/lit/ - Literature

>>2723773
>answering your own question

>doesn't understand what the word classic means

>>2723774
No people don't read classics because they enjoy them, they read them because they are marketed as the best and classy. That's manipulation.

>>2723780
sigh

Listen, there is no "absolute objective truth" that can be attained through the lens of human sensory.

There is however "a really good fucken approximation of the truth", that is nearly absolute. You understand?

There is the concept of objectivity and subjectivity, but there is a point where subjective elements cease being purely subjective, and turn out to be more objective.

Objectively speaking, using the criteria of artistic merit based on skill, difficulty, and execution will show that Twilight is worse than War and Peace.

Get this concept through your thorax, roach.

>implying reading is just for the enjoyment of a cool story

>>2723779
Of recognized authority or excellence. You can't define excellence for books.

>>2723780

Once you're out of high-school for about a year, you might actually pick up a book from the classics section of your local library and find that you're most certainly wrong.

Or, you'll just be wrong.

>I'm incapable of enjoying the classics therefore everybody else must be pretending to like them

you truly are a pathetic little nugget of shit.

>>2723782
But the elements that makeup skill difficulty and execution are only based on traditionalism. They aren't inherent in the books.

>>2723783
This.

Most of the books /lit/ reads don't even fucking have stories. For me there's kind of an artistic conversation going on through the centuries, and you can't just skip Victorian lit, for example, because you don't like it. It'd be like not listening to any 70s music and then trying to talk about pop music today.

>>2723794
You've falsely attributing all the characteristics of skill difficulty and execution within the frame of "traditionalism". There are far more elements to consider than simply that. Don't try to reduce a complicated thing sir.

>Taste is subjective. There's no laws to literature like there is for maths

Answered your own question bub

inb4 some retard goes "math is based on axioms just like literary criticism that means they're equals!"

>>2723815
Maths is based on how western minds perceive the world. Literary criticism is based on oppressive rich people ideology circlejerk appeal to tradition.

>>2723818
>math is a social construct

Lol no.

>>2723825
Godel's theorem.

>>2723818
>Maths is based on [...] the world
>i literally have NO clue what mathematics are please rape my face

>>2723837
You can't do math without sensory feedback.

>>2723825
>implying there never has been anything other than base ten math...
Check out Babylonian math, it's base 60

>>2723834
>hi guys i just heard of this thing it's supposed to be like a mindfuck for mathematicians lol i have no clue what it means but i'll throw it out anyway hoping no one else has a clue about this either!

please, kill yourself. pretty please.

>>2723847
If you don't care about sharing results it's absolutely doable.

>>2723825
Math is an artificial language very similar to the symbolic logic of the 20th century. It's a system of rules that can yield certainty when operating within those rules.

>>2723849
It proves the arbitrariness of formal systems like maths. You're out of your league, kid. Stop posting.

>>2723852
No it's not.

>>2723857
The "arbitrariness"? Are you fucking kidding me? a) That's not what it proves. b) Everyone knows mathematics are arbitrary. That's the point, you fucking idiot. c) None of the above would prove that math is a so


why the fuck do i bother arguing about math on /lit/. you can all go suck a cock.

>>2723861
Why would you need sensory feedback to do math?

>>2723881
Because it's patterns in sensory feedback that make you consider maths in the first place. If you were just a brain in a tub you wouldn't think of maths.

Have you ever read moby dick?. It's not a classic, It's a masterpiece. That's why this is called classic, the book can survive against the time.

>>2723893
Most books can survive against time. The just don't have the hypocrisy of traditionalism backing them.

ITT: retard tries to erroneously simplify complicated things.

Roach thread.

>>2723848
I do a lot of my math in base 16, but it's still the same math. The ratio of the diameter of a circle to its circumference is the same constant regardless of what social system you're working from. Space aliens will have the same value for pi as we do, they'll just call it something different.

ITT

>Try to read classic book
>Words are hard
>Can't understand
>Why do people read this shit
>Must be traditionalism

>>2723798
How do you evaluate those characteristics outside of tradition?

>>2723857

What's the difference between someone "abusing" a thesaurus and someone being "creative". The latter is decided by tradition.

OP's floccinaucinihilipilification of tradition in the evaluation of the quality of literature is silly, IMO.

>>2723782
But something more difficult doesn't necessarily mean better

>>2723912

I read the classics because I'm curious about them.
I want to see what all the fuss is about. I usually end up enjoying reading them.

>>2724617
Victim of marketing right here.

>>2724624
>Enjoys reading them
>Victim

>>2724624
Even if that were true, would it be a problem?
I like what I read, and one neat thing about reading well-known books is they're available at most libraries.

>>2723773
>Why do people read the classics?
Because they enjoy them.

>>2724624
Heh heh, who do you think is "marketing" these books? Why these ones rather than others? If the book has no inherent good quality then couldn't any other book be makreted? Wouldn't marketing then be based around living people who can profit from it and not be based around books people can get for free in the public domain?

If you think recommending a book because you liked it and you think the person you're recommending it to will enjoy it is the same as marketing then who cares about being a product of marketing. Oh no, taking advice is so stupid isn't it!?!?!?

What about modern classics, dickhead? No tradition there.

well, classics in literature are here for decades, or even centuries

besides the historical value, a lot passed for thousand of critiques and even with some people hating determinated book/author, the majority liked and rated that work in a high value

of course we have some "classicals" that are just pretentious garbage, but I read really good books with centuries of age, because some structures about a fictional story are the same since Gilgamesh (good dialogues and scenarios, capacity of immersion, empathy with the hero, etc)

And you are right in the point about taste is subjective, OP, and the personal taste varies with the time and society, but some books are still fun and fresh even with generations of time.

(sorry my bad english)

>>2724624
Look, if publishing houses were able to market anything so well that they could effectively manipulate almost anything into reading anything, as you seem to believe they are capable of doing, it would be bestsellers, romances, thrillers and that sort of thing - books that you read once and forget about and then move on to the next thing. Why would they want you to read books that are a) public domain, so since anyone can publish it there's loads of competition over the same book, including free ebooks and cheapo lines like Wordsworth Classics, b) often long or difficult, meaning people spend longer on them, and c) deep enough to be inherently re-readable, so people spend time reading stuff they've already bought over buying new shit. That doesn't make business sense.

>enjoy classics
>be 12 years old

pick one.

if you're older than 12 then i feel for your 12 year old mind.

>>2723857

>>2724744
>tfw 12 years and trying to read classics

Shit was hard.

>>2724679
You just don't get it,

man,

fucking capitalist pigs

>>2723857
Nope.

>>2724962

You do realize that most classics are public domain and free right? There's no marketing involved. No capital traded. And even if there was capitol involved, they would be spending it on KNOWLEDGE rather than decadence. People like you make me feel ashamed to be a socialist.

Literature isn't like maths, though. It's a tradition, a discourse. The influence of these older classics on newer books is immense. To not read these would be missing out on style, form, ideas, etc. Have you ever wondered why University courses tend to study Epics in the first year, then work their way up? The canon isn't entirely arbitrary.

>>2724976
So what you're saying is that literature is only accessible to the few schools in the circlejerk through the ages?

>>2724989
I think you know very well what I'm getting at but decided to steer the argument away from my point because you clearly can't rebuff it. The classics are available to anybody with an internet connection anyway. Nice try though.

>>2724996
You assume physical accessibility = mental accessibility.

>>2724974
Stop letting the corporations control you,

man,

free your mind

universal health care

>>2724997
Most people are stupid. I don't think neglecting the classics is going to change that.

sage

You've walked into a book shop for the first time since school.
You have no idea what to get, but you want something of quality.
>Classics

You want a decent grounding in a certain genre
>Classics

There are a few I've bought I've quit for being utter shit;
Ulysees was very pointless and annoying to say the least.
Heart of Darkness had too slow a pace for what I was hoping.