Apparently this is bullshit. yea or nay?

I would say that ranking a book's worth or level of "substance" based on how difficult it is to read our how avant garde its narrative techniques areis a bunch of pretentious bullshit, yes, but that's merely my opinion.

Ranking books based on their difficulty is fucking ridiculous and anyone so insecure as to believe that they can shit on someone else for reading literature that they consider to be 'easy' is not worth your time.

I don't see a difference in difficulty between a late era Joyce and Schmidts Zettels Traum.

Garbage

Difficulty =/= worth

>>8372464
>>8372469
>>8372479
Its purpose isn't to rank the books you moronic whiners.

>>8372346
Dickens belongs in level 0.

File: 1469486395471.png (307KB, 292x551px) Image search: [Google]

307KB, 292x551px

>>8372346
>cortazar deeper than cervantes

>>8372346
>putting Stephenson lower than the other genre authors

Phew lass

>>8372483
There's a hell of a lot of implacature. Anyway, you can read as deep into a text as you want to whether it's ASOIAF or Cervantes.

>>8372508
This post is evidence that many of his readers are too stupid to understand him, making me think his level should be raised even higher

File: lit books.png (560KB, 784x3888px) Image search: [Google]

560KB, 784x3888px

>>8372346

>>8373074
John Green fits snugly between Dostoevsky and Ballard.

Totally arbitrary.

>>8372346
It's not entirely wrong but a lot of it is pretty arbitrary.

>>8372346
Where would bulgakov be?

>>8372346
Gass and Dostoevsky should be both level 2-3. Don't know why Gass is that low, I didn't have trouble reading him in High School.