/lit/ - Literature

The High School Reader
>The Lord of the Flies, 1984, Animal Farm, The Catcher in the Rye, Brave New World, To Kill a Mockingbird, Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet...

>Everyone reads this stuff in high school and some young people in this age group become high school readers. Past the Jr. high and preteen reader stage these readers are a bit beyond reading for fun, but they haven't read much. Names like Dostoyevsky, Nietzsche, Hugo, Tolstoy, De Maupassant and the essential canon we know and revere seem mysterious and powerful to the young person at this stage, and depending on their interests, temperament, personality and many other factors they may become bibliophiles, hobby readers or douchebags. Everyone starts here, and many will never make it out of reading big name classics with no structure or order. It's not necessarily wrong, but to truly go further you need to structure your reading.


The Hobbyist Reader
>The High School reader often evolves into this very common species. Probably someone of slightly above average intelligence (an interest in reading period is often an indication of an above average intellect), these guys will run through anywhere from thirty to one hundred serious books a year. They tend to read whatever pleases them and often incorporate a mix of classic literature, philosophy, poetry, epics, history and whatever else suits them. All hardcore readers start off as hobbyist readers before making the conscience decision to become bibliophiles. Most twenty something year old's/university students fit into this category, the most common type of serious reader.

The Douchebag
>One must be very careful not to become a Douchebag reader, a very common ailment indeed. Douchebags are easily identified by their dismissive comments and rude remarks directed at people/readers who they deem "lesser" than themselves. Note that there is a difference between being critical of what you read/define as literature/enjoy and being a Douchebag and I have never to this day seen a true bibliophile conduct him/herself in such a way that I would deem Douchbaggery.

Well there you have it /lit/ I haven't listed every classification of reader and I felt that continuing would make for a way too long OP and some repetitiveness/overlapping of reader types, so I've left it more bare. If you have your own ideas I'd like to hear them.

So where do you fit? I'm a hobbyist myself and hoping to become a serious bibliophile in my life, though I'm currently very far from that goal.

3/3

>I read fantasy
>you dare group me with sci-fi bullshit

you miserable piece of shit.

>The Scifi/Fantasy guy
>this group suffers little from elitism or pretentiousness
*except on /lit/ where they group together to call anyone a 'hipster' that reads 'classics' (i.e. general fiction) & where you a 'fucking try-hard pretentious hipster' for reading House of Leaves, a modern classic.

I fit in as the autist OP

Either sci-fi/fantasy or hobbyist. I do read a lot of fantasy but I also enjoy eighteenth/nineteenth century gothic romances, popular literature like Battle Royale and A Clockwork Orange, and the occasional classic.

Probably a Hobbyist reader. Aspiring for True Bibliophile eventually (is early 20th century Japanese literature a niche?)

Hobbyist
but maybe if I try real hard, when I'm in my 40's I'll be a bibliophile... but I will never give up sometimes reading crappy books!

>>1333003

Seriously Russian literature is not all that important. Shit is bad and gets worse, repeat ad infinitum.

Douchebag here. Fuck yo couch!

>>1333007
>Everyone reads this stuff in high school

We never read any of that in my high school.

>>1333028
For early 20th-century Japanese lit, I'd say something like the Shirakaba School would be an example of a niche.

douchebag here, stop reading warhammer 40k and song of ice and fire you homos

>Look at bookshelves
>Mainly fantasy with a lot of classic english literature accompanied by a wide array of poetry from the romantic period

Hmm... meh, don't care.

some suggestions from a douchbag: read native son by ralph ellison and floating opera, then you might get some culture in yalls you ignorant lumpen

>>1333045
Well, I can't read untranslated things yet. But I suppose that's while it will take till I'm 40!

Bibliophile usually refers to a person who harbors a unusually high appreciation for the book as a physical artefact, not necessarily very well read people (even though this tends to overlap).

I don't find myself in OPs typology (what a shock, huh?). I read a lot and actively try to fill in blanks in my knowledge of cultural canon by reading "classics", though not with the same vigour as the "bibliophile", and tend to like quite a lot of them. But I also read relatively low-brow books to relax.

For my studies I read a lot of non-fiction books on sociology, history, economy and philosophy, often simply as a source and basis for understanding the thought of times long gone.

>>1333047

Douchebag / Sci-fi/Fantasy guy

There. I cared for you.

>>1333053

Native Son is overrated, heavy-handed tripe. Come on, "Bigger"? The blatant "whiteness" symbolism thrown about like last week's newspaper?

Get a fucking clue, that book is only famous because of white guilt, not any artistic merit.

>>1333065
Thanks, see you at the Klan rally bro.

>>1333058

Well it literally means "lover of books" which can be taken both ways.

>Bibliophilia is the love of books. Accordingly a bibliophile is an individual who loves books, especially "for qualities of format." A bookworm loves books for their content, or otherwise loves reading. ...

>A lover of books.

You sound like a serious hobbyist and the fact that you recognize the holes in your reading and actively try to patch them up means that you're on the road to bibliophile/bookworm.

Did I ever say that true readers can't enjoy pulp or low brow fiction? Of course they can.

>>1333065
baby can't stand the idea that he might be contributing to the plight of the black man

>>1333061

The two rarely overlap. Well done bro.

>>1333053
Cool white guilt, bro.

I was very much a scifi guy as a teen, and now I'm a trainee bibliophile harbouring scifi sympathies.

>The Scifi/Fantasy guy
>>A lot of people read science fiction and fantasy, and a lot who do, read science fiction and fantasy almost exclusively. For most of these readers books are just a good, imaginative way to pass time and garner entertainment. They tend not to post on literature forums or the like and this group suffers little from elitism or pretentiousness. Though looked down upon by readers of more "serious" works (whatever that means) you can't fault anyone for reading what they enjoy.

>using the term SciFi
>implying Science Fiction/Fantasy is not and can not be literate

Something about pigeonholing and stereotypes.

>>1333090

Not that it can't be, but that it usually isn't. These aren't strict typologies. Insecure much?

>>1333090

I knew I would get this and let me say that you're right. There are people who read almost exclusively science fiction and who rarely stray from books that most people who know anything about the genre would call serious literature. That said, if you are only reading science fiction/fantasy it is impossible to be a true bibliophile and difficult to be a serious reader in general. Not impossible, but difficult, and limiting yourself to one genre is almost never conducive to gaining a real literary education.

>>1333085
me crystal ball(s,lol) tell me that you googled that between grrm passages and saw black man and figured it was shite written for guilt-ridden whites, then quickly went back to reading about phallic swords plugning into men ;-)

guys you do know when ever i put down scfi/fantasy its in jest right?

i really cant wait to read some vonnegut, the plots seem interesting.

>>1333090
Sorry that nobody takes your adolescent power fantasies seriously.

Umm... a true bibliophile is a lover of rare books, first editions, manuscripts etc.

>>1333108

And a faggot is a bundle of sticks. A bibliophile can be someone who loves books/reading and that's the way I'm using it here. But whatever...

>>1333119
well, then you are an idiot.

And I mean that int he original sense: a unpolitical person.

>>1333107
Exactly.
You are doing no service to yourself as a reader by reading some trash about dwarfs and gnomes hitting each other with swords

Where's the category for people who read books where people punch their problems with guns?

>>1333137
The pulp/adventure reader guy

>>1333098
>but that it usually isn't.
Wrong.
>>1333107
Cite example works & authors
Cite reviews/essays/critiques/etc on why Science Fiction can not be literature
Can you back up your broad generalization or are you a trolling hipster?

>>1333131

D:

>>1333147

Relax, nobody thinks that Sci Fi/Fantasy can never be literature.

Probably a [serious?] hobbyist. Starting to become multilingual because I want to read some books as they were meant to be read. Starting with German as I already have a fairly decent grounding from highschool (surprised I remember any since I sucked), which may eventually elevate me to what you would consider a bibliophile.

On that note, does anyone have any German works/authors they'd like to suggest? All I've read so far (in English) is Ludwig Tieck, Hesse and Thomas Mann.

>>1333170
Karl Marx

Freidrich Nietzche

Adolf Hitler

Elie Wiesel

The Brothers Grimm

Michael Ende

>True bibliophile
>Post description a faggot lost in the past

>>1333170
Goethe

>>1333185

No, a true bibliophile must be well versed in the ancients and religious texts to fully appreciate the references appearing in the romantic/classical period, to fully appreciate the references appearing in the Victorian age, to fully appreciate the references appearing in contemporary literature. It's all one big amalgamation and once you appreciate this and actively strive to become truly knowledgeable in your literary pursuits you are on the road to becoming a real bibliophile.

>>1333147

Please, just read the Wikipedia article on literary fiction. There's a basic distinction between what an author of literary fiction is trying to accomplish and what the typical author of genre fiction is. I'm not saying it always holds true, and I'm not saying that genre fiction is inferior in any way. In fact, some sci-fi and fantasy writers are among my favorites. Ursula K. LeGuin, Poul Anderson, Robert Silverburg (somewhat), Kurt Vonnegut, H G Wells, etc. all have literary merit.

>>1333182
>Elie Wiesel

Didn't he write in French and Yiddish?

>>1333147
baby mad his stories aren't respected by mainstream

>>>1333208
>not literate
>these authors are literate
make up your mind
>>1333213
thats not a concrete example or citation nigger

>>1333248

I specifically said that Sci-Fi/fantasy could be literary. I also said that it *usually* isn't. I'm curious to know which authors you think are so valuable.

Hobbyist reader here. Fit the description perfectly.

>>1333119
Perhaps you should then change the category name to Canon readers but whatever...
As you stated every class you described would be true to the term bibliophile.

>>1333261
>I also said that it *usually* isn't.
more than half the time? less than half the time? what percent?
how is that any different to any other type of subject matter? why does Science Fiction & Fantasy deserve singling out over it?

You didn't include those girls who read nothing but trashy romance novels.

There's not anything about sci-fi/fantasy specifically, it's all genre fiction. Of course it can have literary merit, but it usually (which means at least over 50%) doesn't.

>>1333324
like Jane Austen

>>1333331
>genre fiction
I don't think that word means what you think it means
it is a mere means of classification of subject matter, not a demarcation point

>>1333324
He probably isn't expecting to find any on /lit/.

There's also the type of guy who only reads historical fiction. That guy's always a wanker

>>1333337
Genre fiction, also known as popular fiction, is a term for fictional works (novels, short stories) written with the intent of fitting into a specific literary genre in order to appeal to readers and fans already familiar with that genre.

Literary fiction is a term that has come into common usage since around 1960, principally to distinguish serious fiction (that is, work with claims to literary merit) from the many types of genre fiction and popular fiction (i.e., paraliterature). In broad terms, literary fiction focuses more on style, psychological depth, and character[1][2], the plot may or may not be important. Mainstream commercial fiction focuses more on narrative and plot.

>>1333315

"Usually" implies "more than half the time." And it's not like it's a black-and-white distinction. Please stop being butthurt; I never said it was valueless, but once you understand the distinction, it's quite easy to see. I'd recommend "Stein On Writing" by Sol Stein for a very good explanation.

>>1333337

Not that anon, but as a broad means of distinction, "genre fiction" vs. "literary fiction" is the most popular (only popular?) way to distinguish between the two.

Also, nice 1337 post number.

plot driven story: genre fiction
character driven story: literary fiction
suck my dead pig

>>1333346
>literary fiction focuses more on style, psychological depth, and character[1][2], the plot may or may not be important
sounds exactly like Raymond Chandlers detective stories.
These are BS distinctions made up by elitists.

>>1333248
no but it's a valid observation of the crybaby culture that exists around speculative fiction

>>1333372
>crybaby culture
crybabies would be the elitists denigrating whatever they dont like or understand
a crybaby would be Margaret Atwood responding to her work being called Science Fiction, and displaying some shockingly ignorant notions in the process

>>1333368

When confronting a point of view or distinction one doesn't understand in a discussion or argument, a common psychological reaction is dismissal or an ad hominem attack. The more you know!

>>1333379
>a common psychological reaction is dismissal or an ad hominem attack
...like mindlessly asserting Science Fiction is not literate without ever providing any sort of support

>>1333377
it's not elitist if it's the truth brosef, you read escapist power fantasies and expect people to respect it artistically

>>1333368

Nobody ever said that they were mutually exclusive, but they hold true most of the time, and to that degree, the terms are useful. Think of it as fiction written primarily for entertainment as distinguished from fiction written primarily for aesthetic value.

>>1333377

So I'm not allowed to insult things I find valueless because you like them, and for that reason *I'm* a crybaby?

I don't generally like "genre fiction" because I don't understand it? So you're saying your preffered type of fiction is 2deep4me, and because of that *I'm* an elitist?

>implying a sense of direction of literature
>implying complex is superior
>implying you're full of shit
The actual list:
-Readers: They read

The Specific List:
-Scifi readers: Reads sci-fi, thinks sci-fi is superior
-Fantasy readers: Reads Fantasy, thinks fantasy is superior
-Classic Lit readers: Reads classic literature, thinks classic lit is superior
-The high-school reader: Reads high school texts. Everybody gets mad even though they have nothing negative to say about the books in question
-The Generalist: Reads in general. Probably the only tard with a sense of perspective. Most likely doesn't exist.

>>1333387
stanislaw lem.

>>1333387
>you read escapist power fantasies
yes I've read the entire back catalog of countless pulp fiction magazines dated 1929-1949

>>1333007
>High School Reader
>but to truly go further you need to structure your reading.

So, I'm this guy right now. I've read all that you've mentioned and I'd really like to get into James Joyce and other writers who use stream-of-consciousness techniques. I really want to read "...Artist as a Young Man".
Where too?

>>1333388
>Think of it as fiction written primarily for entertainment as distinguished from fiction written primarily for aesthetic value.
And aesthetic appreciation isn't ultimately entertainment?

Anyway you both sound like two three-year olds in a sandbox.

>>1333397
>pulp fiction magazines dated 1929-1949
yes i agree hp lovecraft is escapist, thanks for helping me prove my point

>>1333401

James Joyce sucks, bro. You'd be better off reading something else.

If you're really stuck on postmodernism try out some T.S. Eliot, he's infinitely better than Joyce.

>>1333392
What exactly is Generalist? Reading all of the others, or none of them?

>>1333401
For a contemporary stream of consciousness writer, Hubert Selby Jr.

>>1333410
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=generalist

>>1333423
Er, yeah, I was asking what the OP meant. He was very vague about it. It seemed like he was trying to say that the Generalist category is the only one that doesn't think their reading taste is superior.

>>1333423
don't open this link! it a virus that ate my hard drive and gave me a kiddy porn!

>>1333426
*not OP, but that poster.

>>1333368
For fuck sake, do you lack reading comprehension? Nobody in the thread has ever said "all scifi/fantasy/genre fiction". Providing one example doesn't disprove that USUALLY, genre fiction has less merit.

But I can't really expect someone who reads detective stories to comprehend something so simple.

I like how it's all written out in the style of 'The Douchebag'

Better than OP's:

Casual Reader:
>Piles and piles of Nora Roberts and James Patterson

Romance Novel Reader:
>Women. This is what females do instead of watching porn.

Sci-fi/Fantasy Guy:
>Doesn't look for symbolism or any deep meaning in books; they're also escapists.

Average Reader:
>See OP's High School Reader

Hardcore Reader:
>Reads alot of stuff. Has already read just about every popular/classic title and now randomly buys books with less than 100 reviews on amazon.com

>>1333436
at the monomanic reader and you're complete

>>1333436
Needs a little more expansion, but good so far. You need to add more categories/levels of Hardcore reader.

The Non-Fiction Reader
>A reader primarily interested in essays, autobiographies, biographies, histories, textbooks, collections of letters, newspapers, magazines, and possibly some of the growing variety of digital information sources, etcetera. This reader usually has an interesting, albeit unfocused, body of facts at their disposal. They are marked by sudden explosions of association during a conversation, beginning with something like "Oh, I read an interesting article/book about that the other day..." They tend to also be highly in touch with current events, be they political, celebrity, scientific, depending on the non-fiction reader's particular interests. They may suffer from an inability to analyze fiction, a bad experience with fiction in school, a condescension towards "mere stories," or, simply, a nature less, or un, responsive to it. Non-fiction readers vary in age in intelligence, from the academic-decathalon student to the old-aged retiree.

>The Professor
A reader that is similar to the bibliophile, but much more limited in scope. This kind of reader, out of a deep and possessing interest, has completely and ruthlessly mastered one area of study and has explored everything even tangentially related to it. They are often employed in their area of interest, though they may simply be extremely dedicated amateurs.

native son was written by richard wright you dumb shit

>1333472

>didn't understand the joke

>>1333466

Op here -

Good additions :D

>>1333406
sarcasm bro, that your idea of what Science Fiction & Fantasy constitute is stuck over 60 years in the past
You have know idea what makes up the body of work, nevermind what I have read

>>1333436
>Sci-fi/Fantasy Guy:
>>Doesn't look for symbolism or any deep meaning in books
Hrm

>>1333466
Fuck yes, a Professor here (well not literally, yet), and proud! I may not be well-read in every category of literature, but damn if I don't read and love my niche of choice. I do hope to become an actual professor on the subject one day.

>>1333406
sarcasm bro, that your idea of what Science Fiction & Fantasy constitute is stuck over 60 years in the past
You have no idea what makes up the body of work, nevermind what I have read

Your mom in bed. Best novel ever. Even better night.

>>1333509
What's your niche, out of interest?

>>1333525
I was >>1333028 also. Showa period and a little earlier Japanese literature :D

i guess i'm a hobbyist reader at the moment? honestly all i read are history books.

>>1333512
i know that it's made up primarily of knee-jerk reactions to new technologies and oversimplified philosophies mixed with a fair amount of psuedoscience and in many cases mild racism, greets

>>1333512

I was one of the other anons you were arguing with before. I'd find it very difficult to believe that you've read more science fiction than I have. That sounds really pretentious, I know. But you seem to think we don't hold it in high regard because we don't understand/haven't read it, which is very far from the truth, at least in my case.

Go ahead, fucking quiz me, I dare you. Fucking high-schooler.

>bookshelf is full of classics (that I bought at the used book store down the street), most of which I haven't opened.

>Read fantasy I get off the internet

Fantasy guy in pretentious denial here.

>>1333003

>The different types of readers /lit/

how to hipster the hip hip way

>>1333546
>stuck over 60 years in the past
>>1333548
must not have read the good stuff and authors then to jump on the casual dismissal bandwagon

>>1333593

Here's an excerpt from an email an English professor wrote me when I was in college, asking for *my* input on a sci-fi course he was planning, and which I ended up taking:

Here's a partial book list for Engl 330, which is still in the process of development:

We'll definitely be reading:

Dick, Philip K. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep (the basis for the film Blade Runner)
Dick, Philip K. Valis
(maybe a third novel by Dick, since he's been so influential)

Miller, Walter. A Canticle for Leibowitz

Zamatin, Evgeny. We (great Russian novel influencing Orwell & Huxley's dystopias)

Lem, Stanislaw. Solaris (Lem is a Polish writer very highly regarded; Solaris has been made into 2 movies--latest, less good, is George Clooney's version)

Wilson, Colin. The Mind Parasites (this is an existential take on H.P. Lovecraft type horror/sci)

Gibson, William. Neuromancer (the most celebrated "cyberpunk" novel)

We'll also be reading an accessible & very interesting non-fiction book on how science fiction motifs have informed the postmodern imagination generally (Davis' TechGnosis)
& maybe a book of scholarly approaches to science fiction

Most of these books tend to be short, so there will might well be a couple of more novels. Perhaps the British/South African writer Doris Lessing (most recent Nobel Prize winner) novel Briefing for a Descent into Hell. You can see I'm taking an international perspective.

Any of this is good in the literary/artistic sense. But by quantity, most of it isn't literary.

>>1333593

Here's an excerpt from an email an English professor wrote me when I was in college, asking for *my* input on a sci-fi course he was planning, and which I ended up taking [deleted and reposted for clarity]:

"Here's a partial book list for Engl 330, which is still in the process of development:

We'll definitely be reading:

Dick, Philip K. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep (the basis for the film Blade Runner)
Dick, Philip K. Valis
(maybe a third novel by Dick, since he's been so influential)

Miller, Walter. A Canticle for Leibowitz

Zamatin, Evgeny. We (great Russian novel influencing Orwell & Huxley's dystopias)

Lem, Stanislaw. Solaris (Lem is a Polish writer very highly regarded; Solaris has been made into 2 movies--latest, less good, is George Clooney's version)

Wilson, Colin. The Mind Parasites (this is an existential take on H.P. Lovecraft type horror/sci)

Gibson, William. Neuromancer (the most celebrated "cyberpunk" novel)

We'll also be reading an accessible & very interesting non-fiction book on how science fiction motifs have informed the postmodern imagination generally (Davis' TechGnosis)
& maybe a book of scholarly approaches to science fiction

Most of these books tend to be short, so there will might well be a couple of more novels. Perhaps the British/South African writer Doris Lessing (most recent Nobel Prize winner) novel Briefing for a Descent into Hell. You can see I'm taking an international perspective."

Anything mentioned above is good in the literary/artistic sense. But by quantity, most sci-fi isn't literary.

>A lot of people read science fiction and fantasy, and a lot who do, read science fiction and fantasy almost exclusively. For most of these readers books are just a good, imaginative way to pass time and garner entertainment. They tend not to post on literature forums or the like and this group suffers little from elitism or pretentiousness. Though looked down upon by readers of more "serious" works (whatever that means) you can't fault anyone for reading what they enjoy.

>this group suffers little from elitism or pretentiousness
>Though looked down upon by readers of more "serious" works
>this group suffers little from elitism or pretentiousness
>Though looked down upon by readers of more "serious" works
>this group suffers little from elitism or pretentiousness
>Though looked down upon by readers of more "serious" works

I think I know who the real elitists are.

>>1333621
>But by quantity, most sci-fi isn't literary.
Sturgeon's Law is worth bringing up here.

For every good science fiction book are a dozen shitty space operas. For every good piece of classic literature are a dozen mainstream shitscribbles.

>>1333661

Twilight's genre fiction, yo.

>>1333028

a la Mishima?

>>1333668
Yep, he's one of the authors I study! I have just about all his books that have been translated into English, except for Sun and Steel and his volume of plays. My favorite is actually Kawabata though.

>>1333657

Fuck you buddy. I put the word serious in quotation marks, do you not know what that implies? Honestly if troll 10/10, I'm actually very annoyed after reading this.

I'm drunk as hell but I'm going to drop in here and say that most literary-types are appeal to authority faggots who parrot what they think are educated opinions because they're afraid to have their own.

>>1333688

That was his point. They looked like ironic quotation marks, making you out to be a snobbish sci-fi reader. But don't rage, it was a juvenile thing to point out, especially since you never said you were a fan yourself.

That said, the distinction decried by a few loud souls in this thread is a valid one.

>>1333664
>genre fiction

The worst kind of dismissive jargon. All fiction falls into one genre or another. It's like calling science fiction "speculative fiction." All fiction is speculative.

>>1333718

Have you read the thread? Have you read this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genre_fiction#Defining_genre_fiction

These terms are in common use.

>>1333593
counterpoint: snowcrash

>>1333759
Snow Crash operates under a "rule of cool" and tries impossibly hard to be random and funny.

It does not have literary merit.

>>1333820

Your mom operates under a "rule of cool" and tries impossibly hard to be random and funny.

She does not have literary merit.

>>1333820

I wouldn't say it's Shakespeare, but it's miles above Orson Scott Card or David Drake. Blegh.

looks like i'll be a true bibliophile in a year or so.

yay. i should probably learn ancient greek though. you know, to really seal the deal

>>1333835
Glad to see another Card-hater.
I've never met anyone else in real life that doesn't jizz their pants over how awesome they think that retard is.

>>1333876

I used to. I'd read his entire ouevre as of 2003 or so. i guess right about the time that Linkin Park was my favorite band.

Let me help

>Bibliophile=Douchebag

you're welcome.

I know a girl that fits the bibliophile description.
Unfortunately she moved to a different town from me for college but I've always wanted to fuck her silly.

>>1333970

I don't get it.