>Holluebecq is a garbage writer who is only noteworthy because he makes self-identified incels feel validated
>It’s painfully obvious that a large percentage of people on this board don’t actually read
>A lot of feminist philosophers make some valid points, and the misogynistic mindset of some /lit/ posters only serves to prove them right
>Most nihilistic “doomer” books are pretentious trash


I’m sure I’m forgetting some, but those are the big ones.

>> No.19545900

>>19545892
>>Victor Hugo was one of the greatest writers to have ever lived and deserves the reverence that Melville gets here
Based

>> No.19545907

>>19541781
Me too, anon. He's a nice nature writer.

>> No.19545969

>>19545396
I said in English.
Like what?

>> No.19545993
File: 87 KB, 611x940, 1622952541379.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19545993

>> No.19546025

I'm not sure if this is unpopular, but it is the truth:
/lit/ is only worth visiting for the sticky, writing general threads, sffg, and wwoym. All other threads, including this one, should be removed and anyone who posts anything but the three threads I mentioned should be banned. It would improve this board's quality drastically.
Same goes for /ic/ and /tv/ (in the case of /tv/, classic film threads)

>> No.19546138

>>19545446
McEwan is another Scot cunt trying to provoke Muslims in the hopes of remaining relevant. Atonement is his best work and the twist is total shit. I bet it kills him he could never write Pride and Prejudice.

>> No.19546341

>>19545993
based

>> No.19546362

Foucault is based

English women are better than English men at writing

Hemingway is great

Celine sucks

Reddit actually has better literature discussion than here

>> No.19546371

>>19546362
>Reddit actually has better literature discussion than here

They can. Reddit is too censor- and ban-heavy, though. Most of the exchanges are in the class of "fake genteel," making them almost totally useless.

>> No.19546380

>>19541758
>it largely doesn’t matter if you read a book in translation

Depends on the book, depends on who wrote it, depends on who translated it, depends on which language is being translated into which language, etc. etc.

Often, it very much matters and there are heaps of bad translations out there.

>> No.19546381

>>19545892
>>It’s painfully obvious that a large percentage of people on this board don’t actually read
this is without a doubt THE most popular /lit/ opinion

>> No.19546393

>>19546381
I haven't read a book in 20 years and I author about 10% of the posts on this board. I don't know about the other 90%.

>> No.19546395

>>19546393
I both greatly admire you and hope you choke in your sleep tonight

>> No.19546397

>>19545892
>>Outside of Heart of Darkness, Joseph Conrad is underrated as a writer — HoD is one of his weaker works in fact
This is an objective fact at this point desu. I'd make this point about Melville with Moby Dick too.

>> No.19546427

>Dante is overrated and too distinctly Christian and focused on his own time and place to be a truly "universal poet"
>The English Romantics are mostly trash and simply watered down versions of Schiller and Goethe
>There's nothing in English language lit that can be considered essential reading outside Shakespeare
>Virgil is the only good Roman poet
>The Nibelungenlied is the best medieval epic

>> No.19546443

>>19542255

It seems bizarre to compare Tolstoy to Homer. They didn’t really do the same thing as eachother.

>> No.19546445

>>19546427
>Virgil is the only good Roman poet

Do you speak Latin? Read The nature of things.

>> No.19546525

>>19546362
yeah i've found r/truelit more useful than this place honestly

>> No.19546531

>>19546443
wagner too. might as well throw in toby fox or something

>> No.19546544
File: 68 KB, 271x183, 848dsf.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19546544

>ALL that modernist stuff is total bollocks, don't care a jot for it
>yes, even those writers you pretend to like for their political views
>satire = smirking wojak mask atop seething soijak
>I like poems that rhyme, that sound nice, that convey TRUTH, and make me feel emotions
>the best poetry and novels contain all the philosophy a man needs, philosophers by the very fact they couldn't articulate and deliver their message in an artistic form are unworthy of my time
>the epics of world literature are museum pieces, little pleasure can be derived from them
>my particular, personal, problem with the Greeks is the pantheon of Gods, simply don't care for the idea
>the Middle Ages are even worse with their terrible, moralistic poems featuring personalizations of things like Virtue,
>I don't care for attempts at cleverness in lit and think only fools are impressed by it
>a work of art should be self-contained, you needn't read secondary texts or "get the references" to appreciate it
>I'd rather read an "outdated" work of history by a Victorian with a classical education and beautiful prose than some lifeless turd from the university presses by a hack with imposter syndrome and a narrow specialist mind
>I read for pleasure. It should go without saying that the most pleasurable books to read were EASY to read, just as the most delicious meals are easy to eat. Bragging about having read HARD books strikes me as a pose for those who don't love reading. If you hate reading already you might as well read hard-to-read crap since you're only doing it for show anyway
>the charts on here are garbage and lead to readers without personality
>I distrust anyone whose favourite writers are Dante, Milton and Homer... not because of their works themselves, but because it strikes me as very NPC-ish to have tastes that coincide so perfectly with critical consensus... I respect people who have particular tastes they've formed thru their own reading, even if it doesn't align with my own.
>Saying "X is... le bad" is worthless, talking about books isn't very useful. The only value in writing about writing is to pass on your enthusiasm to others.

>> No.19546552

>>19541842
>>Ligotti isn't great.
Filtered

>> No.19546597

>>19546445
>Do you speak Latin?
No, but I have read Lucretius. And that reminds me:
>People who claim you can only read works in the original language in order to enjoy them are coping

>> No.19546606

>>19546443
I think it's a list of all time greats

>> No.19546843

>>19546427
>>Dante is overrated
Very true. Who didn't yawn when yet another canto started droning on about the Guelfs and the Gilbertines and their internimable disputes?

>> No.19546849

>>19546397
>I’d make this point about Melville with Moby Dick too.

I agree that Melville is underrated outside of Moby Dick. However, Moby Dick legitimately is one of his best works.

The reason I brought up Conrad is that Heart of Darkness is little more than a decent novella that’s only considered relevant today because of its colonial themes. I enjoyed his other writings like The Secret Agent and The Duel much more.

>> No.19546939

>>19546849
The problem is that he changed his entire philosophy after the failure of Moby Dick commercially and I find his pessimism and poetry to be more valuable than the inherent optimism of Moby Dick. While Moby Dick is better written than say Israel Potter, I think the latter is more profound and poignant in a way with the writing sinking into his ideas. I’d still rate MD higher than IP as it is simply better, but it speaks to me more. Pierre and Confidence Man and Billy Budd id rate higher than MD, though along with his entire poetry including Clarel. Something like The Bride of Rip Van Winkle and his John Marr prose and poetic work show a successful fusion of his prose into poetry. Unfortunately, when you google each only the poetry portion appears and thus negates the full impact. Also, After the Pleasure Party is a poem I read once a month it touched me so much and Is my favorite poem. His pre-MD works are before the Shakespeare study he underwent that ultimately yielded Moby Dick, so that along with undergoing the commercial failure of Moby Dick doesn’t make them up to snuff imo; with Typee and Omoo having little literary value to begin with.

Conrad, Thackeray, Melville I think are the 3 best writers whose entire ouvere is best viewed in relation not each evaluated on its own terms work-to-work, with the exception of the pre-HOD, pre-Barry Lyndon, and pre-MD works. I’d recommend reading all of their stuff, which is not the case for most writers, let alone novelists.

>>19546544
>the best poetry and novels contain all the philosophy a man needs, philosophers by the very fact they couldn't articulate and deliver their message in an artistic form are unworthy of my time
Mostly agree, although do you consider biographies or history to be philosophy? Secondly, I’d say something like Hobbes or Hegel yields a sort of art work, so there are exceptions. I enjoy reading non-fiction works from fiction writers I enjoy, like Irving’s George Washington biography.

>> No.19546962

>>19546939
>>19546849
>The Bride of Rip Van Winkle
It’s called rip van winkles lilac, the bride of rip van winkle is a film I wanted to see, so as a good omen I’ll watch it soon :D

>> No.19546987

>>19546525
I’ve never posted there but I often browse. Even if threads only get a few replies, they are all tightly on topic. And every thread is literature based and not thinly veiled bait. There are definitely knowledgeable posters. Looking at Reddit and goodreads gives me the impression that many people in real life read. Here I feel that few people read in real life and even fewer who post on there

>> No.19547098

>>19546362
>>19546525
>>19546025
>>19546987
Based.

>> No.19547131

>>19541758
>it largely doesn’t matter if you read a book in translation

t. monoglot

>> No.19547135

>>19546939
Very interesting post. Is there a good bio of Melville?

>> No.19547137

>>19541842
Things Fall Apart was good

>> No.19547146

>>19546987
>fewer who post on there

*fewer who post on here

>> No.19547527

>>19547135
I've skimmed a few Melville biographies on him. I remember this one having some insightful information. The ones that focus on Moby Dick and sort of accept the critical consensus of his work should be avoided desu, like Updike's essay on Melville is terrible.

https://archive.org/details/hermanmelvillebi0000howa/page/n7/mode/2up

I think the Raymond Weaver one is regarded as the biggest one to bring him into light too. It's in the Delphi Classics complete works of Melville.

Note on the Texts BY ROBERT A. SANDBERG in the back of the LOA complete Poetry of him is also good.

I'm sure there are more I am forgetting.

I typically only read a few authors then move on, for Poets this usually makes the most sense but some novelists appear to be able to capture that aesthetic unity throughout their works; which is nevertheless why I generally rate Poetry much higher, Melville included. Others I'm hoping to do next are Hawthorne, Bulwar-Lytton, Poe, Lewis Carroll, Stoker, Stevenson, Shiel, Dunsany, Disreali, George Meredith, William Morris, Washington Irving, Ford Madox Ford, John Galt... Now most writers are very shaky, work to work, especially modern writers I've read, Lovecraft would be one I enjoy quite a bit who is not always good work-to-work as he gets repetitive and sometimes just relays a previous work with new superficial details another would be Kafka who I mostly dislike yet loved The Castle. Writing today also appears to be more commercialized now so it's harder to see that carry-over, for instance some Anthony Burgess books are dreadful like his epic poem on Moses, and someone like Updike (who I absolutely loathe) is mostly pandering before writing, so I tend to read prior to WW2 works.

>> No.19547544

>>19547527
>>19547135
Leon Howard is the one I linked, and Herschel Parker is another big one, yet something about it put me off, iirc Parker tried to turn Melville's politics into Parker's own.

>> No.19548032

>>19547527
>>19547544
Thanks!

>> No.19548277

>>19546987
>>19546525
Outside of shitty political takes and cuckoltry, Reddit has some nice subreddits.
And that concludes my unpopular /lit/ opinion

>> No.19548291

The importance of Agatha Christie is very understated in modern literature circles.

>> No.19548371
File: 191 KB, 783x1200, 71fUyFiMBxL.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19548371

>nabokov was an absolute genius when it came to structure, almost no reader is at his level, his works are largely unexplored, his last "unfinished" book and the story behind its publication was planned by him and the version we have is final and intended to be published as is

i would list more opinions but now im realizing they're just more nabbyfagging

>> No.19549461

>>19541758
>>Camus was a crypto-Christian
How?

>> No.19549532

>>19546531

Lol, my first thought was the composer but then I thought that Wagner was a writer that I hadn’t heard of so I didn’t bring it up.

>> No.19549955

>>19546531
why? wagners operas are basically poetic epics

>> No.19549975

>>19546597
why the fuck are you commenting on how good poetry is if you cant even read the language, do you not understand how fucking idiotic that is?

>> No.19550016

>>19546606
The list is fucked, but Shakespeare should not make the top ten. Unfortunately so many pseuds are brainwashed. They can't break the conditioning yet when you ask them to explain themselves they quote Goddard or Bloom or G Wilson Knight. They can't think for themselves yet they want to tell you why you should think a man whose output was ⅓ genius ⅓ mediocre and ⅓ shit is #1. Then when you compare him to Milton or Marlowe or Goethe they try to appeal to emotion or argue subjectively. It's really sad and I pity them. Shakespeare is to lit pseuds what Nolan is to movie pseuds -- they refuse to listen.

>> No.19550043

>>19548371
>his last "unfinished" book and the story behind its publication was planned by him and the version we have is final and intended to be published as is
elaborate, please

>> No.19550095

There has never been a good horror author in the entire history of literature. Saying you like Poe is NPC tier, and Lovecraft is Goosebumps for manchildren.

>> No.19550131

>>19550016
He's better than Marlowe and Milton is indebted to him. You're thinking of Thomas Middleton.

>> No.19550194

>>19550131
Just like I said: Statements supported by no evidence. Watch this -- I'll press you.
> Milton is indebted to him.
How so? Why would that matter? Is Shakespeare not "indebted" to Marlowe? Did he not "borrow" all of his plots? Does he not pay homage to the ancient greek playwrights? You will now give me a snide answer (of course I say this knowing that since I said you will give me a snide answer, you will try to prove me wrong and respond with a worthy post).

>> No.19550229

>>19541936
Baldwin is a prose master. Midwit take.

>> No.19550268

>>19550194
>evidence
Evidence for what?

Milton said so himself and Shakespeare's influence is obvious. To say that Shakespeare is outright bad when he was adored by Milton and other great writers discredits the Christopher Nolan comparison. IDK what Shakespeare you've read and are referring to.

Shakespeare is indebted to Ovid, Marlowe, Beaumont and Fletcher, Thomas Middleton, George Peele and so-forth. Yes. IDK why that makes him bad?

>Plots
The plot is secondary in most great literature, if not all.

>Homage to Greeks
Yes, sure.

>Snide answer
I'm not sure you've said why he's bad other than you dislike him. I'm skeptical of how much Shakespeare you've even read. Why is Cymbeline or The Winter's Tale a bad play or a bad work of literature?

If the point you want to make is that Shakespeare is not the best writer of all time, then I really don't care because exact rankings are silly and literature is to be enjoyed horizontally not vertically, so I'd say Shakespeare is within the first tier. If you want to say why he is not and post an alternative tier of first-rate English writers then I'll respond if it is interesting enough. I also don't compare languages to each other and never rate translations, so if you're arguing that Marlowe and Milton are better than Shakespeare, then it's ultimately subjective since all are tier-1 (although, I'm not sure Marlowe is in all honesty).

Please don't tell me you like Joyce or Nabokov.

>> No.19550317

>>19541842
Your last point is true, and everyone knows it. But like...why is this? Is intelligence really that vital to creativity?

>> No.19550370

>>19550317
Can't speak for 100 years, but African Americans and Spanish speaking immigrants/second gen/third gen can't shut the fuck up about skin color. The color is the message and the message trumps everything else. I'd love to find a black/hispanic Lewis Carroll or Tolkien (who has said many times there is not allegory in his work) or L Frank Baum or Franz Kafka but there aren't any. Toni Morrison could get away with it because real shit was happening in her time, but no one born after 1972 has any reason to bitch about nothing.

>> No.19550378

>>19550370
Paul Laurence Dunbar is okay

>> No.19550515

>>19549975
A translators job is to get across the spirit and soul of the original while trying to make it as close to the original verse as possible. You might be missing some of the structure of the poem or even some nuance lost in translation but you can still judge it based on its themes, intent, imagery, etc.

>> No.19550587

Any work that seriously invokes psychoanalysis or semiotics can be immediately dismissed as nonsense, and because of that most "theory" is a colossal waste of time.

>> No.19550628

>>19550515
the soul of any poem is the arrangement of sounds and the overall sonority. anything else is an afterthought therefore translations will always be dogshit

>> No.19550634

>>19550587
Untrue as long as they approach it using the framework but leave the conclusions ambiguous and symbolic. It's an effective shorthand.

>> No.19550802

>>19541758
>it largely doesn’t matter if you read a book in translation
I can smell the Mcdonalds through this post.

>> No.19550819

>>19542892
I can smell the big mac through my monitor. Amerilardians, everybody.

>> No.19551207

>>19550043
the official story is that the original of laura (dying is fun) was supposed to be burnt instead of published if he died before finishing it. his son disobeyed him years later and published it anyway in the form of the index cards he wrote it on. considering how similar this is to kinbote publishing the unfinished pale fire poem and how thematically relevant the book itself being unfinished is to a book about erasing yourself im willing to bet all of this was planned by him and that the full narrative of the book is hidden but can be deduced from details

>> No.19551575

>>19541976
>>DFW was the best writer of his generation
>>Pynchon is a good writer but overrated beyond measure. All his books are formulaic wastes of time.
ꜱoyjak.png

>> No.19551582

>>19541721
Bakker is actually the greatest living author/philosopher.

>> No.19551708

>>19541758
No way, that Woolf stuff is way boring

>> No.19551715

>>19541996
Pagans aren’t Christians.

But neither are post Christians. We don’t realize that we have no foundations

>> No.19551752

>>19551708
It is. Joyce may be more exciting but he’s not thrilling either. Joyce got too schizophrenic. Woolf’s calm simple approach to modernist writing hit me harder than Joyce’s by far. Her books are all about time and character psychology. I get what she’s going for way more than I do for Joyce.

>> No.19551779

Louise Gluck deserved her Nobel prize 100%. She's a superb poet, the greatest American poet since Eliot

>> No.19551792

>>19551779
reasons?

>> No.19551938

>>19545892
>French lit is generally better than Russian lit
Hard to be sure without speaking French and Russian, but I doubt it. French music < Russian music. French cinema <<<<< Russian cinema.

>Reading is only worth it if you enjoy it
Well, it might be a job you're getting paid for. But in general, I agree you don't get much out of fiction unless you enjoy it.

>Jane Eyre is superior to Wuthering Heights
Not a chance
>and one of the greatest books in the English language
Yes-ish. It's pretty good.

>Outside of Heart of Darkness, Joseph Conrad is underrated as a writer — HoD is one of his weaker works in fact
HoD is certainly absurdly over-emphasized in his oeuvre.

>Victor Hugo was one of the greatest writers to have ever lived and deserves the reverence that Melville gets here
Hugo too far.

>Woolf is superior to Joyce
She's at best an annoying waste of time.

>Dostoevsky is good, but extremely overrated
He's over-rated here.

>Chekhov is the greatest Russian writer
He hasn't knocked my socks off. One can only make so much allowance for loss in translation.

>There’s nothing wrong with the prose of Henry James or Thomas Carlyle, and people who claim otherwise were just filtered
I personally prefer TC but it's perfectly reasonable to object to either's extremity of manner. People on /lit/ who say other people are filtered are just trying to appear impressive.

>Holluebecq is a garbage writer who is only noteworthy because he makes self-identified incels feel validated
He gets closer than most writers to (some of) the truths of modern society. This is necessary for greatness but not sufficient. One also needs desire (and ability) to create beauty. Not sure he measures up.

>It’s painfully obvious that a large percentage of people on this board don’t actually read
Hardly an iconoclastic opinion. I guess about half the board reads. It's hard to judge, though. One problem is that reading takes a lot of time, so the people who don't read have a lot more time for posting time-wasting nonsense.

>A lot of feminist philosophers make some valid points
Blind pigs and all that. If you attack everything, you're sure to attack something that isn't perfect eventually. The point is whether their central these is correct (it isn't) and whether their efforts do anything to help society (they don't).

>and the misogynistic mindset of some /lit/ posters only serves to prove them right
This is their number one strategy, yes.
* Shout "men hate women!"
* Behave insufferably
* Men object
* Shout "SEE! WE WERE RIGHT!"

>Most nihilistic “doomer” books are pretentious trash
Not sure which books you're talking about, but I probably agree. Greatness is always constructive.

>> No.19552013

>Eastern Europeans were the best authors of the twentieth century
>Borges is pure gimmick, essays and fiction
>Seneca's plays were better than his essays or letters
>Eco blows insane amounts of dick, there is nothing worth anyone's times in his corpus
>Spinoza is not only shit, he was also unoriginal for his times
>Rasselas is much better than Candide
>De Assis is the best Latin American author.
>Kafka is only good at short stories and he was right to want his novels burned
>Niggers have better literature than spics
>Modern Korean literature is better than Japanese or Chinese
>Custine is better than Tocqueville
>Rochefoucauld is the best nonfiction French author
>Chekhov was peak midwit

>> No.19552048

>>19551938
>Hugo too far.
kek

>> No.19552052

>>19546544
poetry is only good sounding wordplay, it doesn't have any special power to convey ideas or philosophy. Good poetry can make banal observation seem profound.

>> No.19552348

>Nabokov WAS a pedophile and that's Lolita's greatest secret
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40754944

>> No.19552371

>>19552052
it's only proof of your own bad taste if poetry seems only to you like "wordplay" that fools you into being impressed by banalities. poetry's "special power" in conveying ideas is obviously its concision and memorableness if that's a word

>> No.19552378

>>19552013
>>Rasselas is much better than Candide
>Rasselas is much better than Candide
ultimately I disagree, at least with the "much", but Rasselas sure is an enchanting little book

>> No.19552387

>>19546939
>do you consider biographies or history to be philosophy?
yes
>I enjoy reading non-fiction works from fiction writers I enjoy, like Irving’s George Washington biography.
same. above i wrote "I'd rather read an "outdated" work of history by a Victorian with a classical education and beautiful prose than some lifeless turd from the university presses by a hack with imposter syndrome and a narrow specialist mind". I have Irving's book on Columbus, haven't read it yet.

>> No.19552432

>>19546544
>>I distrust anyone whose favourite writers are Dante, Milton and Homer... not because of their works themselves, but because it strikes me as very NPC-ish to have tastes that coincide so perfectly with critical consensus... I respect people who have particular tastes they've formed thru their own reading, even if it doesn't align with my own.
I always say Milton and Shakespeare among mine, although I'd never say the other two you listed. In all honesty, in translation neither are very good. Usually I list off like 10-15 writers I enjoy.

>> No.19552438

>>19552387
>same. above i wrote "I'd rather read an "outdated" work of history by a Victorian with a classical education and beautiful prose than some lifeless turd from the university presses by a hack with imposter syndrome and a narrow specialist mind". I have Irving's book on Columbus, haven't read it yet.
Yes I agree, Gibbon is much better than whatever Politically Correct hack they trot out today.

>> No.19552576

>>19541976
>a lot of the older classical literature is boring and useless. Literature started becoming actually good with Dickens and Dostoevsky.
Do you even know Cervantes, Goethe, Hölderin, Milton, Shakespeare, Dante, Calderón de la Barca, Francisco Quevedo, Luis de Góngora?

>>19542955
average /lit/-tard here

>>19546362
>Hemingway is great
Not unpopular
>Reddit actually has better literature discussion than here
I can see why you think that

>>19552013
>Modern Korean literature is better than Japanese or Chinese
this one is interesting, bother to recommend some books?

>> No.19552589

>>19541842
Retarded bait

>> No.19552934

>>19551938
>Hard to be sure without speaking French and Russian, but I doubt it.
Different anon chiming in. The Russians had some great writers within a fairly short period of time. However, French literature underwent several centuries of development and they have a lot of poetry that tends to go unnoticed by outsiders. Searching for mirror images of Tolstoyevsky would certainly be a fool's errand, but they do have some masterful storytellers of their own.

>> No.19552960

>>19541976
>Philosophy after Nietzsche or Kierkgaard (Pick one) is largely worthless
this is the single most retarded take I've seen on this board, well done

>> No.19553331

>>19541842
>No black and hispanic or latinx writers are worth reading
Have you tried Vargas Llosa, Barreto and Machado? You'd probably enjoy their ironic, sometimes erotic or haunted, aristocratic wit. Very different from the realist or engaged tone from other latin american writers.

>> No.19553487

>>19552960
>muh french fags
>muh autistic semantically obsessed anglos

>> No.19553552

>>19546427
>too distinctly Christian
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>> No.19553631

The vast majority of canonical authors are good. They're respected and have been handed down to later generations for a reason.

>> No.19553642

Sartre was the most significant French philosopher of the 20th century.

>> No.19553651

>>19542096
What made you drop Dying Inside?

>> No.19553659

>>19541976
>a lot of the older classical literature is boring and useless. Literature started becoming actually good with Dickens and Dostoevsky.
wow!

We gots a retard OVA HERE NOW

>> No.19553661

>>19541976
>Literature started becoming actually good with Dickens and Dostoevsky.
Let's draw a line at 1850. Suppose we can keep ONLY the stuff before it or ONLY the stuff after it? Clearly, we keep the stuff before it. (Not close).

A more interesting question: what date do we draw the line, so that it's exactly balanced?

>> No.19553670

>>19542866
>but the books are impenetrable
Thanks for the laugh

>> No.19553676

>Nabokov is a horrible writer. His prose is self indulgent and his rhetorical figures leave a lot to be desired.
>People who can only read one language will never be able to read literature with as much depth or acumen as readers with more languages.
>Reading ancient/medieval/other culture's texts without reading secondary sources is useless. You can't possibly penetrate all these texts in depth without some guidance from experts.
>if you do not know metre or at least basic rhetorical figures, your reading of poetry will always be cursory and surface level.
>if your reading is primarily of the western classics and you cannot read at least Latin (let alone Greek, French, or German), you would have been mocked as a fool by the authors you idolize.
>a woman wrote the best English novel (you should know which novel it is if you're so well read)
>the Odyssey is the greatest work of literature ever written

>> No.19553686

All christers are wrong and the inter-sectarian debates here are laughably irrelevant. Just become Muslims if you want monotheism with morality police.

>> No.19553714

>>19553676
You sound like an insufferably pretentious prick who confuses performing arbitrary, self-righteous gatekeeping with having good taste or a substantial understanding of literature

>> No.19553723

>>19553714
You sound like a midwit that demands people accept your love of Stephen King as legitimate good taste in literature.

Also I want to make it clear that it is perfectly fine not to be able to do any of these things. Only that as a reader it's good to recognize the limits (you) have.

>> No.19553757

>>19546544
>I'd rather read an "outdated" work of history by a Victorian with a classical education and beautiful prose than some lifeless turd from the university presses by a hack with imposter syndrome and a narrow specialist mind
Based

>> No.19553772

>>19553676
>People who can only read one language will never be able to read literature with as much depth or acumen as readers with more languages.
If you mean, all polyglots read more deeply than all monoglots, you're insane. Philip Larkin famously knew only English and he was a more sensitive and intelligent reader than almost anyone. If you mean, all else being equal, learning a second language must improve one's general cultural receptivity, then yeah, maybe.

>Reading ancient/medieval/other culture's texts without reading secondary sources is useless.
If you'd used a less extreme word than "useless" you might have a case to argue.

>if your reading is primarily of the western classics and you cannot read at least Latin (let alone Greek, French, or German), you would have been mocked as a fool by the authors you idolize
Shakespeare wrote for people who couldn't even read, let alone read Latin.

>a woman wrote the best English novel (you should know which novel it is if you're so well read)
Debatable but not insane. (But it's Wuthering Heights. Not Middlemarch, which I bet is what you mean.)

>> No.19553787

>>19553772
>if you mean all polyglots etc.
Obviously I don't mean this.

>useless
It's a strong term but I'm on 4chan so idgaf

>Shakespeare wrote for people who couldn't read.
I suppose he only wrote plays

>Wuthering Heights
Haven't read it yet. I will update my opinion if this proves to be better than the one I had in mind.

>> No.19553802

>>19553676
>>Nabokov is a horrible writer. His prose is self indulgent and his rhetorical figures leave a lot to be desired.
Overstating your case. Just say you dislike him. I don't either.

>>People who can only read one language will never be able to read literature with as much depth or acumen as readers with more languages.
I have no idea. What is your reasoning?

>>Reading ancient/medieval/other culture's texts without reading secondary sources is useless.
Somewhat agree. Somewhat though.

>You can't possibly penetrate all these texts in depth without some guidance from experts.
'Experts'

>>if you do not know metre or at least basic rhetorical figures, your reading of poetry will always be cursory and surface level.
I agree with this.

>>if your reading is primarily of the western classics and you cannot read at least Latin (let alone Greek, French, or German), you would have been mocked as a fool by the authors you idolize.
Do you even know Ancient Greek? School structure is mostly to blame for this anyway.

>>a woman wrote the best English novel (you should know which novel it is if you're so well read)
See the other anon, although it's The Mysteries of Udolpho.

>>the Odyssey is the greatest work of literature ever written
Have you even read it in Greek? Why do pseuds jerk off the Greeks so much.

>> No.19553815

>>19553802
>experts
Surprisingly people who devote all their time to studying a specific thing might have more informed views and insights than those who do not.

>do you know ancient Greek
Sadly not. And as a result I cannot read the Odyssey with the depth I'd like. But I plan to learn it in the next few years. Also I only write on texts that I can read in the original language. I pick the Odyssey as the greatest for its influence as well as how great the story is (shallow I know).

>> No.19553847

>>19553815
I do hate Nabokov too btw, i'll just follow-up on this since I do dislike his shallow tricks, and how he repeats that same sarcastic anti-psychology rant in every book. He is a man who stands for nothing writing in highly modern-influenced prose.

The people in academia are seldom experts was my point. The local autist in your town who reads constantly and owns a small miscellaneous store is more knowledgable than some pea-brain in a classroom.

See this is ridiculous, then. Judge the languages you know and view the rest as primary sources to draw inspiration from and understand literature (western) in a broader scope. I know English, and little French and German, so I merely judge the former solely, and that began around Chaucer.

>> No.19553894

>>19553847
My point isn't that you can't love or appreciate literature in translation. It would be ridiculous to expect people to know every language they read in a book. But in the case of reading a text whose primary language you don't know, this is where things like secondary sources become helpful.

I get the hate for academia. There is a lot of shit out there. But your local library man will never compete with the top academics in the field they study.

I'm in a similar boat with languages. I can read many languages with a grammar and dictionary but only feel comfortable writing about Latin, English (starting with Old English), and French. I hope to get my German more fluent this summer. My knowledge of Celtic languages is hopeless without devoting an inordinate amount of time to them.

>> No.19554812

>>19550268
It's funny how that poster didn't reply back to you. He says he will press you, yet it has been more than 21 hours since he got BTFO. Where did he run to? I guess it's because Shakespeare is the most famous writer that he has attracted all this hate. If Dante, or Homer were more famous than him, You will stop seeing all of the 10 posters on here who say "They are better than Shakepeare" start saying "Shakepeare is better than them." Apparently you must be a sheep, or blindly following the word of Harold Bloom when you call Shakespeare Great. Samuel Johnson, the greatest literary critic of all time, sees the greatness of Shakespeare. I'm sure him, too, is a fool? Also, i find it best to ignore all of this posters who call the most influential writer of all time, who is only second to homer, "Overrated" or "Bad." There is a good chance that he influenced their favorite writer. So, does that make their favorite writers fools for seeing the genius of Shakespeare? or is it just 4chan complaining about something, or in this case someone, being popular? Shakespeare's legacy isn't going to be ruined because of some anonymous contrarian, neither will it stop his influence. Art is subjective, but to call him the "Nolan of literature" means his intention was never to have a good conversation.

>> No.19555273

>>19553661
>1850
questionable date to give. id lean to whichever side has 1851 on it

>> No.19556319

Posters on /lit/ are notoriously bad readers. They will naively shit on a book and call the author overrated because they themselves were unable to extract anything meaningful out of the book.

Blanket statements and rankings of the type "French literature is better than Russian literature" or "this author invalidates/refutes that author" as seen here >>19545892 are the lowest form of literary discussion.

>> No.19556412

>Virgil is better than Homer
>American literature is objectively mediocre
>there's hardly any good literature from the 20th century and none at all from this century
>Dante is the best writer of all time
>Thus Spake Zarathustra reads like a compilation of 2deep4you Chinese proverbs

>> No.19556443

>>19555273
Moby Dick is a fine, cheery book. But you can't give up just about everything else ever for it, fine though it is.

>> No.19556453

I don't care about the Greeks at all

>> No.19556455

>>19556453
That's fair enough. They don't care about you.

>> No.19556475

kinda scary how every psychological thought is repetition and every year in the earths existence we all thought in the same categories

>> No.19556533

>>19556412
>Virgil is better than Homer
Interestingly enough they're both worth exactly the same at Scrabble (10 points total).

>American literature is objectively mediocre
The fourth word here serves no purpose other than to make you sound like a thirteen-year-old.

>there's hardly any good literature from the 20th century and none at all from this century
You may be right about this century.

>Dante is the best writer of all time
No point flattering him. He wasn't a cute girl even when he was alive.

>Thus Spake Zarathustra reads like a compilation of 2deep4you Chinese proverbs
You have to admit its author had a fine mustache though.

>> No.19556798

— McCarthy has shot his bolt. The Passenger isn't going to be any good, even if we do eventually see it.

— Jannies are a fine body of men, working tirelessly for the ungrateful scum of the earth i.e. us.

— If you really want to produce a world-changing work of art in the 21st century, it's almost certainly gotta be a video game. There's a tiny chance you might do it with a film. No third choice.

— English suffers from the lack of a euphonious unique sex-neutral pronoun. "Ze" is a worthy attempt but it doesn't sound right.

— The books of Arthur Conan Doyle are worth more to the world than the books of Thomas Pynchon.

— Butterfly is the jewel in /lit/'s crown and I am gonna win her.

>> No.19557223

>Chaucer is better than Shakespeare as a story teller and poet

>Cormac McCarthy is not worth reading

>Joyce sucks

>> No.19557380

>>19553772
>But it's Wuthering Heights. Not Middlemarch
It's Emma you pleb