/lit/ - Literature

>>10342741
aaaiha yea that about captures it

>>10334002

>that top 10
jesus christ, the bible is the only saving grace

>>10187671
are these threads part of some sort of vast aristocratic ploy to turn public opinion against letting working class people attend university?

1. Being concerned with how "difficult" a work of fiction is.

Because this implies that reading books is a skill, e.g. some are worse (everyone else) and some are better (the pseud)

2. Using the word 'serious' in reference to fiction

Implies that reading fiction is anything other than masturbation, however fulfilling and sophisticated a form of masturbation it may be. Above all, the pseud comes to fiction to be taken Seriously.

3. Most of their discussion is reference spotting

What better way to show everyone how much you've read? Keep in mind, this person thinks that reading fiction makes you smart. It's also a neat way to say nothing at all about something you've read.

"He was alluding to Paradise Lost."
"I've never read that. Why was the allusion made?"
"Well *chuckles* I'm afraid you'd have to read the work to fully understand."

---

"He was alluding to Paradise Lost."
"Yeah, I know. So what?"
"*sweats* D... do I have to spoon feed you this one?"

4. Is avoided in discussions or social settings by other readers

One who truly loves to read despises someone who wears their beloved hobby like a fashion accessory to pump their little dick up in social settings.

>>10069397
>reading a book set in vietnam
>it aint me starts self-vocalizing

>>10050775
>pirating
>reading ebooks
just go to a library man, jesus

>>9932386

What community isn't without its posturing frauds? (pic related)

What community doesn't have unsung heroes, dying in obscurity? (insert pic of John K. Toole)

It's the same everywhere. People respect image and lack understanding.

That said, Dick is worth reading if you're willing to skim. It's completely un-edited, and as odd as it is to consider, people don't call it a masterpiece because it's well-written.

>>9720881

I agree, a writer with something to say is very fun to read.

But there's a ridiculous desire among academics, and people who desire respect, to build literature up to be something it isn't. It isn't a learning tool. It isn't philosophy, or sociology, or psychology. Art can be a lot of things, but it isn't any of those.

>>9416059

Most of the racism is from /pol/ tourists, and most of the sexism is from /r9k/ tourists (lot of overlap between these two groups btw). Dwelling in an echo chamber gets boring, apparently.

That said, if you can't see these people for the clowns they are and just brush them off... you might be a little mentally weak.

>>9379807

I think this assessment of Pynchon's literary talent is really misguided. Inside all the (admittedly brilliant) jokes was the framework for a new understanding of quantum physics that remain relevant to this day. My friend who does doctorate level maths says that you can't really get anything done without a firm understanding of Gravity's Rainbow.

>>9107341

As someone who has read this book eleven times, I would strongly recommend that one continue reading until AT LEAST page 500. It's here where the book really starts to take off, and all the seemingly boring crap really begins to work together as part of the same big picture.

>>9000004

>humanities scholar reduces a difficult question to such a tiny size where his tiny pool of knowledge can properly 'solve' it.

Sounds right. This one's for the garbage bin.

>>8664740

First you must understand the elitist.

Imagine you've accomplished nothing in your life. The most likely reason for this is that you have no talents, skills or redeeming qualities of any kind. In other words, you suck at everything you do.

Yet, despite this, you don't want to be treated like a loser. Indeed, people figuring out how useless you are is a source of great anxiety for you. It fills you with great dread to imagine being derided or insulted to any degree in a social situation, for what could you possibly say in your defense? Surely you would need to say SOMETHING.

Now, think about how easy it is to simply read a book and tell everyone that you liked it. Think how easy it is to say that smart people read the books you like, and stupid people read the books you don't. Is it difficult to say "his prose evoked the poetic meter of Faulkner?" Is it difficult to say "that book wasn't hard to read at all, I understood it perfectly!"

It never works on people who know literature, though. They'll see you coming from a mile away.

Pic related. Did you know he wrote the narrative elements of his thousand-page-long novel Infinite Jest (which is a Shakespeare reference, btw) to fit together like Sierpinski triangles? If that makes any sense at all to you.

>>8643934
>tour-de-force

>>8621140

>This is literally me?

I don't know. Is it?

Questions should always have one of the 'w' words in it. Why is this literally me? Or 'how?' How did he write a story about me?

I'm feeling worried about highschool english... not too long ago I'm reading all these posts about how people are afraid of 'loosing' their jobs, now we're getting question marks on the end of every fucking sentence. The language is degenerating before our very eyes.

>>8550466

People read for either esteem, escapism or affirmation. Just learn what people find 'smart' (usually math and science with dense prose), what people desire (usually just romantic and financial success), and what people's opinions are (so you can parrot them back), and you can sell a million books.

Pic related impressed a lot of people by writing something that looked difficult to read and understand, therefore making the reader feel smart when they walk around telling everyone how wonderful a novel it was.

>memes aside

>>8459950