/lit/ - Literature

>>18057483
Read whatever the hell you want. No one cares, buddy.

No, it’s just sensible.
There are already more books out there than you could ever read in a lifetime.
In my opinion there is no reason to waste your limited time on earth trying to sift through garbage when time has already done it for you.

>>18057483
>waste of time
If you're reading the classics but not writing studies about it you're as good as reading YA fiction so just read what you enjoy

it kind of bothers me that there is probably good books out there today but I have virtually no way of sorting through the trash to find them. at least in the old days reviewers probably had a little bit more credibility, the idea of "just look at reviews bro" today is laughable at best

>>18057483
>he thinks all modern books are bad

>>18057483
No, but I wouldn't read all the classics, just the ones that might be of interest to things you think about or would like to see a side of. For example, I may not like regency novels, but I wanted to read Sense & Sensibility because I heard it depicts dramatic irony pretty well in conversations where people think they agree but actually do not.
Literature has changed a lot over the years on a technical level so ignoring new books might hold you back if you are interested in writing at all.

>>18057483
Yea but being elitist is a good thing. Your two choices now are that or degrees of animality.

>>18057483
I read classics in translation and contemporary erotica fanfic

>>18057483
Stoner is YA.

>>18057483
Almost everything from the 19th century on is YA-tier and not actual classics. Classics existed only when hierarchy and aristocracy existed. After the French Revolution everything came crashing down so there's no canon. Stoner for example is garbage just like almost all novels. Philosophy took a heavy hit too and it never recovered. Poetry survived the longest such that even 20th century poets like Yeats and Eliot are actually good.

tl;dr: If you're reading "classics"published after 1789 you're not actually reading classics most likely. Just the confused mumblings of a lost culture.

I mainly read non fiction but when I read fiction it is only the classics. I'll make an exception if something modern comes along that isn't supposed to be garbage.

>>18057606
>>he thinks all modern books are bad
Not all but most.

>>18057483
Nothing wrong with wanting to read the best.

>>18057829
The 19th century was the best century for literature

>>18057768
Fuck you.

>>18057483
It's elitist if you won't shut the fuck up about it, like you're doing now.

>>18057483
Sounds like you're a pseud.

>>18057483
Never read a nigger's book.

They never will never build anything.

If you're gonna be posting here, read the meme trilogy or at least Infinite Jest

>>18058047
most old books are bad too, it's just that time has already filtered out the drivel

>>18057581
Find a publisher you like and let them do that for you. That's about 90% of a publishers job.

>>18059074
Not all Classics are "The best". Dracula is utter genre fiction drivel and that constitutes as a "Classic".

>>18057829
modernists had a much stronger grasp on art and the contemporary industrial-era-derived alienation than any of those boy-diddling faggots from centuries ago

>>18060726
novels are shit.

>>18057483
It's the opposite of elitist, it's classic plebian aspirationalism. Elites read whatever they enjoy alongside what they are socially obligated to read.

>>18057483
Yes.

>>18057581
It doesn't help that the only books to get any buzz nowadays are some political hacks delusional ramblings, blue check mark tumblrite shit or some edge lord manchild story.

>>18061779
>blue check mark tumblrite shit or some edge lord manchild
do you got any more words you'd like to use

fag

>>18057483
If elitism does not have a positive connotation for you, you have not matured enough.

>>18060726
Sounds lame, you faggot

>>18061807
Not him, but personally I like
>woke
>libtard
>soiboy
>manlet
>onions
>john green
>millenial
>reddite
>niggerlicious
>wife's boyfriend

>>18057609
This guy gets it

>>18057483
Only if classics are elite

>>18057606
>>18057609
What are some good resources to discover worthwhile modern books? Like others have said, it's tough to sift through the garbage

>>18057532
Nice comment

>>18057483
yes, and that's a good thing

>>18057483
There's a type of person here who only reads books with sufficient cultural prestige and will approach anything unknown with a good deal of trepidation. He views literature as a path to intellectual superiority and the high class cultural marker of being "well-read". Anything truly obscure is a waste of his time. The true sweet spot for him is something only just known enough in literary circles to have it's set of fans, but a name that would never be recognised by someone not steeped in the culture.

The problem with this type of person is that they never develop an eye of their own, their own taste. They're no better than the aspirational girls who hang around VIP lounges, hoping to learn the codes of high-end brands and foods, rote-learning what elites talk about to impress their friends back home. This user can recognise a patrician author in a different context, but only after it's been shown to him by trusted tastemakers. He's often unsure of what he thinks of something genuinely novel, he can recognise the presence of experimentation, but delays his definite opinion until he can turn to a cultural authority. He does not have a coherent set of favorites, more of a curated assortment of authors best calculated to show off his impressive taste. He will never truly love literature, only approaching each new author and book as the next checkbox in his eternal, doomed quest to be considered cultured.

read whatever you want and stop giving a shit what anyone else thinks

>>18057483
It depends. If you only read books because they are labeled as 'classics' and not for your own interests, then what's the point?

Yes. It's also transphobic, queerphobic, racist, colonialist and heckin not cool

>>18057829
Almost everything from the 4th century BC on is YA-tier and not actual classics. Classics existed only when hierarchy and aristocracy existed. After the death of Alexander the Great everything came crashing down so there's no canon. Yeats and Eliot for example is garbage just like almost all subsequent poetry. Philosophy took a heavy hit too and it never recovered. Literary ethnography survived the longest such that even 1st century writes like Tacitus are actually good.

tl;dr: If you're reading "classics" published after the completion of Hadrian's Wall you're not actually reading classics most likely. Just the confused mumblings of a lost culture.

>>18062984
based and dare I say redpilled, the true meaning of classics is writing from the classical period.