Is it OK to read most of the books on this list?

Almost all of them are great, so yeah.

>Is it OK

What did he mean by this?

>The Road

Probably better than anything else on that list, although I'm sure I'll be derided for saying that.

>>8299142
No, you're not allowed. Thanks for asking though, otherwise you would've gotten in trouble.

yeah

its OK to enjoy them too

>>8299170
So, you have only read The Road, then.

jesus christ

read whatever you want. these are all good books. you can even read bad books!

I want you all to know, not just OP, that whatever you're doing or not doing, it's OK. We're all gonna be OK, boys.

irk if this chart really applies. these are all pretty entry level, except war and peace, ulysses, and IJ. and I can't imagine some try hard name dropping these. it wouldn't get them too much credibility.

mush tryhard posts are in philosophy, religion, or general literature topic threads where people claim to have read obscure authors they really haven't and explain ideas they do not understand. most of /lit/ has read all of these, I hope.

The point is that they're namedropped, not that they're bad.
except 1Q84
and Catch 22

>Is it OK
Aw, OP, what do you mean is it okay? Like should you be embarrassed for reading any of them? Certainly not, they're all respected books to varying degrees. I think they're called tryhard because they're very entry level.

In order of difficult (roughly) from easiest to hardest, here are the books I've read:
>Fahrenheit 451
>The Stranger
>Catcher in the Rye
>On the Road
>The Great Gatsby
>Cat's Cradle
>1984
>Catch-22
>(power gap)
>The Trial
>(larger power gap)
>The Brothers Karamzov

Also you might like House of Leaves if you want to read a weird spooky story.

>>8299195
>implying its acceptable not to be pseudo intellectual on /lit/

>>8299142
>those books
>tryhard

>>8299231
Hahahahahahahahahahwhahahahqhhahahahahahaha

I'm highly offended by that list.

this is a pretty solid list

also good for bringing to le cafe to impress the bitches