S:>Tolstoy>Proust>Dostoyevsky>FlaubertA:>Stendhal>Goethe>Mishima>Pessoa>Melville>Joyce>Nabokov>Dickens>EliotB:>Dumas>Austen>Kafka>Tolkien>Hugo>BernhardC:>Pynchon>Murakami>Shirley Jackson>Shakespeare (very controversial, I know, but I agree with Tolstoy's criticisms regarding him)Haven't read yet:>Mann>Faulkner>Bronte>Hesse>Kawabata>Hawthorne>Tanizaki>Grossman>Wallace>Balzac>Gogol
>IMG_2920
>>25594860I'm range banned on my PC, can only post from my iPhone.
>>25594857Pseud. Not much else to say.>>25594863>iPhoneNot only a pseud but a downie normalfag too
>>25594875You're clearly a poorfag, try using an Android phone in high class social circles and people will laugh at you.
>>25594857>murakami anywhere above F>murakami and shakespeare on the same list>murakami and shakespeare in the same tier>"Haven't read" list on a tier list about literature Are the weebs sending their best? Do you actually read things or do your eyes just gloss over pages as you pretend to read?
>>25594877It's okay buddy you and your iphone are so cool and your iphone probably gets you so many high class bitches from your high class social circles.
>>25594857>>25594863>>25594877>anime girl picture>three most embarassing posts i've seen on this boardjesus fucking christ OP
>>25594857OK
>>25594922Murakami is awful, he's in the last tier, there's no F if you didn't notice.
>>25594925>>25594927>Insecurity: The PostsIt's ok, one day you will be well-read as well, just gotta stop wasting your time masturbating and playing games all day.
StendhalMelville Joyce Are all S tier
>>25594857how does it feel to be an NPC
>>25594857Read Balzac, he's S tier.
>>25594960>C is awfulI didn't think anybody was stupid enough to misunderstand something as simple as tier list conventions, but here you are. C is a passing grade. If I were told to imagine an "awful student" I wouldn't think about a student that has passed every class.
>>25594983Stendhal is philosophically deep, but sometimes too plain. Melville and Joyce are aesthetically excellent, but sometimes too pretentious. Those are just minor flaws, but it's what keeps them from being S tier IMO.
>>25594857Pynchud easy S+ tier
>>25594857>>Shakespeare (very controversial, I know, but I agree with Tolstoy's criticisms regarding him)Is that because Tolstoy is your favourite? By the way I really dislike your taste; you can’t be older than 21.
>>25594857>No Homer>No Dante>No Milton>No Spenser>No Virgil>No Ovid>No Sophocles>No Chaucer>No Rabelais>No Bely>No Potocki>No Baudelaire>No Rimbaud>No Mallarme>No Pound>No Byron>No Blake>Tolkien, Kafka, Austen, Dumas, Mishima, Dickens, Eliot, Dostoevsky all higher than Shakespeare.Yep. OP once again is a faggot.
>>25594857No Australian Novellists.No German playwrights.No Kiwi poets.Shit taste would not fuck.
>>25594857no one does this unless they want to fit in.
>>25595991Fit in with you people? Sorry, but I'm way above any of you judging by the replies here so far. How low /lit/ has fallen.
>>25597140You have to be 18 to post here
>>25594857>anime >Tolstoy as number one pickGood God OP
I'm just finishing Anna Karenina. Was Tolstoy an incel or are women actually like that?
>>25597855He was a promiscuous misogynistic dude
>>25597855Women are far worse.
>>25597865So what I'm hearing is that yes they are like that, and Tolstoy understood the female condition well enough to hate them almost categorically.
>>25594857SShakespeareDickensAustenOrwellTolkienAlcottLewisMontgomery MelvilleHomerBronte DanteTennyson FitzgeraldTwainSteinbeckPoeDickinsonWhitmanMelvilleHawthorneMorrisonBaldwinFrostEliotBChaucerTolstoyDumasKierkegaardHawthorne CKafkaMcCarthyRowlingLewisCamusDHemingway FUpdikeFaulkner Kerouac
>>25597875Why are you on an intellectual board?
Molière is far better than Shakespeare
>blatant data mining thread
>>25594857I want to put Joyce in F. I have tried to read Dostoyevsky in the past. Maybe I wasn't ready for him. Very boring books.
>>25597875Tolstoy was a huge hypocrite. I'm gonna create a more in-depth thread about this later this month, but reading his wife's diaries has been really illuminating. For instance, he preached celibacy but still had wild sex with his wife even in old age (60+), he preached poverty but lived in luxury, he preached vegetarianism but kept eating dairies, he burned all his diaries because he didn't want his disciples to learn about how depraved he was in the past. In short, the man known as Tolstoy never lived by the words we wrote in his books. He hated women? Then why did a woman accompany him during his last trip when he was running away from his wife?
>>25594857The cherry on top of this shit cake of a list is putting Shakespeare dead last because you "agree with Tolstoy's criticisms", while apparently having no idea what Tolstoy's criticisms actually were, and then mindlessly sticking Proust, Flaubert, Joyce, Nabokov, etc. in the highest tiers. All almost comically anti-Tolstoyan writers with highly artificial language and aestheticism. Not to mention they didn't even try to fulfil Tolstoy's idea of simple, universally intelligible art serving a higher ethical or religious purpose to unite humanity.Be honest, OP: you think Tolstoy's criticism of Shakespeare basically amounted to "Shakespeare is overrated", don't you?Embarrassing list. Don't post again until you've read another 200 books at least. This is your homework.
>>25597905>he preached vegetarianism but kept eating dairiesThis is not a contradiction, lol.
>>25598439>If you agree with Tolstoy on one thing you HAVE to agree with him about everything elseNo, you're low IQ, a baboon, an imbecile, a non-entity. Tolstoy criticized Shakespeare's unnatural and exaggerated character writing. Tolstoy would've criticized those other authors for their aesthetic elitism, something completely different from his criticism of Shakespeare, but of course an ape like you wouldn't understand that. To you a person can't have nuanced views, you deliberately misinterpreted my post as if I was somehow parroting all of Tolstoy's opinions on art, a clear trait of either dishonesty or stupidity. And then you end your post with a pathetic attempt at sounding literary, something you clearly aren't since you aren't even literate apparently. I'm actually repulsed by this post, this is a twitter user infiltrated on /lit/. Either educate yourself before posting here or go back to whatever hole you came from.
>>25597905Tolstoy was indeed a bit of hypocrite but his wife is not exactly an unbiased source
>>25598468Nta but you're retarded
>>25598439>fulfilLol! This is the guy trying to feel superior to here. Now that I'm reading more carefully this post reeks of a Gemini reply, like you asked Gemini "What are Tolstoy's artistic values?" and then came running here to try and get a "GOTCHA!!1!1!!" moment because you somehow felt insecure not everyone is as illiterate as you. Be honest, you didn't even read "What is Art?" and his essay on Shakespeare, did you?
>>25597905A sculptor does not need to look like the statue they are making.
>>25598473Just the fact that you felt the need to reply to a discussion you weren't even a part of with a one-liner with shows who the actual retard here really is.
>>25598478The problem with making assumptions is getting them wrong and then sperging out and writing a bunch of incoherent nonsense.
>>25598468It's a little more nuanced than that, but I'm not surprised it has gone entirely over your head.I didn't say agreeing with Tolstoy on one point means accepting his entire philosophy of art. The point is that your shitty list has no discernible internal logic, but for Shakespeare you suddenly felt the need to vaguely appeal to Tolstoy as an authority, as if that explains anything.Now you've conveniently narrowed it down to one objection, but Tolstoy criticized far more than Shakespeare's character writing, like his artificiality, implausibility of events, theatricality and entire conception. That's why it's funny to namedrop him to justify putting Shakespeare so low while filling the top tiers with writers whose principles Tolstoy would have found equally, if not more, objectionable.
Is all the English lit communiy is ever talking about rankings and dick contests?
>>25598909If you actually cared about understanding the "internal logic" of the list (as if taste requires cold logic to make sense), you would've asked about the positions of authors individually. Instead you wrongly assumed that I must follow a Tolstoyan view of art because I made a vague comment about agreeing on his views regarding a single author (and you even go so far as to say I was appealing to authority), clear dishonesty or stupidity. Now you keep insisting on the exact same argument that I'm somehow contradicting myself but it doesn't make any fucking sense. Again, Tolstoy's criticism of Shakespeare has nothing to do with his criticism of any of those other authors you mentioned. Proust, Flaubert, Joyce, Nabokov were all realists, Tolstoy's work was closer to them before his conversion by which point he then criticized them on the basis on aesthetic elitism and lacking clear moral undertones. He criticized Shakespeare way before his conversion, and what he criticized wasn't Shakespeare's elitism but his characters and his romantic writing (at least THESE you got right, did the AI tell you?). The only other author that he made similar criticisms towards was Dostoyevsky. If you had narrowed your initial "argument" to Dostoyevsky and Shakespeare you could've had a point, but the clear difference here is that Dostoyevsky has way more philosophical depth than Shakespeare AND was closer to the realists, even Tolstoy had to praise The House of the Dead, Shakespeare doesn't even have a work like that. So tell me, how exactly does agreeing with Tolstoy on Shakespeare means I have to also dislike the19th and 20th century realists as well? If you were an honest individual you would've admitted you've jumped the gun in your pathetic attempt to show some kind of contradiction in me, but you just keep repeating the same erroneous argument, is your next reply gonna be the same as well?
>>25599039Is that all you deadbeats do over here, is talk about cooze?
>>25599104Nta but you should read the source materials again and stop yapping until you understand them
>>25599039Its a community for gatekeeper snobs. All white, and barely anyone can get in.
>>25599104Holy shit, this is getting worse. Proust, Joyce and Nabokov were all "realists"? Absolute mush.The funniest part is that you've got Tolstoy's chronology completely backwards. His essay attacking Shakespeare was published in 1906, decades AFTER his religious conversion and AFTER What Is Art. And he specifically argues in the Shakespeare essay that drama should serve the "development of religious consciousness". Your entire attempt to separate his Shakespeare criticism from his later religious aesthetics is based on horseshit.Maybe spend less time accusing everyone else of using AI (nice convenient cope) and five seconds checking the basic facts you want to lecture about, Mount Stupid.
>>25601266Fucking moron, he read Shakespeare in his youth and hated it even back then, he wrote about it in the essay which you didn't even read. Also, Tolstoy admired Flaubert, you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.
