Most accurate chart

Nice political compass. I align myself more with thematic interest

why is houllebecq included in this...you might as well add Stephen King

who the fuck is that boomer who you think is better than shakespeare? are you fucking dumb?

>Hemingway so low
>Hollaback so up

Lmao lit is so retarded man

You didn't understand the chart obviously. Shakespeare is way better than him in terms of style, craftsmanship. Secondly, Houellebecq is more interesting because of the issues he deals with and the arguments he makes; that's what validate his edgy location on the horizontal line.

Hemingway is awful. His prose/style is tedious and he has nothing interesting to say about anything

no, you put a guy higher than shakespeare in terms of formal proficiency, i'm not talking about houellebecq

WHere's my boy Stephen King on this chart?

You gotta learn how to read in order to critizice, man.

is this from the textbook in dead poets society

>profinciency
Not very proficient

I am partial to the lyricism of Joyce's prose, as well as the clean and scientific prose of Borges

Shit...

so 3% of pynchon is worth reading?

op got filtered

As well as Huxley with no formal proficiency. Huxley graduated from College in 1916, I don't know of a single person who has a relative with a college degree from that time period. My grandfather was born around the same time and was instead in the US Army and became a sheet metal worker. Huxley was very well trained.

LMAO the bantz!!!

>profinciency

what does formal proficiency even mean?

>bible max thematic interest
>koran almost lowest
this is purely a dogmatically informed chart, I suspect the creator never actually read most of the material present

Inherent vice or the cry of will perfectly do. You'll get the idea of him
Huxley is interesting but he writes like shit
The form, the how of the novel, is good
Quran is shit. And btw - i actually read much of it in the original. Still shit.
Yeah I got a frickin typo, what's the big deal anyways

>Quran is shit. And btw - i actually read much of it in the original. Still shit.
lol you are full of unadulterated bullshit

Less people being trained in that time =! people who were trained were well trained. Very few people attended university in the time of Poe, but most of his classmates in the university of Virginia spend their days playing cards and drinking.

I have no doubt Huxley was proefficient however, though I'm not sure he was much of a technician.

كيف تعرف ذلك؟
انا باحكي معك بكل صراحه

وأنا أتصل بك كاذب

ffuck of niggers. get the fuck out.

Attached: 1523587270333.png (1000x750, 983K)

اسمع عزيزي. فقط هنا، في الانترنت، نستطيع أن نقول الحق بشكل مباشر وواضح - القرآن الكريم ليس جيدا. وخصوصا من الناحية الادابية

Houellebecq actually said it himself: "l'islam est le plus con religion"

>Nabakov isn’t worth reading
>Proust isn’t worth reading
>Pynchon isn’t worth reading
>thinks Hemmingway is boring
>thinks Borges had no proficiency
>thinks Marquez is boring
>thinks Houellebecq is that interesting
>thinks Bolano is boring
You just filtered yourself OP

الآن اسمع هذا الصديق ، لا ترفع الكتاب المقدس بدلاً من القرآن. التخلي عن كليهما

أسعى فقط لتحقيق السلام

Houellebecq is not really an authority on anything, especially not on religion.

fuck off no one speaks french here

You know what, perhaps it is actually a harsh dichotomy.
Just imagine there's another oblique line, parallel to the green one, which says "okay to read too". It goes from under Steinbeck and cuts a bunch of writers up until under Proust.

Because Level Two is a swamp that only allows you to live in a besieged, permanently defensive posture.

Attached: FourLevels.jpg (700x456, 98K)

Houellebecq is different from Chuck Palahniuk only because he has a sense of humor and has started conversations about deep things. Both use ugliness as spectacle, both make contentious assertions about deep things. H at least writes from life where P just scavenges anecdotes and urban legends, stitching them together to make a pulp nugget and call it a book. Neither really belong on the graph and Lovecraft doesn't either.

tldr Houellebecq at least moves people.

capitalism only goes to level two, doesn't it?

I think there are some devotees of -isms that feel like they are hitting level four. Ideology does that to you, which can lead you to imprison and execute crowds because you truly feel like you are serving some ultimate value. Usually monsters just SAY that's what's going on in order to dominate and control those around them.

Ideology is a fast track to kidding yourself.

>Proust having NO thematic interest
Yeah, maybe if you have no soul

>Inherent vice or the cry of will perfectly do. You'll get the idea of him
>recommending IV of all things
op you are such a pseud, holy shit. I hope this chart and entire thread is ironic because this hurts to look at.

What do you guys think about Upton Sinclair? I just read The Jungle, and while I think there are better writers in terms of writing interesting plots and character arcs and etc., Sinclair's style, his way with words and attention to detail, is some of the best I have ever read in my life.

How the fuck do you recognize all these peoples faces when you are supposedly reading their books? Are you studying the pictures in the insert or what?

by lurking at least 13 years before posting

>Lovecraft is worth reading
>Proust is not
>Lovecraft having equal formal proficiency to Beckett
Lmao

That's a cynical presumption. The four stages actually illustrate different ideologies themselves, so you're self-refuting.

>McCarthy higher than Gass in formal proficiency
>Nabokov has little thematic interest
>Dazai equal to Beckett in Formal and surpassing him in thematic
>Salinger high formal proficiency
>Salinger low thematic interest
>Vonnegut nearly equal to Woolf

You need to completely scrap this chart and pass off the responsibility of rebuilding it to someone more who knows anything about fiction.

Attached: 1555636827673.jpg (639x479, 20K)

>dude he gets on a pegasus and flies away
>dude he has a wife that's 8 years old

Really thematically deep.

>t. جرجس عبد المسيح

>sees tip of iceberg
>thinks this is entire iceberg

>DFW more thematically interesting than LNTolstoy

Holy Mother of LaughingGirls.jpeg

>most of the bible is literally jews conquering and enslaving other people
so thematically interesting

>Dante and lovecraft almost equally formally 'pronficient'
holy shit you are the dumbest nigger

Yeah, I agree. The koran and the bible are both garbage.

>McCarthy being more proficient and worth reading than Shakespeare

This is a strong argument in favor of the chart, guenonfag. Go back to retroactively btfo Whitehead.

It has the themes of a slice of life anime.
His sincere love for his grandmother is unironically the only thing I cared about.

>Conrad
>low formal proficiency

Okay if my choice of writers and locations is so bad I want to see how you guys do it

Attached: 90283409823.png (1080x1080, 51K)

It unironically was horrifically bad, and you should feel bad.

bait? or idiocy?

Stfu the concept itself is great

>Proust is like anime
Can’t make this up. READ A BOOK

all those authors are worth reading. stop trying to cope your laziness.

It really isn't.

كس امك

I do not think the quaran is shit, but most of the big important novels of western society do not really draw much or any inspiration from the quaran. On the other hands biblical allegories are pretty ripe all over. Of course this largely has to do with the culture of the west having more Christian roots than Muslim, but themetics wise, yes the Bible is More important than the Quaran for literature.

the positioning of the two religious books in your charts instantly gave you away as a pseud.
yeah, I'm an atheist, but I don't deny the formal proficiency in the Quran. It's loaded with mathematical allegories. Thematic interest wise both the Qur'an and the Injel are trash, though.

Ask me now how I know you're an edgy m9ri 3li 3awadh ibn 63myah teen who thinks he's badass and he unlocked the secret to life from his shitty one room flat somewhere in Cairo by listening to podcasts and forming street tier opinions on religion.

How can you judge formal proficiency if you don't know most of the languages used by those authors?

كول خرا