Notes has the most psychological depth. Prove me wrong

This reeks of someone who has only read these four starter books.

...

I agree, but not with the image. Notes, by Kinoko Nasu, has the most psychological depth.

You still watch japanese cartoons? Yeah, you must encounter a lot of "elitism" wherever you go.

karamazov > idiot = c&p = notes > adolescent > demons

>Not seeing what these four books have in common

Actually I would be inclined to ask what exactly. As one guy pointed out already, Notes From the Underground is a satire on the concept of the romanticized "superfluous man" archetype being championed by some of his contemporaries. You aren't supposed to identify with The Underground man because that is pathetic as fuck. Its like identifying with Ignatius Reilly

>his

I mean Dostoevsky of course

All four are satirical bildungsromans.
They don't follow conventional "protagonists", the main characters are written ironically as a reflection of people you shouldn't be, and each critiques the societies they were written in.
If you "identify" with any of those four characters it's a pretty good indication that you need to get your shit together.

>work full time
>occasionally read literature
>play music at an upper-intermediate level
>maintain good relations with my only real family

how do I get my shit together???

You're giving Salinger way too much credit. Meanwhile I never read Portrait but I heard that it was basically autobiographical in nature. The other one I hadn't even heard of

found the jew

Dosteovsky is blatantly a deeper writer of philosophy and psychology than the others listed in the image. That doesn't mean his books are better. Notes From Underground is a great work of philosophy, but hard to read as a convincing novel.

>Dostoevsky
>Blatantly deeper than Joyce

Yes I am mad

I actually meant to say that Notes is deeper than Portrait, which I stand by. Ulysses is another matter.

Also Portrait is about 20x better than Notes overall.

But none of the people in those books has any of those things except reading literature. So what are you saying? Anyone can relate to them since they are so human, but you shouldn't be like them

Corrected

...

>Catcher in the Rye corresponds to small brain and cosmic brain
What did he mean by this?

>thinks he understands Notes
>didn't read Chernyshevsky's "What Is to be Done?", the text that Notes is a direct response to.
>probably thinks The Underground Man is some super cool outsider sticking it to the Chads and Stacies like ME

>he doesn't understand entry level memes
lurk for another two years before posting

at first Catcher seems simple and empty but upon higher analysis, the book has a richness to it, rewarding complexities within it, and a powerful commentary on the human condition

>didn't understand the Wake
>Dubliners is the lowest level
pseud detected

>the main characters are written ironically as a reflection of people you shouldn't be
No, the Underground Man calling himself so terrible and dispossessed is sarcasm. The opening lines of the text confirm this. He is mocking the champagne socialists who label those working in the government, unconcerned with the plight of the masses as terrible people.
The Underground Man is a pretty fucking normal guy, a bit disillusioned with society and really, really bad at conventional writing. He is LITERALLY a self-insert for Dostoevsky, who used that form to avoid scrutiny by the censors by staging the text as an imagined submission to his magazine by someone else, a fictional demonstration - and he doesn't even stay in character.

Goddamn do you people even read these books.

>Claims to understand the Wake
Pseud detected

Middlemarch > all

Wtf does Middlemarch have to do with anything?