A
Anonymous06/22/25, 17:50No.24487829
Are you elitist when it comes to what you consider proper literature?
65
Replies
A
Anon06/22/25, 17:51No.24487831
Go left if you want to cry yourself to death of boredom
A
Anon06/22/25, 18:01No.24487848
hey Calle Borjesson. Where have you been? Still shooting up schools?
A
Anon06/22/25, 18:18No.24487881
A
Anon06/22/25, 18:37No.24487923
Blood Meridian is THE Novel per excellence
>picrel
A
Anon06/22/25, 18:42No.24487935
No. "Proper" literature = Good "improper" literature + time
A
Anon06/22/25, 19:08No.24488003
>Hamlet not for the masses
>Master and Margarita for the masses
A
Anon06/22/25, 19:10No.24488011
Dostoyevsky belongs firmly in the right side, And so does Nabokov.
A
Anon06/22/25, 19:12No.24488018
I agree with Schoppie on this one :
>A novel will be of a loftier and nobler nature, the more of inner and the less of outer life it portrays.
A
Anon06/22/25, 19:19No.24488037
Lit snobs for Joyce is such a bizarre thing when you actually read the fucker.
A
Anon06/22/25, 19:30No.24488072
I should be reading Ulysses, and fabricating my case for and against. I have read 200 pages so far—not a third; and have been amused, stimulated, charmed, interested, by the first two or three chapters—to the end of the cemetery scene; and then puzzled, bored, irritated and disillusioned by a queasy undergraduate scratching his pimples. Tom, great Tom [T.S. Eliot], thinks this is on a par with War and Peace! An illiterate, underbred book, it seems to me; the book of a self-taught working man, and we all know how distressing they are, how egotistic, insistent, raw, striking, and ultimately nauseating. When one can have the cooked flesh, why have the raw? But I think if you are anaemic, as Tom is, there is glory in blood. Being fairly normal myself I am soon ready for the classics again. I may revise this later. I do not compromise my critical sagacity. I plant a stick in the ground to mark page 200.
A
Anon06/22/25, 20:28No.24488254
>Hamlet
Nigga you do realise that Shakespeare's plays were tailored for the audiences and royal approval? Shakespeare was an entertainer, not an artist
A
Anon06/22/25, 21:21No.24488372
im an elitist anti-elitist and consider the "elite" literature basically garbage (classics are exceptions of course, but "modern elite" stuff 100%) while the actual more popular stuff is far more profound and higher quality.None gives a fuck if you "play with the medium" your book is shit
A
Anon06/22/25, 22:18No.24488486
>Blood Meridian
Surely, this is some concentrated effort by some malicious group of 4 people trying to poison this book's reputation and status, right?
A
Anon06/22/25, 22:18No.24488487
Maybe, I am still unsure if the books I like would fall under the strict literature criteria. If they do, then I would happily become an elitist.
A
Anon06/22/25, 22:25No.24488502
all of these books belong on the right side. only the greeks are good litterature
A
Anon06/22/25, 22:57No.24488557
You ever notice how things I enjoy are for high IQ, handsome, cool and epic guys, and things you enjoy are dumbed down shit for plebs? That's a wild coincidence
A
Anon06/23/25, 09:19No.24489500
Wrong pic. Sorry
A
Anon06/23/25, 14:44No.24489930
But wait OP doesn't Dune... isn't... doesn't there... isn't there something. Uh. Hold on I can't. Think at the moment. Faust... is good book... Dune... Sci-Fi is faustian? Maybe? I think someone said that once... so therefore. Maybe if I count using my fingers... okay. Okay I think I've got it
>Dune is a good book because faust is also a good book
Did. Am I getting through with that?
A
Anon06/23/25, 15:44No.24490061
I consider literature a genre.
A
Anon06/23/25, 16:37No.24490170
And to you, OP, I ask over LOTR's inclusion in the right: Are you insinuating that, due to Tolkien having made a profit off of his work, it must hold "very little artistic value" that forbids its designation as true literature? I understood Tolkien was an avid folklorist, a zealot in his respect for fiction, folklore, linguistics, myths, and religion, going so far as to incorporate those passions into LOTR with meticulous care. I confess there was financial incentive throughout this process, although I disagree it was his prime motivation to make money and entertain people. William Faulkner certainly had financial incentives, and so too did Shakespeare. They did not let this compromise them too much, no? So too was Tolkien this way, notoriously obsessed over how his vision was depicted, this preventing frugal opportunities from actualizing. Does this not display an aversion to selling out? Does this not show a fear for how his work could be dumbed down "for the masses," dumbed down "for monetary purposes"? And does its reception from both low- and highbrow audiences detract from what it literarily offers?>tl;dr for both my post
What I'm trying to ask is this: Would you deny LOTR the title of genuine literature? Just because its reception led to financial success and mass appeal, the original work itself was not compromised in its artistic integrity. It was transformative; it transcends the medium, made out of passion, and written by a visionary. Why the hate?
A
Anon06/23/25, 17:21No.24490266
Elitist attitudes tend to produce lists of 'greatest works' that really reflect the culture and values of the curator in a way that often feels close minded.
Among the many diverse roles played by literature, I think a significant one is its ability to connect us to others, especially those who differ in considerable ways like in their values, culture, or identity.
Certainly elitists claim that they're just leaving out the 'slop' written purely for entertainment, but they often also seem to leave out everything from cultures that are particularly foreign or from women aside from one or two tokenistic entries.
A
Anon06/23/25, 17:29No.24490280
Yo, I don't know if this breaks the rules of this board, but I am dying of boredom. Do any of you guys have good audiobooks to recommend? I have only read some really basic stuff like, Catcher In the Rye, 1984, Slutter House 5, Franeinsien, Of Mice And Men, Ender's Game and Zen In The Art of Writing (the one outlier). The recommendations don't have to be strictly audiobooks; I can read.
A
Anon06/23/25, 17:44No.24490317
>has a category of supposedly fake literature
>says they're monetarily driven without heart put into it
>puts Lord of the Rings in itTell me you've never read or studied Tolkien without telling me you've never read or studied Tolkien. I've seen some horrendous takes on this website, but this might be in the top 3 worst ones I've seen.Tolkien poured his heart and soul into the entire legendarium. As someone who has read all of his published works (including everything put out by Christopher after his father's death), it is utterly insane to say it is a work without emotion and heart put into it. The book mirrors aspects of his personal experience with WW1, with tragedy, hardship, and bonding poured into it to craft arguably the best fantasy novel of all time, rivaled only by The Silmarillion. It disgusts me to see someone put down LOTR in such a way. It isn't some pumped-out corporate slop.You know what is the "corporate slop" this image promotes? Stuff that's just printed out for cash like Patterson, Hoover, Grisham, etc. Not LOTR. Not Hundred Years of Solitude. The ones on the right in that image are all still works of literature. Great works if you ask me, some better than others.Tolkien is far, far from being anywhere near a mass-produced money-grubbing. He didn't care about that and you're a moron if you think that. He is a man who came into this world to share his incredible and fantastical visions with the world, to bring us a feeling of relaxation and a break from the hardships of the world. He crafted an incredible narrative, formed multiple languages, wrote dozens of essays, calculated population charts, and carefully designed the progress of the worldbuilding over a near entire lifetime. Go read The Nature of Middle-Earth, and tell me he did that for corporate slop and greed. I fucking dare you. Read The Children of Hùrin, and try to tell me it is a less complex and emotional novel than any other acclaimed piece. Read The Lord of the Rings, not watch the movie adaptions, but actually read the book. Consider the careful worldbuilding that has gone into creating it. Look at how the cast of characters interact with each other, and the minutae of their influences and interactions and how it conveys a deep philosophical message across a vast variety of concepts and ideas. Read The Silmarillion, and come try to tell me that Tolkien wrote for greed.I dare you.
A
Anon06/23/25, 19:07No.24490567
I like all of these novels :D
A
Anon06/23/25, 19:47No.24490666
One hundred years of solitude is one of the greatest works of literature, it wasn't made to make money. The author even hates how popular it got. Fucking retard
A
Anon06/23/25, 21:47No.24490973
Bulgakov wrote a book criticizing the fedoras in a country run by fedoras. He could’ve been shot for that; hardly a book made for “monetary purposes”.
A
Anon06/23/25, 23:20No.24491180
>Authors who inspire a movement are usually misunderstood, especially by those they have inspired, and Tolkien is no exception, but one of the biggest misconceptions about Tolkien is the idea that he is somehow an 'innovator of fantasy'. He did add a number of techniques to the repertoire of epic fantasy writers, and these have been dutifully followed by his many imitators, but for the most part, these techniques are little more than bad habits.
>Many have called Tolkien by such epithets as 'The Father of Fantasy', but anyone who makes this claim simply does not know of the depth and history of the fantasy genre. For those who are familiar with the great and influential fantastical authors, from Ovid and Ariosto to Eddison and Dunsany to R.E. Howard and Fritz Leiber, it is clear that, long before Tolkien, fantasy was already a complex, well-established, and even a respected literary genre.
>Eddison's work contains an invented world, a carefully-constructed (and well-researched) archaic language, a powerful and unearthly queen, and a central character who is conflicted and lost between the forces of nobility and darkness. Poul Anderson's The Broken Sword , which came out the same year as The Fellowship of the Ring, has distant, haughty elves, deep-delving dwarves, a broken sword which must be reforged, an epic war between the armies of light and darkness, another central character trapped between those extremes, and an interweaving of Christian and Pagan worldviews.
>So, if these aspects are not unique to Tolkien, then what does set him apart? Though Dunsany, Eddison, and Anderson all present worlds where light and dark come into conflict, they present these conflicts with a subtle and often ironic touch, recognizing that morality is a dangerous thing to present in absolutes. Tolkien (or C.S. Lewis), on the other hand, has no problem in depicting evil as evil, good as good, and the only place they meet is in the temptation of an honest heart, as in Gollum's case--and even then, he is not like Eddison's Lord Gro or Anderson's Scafloc, characters who live under an alternative view of the world, but instead fluctuates between the highs and lows of Tolkien's dualistic morality.
A
Anon06/24/25, 03:07No.24491617
Proust is not literature, but Blood meridian is
A
Anon06/24/25, 03:14No.24491638
Blood meridian is a more artistically pleasing work than Absalom, Absalom!And it sold less than every single book on the left until the 2nd decade of its release. OP is a retard