Let's discuss this accessibility chart

Eco is definitely too low. I know because I'm a total pleb and has managed to enjoy his books (though obviously without getting most references).

>>9815410
it would be funny if 'jkrowling' was the filename

>>9815410
>Is Joyce (late era) really that complex
Yep. He ranges from incredibly complex to deliberately incomprehensible in Finnegans wake, with some semi-sane passages thrown in for good measure;

>life is a-wake
>oh dear old gumpapar, he's gone on the razzledar, through blazing and gazing and crazing at the stars

File: jkrowling.png (589KB, 784x4100px) Image search: [Google]

589KB, 784x4100px

yes

>>9815410

> tfw this chart I made with some idiots, most of whom I don't even have contact with anymore, in a defunct skype group a few years ago, is still posted on this board

well, I suppose everyone has different legacies in life

>>9815647
Can you prove you made it?

>>9815410
The thumbnail of this image looks like a cosmic diagram of a blue star.

>>9815410
Is there one for philosophers?

>>9815647

Weird thing to be proud of. It's posted by people who care about their status and want to appear as well-read and "intellectual".

>>9817285

That's because it's not a serious chart, it was made to be provocative. Especially with a lot of names out of order in the middle or so part. It's supposed to be satire of the pseud culture here that lends itself to making charts and arguing over differences between "upper-middle-upperbrow" and "lower-upper-upperbrow" books.

>>9817014

No, but why would I lie about a shitty shitpost as my creation? I haven't been on this board in at least a year (maybe more) but as soon as I came back, CRASH! Mom made pancakes out of my meme

>>9817275
We should make one. Which ones should be on the surface and which ones should be on the depths?

>>9815647
How about a better/updated version?

>>9817878

I'm not 18 anymore, I don't have time to revamp a image shitpost for a dying board. You're welcome to touch it up. Save it, it's all yours my friend :)

>>9817882
Sad to see that someone who has read all these authors (or I guess most of them) speaks like this.

Who the fuck is "Stein"

>>9817904
Gertrude Stein.

A rose is a rose is a rose.

>>9815410
This is a psued chart and the main thing wrong with it is that it conflates accessibility with "meaning". As if books written in more obscure or difficult language are automatically embedded with additional layers of meaning simply by virtue of that. Also, just in terms of inconsistencies it doesn't make sense- e.g. is Calvino really less accessibly than Faulkner? Is Raymond Carver really at the same level as Tom Clancy? Is Beckett really "deemed incoherent by most readers" (exempting The Unnameable). For that matter, why isn't Beckett divided into early and late period? His early and late works are completely different.

How is Balano more difficult to read than Wallace? It's pretty good otherwise, though I had less trouble with Under the Volcano than I did with Gravity's Rainbow the first time.

>>9817960
>How is Balano more difficult to read than Wallace?
it's a meme chart why are you even asking this

>>9817893

Joyce read a lot, and he made much nastier shit posts than me

>>9817989
We can't know if it's a serious or a meme chart, the only guy who claims he created it with other anons, can't prove he did it himself, therefore the chart could either be real or a meme.

>>9817995
>We can't know if it's a serious or a meme chart
this "iceberg" stuff has reached classic meme status it's so old. the chart itself was probably made in earnest but for shitty meme reasons, therefore: meme chart.

>>9817893
Hardly anybody on /lit/ has actually read anything by maybe half of the authors on the chart.

>>9818004
Oh, I'm sorry if I'm not as "oldfag" as you to know that, but there's also a big possibility that the person behing this charts wanted to make a serious list of accessible authors in a way that people on this board would understand and would like instead of just making a plain list in a white background.

>>9818012

>Oh, I'm sorry if I'm not as "oldfag" as you to know that

it's just some shitty chart you goofy faggot stop the passive aggression.

>>9815410
>googled julian rios

>>9815410
Lowest I've read is Perec, I wouldn't really call him inaccessible but I guess it's a bit experimental (what with oulipo and all).

>>9818025

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2607019-poundemonium

there is a porndude with the same name

it's actually a really funny coincidence that an obscure experimental author, hoping perhaps to gain popularity in the internet age when people could easily search his works online and choose to read them, is supplanted and made irrelevant by a random dude who rubs his dick for a living, lel