What do you think?
>>25244734Placing them into tiers is really gay, OP.
>>25244739Why
>>25244734the sole fact you included Rowling and Martin, even though they're at the very bottom, makes the entire list nonsense.
>>25244734>popular authors are badYou are a retard. Especially for putting Verne in mediocre. His stories are great and it is criminal that modern retards dont read them more.
>>25244734Proust should be in GeniusMilton in SublimeDostoevsky in GreatMelville in GeniusDickinson in Great
>>25244734I think ranking art is for pseuds and faggots
>>25244734if cervantes was writing now and GRRM was writing in his era they would have swapped places. same for dosto and shakespeare. they were the slop of their period.
>>25244734swap Dosto and Proust
>>25244734You need to be 18 to post on this site.
>>25244734It might seem presumptuous of me, but every time I see someone champion Dostoevsky as much as what your little chart is showing, I can’t help but think you’re a teenager who hasn’t read half of the people you’ve put on here.
Shakespeare is the only author ive read where Ive unironically put the book down and stopped for a sec after reading certain lines because I was shocked how good it was
>>25244810>"Just recently I was feeling unwell and read ‘House of the Dead.’ I had forgotten a good bit, read it over again, and I do not know a better book in all our new literature, including Pushkin. It’s not the tone but the wonderful point of view—genuine, natural, and Christian. A splendid, instructive book. I enjoyed myself the whole day as I have not done for a long time. If you see Dostoevsky, tell him that I love him."- Lev Tolstoy>"Dostoevsky, the only psychologist, incidentally, from whom I had something to learn; he ranks among the most beautiful strokes of fortune in my life."- Friedrich Nietzsche>"The Brothers Karamazov is the most magnificent novel ever written."- Sigmund Freud>"[Dostoevsky] is the man more than any other who has created modern prose, and intensified it to its present-day pitch. [...] The Brothers Karamazov... made a deep impression on me... he created some unforgettable scenes [detail]... Madness you may call it, but therein may be the secret of his genius... I prefer the word exaltation, exaltation which can merge into madness, perhaps. In fact all great men have had that vein in them; it was the source of their greatness; the reasonable man achieves nothing."- James Joyce>"Dostoevsky gives me more than any scientist, more than Gauss."- Albert Einstein>"The real nineteenth century prophet was Dostoevsky, not Karl Marx."- Albert Camus>“It is directly obvious that he [Dostoevsky] is the greatest writer ever born.”- Virginia Woolf>"I think Dostoevsky is the greatest writer of all."- William Gaddis>Cormac McCarthy has said he admires “gutsy” writers such as Dostoevsky and Melville>The philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein is said to have read The Brothers Karamazov "so often he knew whole passages of it by heart".>Of the two portraits Heidegger kept on the wall of his office, one was of Dostoevsky.>William Faulkner reread [The Brothers Karamazov] regularly, claiming it as his greatest literary inspiration next to Shakespeare's works and the Bible. He once wrote that American literature had yet to produce anything great enough to compare with Dostoevsky's novel.
I honestly don't understand you. This list isn't complete - there is no DFW. Can you explain to me why you decided to remove/exclude him? Maybe you just haven't read anything yet.
>>25244816Was it Hamlet?
>>25244825Macbeth
>>25244827I should probably read that again at some point since secondary school took the beauty and fun out of it for me.
>>25244816Sounds like you don't like reading
>>25244838NTA but I hate qualityslop myself. When I read something good I just throw it in the bin, burn the book and then close it over. In that order.
>>25244734Who the fuck made this garbage list
>>25244883I
>>25244734why exactly would you put Anne Frank into a list among professionals? Are you, like, retarded?
mickiewicz is so forced, no one knows him outside of poland and that just shows that you are a pole with a horrible taste in literature
>>25244943Jan Potocki would have been an excellent pole to add however, either way these charts ranking art are reductive and retarded
>>25244943I'm Lithuanian, and in my country, he is required reading in schools, so I know more about him than most Western readers.
>>25244983yeah i know he is read in lithuanian schools and i think that in belarussian too. i just thought that you are polish because that is the biggest country of all of these three. either way shit list
>>25244816Great composer of lines, mediocre composer of plays unfortunately
>>25245016It is the metaphor that is the thing, not the play.
>>25244818Ignore him. Typical /lit/ midwit aping Nabby.
>>25244734Poe is a straight up poor poet and mediocre writer. Bump him down like five tiers. Bump Milton up three tiers. Swift should at least be ahead of Defoe
>>25244734>SUBLIMEDante, Leopardi, Me.>GENIUSProust.>GREATWoolf, Nabokov, McCarthy.>SHITEveryone else.
>>25245016This is like critizing Proust or Woolf for the plot.
>>25244734>Homer in highest tier>no Vergilmidwit detected. How could homer ever be listed in a tierlist of authors? Even if he was an actual singular person, his texts have been mutted more than amerimutts. literally thousands of years of editions, additions, compilations, and errors make actually reading these texts impossible. Reading homer is essentially reading an 'introduction and how to read the text' preface of someone else's opinions in hundreds of pages of commentary and textual edition, so unless you spend literal years becoming a scholar in the field (which is also just based on scholar's opinions, but ancient) you aren't actually reading, but being told what you should read. At best you are reading a mixed up version of some small part of a byzantine era compilation and edition of the homeric cycle.
>>25246147All of this applies to every other canonized writer too
>>25244739Its actually a good idea, surprised this is the first time seeing this. The question of what differentiates the very highest from the second level concerns culture the most (and is a concern of real critics like Schopenhauer or Carlyle). His selections are idiotic - or there are too many mistakes for the chart to be salvageable
>>252447341 Goethe Dante Shakespeare Tolstoy (could fall to 2) Homer2 Milton Byron Joyce Hugo Baudelaire3 Everyone else (most are 3 - but most don’t make any list) Hemingway, Wordsworth, Nabokov, Heine,Only need 3 tiers — if someone makes the list they are by definition “great”Schopenhauer differentiated 1st from second rate poets by the ability of 1st to disappear into many character - as in the impersonality of Shakespeare contrasted to Byron who has one character, some modification of himself (Schopenhauer thought highly of Byron and put him as a matter of course above Wordsworth)>>25245016>>25245031Idiotic comment but in anon’s defense its because the form is alien - Elizabethian drama could not exist today. This is actually why a lot of high literature is seem as more difficult than it really is - you have to adapt yourself to a different time period
>>25244734Dickens way too highFaulkner too highHalf of 'OK' tier too highConan Doyle too lowTolkien too lowSartre way way too highOtherwise pretty good
>>25244749I took it as prose quality. For example Poe is a very good writer who wrote boring stories. Verne is a decent writer who wrote good stories. >>25244810Thank you for using his full name. Every time someone writes "dosto" I die a little and think they don't know how to spell.
i wipe my stanky ass with kafka's writing
Why is Tolkien so low? Give a good explanation now.
>>25246500Well. I’m sorry. I was a little harsh anyway, I think Dostoevsky is great actually but I wouldn’t place him among the “sublime” writers that you have, maybe in genius or great though. What influenced your decision? Also, what influenced your decision to put Milton in the “okay” tier?!
>>25246510I'm not OP, my first reply should have clued you in although looking at it now I can see how it might confuseAlso not a fan of Milton although he could spin a phrase. Felt like he stretched that poem out waaaaaaaay too long
>>25246515Ah, yeah, I did think you were OP, my mistake.>Felt like he stretched that poem out waaaaaaaay too longI often see this criticism and though yes, the parts in heaven are more didactic and less poetically rich than parts that include Satan or even Adam, I think the length adds to its grand, monolithic nature. Plus, I think Book VI, IX, X and XII are all brilliant, beautiful or tragic in their own way which many people seem to neglect to mention since the overpowering nature of Book I and II takes priority (though VI is arguably just as overpowering). Anyway, I can still understand why people would think it goes on a bit, I won’t die some books being somewhat tedious in PL
