/lit/ - Literature

Why is reading literature shoved down my throat by lit and the media and "educated society" as something I have to do or else I'm a stupid and bad person? It seems like a marketing gimmick to me. If I sat and read all day then I'd have no money. But society wants me to use my limited free time to read while telling me that it makes me a more valuable person.

As if "muh human condition" has to be learnt from books written by the same sections of society (the ones with access to the media-publishing-academia industrial complex. (inb4 /lit/ moves the goalposts about why they read books)

It seems like a big scam to me. lit is a bunch of delusional people who want to venerate literature and publishing companies either to gain pseudo intellectual cred or in the vain hope that they'll be published one day.

Also many novels are exercises in narcissism or self indulgence by the author. But because it's packaged and distributed by a publisher then I am supposed to care or else I'm dumb. What if I don't give a shit about Dostoevsky's spiritual or moral views? Hume already showed that none of it is based on logic (see the Münchhausen trilemma). Anyone can choose the axioms they want.

>when I was younger
>"Lol the curtains were just red, who cares, why am I being told to find subjective conclusions and being judged as if they're objective?!"

>When I was older and smarter
>"The curtains were red for a very intelligent reason by the genius author, a reason which gives maximum insight in to human nature and the objectivity of aesthetics, not that I will dare ask why I should care about those or why everything is so obscurantist!"

>when I reached my final form

Literary Theory, as it is practised and as a whole is a set of intentionally vague, contradictory, and ever changing rules that create a logical system used by the academia-media-publishing industrial complex in order to monopolise the judgement of art, secure government funding, compete in the form of social posturing (by far the strongest reason), promote a large government, and guilt trip insecure members of the public in to paying for and proclaiming enjoyment of art.

>inb4 you say "I don't know art but I know what I like" in a non RP accent

I'm not even passing judgement on the "value" of this dominant version of "literary theory". I'm simply awaiting the butthurt that will inevitably commence just from pointing out that other forms can exist and not genuflecting towards the dominant form.

>when I was younger
>"Lol the curtains were just red, who cares, why am I being told to find subjective conclusions and being judged as if they're objective?!"

>When I was older and smarter
>"The curtains were red for a very intelligent reason by the genius author, a reason which gives maximum insight in to human nature and the objectivity of aesthetics, not that I will dare ask why I should care about those or why everything is so obscurantist!"

>when I reached my final form

Literary Theory, as it is practised and as a whole is a set of intentionally vague, contradictory, and ever changing rules that create a logical system used by the academia-media-publishing industrial complex in order to monopolise the judgement of art, secure government funding, compete in the form of social posturing (by far the strongest reason), promote a large government, and guilt trip insecure members of the public in to paying for and proclaiming enjoyment of art.

>inb4 you say "I don't know art but I know what I like" in a non RP accent

I'm not even passing judgement on the "value" of this dominant version of "literary theory". I'm simply awaiting the butthurt that will inevitably commence just from pointing out that other forms can exist and not genuflecting towards the dominant form.

>when I was younger
>"Lol the curtains were just red, who cares, why am I being told to find subjective conclusions and being judged as if they're objective?!"

>When I was older and smarter
>"The curtains were red for a very intelligent reason by the genius author, a reason which gives maximum insight in to human nature and the objectivity of aesthetics, not that I will dare ask why I should care about those or why everything is so obscurantist!"

>when I reached my final form

Literary Theory, as it is practised and as a whole is a set of intentionally vague, contradictory, and ever changing rules that create a logical system used by the academia-media-publishing industrial complex in order to monopolise the judgement of art, secure government funding, compete in the form of social posturing (by far the strongest reason), promote a large government, and guilt trip insecure members of the public in to paying for and proclaiming enjoyment of art.

>inb4 you say "I don't know art but I know what I like" in a non RP accent

I'm not even passing judgement on the "value" of this dominant version of "literary theory". I'm simply awaiting the butthurt that will inevitably commence just from pointing out that other forms can exist and not genuflecting towards the dominant form.

I read the cat person short story and it was just typical new Yorker short story fare where some upper middle class person feels a few half hearted emotions then it ends and you're not sure whether the story is a barely disguised memoirs excerpt, a pseud over analysing launching pad, or has a simple message. The only reason this story is getting any attention is because it serves up "omg millenial" social practises.

/lit/ has over-reacted and I suspect that you are all high schoolers. As a non Chad beta autist I am not offended by the story because any guy who can ask out a woman is a Chad compared to me. The story presents all the "omg fucking stupid r9k!!!" truths in a milquetoast way to people like you. She was repulsed as soon as the guy was quiet and so on

Ultimately I am overall offended that this is supposed to be the pinnacle magazine for short stories yet this barely developed greentext was in it. But I am happy that the academia-media-publishing industrial complex is as creatively bankrupt as I have always said it is.

There is no way to force others to agree with your definition of literary quality. Most people have an artistic quality definition of "Whatever gives me joy" and their definition of joy is their own and may vary from time to time.

What the academia-media-publishing industrial complex and its pseudo intellectual hangers on (i.e., teens on /lit/) seeks to do is band together to form a large group with a common definition of literary quality, a definition which may not be honestly believed by individual members of the group. This gives them many advantages, one of which is relevant to /lit/: the ability to claim to have a superior intellect or literary knowledge based on their literary preferences.

This same pattern repeats itself among many groups.

When did you realize, from interviews, that film makers, writers, and musicians don't spend large amounts of time watching / reading / listening to other people's stuff and that being a consumerwhore is a modern condition that leaves you irrelevant and in penury? The famous people are too busy making stuff and having fun to consume art.

The idea that you have to read X before you can do anything is a poisonous one pushed by the academia-media-publishing industrial complex in order to sell media.

How many books do you think Shakespeare and Dante read in their life? There are people on here that have the Pokemon Card mindset where they feel like they have to read the entire Western Canon up until the current day until they're allowed to write. The only people who have actually read the entire Canon are people like Harold Bloom who can't write any good fiction of their own. It's not like you can brute force talent by being extremely well-read, either you're able to write or you aren't.

>"Good peon... Focus on the barely disguised narcissistic memoirs of some dead person... Books are mind enriching... Consume more books... Never mind that the information age has made a mockery of information's value as a commodity among people... You're just so curious about the world and such a voracious reader, aren't you, peasant...

>This 1200 page post-modern masterpiece references 500 works that you must also read before you die... No, don't fall asleep while reading it! The cover quote calls it, "Frequently hilarious!" Maybe you haven't read enough to fully appreciate it?"

>when I was younger
>"Lol the curtains were just red, who cares, why am I being told to find subjective conclusions and being judged as if they're objective?!"

>When I was older and smarter
>"The curtains were red for a very intelligent reason by the genius author, a reason which gives maximum insight in to human nature and the objectivity of aesthetics, not that I will dare ask why I should care about those or why everything is so obscurantist!"

>when I reached my final form

Literary Theory, as it is practised and as a whole is a set of intentionally vague, contradictory, and ever changing rules that create a logical system used by the academia-media-publishing industrial complex in order to monopolise the judgement of art, secure government funding, compete in the form of social posturing (by far the strongest reason), promote a large government, and guilt trip insecure members of the public in to paying for and proclaiming enjoyment of art.

>inb4 you say "I don't know art but I know what I like" in a non RP accent

I'm not even passing judgement on the "value" of this dominant version of "literary theory". I'm simply awaiting the butthurt that will inevitably commence just from pointing out that other forms can exist and not genuflecting towards the dominant form.

>finished reading bleeding edge today
>it was a boring and pointless lolsorandumb pomo grind as I expected
>it completely abandoned any plot after the first quarter
>only finished it for the pseud cred
>after I finished it I realised how stagnant and dead literature is and how it is filled with pseuds who worship only the pseud approved books
>realise how books are dismissed solely due to not being approved by correct publishers or being serialised etc
>realise how this cultish determination to pretend books have anything worthwhile to say about philosophy is driving people away
>realise that the ultimate reason literature is dead is due to the completely stagnant nature of what the academia-media-publishing industrial complex wants to sell people
>bullshitter literature professors judging books based on how much they can facilitate bullshit literary theory
>pseuds like the people on lit pretending to find Pynchon funny and in general banding together to pretend books were enjoyable to seem intelligent
>even the literary types, unlike 100 years ago, have abandoned any skin in the game and are now fully integrated members of the corporate system, telling you to read Tolstoy for BS spiritual or religious reasons and going home to read YA

Fuck you and fuck the academia-media-publishing industrial complex. And let's not forget the bullshit leftist philosophies mixed in. Not that I will bother to criticise any of it because the leftists will dissemble and claim to be something else. Just know that when you pop your head out and try to make falsifiable predictions or concrete proposals, trying your best to avoid using words like "dialectic", "surplus" or "hysteresis" we are laughing at you and only double digit IQ proles are fooled.

>wake up
>decide to put clothes in washing machine and dryer later
>ate junk food yesterday and told myself I'd eat nothing today to make up for it but decide to postpone things, including my healthy diet
>decide not to go to gym today
>decide to eat vegetables later
>decide to join library to get more books- consumerwhoring cheaply
>buy tickets to see Dunkirk, just like the advertising and fake viral marketing on 4chan told me to
>ignore snow crash, the book I bought a few weeks ago to feel better and have barely gone though
>realise that reading is merely consumerwhoring

I wouldn't say this is full degenerate but it is intellectual death.

I hate how the academia-media-publishing industrial complex brainwashed pseuds tell me to read tonnes of shitty boring books or else say I'm dumb.

My dayjob is brain-dead. I am an empty suit.

>when I was younger
>"Lol the curtains were just red, who cares, why am I being told to find subjective conclusions and being judged as if they're objective?!"

>When I was older and smarter
>"The curtains were red for a very intelligent reason by the genius author, a reason which gives maximum insight in to human nature and the objectivity of aesthetics, not that I will dare ask why I should care about those or why everything is so obscurantist!"

>when I reached my final form

Literary Theory, as it is practised and as a whole is a set of intentionally vague, contradictory, and ever changing rules that create a logical system used by the academia-media-publishing industrial complex in order to monopolise the judgement of art, secure government funding, compete in the form of social posturing (by far the strongest reason), promote a large government, and guilt trip insecure members of the public in to paying for and proclaiming enjoyment of art.

>inb4 you say "I don't know art but I know what I like" in a non RP accent

I'm not even passing judgement on the "value" of this dominant version of "literary theory". I'm simply awaiting the butthurt that will inevitably commence just from pointing out that other forms can exist and not genuflecting towards the dominant form.

What books are actually good. I mean ACTUALLY good. I like Bret Easton ellis, James ellroy, Michel houellebecq, Raymond chandler, Nabokov, among others. I am thinking of reading more sci first but sadly I really do have taste with regard to writing quality. I have read 6 or 7 PKD novels and only liked one, though I am open to more

>finish reading Nicholas Nickleby
>almost finished reading brothers Karamazov
>both were tortuous experiences I only went through so the pseudointellectuals would stop insulting me
>currently reading essays of Schopenhauer and it's literally a fucking pleasure compared to the drudgery of the other two books
>think about buying novels I'd like
>realise I have almost no favourite novelists
>realise I mainly read to feel like less of a pleb
>realise a lot of those New Yorker / Oxbridge-esque novelists are cringey nu-male faggots or women - what talent some of them possess is pissed up the wall in their utterly self indulgent styles and politically correct outlook

It really gets the noggin joggin'. As soon as I finish the last 50 pages of brothers Karamazov and then read the republic, I will start actually using my taste.

The Schopenhauer essays remind me of when I read the problems of philosophy after grinding slowly through other boring books (I think it was still Nicholas Nickleby and brothers Karamazov even in January). I found Problems of philosophy a huge pleasure even though I dont have a big interest in its topics.

I don't want to be a pseudo intellectual humanitiesfag who wanks over "the depth of thought of the classics! *knows no maths past high school* *thinks reading about maths / physics / football can actually convey it*." I am literally drowning in bullshit everywhere. The pseudo intellectual zombies demand you submit to the will of the profit seeking academia-media-publishing industrial complex

I was going to give up junk food and coffee today but even though I see coffee as wagie fuel that ruins my sleep and ruins my gym strength, I can't really bear to do it. It energises me in the middle of a demoralising work day where I am the ugy loser beta (also on the street, but not with the same people constantly). I have been socialised to associate it with getting stuff done, even though I procrastinate endlessly. I haven't yet convinced myself to skip boring old "classic" books so why bother being non conformist and giving up coffee when I refuse to be non conformist and claim Jane Austen and Dostoevsky are boring as fuck.

I'm sick of always trying to look for philosophies of living and heuristics and etc. The only worthwhile advice that can be remembered all the time is to always be honest with yourself. But being honest gets the crowd piling up on you. Even lit cares about the crowd, no matter how much you talk about objective quality of books. If a book isn't endorsed by the academia-media-publishing industrial complex you don't give a fuck about it.

But another reason I won't give up coffee is that it brings up the issue of whether optimising my life like some dehumanised being is worthwhile. In notes from the underground one of the most memorable parts was when the narrator talked about acting in a perverse way to feel human.

Oh yeah, and it's hot and the many attractive women outside are demoralising to see. They see me as disgusting non a Chad scum. Yesterday a woman asked me for directions and I pretended a not to know, out of bitterness. She I would've laughed in my faceif I had asked out the 22 year old her.

Today is typical. Hopelessness and laziness building up to an epiphany in the evening where I realise the key to succeeding in every aspect of life at once is to focus on few things / focus on many things / do only things I find fun / do only things society deems important / forget about the question and just live life etc.

>tfw lived my life on autopilot and as a risk averse cuck
>tfw care about shit too much
>tfw wish I could throw caution to the wind and just do stuff
>tfw need to feel approval for everything I do
>tfw feel like I need to read lots of boring old books before I can read enjoyable ones
>tfw feel like I need to go through SICP before doing real world programming
>tfw feel terrified when walking near women because they might think I am stalking them (even felt this way when walking between classes and I was near girls who shared every class)
>tfw never flirted with a girl ever or asked one out or had attention from one, only done stuff with escorts
>tfw I always feel guilty for not doing ten things at once
>tfw intelligent enough to see that all philosophical systems have arbitrary axioms but don't have the intellectual courage to just stop giving a shit about all the boring as fuck philosophical books and debates that are perpetuated by an academia-media-publishing industrial complex with huge financial incentives
>tfw smart enough to see that all self-help is trivial or bullshit but still read more of it to feel good due to approval and the assurance due to my fear of the ambiguous
>didn't invest in cryptocoins out of laziness
>don't give up junk food and coffee, partly due to weak will relating to pleasure, but also due to coffees appeal as some sort of "busy go-getters" drink (i.e., I'm worried people will think Im a low prestige person if I dont drink it)
>tfw whine so much on 4chan I have been recognised on multiple boards while never using a trip
>tfw ugly male and know that women live lives on extreme easy mode while getting 500 tinder matches a day and finding all non Chads disgusting
>tfw never been to a pub, club, or party or had friends since 18 and feel very bitter and hateful of the world
>tfw can't stand seeing so many attractive women everywhere who find me disgusting
>tfw can't bear to work hard because I will waste my youth that I am unable to enjoy

Have you gotten over your red pill trauma yet? I mean red pill as in non political social stuff, because at least politics has the honesty of implying mental warfare and propaganda. Red pill as in the ideas that women are disgusted by non Chads and how 20 % of men get 80 % of women. The hard data that shows how non Chad males get close to zero matches on tinder while Chads get huge amounts and women of all attractiveness levels get gigantic amounts. And the constant denial of this, even on 4chan.

The realisation that society gives no shit about males and how people look down on retail workers and they'd look down on you if positions were switched. The realisation that not being a natural born normie or good looking fucks you over completely in your social life.

The idea that art is mainly used as a social signalling mechanism among pseudo intellectuals. How enjoyment is derided as immature by the academia-media-publishing industrial complex that pushes its own bullshit for the profit motive while it and its pseudo intellectual temporarily embarrassed famous artists pressure you every day in to claiming enjoyment and "profound insights" in Dickens or Dostoevsky or other arbitrarily venerated fiction that was considered pulp in its day.

Personally, no, I am not yet over it and my actions reflect a huge amount of cognitive dissonance that I am fighting.

I am so incredibly frustrated and bored with allegedly intellectual culture and, yes, the academia-media-publishing industrial complex. It's just shit upon shit upon shit and it seems worse the more familiar I am with it.

"Intellectualism" and everything surrounding it is so fucking fraudulent. It's just so fucking mind numbing, everything from New York Times thinkpieces to The Brothers Karamazov. I can clearly see that all philosophical axioms are arbitrarily chosen. I can clearly see that all philosophies that don't facilitate flailing within the infinitely large space of unfalsifiabile ideas are self selected out of academia / fashionable discourse. I am sick of seeing stupid journalist tier books and articles by journalists and academics who say we live in the age of X or all this highfalutin bullshit.

My God, show me where in the contract I was supposed to throw away my bullshit detector when I entered this world. It's utterly forbidden to pick up a book, get bored with it, and stop reading before the end. Oh no, that makes you stupid. You have to pretend to find "incredible insights" in boring shit like The Brothers Karamazov. A collection of someone's petty grievances with society and laughably braidead investigations in in to questions that could never be answered a priori are held up as some shining example of genius. What a load of fraudulent nonsense.

What's funny is seeing "cultured" types approach STEM subjects. The approach of worshipping dead people, reading old and long and boring as fuck books, reading pages upon pages, and so on, means shit. Suddenly, everyone can see the fatuousness of mere words. Wr can see the worth of 10,000 pages read about quantum mechanics or playing football or programming(>inb4 you try to conflate reading as means with reading as end).

Have you realised that the information age, with the huge amount of reading material, everything in English or translated to English, and vastly increased number of (sub-)media for books alone (physical, magazine, tablet, phone, e-reader, website, blog etc.), has destroyed the idea of being "well read"?

I think this for two reasons. First is the huge volume of stuff. You could read all day and never even read 1 % of all that "valuable" stuff. When it was 1600 and you could have read everything during your 3 years of formal education (more than 99 % of people) you could immediately join the intellectuals club. Now that's not true and it's demoralising.

The second reason is the killer. The idea of some sort of central planning bureau setting the list of required books is seen as farcical. We truly live in a much more multipolar world. Back in 1100 the Church told you to read the Greeks and the Bible and you are suddenly intelligent and well informed. There were no universities or companies or groups to tell you otherwise. These days, the huge increase in education means that everyone has an opinion and the arbitrariness of the "canon" has been exposed even to the most soody of pseudo intellectuals. Not only due to the multipolarisation within literature, but also the multipolarisation among activities. Who would claim that some Fields Medallist winning mathematician is an idiot because he hasn't read the Bible? It would take a high level of soodiness. But it would have been easy 1000 years ago.

Ultimately all this "well read" stuff was just a way for groups of people to signal social status / intellectualism or deriving other benefits by grouping their claimed interests together. We see it today when the academia-media-publishing industrial complex tells you that you have to read books or you're stupid. But this has been taken to a farcical new level now that writers like Tao Lin / Mira Gonzalez exist. It's also clear in other activities.

Why should I judge books on anything other than entertainment? Bear in mind that I'm a proud Stirnerite.

Why is it that "literary value" or whatever seems so much like marketing pushed by the academia-publishing-media industrial complex?

Why should I take the social critique / philosophy / "insights" of fiction books seriously AT ALL when the authors only present it in a vague and half assed way? It seems like dilletante pseudo intellectual posturing to me. Nabokov would agree. Dostoevsky obviously couldn't hack it on a wet and windy Thursday night in any worthwhile Psychology department.

Why, in the age of the internet, should I only take books seriously if they have the stamp of a publisher with a large enough revenue?

Why should I instantly dismiss all new artforms as not even being art? Why should I instantly dismiss new artforms as not being art due to them taking advantage of technology?

When "high brow" authors say they like "low brow" stuff is that them admitting that they don't even have the willpower to stay within their bubble of ascetic snobbery? We all know the bubble is made of bullshit but they don't even pretend that it's not these days.

Do you think that books have been a failure in terms of comedy?

When did you realise that the ideal of being well read was a harmful meme propagated by the academia-media-publishing industrial complex?

"Good peon... Focus on the barely disguised narcissistic memoirs of some dead person... Books are mind enriching... Consume more books... Never mind that the information age has made a mockery of information's value as a commodity among people... You're just so curious about the world and such a voracious reader, aren't you, peasant...

That psychologist's new 400 page book based on lab experiments and that could be summarised in 5 pages has been read by most people at your local cafe! Imagine the embarrassment if they find out you haven't read it... You're right, enjoyment is an immature state... That continental philosopher has such profound and non trivial insights about our society, it seems like you now have another 12 books on your "must read" list in order to be well read... Don't forget the conservative tradition, that's another 20 books you must read... No, don't ask any meta-questions or ask whether they work within self referential citation ring systems with unfalsifiable theories and trivial insights; bad peasant! Your dinner party guests would be shocked to hear that!

This 1200 page post-modern masterpiece references 500 works that you must also read before you die... No, don't fall asleep while reading it! The cover quote calls it, "Frequently hilarious!" Maybe you haven't read enough to fully appreciate it?"

Have you realised that the information age, with the huge amount of reading material, everything in English or translated to English, and vastly increased number of (sub-)media for books alone (physical, magazine, tablet, phone, e-reader, website, blog etc.), has destroyed the idea of being "well read"?

I think this for two reasons. First is the huge volume of stuff. You could read all day and never even read 1 % of all that "valuable" stuff. When it was 1600 and you could have read everything during your 3 years of formal education (more than 99 % of people) you could immediately join the intellectuals club. Now that's not true and it's demoralising.

The second reason is the killer. The idea of some sort of central planning bureau setting the list of required books is seen as farcical. We truly live in a much more multipolar world. Back in 1100 the Church told you to read the Greeks and the Bible and you are suddenly intelligent and well informed. There were no universities or companies or groups to tell you otherwise. These days, the huge increase in education means that everyone has an opinion and the arbitrariness of the "canon" has been exposed even to the most soody of pseudo intellectuals. Not only due to the multipolarisation within literature, but also the multipolarisation among activities. Who would claim that some Fields Medallist winning mathematician is an idiot because he hasn't read the Bible? It would take a high level of soodiness. But it would have been easy 1000 years ago.

Ultimately all this "well read" stuff was just a way for groups of people to signal social status / intellectualism or deriving other benefits by grouping their claimed interests together. We see it today when the academia-media-publishing industrial complex tells you that you have to read books or you're stupid. But this has been taken to a farcical new level now that writers like Tao Lin / Mira Gonzalez exist. It's also clear in other activities.

When did you realise that the ideal of being well read was a harmful meme propagated by the academia-media-publishing industrial complex?

"Good peon... Focus on the barely disguised narcissistic memoirs of some dead person... Books are mind enriching... Consume more books... Never mind that the information age has made a mockery of information's value as a commodity among people... You're just so curious about the world and such a voracious reader, aren't you, peasant...

That psychologist's new 400 page book based on lab experiments and that could be summarised in 5 pages has been read by most people at your local cafe! Imagine the embarrassment if they find out you haven't read it... You're right, enjoyment is an immature state... That continental philosopher has such profound and non trivial insights about our society, it seems like you now have another 12 books on your "must read" list in order to be well read... Don't forget the conservative tradition, that's another 20 books you must read... No, don't ask any meta-questions or ask whether they work within self referential citation ring systems with unfalsifiable theories and trivial insights; bad peasant! Your dinner party guests would be shocked to hear that!

This 1200 page post-modern masterpiece references 500 works that you must also read before you die... No, don't fall asleep while reading it! The cover quote calls it, "Frequently hilarious!" Maybe you haven't read enough to fully appreciate it?"

Why am I being told I have to read lots of boring novels and told that these books have "incredible insights" when all these insights are seemingly unfalsifiable theories made up by people in order to give faux-intellectual credit to authors and justify the existence and continued funding of English Literature departments?

Why are people discouraged from using enjoyment as a criterion for which books they read?

Why am I constantly being told to praise a philosopher's completely unfalsifiable chain of reasoning (when the space for unfalsifiable ideas is infinitely large) and told to stop being sceptical of all philosophies by famous philosophers of the past or professional philosophers of today?

Why am I constantly being told to read contemporary non fiction books about the latest psychology findings / China / the economy etc. and threatened with a reputation as an idiot when the breadth of areas for the expression of human intelligence and the cultivation of skills and discoveries is much greater than whatever the academia-media-publishing industrial complex happens to consider marketable at that point in time?

Why is it that non-STEM philosophers actively avoid trying to answer questions that involve mathematics at a greater than high school level when the scientific method (or seductive mathematical method) is merely one method out of infinitely many?

Have you given up on keeping track of memes / culture / science? I waste all my time on the internet and still can't keep up with shit, not even 4chan memes. It seems like embracing ignorance is the only intelligent choice.

Have you realised that the information age, with the huge amount of reading material, everything in English or translated to English, and vastly increased number of (sub-)media for books alone (physical, magazine, tablet, phone, e-reader, website, blog etc.), has destroyed the idea of being "well read"?

I think this for two reasons. First is the huge volume of stuff. You could read all day and never even read 1 % of all that "valuable" stuff. When it was 1600 and you could have read everything during your 3 years of formal education (more than 99 % of people) you could immediately join the intellectuals club. Now that's not true and it's demoralising.

The second reason is the killer. The idea of some sort of central planning bureau setting the list of required books is seen as farcical. We truly live in a much more multipolar world. Back in 1100 the Church told you to read the Greeks and the Bible and you are suddenly intelligent and well informed. There were no universities or companies or groups to tell you otherwise. These days, the huge increase in education means that everyone has an opinion and the arbitrariness of the "canon" has been exposed even to the most soody of pseudo intellectuals. Not only due to the multipolarisation within literature, but also the multipolarisation among activities. Who would claim that some Fields Medallist winning mathematician is an idiot because he hasn't read the Bible? It would take a high level of soodiness. But it would have been easy 1000 years ago.

Ultimately all this "well read" stuff was just a way for groups of people to signal social status / intellectualism or deriving other benefits by grouping their claimed interests together. We see it today when the academia-media-publishing industrial complex tells you that you have to read books or you're stupid. But this has been taken to a farcical new level now that writers like Tao Lin / Mira Gonzalez exist. It's also clear in other activities.

Daily reminder that I don't use "unfalsifiable" as a synonym for "stupid" or "wrong". Whenever I point out the unfalsifiability of something, I do it while implying the question: "Out of the infinitely large amount of unfalsifiable philosophies, why should I care about YOUR axioms or criteria?"

THAT is my point. Of course Plato's forms are just unfalsifiable nonsense. I don't care what plato or plato lovers mentally masturbate over. Feel free! I don't get it but I don't care! But what I can't stand? People (usually part of the academia-media-publishing industrial complex, or pseudo intellectual hangers on) telling me that out of all the infinitely many unfalsifiable chains or reasoning, I'm supposed to care about their particular ones (which they coincidentally profit from) or else I'm "uncultured" or "lacking in erudition". Nah m80s, fuck off.

Notice that many allegedly "free thinking" famous people ultimately lack the will to stray from the academia-media-publishing industrial complex or its previous form, religion. Of course the former is more powerful so people swing towards religion these days as a way to get that marketing sheen on their own unfalsifiable philosophies.