Chart thread, please.

Please don't.

Does anyone have that /lit/ guide to islamic literature? Kinda curious to see what's on there and I remember some kind anon creating such a thing in a previous chart thread.

File: gene_wolfe_chart1.jpg (2MB, 2264x3280px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2264x3280px

Gene Wolfe chart

>>7595886
> Uzumaki
> Persepolis
> Maus
> M
> Buddha
> Akira
> Lone Wolf & Cub

Very happy to see this chart isn't utter shit. Couldn't find Tintin in there but that's fine.

Why isn't there a "/lit/ guide to shit lit" chart?

>>7595904
Just compile what has been posted in this thread, then.

>>7595908
very lazy post, anon

File: lit-Islam.jpg (2MB, 2392x3968px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2392x3968px

>>7595881

>>7595912
Thanks, kind anon.

>>7595899
"Tintin in Tibet"
To the left of Watchmen.

>>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.)

>>7595917
your autism is showing, anon

people save and post the charts they're interested in. nobody says it's a game of bingo where you need to get a full house, jesus christ, man

>>7595917
You know you can actually minimise the threads you're not interested in.

>>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).

File: 1446917103539.gif (871KB, 245x230px) Image search: [Google]

871KB, 245x230px

>>7595917
Hahaha nobody cares FAGGOT

>>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?

>>7595926
I'm too angry to not answer!

>>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.

>>7595936
I guess that's fair then. If it's one of those charts with a brief description or summary of the tier of shit the books have landed upon, it could actually be a pretty good chart.

Anyone got any flowcharts they could share?

Yukio Mishima would be nice if anyone has that one

>>7595874
Is there a Japanese /lit/ flowchart?

>>7595904
mite b cool

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.

>>7595895
Needs editing for Latro -- add on Herodotus, Mythology, and Pindarian Odes as prerequisites

>>7595949
Don't worry about flowcharts lad, just pick one you like the look of and read it.

>>7595958
Feel free to do that it's made in paint anyway

>>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?

File: 008-fellini-satyricon-theredlist.jpg (1MB, 1948x1282px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1948x1282px

>>7595961
I'll give it a shot l8er, on my phone atm

Anyone got the Dante translation chart?

>>7595963
You're very amusing angry boy

>>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.

>>7595959
>He thinks that you can read more modern works that build off older texts and still fully grasp its concepts and styles
Wew lad...

>>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”.

>>7595982
Then you're autism is blinding you to the point of such a chart and thus the entire point of this thread.

>>7595889
Cringe

File: Screen Shot 2016-01-17 at 17.25.12.png (58KB, 177x203px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 177x203px

There needs to be more charts/guides to fellow artists' and authors' favorite books

a nabokov guide to classic literature with quotes to authors like dostoevsky would ruffle feathers but it'd be interesting to see opinions like that compiled into one place

>>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...

>>7595988
shit like that needs to be taken with a pinch of salt though, i dunno how many of those should be taken for reference/recommendations

just because nabokov disliked dostoyevsky doesn't mean he should be dismissed, y'know?

but i'd be curious to see more lists of my fave artists' books tho

>>7595986
Are you okay? You seem disgusted.

>>7595937
>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.
I do this literally all the time.

File: 1378857879428.png (1020KB, 750x864px) Image search: [Google]

1020KB, 750x864px

>>7595904