/lit/ - Literature

>>3061339
>it's

>>3061339
>I'm more knowledgable and aware of social issues, history, ideology, etc. than the vast majority of people,

No you're not.

xkcdcomicaboutsheep.jpg

You're lying so I don't really give a shit about whatever point you're trying to make.

most conversations, exams, essays.... and life in general at university, particularly at undergraduate level, revolve around being able to regurgitate sound-bites at will. The internet is fantastic at processing complex sources of information into easily digestible sound-bites.

Oh God I hope this guy isn't being serious

>>3061345
You have an overly opportunistic view of most people. Most people means a large part of all people. A uni level guy who reads plenty wikipedia doesn't have to try hard to a broader general knowledge than 99% of the world population.

>>3061339
I'm a hybrid of both. I read broadly about all kinds of things online and delve into depth when something truly interests me. It's the best way.

>>3061375
*optimistic

Mistake might be because I just scrolled past Machiavelli's face.

>>3061345
>>3061348

Looks like I've caused some bookworm butthurt

I'm legit not lying. I've only opened up a handful of books in the past 10 years, and I've never finished reading any of them. I'd like to, but I just don't feel like I have the time.

Also, I knew I'd get the 'no, you're not more special than anyone else' type of response, but I really am. For example if I ask them what feudalism or ontology is, they won't have a clue. Same if I ask them about what Orwell or Nietzsche wrote about. Some people at my university will, but they'll only know what they've learned from a university unit or from high school. Hell, what I learned from Age of Empires II is more than these people know about the Middle Ages.

>>3061384
>most people are dumb

novel insight bro

Yeah you likely are quite smarter than vastly everyone BUT that IN no WAY invalidates BOOKS, many of which are good fun. The internet is a thing, books are a thing!

>>3061384
>I'm legit not lying
>I'm so smart I don't even need books!
>AoE 2 taught me so much history
>I lie on online boards to make me feel better about myself

>>3061392
>Yeah you likely are quite smarter than vastly everyone

>>3061361

But the people I know who read books, they know less than me.

I wouldn't consider what I know to be 'sound bites'. I don't copy/paste from wikipedia, I write from my past knowledge and develop ideas of my own. I think sites like wikipedia just get rid of all the irrelevant stuff like 'It was a cold, windy day in the town of...'

>>3061384
Age of Empires II references confirms for troll

>>3061384

I have no doubt that you haven't read a book in the past 10 years. It's very common for stupid people to never open a book.

These are the lies I was referring to.

>I'm in my second year at the top university in my country
>I easily score higher (sometimes the highest) than the majority of my peers
>I'm more knowledgable and aware of social issues, history, ideology, etc. than the vast majority of people

Most people don't (attempt to) accrue skeletal fragments of vaguely-academic information.

Either they're wholly disinterested in the general pursuit of knowledge - perhaps because it's 'boring, pointless, high-falutin' (outside university) or 'useless, irrelevant, not specific to my degree' (within university).

Or, and these people represent a very small fraction of the population (perhaps just the one guy who outscores you in class), they're so overwhelmed by intellectual curiosity that it simply isn't possible for them to 'skim' a topic, without proper or complete understanding. You, by virtue of your strong mnemonic gift, may have the capacity to belong to this latter camp, but only if you develop the kind of dedication necessary to give substance to your erudition. You might not want to do so, though, and that's totally fine - you'll probably do quite well outside of academia, though you'll be constantly frustrated by petty feelings of superiority.

Aside from all that, however, there's the fact that great literature has the power to access enthralling imaginative realms, providing a level of entertainment that is decidedly distinct from - though not necessarily superior to - that provided by other media. Furthermore, it heightens our empathetic faculties, making human interaction - and, consequently, life - more satisfying, interesting and, ultimately, tolerable. In short, academia aside, books are fun and make you a better person.

However, if literature isn't for you, so be it. I just think it's a shame to deprive a good mind of that satisfaction.

>tfw impressing girls, teachers and coworkers with all of the useless trivia I learned from reading Cracked

>>3061423

>great literature

Yeah, but literature can be read online too, in what I would argue is a better form. Just because it's not on physical paper, or isn't 5 billion words long, it doesn't mean it's lacking in richness or that it's not literature at all.

>you'll be constantly frustrated by petty feelings of superiority

Why would I be frustrated by feelings of superiority? That doesn't make sense

>>3061403

Again, they're not lies

hurrdurr 'different to me therefore must be troll'

BTW here's a story I have to share with both you: In my first semester of my first year I got the top grade for an essay even after handing it late. My lecturer/marker personally called me to congratulate me and informed me that I had recieved the highest mark. She asked if she could use in future for herself, and remarked in the marker's notes that she learned a few things herself from my essay. It was an investigation of a primary source coupled with secondary literature.

I know I'm going to get the hurr 'troll! liar! hurr troll' comments on this story, but it's legit. It hasn't happened again though.

>>3061476

Your word means nothing. You can't prove anything you've claimed so you might as well stop mentioning it. What we do have to go on are your posts in this thread. And since you haven't said a single intelligent thing, and in doing so, have only managed to contradict your proposition that reading books is unnecessary, the only thing you've really accomplished is making yourself look like a fucking retard.

>>3061476

>Literature can be read online too... Just because it's not on physical paper

Woah, woah, woah! I never made this a 'purist' discussion about the inherent superiority of paper (or verbosity). You're putting words in the mouth of a - traditionalist - straw-man you've constructed in opposition to your conception of yourself as an edgy iconoclast.

The only thing I can engage with (the only part of your post that was actually in response to what I wrote) is the assertion that your method - Wikipedia skimming - doesn't deprive you of any of the 'richness' of literature in its truest form. That, to me, seems ridiculous, for reasons outlined in my original post. A summary is always going to be deficient - emotionally, technically, experientially. Above all else, and I'm repeating myself here, it's less enjoyable.

>Why would I be frustrated by feelings of superiority? That doesn't make sense

Imagine if your entire life was spent conversing with children, constantly patronising and simplifying. You're going to get bored.

>>3061516

>You're putting words in the mouth of a - traditionalist - straw-man you've constructed in opposition to your conception of yourself as an edgy iconoclast.

Yah got 'im!

>>3061497

>Fucking retard

Butthurt bookworm detected.

Your words are worthless and your opinion is discarded, pleb.

>>3061516

> I never made this a 'purist' discussion about the inherent superiority of paper

No and I never even suggested you said paper was 'superior', so you've made a strawman of me. I implied that you claimed if it's not on paper then 'it's lacking in richness or that it's not literature at all'. I base this on the following assertion you made: 'great literature has the power to access enthralling imaginative realms, providing a level of entertainment that is decidedly distinct from - though not necessarily superior to - that provided by other media'. I took from it that by 'other media' you were including the internet.

>edgy iconoclast

I came here thinking I could have a modern and thought-provoking discussion about the role of the internet as a new mode of informational transfer, and what impact this has or should have on books.

Instead I have been accused of being a lying troll, and confronted with a range of insults. I'm disappointed. But you know, I think it's ironic, because the replies to this thread support my point that people who read books today aren't knowledgable or useful. Instead of providing constructive criticism or actually even talking about my original question, which was 'are books dead in this information age? Why/Why not?', you have instead chosen to assault my character and it's devolved into a shit-slinging contest about how inferior or conceited I apparently am.

I can see there's not actually going to be a discussion about the original question I posed, so I'll just sit back and watch the butthurt as it unfolds.

What university and degree? Or at least degree and country.

you are really fucking dumb

that's all there is to it

>>3062022
>I came here thinking I could have a modern and thought-provoking discussion about the role of the internet as a new mode of informational transfer, and what impact this has or should have on books.

That isn't what you did though. You basically pitched your argument as: "I'm smarter than people who read books." On a board for people who read books.

>>3062030

Not relevant to my question. This should be a discussion about my question, not about me.

>>3062033

>you are really fucking dumb. that's all there is to it

Is this the average opinion of a person who has been educated by reading books?

>3062037

I thought people on this board would be intelligent and educated enough not to take my story personally. My story was to illustrate that one does not need to read books to be knowledgable or intelligent, given the new sources of information we have today. So the story serves as an introduction to my question, why is are books dead in this information age? I did say you have to agree, I asked 'Why/Why not?'

>>3062061

Correction: should read 'I didn't say you have to agree', and I was replying to >>3062037

>>3062061
You are going to get demolished in the real world.

>>3062081

I'm doing great in the real world so far

>>3062061
>I thought people on this board would be intelligent and educated enough not to take my story personally. My story was to illustrate that one does not need to read books to be knowledgable or intelligent, given the new sources of information we have today. So the story serves as an introduction to my question, why is are books dead in this information age? I did say you have to agree, I asked 'Why/Why not?'

Ok, if you want to pretend that you didn't set the whole thing up in an offensive way, I'll look the other way and give you a real answer as to why you aren't really asking anything worth answering.

You're working off of a different metric for the words "knowledgeable" and "intelligent" than we are. You can't even spell "knowledgeable" on the computer, where you presumably have spell-check. Yes, you can learn certain things from stumbling around on Wiki and Youtube. No, you can't hold a real conversation about anything, because when you decide that Wiki's strength is 'cutting out the useless bits,' you end up without much depth of knowledge. Being able to summarize a novel isn't knowledge, being able to discuss the novel is. You know things in a way that would help you win at Jeopardy, but not in a way that makes you a good conversationalist or a good essayist without materials to review right in front of you.

>>3062085
Heh.

>>3062089

> You can't even spell "knowledgeable" on the computer, where you presumably have spell-check.

No spell-check in my browser. It's one of the words I always spell wrong, I have a few words I always spell wrong. I also tend to leave out or add in words occasionally. I'm on an anonymous imageboard, not writing an essay. If it was an essay I'd go through it and make sure there are no mistakes.

>without much depth of knowledge

Explain my story from last year in >>3061476
then

>>3062022
>pleb
as if there was any other way to make ur onions invalid round here

What you're saying isn't new. People have done the same with encyclopedias for a very, very long time, so don't expect some Fahrenheit 451 digest age any time soon. I know there's a 19th century French novel that satirizes this, but Bouvard et Pécuchet is the only one I can think of. But this isn't really the main issue. Your real problem, the problem with you as an individual rather than some anonymous opinion, is that you're only doing this for others. Rather than develop a cultivated interior intellect, you act as a relay for the thoughts of others, for a cause that is not your own. Teachers like this because it's easier to work with ideas you've seen over and over again, but that serves their interests, not yours. You're a shiny apple without a core. Luckily however, it is true that the dulling of the information age puts you in good (soulless) company, though obviously you will consider to feel a weird superiority that is never tested or really proven.

>>3062111
Finish reading my post. I know it was longer than what you're used to working with:
>You know things in a way that would help you win at Jeopardy, but not in a way that makes you a good conversationalist or a good essayist without materials to review right in front of you.

>>3062125

tl;dr 'no further discussion necessary, you just suck'

Sorry bro, a 19th century novel isn't going to cut it, they didn't know about the internet back then.

>you act as a relay for the thoughts of others

Don't we all? I mean where do you get your ideas from, you get them from your books don't you? After all, you just suggested some obscure French writer to me.

And refer to my previous story. I actually introduced new knowledge to my lecturer. Another story: In my final school year I got in trouble for writing a short story involving pedophilia, cultism and mass suicide. After I argued about it with the principle though, he agreed to give it the OK. Show how was I serving their interests then? And I still come up with ideas, which although not entirely my own because they build on others, are not sourced from my university course much but from sources I have read/heard outside of university.

>You're a shiny apple without a core
>Soulless

Dafuq are you on about? lol

I agree OP. It's not just books that are obsolete, it's the whole spectrum of education. That is why I dropped out of school. I live with my mother now and browse wikipedia all day. I'm the smartest person I know so naturally I avoid contact with the idiots still wasting their time in school reading books. We've got a bright future ahead of us, OP.

>>3062151

Yeah, I read the whole thing.

As I said, explain how in my story, my lecturer learned stuff from my me although you claim I have no depth of knowledge.

Also I'm not a good conversationalist because I'm shy, but when I do talk, I never run out of stuff to talk about. I enjoy lecturing people on what I know about a broad array of subjects. The subjects I don't/wouldn't be able to talk about are mathematics, physics, chemistry, engineering, etc. - those subjects don't particularly interest me and I don't have a very good knowledge of them (though still better than the average person. I did advanced maths and chemistry in high school and did reasonably well. Also got Distinctions for both subjects in national competition).

Christ, this is embarrassing. I'm going to go to sleep now and try and forget that this person actually exists.

>>3062167

Nice try

But I did very well at school, and now I'm in my second year at a top university getting top grades.

tldr

what are you studying?

>>3062176

Refer to first section of >>3062061

>>3062158
>you just suggested some obscure French writer to me.

Demonstrative of your lack of cultural history.

Literature's greatest use is to improve how we relate to other people. It's not to convey information; it's to improve contemplation and breadth of thought, not knowledge.

It's a testament to our educational system's poor standards that you excel in your classes. Someone of real intelligence wouldn't brag about it.

>>3062176

"This isn't about me, but look at all these things I do, I'm smarter than everyone and I'm in the best college in the country, I teach the teachers and I've proven books are obsolete. But don't ask me any specific questions because this isn't about me."

>>3062158
>19th century novel isn't going to cut it
What's the difference between a paper encyclopedia and an online one?

I'm not talking about you being a pawn for anyone, the matter at hand is that you don't value ideas for yourself, only for others. Even when you were trying to refute this, you need someone else in the story (the principal) to prop you up. The soulless etc is hyperbole, obviously, but when's the last time you digested any of this information for yourself rather than for school?

>>3062183
>mprove how we relate to other people. It's not to convey information; it's to improve contemplation and breadth of thought, not knowledge.

>Literature...it's not to convey information

hahaohwow.jpg

>Literature's greatest use is to improve how we relate to other people

Alright, if that's what you think.

>Demonstrative of your lack of cultural history

My culture isn't French culture. No doubt you list me thousands of writers I've never heard of. There are literally millions of authors for one to read from, it's about being selective. I actually have read some French authors, such as Georges Perec.

Tell me, how did reading Flaubert improve how you relate to other people? (lel)

>>3062187

>I teach the teachers and I've proven books are obsolete

3/10, made me lol

>>3062194

>What's the difference between a paper encyclopedia and an online one?

Well for one thing you can use a quick search function instead of spending time trying to find what page it's on. You can also do a keyword search to find the specific section that relates to what you want.

Encyclopaedias themselves are designed to be concise though. I have an set of them myself, and I occasionally use them to look up things. Each article usually only takes up half a dozen pages at the most.

Novels are not like encylopaedias.

>you don't value ideas for yourself, only for others

I don't understand what you mean. I value ideas for myself. For instance I'm an atheist and have spent a great deal of time watching online debates between theists and atheists to finally come to my position. I didn't do it for anyone else, it has nothing really to do with school/university, I did it for myself because I was interested in learning the truth.

This thread is cracking me up. Top university in your country? Let me guess. Myanmar? Sudan?

>>3062213

No, I don't remember the global rank, but I'm sure it's in the top 50 at least

>>3062171
I reposted it for you and you still aren't getting it. Whatever bro.

>>3062227

How's that 'good conversationalist' thing working out for you?

>>3062233
Typically I speak with people who have a functional use of the English language, and it goes pretty well. Speaking with the OP here, we're hitting a snag. I wonder if a lack of respect for reading has anything to do with his poor comprehension...?

>>3062234

>a lack of respect for reading

Not reading books =/= not reading at all

Learn son.

>>3062241
> I think sites like wikipedia just get rid of all the irrelevant stuff like 'It was a cold, windy day in the town of...'

Again, you say "Reading" with the belief that the meaning of the word is lax enough to describe the way you consume facts as sentence fragments, when a board like the one you're currently attempting to troll considers it a slightly more loaded word.

>>3062247

>consume facts as sentence fragments

What does that even mean?

What is it with you and the word 'fragments'?

>you say "Reading" with the belief that the meaning of the word is lax enough

No, I clearly imply that reading is a positive thing, i.e. reading through wikipedia articles. I never said reading is a bad thing in itself, nor have I used the term alone by myself. It's not my fault if some of you on this board cannot help but isolate words out of their proper context and get butthurt over them.

>>3061339

No, they aren't. Because summaries/encyclopedic entrances can't span the wholeness of some subject.
For example: I'm actually studying Heidegger's 'The Origins of The Work of Art' for my Metaphysics class. At the beggining of the course I went on a search for online material that tried to summarize or epitomize the original work, so I could get by without buying the fucking book(yes, I'm a poorfag). Well, the thing is, yes, I learned a whole bunch of Heidegger's philosophy only with the summaries, ok. But, after I managed to get the book per se, I came to the conclusion that my previous intendment of the topic was very fragile, perhaps obtuse. When I compare the two fonts now, the book and the whole spectrum of discussion/summarization of the same book I've found on the internet, I can guarantee you that reading the actual book is undispensable.
I could give you other arguments for the need of actual literature, but I think I've proved my point well.

>>3062256
That's my first time using the word 'fragments.' You're really proving that you have no comprehension here, and you can't even place punctuation properly. What were you attempting to prove to us again?