/lit/ - Literature

bestsellers are written for NPCs

liking popular things is some kind of new meta-ironic contrarian elitism, "poptimism". popular things are generally very low in quality so i'll keep disliking them if they are bad, and liking the occasionally good popular thing

>>12219176
my response to this is the goal isn't to show that you're more interesting just to make it apparent that the sad truth is that you are deeply uninteresting if you like popular things

>>12219176
Interesting to whom, we are walls of text on an image board.
People hate all kinds of stuff, it's no surprise and don't need a motivation to do so.

>>12219176
On a base level, no. But, sometimes the reasons for hating them can be interesting.

That's why I only read John Green and J.K. Rowling.

>>12219176
My misanthropy runs pretty deep.
I have no desire to interest the common vernin.

>>12219176
You gotta go back to plebbit friend.
Like it or not, this board is full of edgy contrarians--for better or for worse

disliking =/= hating my fren
the easiest way to spot a pseud is by his rampant hate on anything mainstream

>>12219181
>>12219189
>>12219192
>>12219193
>>12219199
>>12219210
>>12219218

*tips fedora*

And neither does liking them, so we are all just an uninteresting mass.

>>12219223
eat shit m'lady

>>12219223

Depends if you're talking about popular in literary circles, like Joyce, Tolstoy and Shakespeare; popular contemporary literature, like Pynchon, DFW and McCarthy; or popular books with mass audiences, like Harry Potter, John Green and most genre fic. If you consistently shit on the first one you're a pleb or a contrarian, if you consistently shit on the second one you're slightly less of a contrarian and if you consistently shit on the third one you're right.

we’re on 4chan, I think the opportunity to be interesting passed us by a long time ago

Popular is relative. All the people on here saying "hurr durr popular bad", are fucking morons because you don't seem to realize that what is popular, is based on the community you converse with. By your logic DFW, Dostoevsky, and all the others that are popular on here, are bad. Jesus this board is full of wannabe intellectuals.

>>12219176
It’s right if it you take it literally. Hating popular things is not sufficient for being an interesting person.

>>12219176
>“The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.”
- Schopenhauer

>>12219176
Being an anti-contrarian doesn't make you interesting, brave, or give the impression that you don't give a shit about what others think.

>>12219176
Every interesting person hates popular things, but not everyone who hates popular things is interesting.

hating things that people like is objectively cool. everyone knows this. can we all stop pretending otherwise

>>12219176
interesting=being attractive or rich

>>12219928
To girls maybe. The rich or attractive people I've met have tended to be the dullest. The most interesting people I've met have been intelligent, ugly, and disciplined.

>>12219937
You're missing a very strong sampling bias.
Smart AND attractive people are off in hollywood or getting rich and famous other ways.
You have to be exceptionally stupid to be hot and associating with low class plebs who use 4chan.

>>12219937
"so sorry we weren't interesting enough for you, random 4chan user" *all go back to being rich and attractive and successful*

>>12219969
I live near Hollywood and grew up in Orange County. I don't know how you developed the notion that hot and rich people are interesting, but in general it's simply not true. They get by on their looks and their wealth just fine so why would they ever bother learning about things and developing character?

>>12219937
You've been spending too much time on the west coast my friend.

>>12220042
They're not interesting.
They just seem interesting because they're hot or rich.
But poor people only get in contact with the exceptionally stupid vapid bimbos or idiot marketing bosses.

>>12219438
/thread.

>>12219223
it is necessary to hate popular things as a defense mechanism unless you're willing to plunge yourself into the pomo "vodka-cereal-and-cartoons" nihilism

>>12219184
This, proclaiming how much you like mainstream thing is the new elitism.

I want to learn more and more to see as beautiful what is necessary in things; then I shall be one of those who makes things beautiful. Amor fati: let that be my love henceforth! I do not want to wage war against what is ugly. I do not want to accuse; I do not even want to accuse those who accuse. Looking away shall be my only negation. And all in all and on the whole: some day I wish to be only a Yes-sayer.

>>12219176
I hate the popularity of these popular things, not the things themselves. 50 shades sold like 120 million copies, and that's terrible. I think Harry Potter is an ok children's series, but it doesn't deserve the amount of success it had. Stuff like comic book movies though, I hate every single thing about them. They're retarded shit cobbled up together by committee to please China.

I hate the fact that aside of these ultra popular things, people read or watch absolutely nothing. They have zero interest in things that aren't being pushed to them by marketing and social media.

>>12219176
You can smell the seething /v/irgin in this pic. Actually it’s excellent bait... the creator is probably a genius... but imagine all the low IQs who repost it...

>>12219468
cringe

>>12219176
None of us are trying to be interesting people, faggot. On lit there are trolls, raging debaters, and anons who genuinely discussing literature and its concomitant memes.

>>12219176
None of us are trying to be interesting people, faggot. On /lit/ there are shitposters, raging debaters, and anons who genuinely enjoy discussing literature and its concomitant memes.

>>12221171
this. to care about literature is to hate anything written by lauded psueds.

>>12221171
>anons who genuinely enjoy discussing literature and its concomitant memes.

>>12219176

That statement being true (it is) and Harry Potter being shit (it is) aren't mutually exclusive things, you silly goose.

>>12221192
>and Harry Potter being shit (it is)
alt righter detected. go back to pol, edgelord.

>>12219176
There is a distinct difference between going against the grain and not liking something popular for the sake of being different and passing yourself off as interesting (i.e. contrarian/snowflake), and expressing sincere worry for inevitable cultural decline and the rise of mass society (i.e. blackpilled).

>>12219184
This, also >>12219189

>>12219438
I’ve got a soft spot for McCarthy so I’d argue that you’re a fucking pleb if you shit on either of the first. I welcome anybody who shits on mass literature, bless their hearts.

When you hate popular things it's definitely a sign of being an interesting person

>>12219176
Nietzsche was right when he said that modern people, wh*toids especially, are of mixed social origins meaning elite and graceful proclivities can be in us all as well mean and plebeian ones. In the past, aristocrats would hate popular expressions for nothing else than being popular. The philosophy of difference may have been as dear to them as compassion and morality are to us. I mean, the Latin patricians literally spoke a different dialect from the proletarii and when they started to merge, the elite spoke to each other in Greek. Entirely "elite" tastes are now a thing of the past considering high culture is increasingly accessible. That is to say there are fewer and weaker barriers to entry for the most innovative artforms and the aspects of elite culture quickly descend to more common circles. The most experimental music can be found on YouTube, regular people save up money to buy high-fashion pieces, everyone has extremely cynical opinions about visual art and we crusade against illiteracy moreso than we do against malnutrition.

That said, there is still a very human impulse to find or create difference in rank between things and people so individuals will engage in the formation of exclusive cliques either way. So what happens when elitism cannot be effectively expressed through taste? I think>>12219184 and >>12220122 got it. The financial and leisure class, I think, dropped the tendency to create and enjoy exclusive media so they engage with very common and accessible media; the lowest common cultural denominator. Remember things are popular less out of quality and more because of its' ability to resonate with as many people as possible.

Now difference in rank comes not from which media is consumed but rather how it is. The politicization and patholigization of casual media is an example of this. When something's artistic merits are so base and simple, culturally enriched people will either seek something a little more engaging (now ruled out as an option) or will complicate it according to their own experiences and opinions. Want an extreme example? Go look for that article trying to uncover the children's cartoon Paw Patrol as unironic fascist utopianism. Or there was this one critic trying to extract Socratic philosophy from To Pimp a Butterfly. You think Kendrick Lamar really tried sneaking in Greek skepticism into an album about nogs shooting nogs? This is entirely an artistic development of the consumer; here enjoyment and critique becomes art itself because there you can show off your fancy-boy edjumacation and your familiarity with once more esoteric works in context. It became a trick of people in meta-ironic elite circles to let entryists and tourists look for and relish in more complex works while they themselves re-assert their dominance, not by separating themselves like ascetic priests but by showing off their elitism in the midst of the commoners.

>>12221357
good post

>>12219176
I would agree that It's not a conditio sine qua non; but the fact remains that 90% of everything is shit, and rarely popular things come fromthe remaining 10%.

>>12221195
>leftytranny

>>12219223
I remember when I first starting coming here in 2013 and this was a common and acceptable retort. Crazy how time flies and 4chan culture/memes change!

>>12219449
Most passed by this post, yet I consider it very sincere, and also capturing a truth which this board would not like to admit.

>>12219184
Most people are aware of a distinction between high and low art. High art is appreciated by those with the most cultivated taste. Low art is for the masses, accessible and easily comprehended.

>>12219176
This is a defense employed by boring people.

>>12221357
nice

>>12219176
There's only 3 reasons to like popular things
>You actually like them
>you pretend to like them so as not to come off as a contrarian asshole among normies and be someone who is disliked (let's be honest, you care what others think of you if this is your reasoning)
>you like them ironically because everyone sort of knows you're too big brained to actually like it, or are generally known by everyone to be the aforementioned contrarian asshole.

>>12220122
Black Panther

>>12219468
>By your logic DFW, Dostoevsky, and all the others that are popular on here, are bad.
but they are?

>>12223021
I genuinely believe that the majority of people don't really "like" things, they don't process their experiences. They just kind of go with the flow without any sort of analysis. There's no complex reasoning such as "I have to like this so that I don't come off as a contrarian" either. That's why CGI shit works even when it makes no sense, you can turn off your brain and lose yourself in the sensorial chaos.

Yes, becuase nothing makes you an interesting person. What makes you an interesting person is the observer of yourself. Nothing you do is inherently interesting unless the person observing finds it interesting. That’s why some people find you interesting and others don’t.

>>12219176
It might be hard for NPCs to grasp, but you can hate something popular without hating it for being popular.

>>12223111
This

>>12219184
It's not meta-ironic, but post-ironic - you accept that deep down you actually like this particular common and popular thing for whatever reason, but are still aware of it's stigma.
I see this happen for example with beer, my hip friends who used to drink craft now mainly drink a certain brand of mainstream lager.

>>12219184
People like to think they're smart for disliking popular things because supposedly it means they've found things to dislike in them that other people are too stupid to find. Now we also have people that think they're smart because they're able to recognize merit in things they believe contrarians are too stupid to appreciate.

In reality it's just people deciding on a shallow level whether or not they like something, then justifying it after the fact with rationalizations.

Its not merely a matter of choice that you can take or leave just for the sake of image, unless you're completely empty or robotic.
I once made an honest effort to be less of a snob and open up to popular culture, absorb popular media in good faith- I made it about half a year before I wanted to kill myself.

>>12223111
if it wasn't popular you probably just wouldn't care though

>>12219184
>poptimism
Did you coin this term anon?
Its great.

>>12223415
pretty sure it comes from /mu/ and is used to denote pop listeners
of course the average /mu/ poptimist is more elitist than the average jazz enthusiast

Books written to appeal to the widest possible audience and sell many copies are likely to suffer in quality

How much romance is in Don Quixote? im only 100 pages in and I think I need to drop it for now as it keeps reminding me of her.

>>12219184
>reasons for liking things is is as convoluted as my intestine
>maybe is not so abstract?
>nah, fuck that, Lets go further up my ass and call it Poptimism

>>12221357
there really wasn't any need to be this verbose
>>12223260
nah that's a separate thing
>>12223415
>>12223434
LOL, not everything comes from 4chan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockism_and_poptimism#Poptimism

>>12222222

>>12219184
>liking popular things is ... new
You aren't as smart as you think you are.

>>12219176
Who hates popular things to be an interesting person? Only persons devoid of deeper and more advanced interests would fit. Those with them simply find what is popular to be bad, worse yet, mindnumbingly boring in its shallow basicness and predictability.

Also, this board loves a multitude of extremely popular books, what are you on about? I often see those fucking New York Times Bestseller nonfiction books being recommended, too.

>>12219449
This post by anon captures the soul of the Based and is enraptured in the virtue of the mythical redpill all in a single sentence

>>12222222