Author Ranking

Nice dubs friend

DUBS HAS SPOKEN BTFO

>he thinks intention doesn't matter

I bet you think Heraclitus was a good philosopher

This list looks like it was assembled by someone who hasn't read any of these books.
I mean, the ordering is just so wrong in some cases

The chart says nothing about artistic merit or that deeper levels are better, even the level descriptions show little bias.

>conrad above camus
did you read nostromo?

Surface level as fuck, my friend.
Where did I say that? I can't speak on behalf of Heraclitus, as I haven't read him (I'm more than willing to bet you haven't either), but to worship at the ground of intention is critical suicide. "Oh well John Green intended for this to universally speak to..." go fuck yourself, mate.

Also, let's talk about how even referencing Heraclitus is a meme at best because like 75% of his writings haven't survived and the muh aphoristic-so-godly interpretations of him are essentially based on incomplete evidence.

yes

Bump

why kafka? i know the whole chart is a troll but why go after kafka?

>Stein
>Young
thanks dickhead

Shhh

If the intention doesn't matter then how can it be wrong?

That's deep, man

God, how does it feel to be purely a reactionary with zero reading comprehension and critical thinking abilities?

t. pseud

1. Are you just posting Terrence in every thread?
2. Not trying to be deep. It's a pretty basic question you should have asked yourself before you went on your autistic rant. Assuming you're , you think the maker of the chart was, in some way, wrongheaded. But where do you get the notion that artistic merit is the subject of the chart? The chart itself claims to be about accessibility. Now you claim to be taking it on its own terms, but clearly you have some notion that we should regard the descriptive text and the actual list separately. This is garbage thinking, but just for the sake of argument, I'll let it pass. What about the list itself makes you interpret it as categorizing literary merit? You think both that this is an abortive project and that it's one that was being attempted. You have provided no argument for either interpretation. I'm listening.

>muh academic jargon

>muh brainlet vocabulary

1. Yes. Clearly I am omnipresent McKenna
2. I absolutely see zero substance to your connection between intention and truth value. You're assuming I'm wholesell dismissing intention as a thing that exists and therefore has bearing on the world. I'm not. As concerns my comment about intention (the relevance of which amounts to a solid 1/10th of my original critique so idk why you are nuancing such a minor claim) I'm just pointing out the fact that OP could have posted the same chart titled let's say "Bible Study" with each of those sidebar comments being about literally anything, and the implicit purpose of the chart would still stand, and therefore under my original critique would still be fucking stupid regardless of intention. I'm not even that worried about intention here on the grand scale of things. If you can't look at this chart and perceive the implicit argument that comes from systematizing authors based on their "depth" then I can't help you there, mate. Also, your little jab at my pretty standard interpretation of the chart as text is, in fact, not that problematic so long as you buy into some pretty simple, non-risky assumptions about deconstruction (I'd really like to see you wrestle with Derrida off the bet that you can somehow give weight to your critique of a tertiary comment that only partially contributes to my original argument). But I'll stop being a dick and simply ask something that's been baffling me ever since you responded: what the fuck is the connection in this statement? Like really I really want to know what brilliant contradiction you think you've uncovered here, because from all the thought I've put into all I can deduce is that you're a little autistic prick who really thinks he pointed out some grand fallacy when in reality you're asking disjointed questions about minor problems without actually addressing the fact that, at the end of the day, this chart is thoroughly fucking stupid both in practice and in concept.

Also, let's talk about the more interesting fact that by attempting to line up "my" posts (especially across threads), you are in fact violating some pretty solid principles this board decided to adhere to along time ago (actually, about a year and a half ago or whatever, but hey whose fucking counting am i right?). You've effectively violated anonymity and have been reduced to the abstract equivalent of a tripfag thus robbing you of any long-term credibility (the irony of which is that if you played by the system you wouldn't be able to sustain long-term credibility anyways but hey I'm not nostalgic desue :^) ). You don't know who the fuck I am or what I contribute to this board, because you haven't learned that, at the end of the day, there is no "I" here. You are only arguing with yourself. You are omnipresent McKenna. Embrace it, my friend.

You're right that the chart obviously intends to describe artistic merit. You also claim that what a chart intends and what it achieves are often distinct. True, but if you're just trying to sus out what it achieves on its own, a la "death of the author," there is no way for it to be wrong - it either achieves something or it doesn't, and the universe of what it doesn't achieve is infinite and featureless. Critiquing something for what it doesn't achieve from this perspective says nothing about whether it is "correct" or "incorrect." Those labels don't even mean anything without a point of intention to reference. That is what my first response means.

The distinction you should have drawn is not between what is intended and what is achieved, but between claimed intention and true intention. If that were your premise then I'd have no issue. You can brush the intention/achievement remark off as a tertiary point or whatever, but until this most recent post, you were providing 90% insults and 10% argument. When you give that little to go on, you shouldn't be surprised at someone critiquing your less serious thoughts.

Where did I say I was trying to do that? Also, I'm not particularly convinced inhour whole "point of intention" spiel. You're restating an argument I've already responded to, thus implying you have misread me, or we have a breakdown in communication I'm not all that interested in sorting out at this point. Especially since your last paragraph shows me that you already have some deep seeded notions a random shitpost on Veeky Forums probably won't weed out of tou. In fact, you have the ratios completely backwards, desu.

*by your
Holy hell autocorrect is the cancer of establishing authority

PLEASE lower bukowski raise proust

Have you not read many of these authors? The levels of this chart do indeed appear to be correlated with both the creator's perceived* artistic merits and accessibility, but the correlation with the latter is clearly higher. For example Proust, ranked at level 3, is much more critically acclaimed than most of the writers ranked deeper than he; his writing style is, however, incredibly accessible, which would justify him being positioned as such; a similar disparity can be noted wit Kafka, Marquez, and Tolstoy. Stein, ranked at level 6, is incredibly inaccessible but few would rank her among the very highest echelon of writers; a similar disparity can be noted with Burroughs, Lowry, and (depending to a high degree on the individual) Finnegans Wake Joyce vs Ulysses Joyce.

*the veracity of the creator's perceptions are a different matter.

I'll also add, after giving your posts a second read, you appear to have some deep-seated insecurity around this idea of ranking authors in terms of their artistic merits/depths, to the extent that even the idea of ranking books by accessibility--a construct which, while perhaps related, is not the same thing, which does not inherently carry the associations of pretentiousness (e.g. without improving the content of this post at all, I could have made it much less accessible by replacing every second word with one from Japanese or German), and which has a pretty concrete, value-neutral way of testing it (e.g. would someone find this book more or less difficult to read)--has triggered you into these long, condescending rants, which ironically seem to be littered with their own pretensions.

You're retarded. The intent of the chart as labeled is entirely in line with the content, which you'd understand if you'd actually read more than 5 books in your life.

You're spending a lot of effort trying to cover up the fact you misread the OP image

Yeah no, Gass is pretty on par with Mukakami and Bukowski.

Desperately needs some Richard Brautigan

Can someone tell me who is the Stein? There are fifty Steins on the wikipedia page.

Gertrude Stein

Thanks bub

>no full names
at least try to be helpful

Tchaikovsky doesn't deserve that, man.
Feldman does but not tchaikovsky.

Where do anonymous medieval Christian mysticism manuscripts lie there?

Boy if you don't hop off this intention train I severally doubt you will ever have a relatively insightful thought.

Don't psychoanalyze me you fuck, not when you give this superficial analysis in support of what is essentialy a meme. Also, "muh pretentious BTFO." This is lit you faggot. Get used to it. In fact, I'd be willing to bet if these posts were any higher up in this thread, you would have been dismissed quite earlier on for even invoking such a grade school critique of my position. But, unlike you, I have sustained throughout this thread and now have to engage with morons like yourself who are really, really trying to match my very straight forward critique with some sort of substantial analysis when in reality you might as well be R9K bots running through schematized reponses which amount to autistic scratches at the real challenge I posed, which threatens the rationality invoked in the chart itself.

Also,
>he thinks reading more than 5 books is valuable when he hasen't even read 5 books well

And, no, there is no misreading involved. You are still attempting to engage with an argument YOU perceive from YOUR misreading of me, something terribly superficial that might be a minor consequence of my greater argument. In reality, you too have failed to address the fact that my original critique, albeit obscured by brief humor (which hey this is a fucking image board, that's part of the culture, I just expected a few of you autistic faggots to pick up on that and perceive the real argument without going on argumentative tangents), argues that
approaching aesthetics (let alone approaching individuals you've effectively reduced to ideological currency) as something you can harness and systematize into a fucking meme is in and of itself stupid. I mean, as concerns the immediate argument, what the fuck does accessibility even mean in an artistic context? But on a bigger scale, if we're addressing accessibility (which i think is implicitly linked to this boards cultural conception of "good" wherein the harder the text, the more exclusive the knowledge, the better the book, see: meme trilogy), merit, or the fucking color the authors shoes, there is an unchallenged assumption that this is somehow do-able, or that if it is do-able it somehow produces truth-content, or the possesses the potential to do so. Simply put, this is not the way to truth: it does nothing to make me understand these authors, their texts, or what accessibility is, let alone in this context, thus it is useless. And let's be real that's not all too risky or bold of a statement. It's a meme for Christ's sake. I'd think on a board that claims to have read Nietzsche some of you fucks would be a little of weary of the intellectual equivalent to a wikihow or a LifeHacks post.