>>7595911 This makes me sincerely angry. Assuming it has consistently been the original poster, he literally posted more than 450 titles in five minutes. What exactly is the point of dropping such a meaningless amount of names? Did he read them? Did the person who made it read all of them? Has he even gone through a single row? No, seriously, he shouldn't post and this thread shouldn't exist. It's not helping anyone and we're wasting time and space that would be dedicated to a real literature thread. We may have gone up to 2,000 titles in this moment, seriously, is it anything but pointlessly saving and posting again dozen of tables nobody ever followed?
>>7595904 I would be interested in a shit /lit/ chart.
It should be divided into different layers of shit. At the top, it should just be general pleb literature, high-school tier stuff like Catcher in the Rye and To Kill a Mockingbird. Then next should best seller shit like Harry Potter and Stephen King novels. After that, it starts to narrow down into slightly more niche but not totally removed from normal plebiness like Ready Player One and Game of Thrones. After that, shit only cultists like such as Atlas Shrugged and Battlefield Earth. And at the bottom is where we get real worthless garbage, which I don't know too much about so I don't know what would be put there (and not haha Lord of the Rings is terrible it should be there! I mean worst of the worst shit.)
>>7595916 Oh shit, my mistake. Not a bad chart then.
>>7595921 High-school tier literature isn't particularly "shit" though. At least, not always. High-school tier stuff is better suited to a /lit/ starter guide or something (which we already have plenty of) because it's not a bad foundation for building an interest in literature on.
Although the rest of your plan makes sense. The bottom of the barrel shit should include that Boon & Mills shit and tripe like Fifty Shades of Gray (although I know there's worse literature out there).
>>7595930 >High-school tier literature isn't particularly "shit" though.
That's why it's at the top. It's meant to be books that are only a little shit, only there to serve as a reference point. They aren't terrible, but still have major problems/general shallowness that should be mentioned.
>>7595923 When I see this kind of chart, I always have the impression some random guy just felt like he was lacking sense of superiority and validation so he decided to arbitrarily sort up titles he didn't read while setting rules he wants anonymous lurkers to follow. I doubt someone ever decided it was a good deal to spend hundreds of hours and a lot of money into reading book because a stranger said so. The fact these “guides” are posted every twenty seconds makes me think it's more about endlessly dowloading and uploading them. Anyway, seriously, what the hell is it? “Books Which Make You Smarter”? “Drugs in Books”? Do you honestly believe a single person has read, let's say, half of the references included in a chart posted here?
>>7595917 Does it matter? I always find these threads interesting. Instead of the board being flooded with threads asking for specific recommendations, there's usually a chart for it then can refer to. A thread like this allows people to browse through charts they might be interested in which'll highlight books they can discover. They don't need to read everything on the charts to get a fair understanding or appreciation of that area of literature, just what might interest them.
Plus, it's a benefit if these threads also have fellow anons creating new charts which happens from time to time.
Nobody says you have to enjoy, like or even post in these threads, but if they infuriate you so vigorously, maybe you could just do yourself a favour and not post in the thread, or not browse it altogether.
needs a YA fiction, shitty genre fiction and real dreck categories
would also be cool if we could find some books that have little literary merit like mein kampf or those books that focus on slandering a famous person or an industry like the books kenneth anger used to write or the david cameron pig fucking one.
>>7595939 Yes, it does. In addition to luring people into this weird frenetical activity—which seems consistent on other boards like /mu/—I think it's slowly brushing away the regular threads about recommendations. You're basically saying it's better to “optimize” the process by gently pushing him through the appropriate chart but it's the plain equivalent of repeating “check the stickers” where any new reader is lost among an obscure list of 1,000 titles. Not mentioning most of them are horrible. I want to learn French and read French literature, what's the deal? Françoise Sagan and Amélie Nothomb? Come on. A genuinely interested reader is compelled to believe what a stranger put on in a chart, with no explanation. You said “they don't need to read everything on the charts to get a fair understanding or appreciation of that area of literature, just what might interest them” but they do need to ask since no comments are provided. It's clearly better to have someone to speak with, someone who proves he did read what is he talking about and obtain tailored recommendations.
>Plus, it's a benefit if these threads also have fellow anons creating new charts which happens from time to time
I'm convinced a well-read person who rather write a guide or give day-to-day advices than putting together pictures. It also takes a gigantic knowledge to be really in such a position of authority. Did the guy who made the Russian chart read enough of Russian literature to pick the 10%, 5%, 1% of it that should be included in a starter guide? It's okay to spend a couple of hours to watch some anime in a chart on /a/ but are saying you're willing to read dozens of books because a picture said so?
>>7595937 Are you seriously implying that it's impossible for someone to have read all the books posted in any single chart? Even in the packed French chart (seen: >>7595901) there's only 63 titles. People can read that in a single year.
>>7595963 don't worry about what others are doin', anon
just stay with your views on these charts, no real harm is done either way to what should personally concern you. if you prefer a discussion (as most should but what can you do), then nobody should stop you <3
>>7595973 I'm suggesting nobody did it, or at least did it in order to “complete to chart”. To phrase it in another way, I don't think anyone really opens one of those files and say “okay, I'll dedicate the next two years to read all of it”.
>>7595978 >to enjoy a work you must read every book that came before it in chronological order >he thinks merely reading a few preceding books will allow him to 'fully grasp' a work >he thinks autism and sheepery is patrician Mate...
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.