What would you change on this list?

>>8936896
Remove pinecone
Add woolf

nothing of note happened in the 1700s lmaooooooooooooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

>>8936896

Either Catch 22 or Slaughterhouse Five are way better postmodern novels than Gravity's Rainbow, for the simple fact that people in the future aren't gonna want to read a 700 page novel to figure out what postmodernism was all about. What an arrogant legacy.

I'd argue Don Quixiote was the last piece of literature worthy of being remembered- for its being exemplary of a novel- following only The Bible and Hamlet, but this looks like required reading for a literature course or something, so whatever.

>>8936896
Gulag Archipelago, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
The Faerie Queene, Spenser
Invisible Man, Ellison

Add IJ

>>8936896
>>8936921
yup, add Woolf (To the Lighthouse and maybe Dalloway too), remove Ibsen. Add The Brothers Karamazov, or replace Crime & Punishment with it. The Wasteland arguably deserves a spot.

>>8936896
No Voltaire?

>>8937148
But I've already read both of those, but I've never read C&P

>>8936940
>people in the future aren't gonna want to read a 700 page novel to figure out what postmodernism was all about

Why would they? They'll listen to the audiobook instead.

>>8936896
Frankenstein
Treasure Island
One Hundred years of solitude

>>8936896
Apocrypha
Only the Catholic Church recognizes it. They deal with obscure parts of Jewish history. If you're a young man, replace with the Book of Proverbs.

>>8936896
>Complete Works of Shakespeare
No. Selected is fine. Shakespeare is not infallible.

To add:
>Plays of Aristophanes
at least one.
>Plato's Republic
Its arguably better than almost everything on this list. Not even joking. It has a lot more depth than the surface. Although you could scrap it if you're restrained to fiction.

>On the Road / Naked Lunch
As part of form and style

>Stephen King / "popular" novelists
Reading bad, mediocre, or at least popular literature is as essential as the greats. This should be obvious. As long as it isn't overberaing or time consuming I think that seriously examining some relevant stuff is important for seeing their appeal, their flaws, and marketability etc.

>Lolita
Because its fucking fantastic. Even if its not as impressive as Pale Fire.

>Short Stories of Ernest Hemingway
Because they're his best work, and extremely influential. The Killers, Snows of Kilimonjaro and Short life of Macomber at the very least.

>Heart of Darkness
About colonial/imperial literature perhaps? Plus its good stuff anyways

>Great Gatsby
American classic, extremely influential.

>>8937258
>>8937204

agreed on all of these.

also

Alexander Pope - The Rape of the Lock
Ovid's Metamophoses
Aesop's Fables / Grimm's Fairy Tales
Edgar Allan Poe, Selected Works (mostly short stories & essays)
Walt Whitman - Song of Myself (1855 version)
The Ramayana
sections of The Romance of the Three Kingdoms
sections of Mahabharata
sections of Journey to the West

>aleph

wtf

the typeface

....possibly the font

Why would I need that when I have this?:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Books_of_the_Western_World#Volumes

>>8936896
I'd remove Joyce and Pynchon.

>>8936928
Christopher Smart is good, but the Enlightenment and Scientific Revolution was deadly for 18th-century art. Literature of that period was dominated by shitty satires and mock epics

>>8936896
>no Chaucer
>no Sappho