/lit/ - Literature

>>4770960
No.
I would rather a few people read a great novel, than everyone reading a shit novel.

No. Reading garbage to pass time is useless and does nothing for you. Reading itself is not magical. Everybody reads something. Even if it's just some shitty gossip magazine or Monopoly instructions. Doesn't mean it's doing you good.

>>4770960
I think it really would be better for the most part not to read at all than to read OP pic.
If I were on a desert island with no other reading material, I would fashion a pair of scissors out of coconuts, cut the book into its constituent words or even letters, and create a new book using tree sap and sheets of palm leaves.

I dunno about 'fine'. Better than not reading anything.

Strictly speaking, I've no idea if that book is any good or not as I haven't read it. Seems highly unlikely to be an under-appreciated gem, though.

I figure it's neutral at the absolute worst.

It's like when you see people plowing through GRR Martin. Such a waste of potential reading time.

>>4771004
I know, right? How dare those bastards do something they enjoy!

>>4771018
The gulag guards found torturing prisoners really fun, i guess we shouldn't judge them either.

>>4770960
The last day I heard in class that those books were perfectly written.

It's hard having 15.

>>4771018
>implying that pleasure is a good reason to do anything

heh ok

>>4771029

Yeah, I see no problems with that analogy.

>>4771033

It's the only reason anyone does anything.

>>4770960

why should you have to judge whether it is fine or not that they read something? you sound like a big douche bag. do you also get upset with people who enjoy Oscar movies?

become a better person please

>>4771029
The /lit/ reader found making poor analogies really fun, don't judge them.

Reading isn't the high point of cultural sophistication despite what /lit/ people might think.

At the Day of Judgement we shall not be asked what we have read, but what we have done. -- Thomas à Kempis

Reading bad books might be as harmful to you as eating bad food or as neutral as reading the telephone directory but ultimately it is just something people choose to do and worrying what others are doing is a great distraction from reading.

>>4770980
And you'd rather prefer that a few people eat great food, than everyone eating at McDonalds?

>>4770960
"One can never read too little of bad, or too much of good books: bad books are intellectual poison; they destroy the mind.In order to read what is good one must make it a condition never to read what is bad; for life is short, and both time and strength limited."

>>4771074
"A type of book which we hardly seem to produce in these days, but which flowered with great richness in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, is what Chesterton called the “good bad book”: that is, the kind of book that has no literary pretensions but which remains readable when more serious productions have perished... I would back Uncle Tom's Cabin to outlive the complete works of Virginia Woolf or George Moore, though I know of no strictly literary test which would show where the superiority lies."

>>4771082
I bet Orwell's pleb ass would have been a Tarantino fan.

>>4771090

He wasn't much for graphic violence.

>>4771052
The libertarian maxim "if you don't like it, don't do it" drops dead in the face of reality, we don't live in vacuums, certain behaviours can damage others, or spread dangerous ideas (aren't the two interchangeable anyway?). A community has the right to suppress certain behaviours.

>>4771100

You're keeping it nice and general, I see. Always good to avoid specificity - that shit gets falsifiable. Who likes getting their shit falsified? Fucking nobody, that's who.

>>4771100
That's true but you'd really have to show the damage reading bad books is doing to society as a whole, to reasonably advocate the value of stopping them. Rather than just suggesting the libertarianism I am supposedly espousing (i'm not) is wrong.

>>4771113
>50 shades of grey
>vanilla bitches think they're into bdsm now
>get slapped around, pissed on, bitten and beaten
>hurr durr this isn't what I signed up for i'ma call the cops

50 shades is to libertinism what true detective is to pessimism

It would be better if people didn't give a fuck about stupid shit and even give this 'issue' thought. What's sad is that people actually waste brain power attacking or defending such behaviour.

The real question is 'Why are you so pathetically interested in affairs that don't effect you, even if that interest is as tiny as Agreeing/Disagreeing, or explaining your opinion? There shouldn't be anything to Agree or Disagree to.

Also, I am a hypocrite? Does it matter, is my hypocrisy worth any discontent, assuming I am a hypocrite? Or maybe I'm not a hypocrite and you don't 'understand' where I'm coming from?

Maybe the circumstances behind someone's actions are too unique to make a generalised opinion. Maybe if we didn't care about these things we could live in peace.

>>4771120
>harry potter
>kids think they might be wizards
>christfag parents horrified
>banned from reading any and all books

>catcher in the rye
>teenagers posing their angst for all to see
>people associate reading with being a tosser
>descent into Fahrenheit 451 territory, collapse of civilisation imminent

>The Republic
>people start thinking we need ourselves a philosopher-king
>violent revolutions and counter-revolutions
>conflict goes nuclear
>scraps of humanity clinging to survival in nuclear desolation

Shit. Looks like we're going to have to burn all of them. Literally ALL of them. It's the only way.

>>4771134
>effect

I'm sorry, I can't continue.

>>4771136
and kill erryone with glasses

>>4771141
hahah you cunt

>>4771082

Uncle Tom's Cabin is so fucking horrendous though. But Virginia Woolf is pretty shit too I guess.

Orwell's memoirs and essay are just the best on the other hand

>>4771153

Forgive me, it's a disease.

>>4771159

Yeah, we had Volume 1 in my house when I was a kid (it's mine now). Got the other 3 off Amazon a year or two ago. Autism slightly rattled by V.3 being a different edition, but otherwise probably the best book purchase I've made in a long time.

>>4771164

my mom gave me this for christmas last year: http://www.amazon.com/Essays-Everymans-Library-Classics-Contemporary/dp/0375415033..

It's a surprisingly beautiful edition despite being an everyman's. But I also think it's fitting that Orwell's essays are printed by them

daily reminder that orwell knew fuck all about making a nice cup of tea

>>4771074
>inb4 that quentin pic

>>4771172

Nice, I like the cover.

>>4771179

I've never seen anyone counter his basic principles, tea-wise. I drink a shitload of tea and while I do use bags, against his advice, I do heat the cup before I pour in (boiling) water. It definitely makes a difference, the first few seconds appear to be crucial and pouring into a cold container drains heat from the water that's needed for the tea.

>>4770960
Sure, reading crap is more likely to make them interested in reading better things than reading nothing will.

Besides, reading, especially fiction, is supposed to be for entertainment. Who cares what they read.

>>4770960
But they're not really reading. They are following the latest trend so they can be part of that conversation. It's the same action as watching the popular TV show that everybody else is talking about, or reading about the big news story. Whatever it takes to fit in.

>>4771113
It's lowering the collective good taste

>>4771201
>It's the same action as watching the popular TV show

And you would call that 'not really watching'? Come on.

>>4771214
Your face is lowering the collective good taste. Fuck off with your fictional 'collective' shit. Can you apprehend the collective good taste? Do fluctuations in its 'height' reverberate through your bones?

>>4771191
My problem is that he derides people for using sugar, but uses milk himself. This is a remnant of the past where poorfags had to drink such bad tea the flavour had to be cut to make it drinkable, but there really isn't any excuse nowadays. In addition to masking the flavour, it also supposedly wipes out any health benefits your tea might have.

>>4771217
>Your face is lowering the collective good taste
Then i'll peel it off! What is good and beautiful is obvious, what is ugly and ohlocratic is obvious too, why should we permit ugliness to keep existing, when we can get rid of it easily?

>>4771220

Maybe fancy-ass tea is better without milk. Any shit you buy in bags is definitely not fancy-ass.

>>4771201

people who do not understand the value to be found in paying some attention to contemporary popular culture sicken me.

>>4771220
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9630386
>Catechins from green tea and black tea are rapidly absorbed and milk does not impair the bioavailability of tea catechins.

>>4771018
>50 shades of grey

No one cares.

>game of thrones

You immediately jump out out of the woodwork to defend it.

*le fedora tip*

>Read, read, read. Read everything- trash, classics, good and bad, and see how they do it.

>>4771234
Not that guy, but I just want to mention that one of the top 5 TV shows for the past 10 years running is televized karaoke.

Think about that for a second. Let it seep in. Think of all its ramifications.

>>4771234
Are you saying I sicken you if I haven't read Fifty Shades and can't tell you who won last series of that thing Simon Cowell is part of?.

>>4771265

Truth

>>4771233
Orwell did rightly say you shouldn't bother with bags though.

Bagged tea is the lowest of the low, it's the dust and shake of the tea production process. It's also often tea that is grown and harvested in shitty ways and afterwards cut to shit, releasing way too much tannins which leads to the harsh flavour. Still, most bagged teas are still perfectly drinkable without milk.

Even some half-decent loose leaf tea is a lot better though and in most cases less expensive. Even if you want to take it with milk its the better choice.

>>4771267

I'm saying there is value in being aware of contemporary trends in culture. There are plenty of amazing films being made now that are a direct response to those trends (or attempt to capture them and reflect upon them) and it would be difficult to understand their value if you take the approach that you have to contemporary pop culture. There is worth to be found even if it is only an understanding of the current attitudes held towards lit, film, music, etc

>>4771266
>televized karaoke

Holy shit, that's what it is. Why didn't I see this before?

>>4771277
>there is value in being aware of contemporary trends in culture

We're all aware of them. There's a difference between being aware it exists and diving face-first into it.

>>4770960

I'd say yes. Just like with any art form, you don't start with the bleeding edge, you start at the bottom. If it shows them that reading can be fun/interesting/involving, then that's good. They'll either evolve to want to read other things or keep reading the same crap. I don't feel insecure enough to shit on people for their reading preferences.

I'll reread Moby-Dick and you'll read about the dick, no prob.

>>4771044
>hedonism
get out

>>4771293

I see the displeasure you feel has prompted you to attack me.

Offer me a sufficiently pleasurable incentive and I'll leave, alright. Whatcha got?

>>4771287

All of that sperm

>>4771277
I think you're starting an argument with me that is outside of the point I was trying to make. I certainly didn't pass across any information about my own tastes. I was simply saying a lot of people who read Fifty Shades weren't in the mood for a book, they just wanted to be in the loop. I read a lot and obviously know what that book is, but it's not one that I would be interested in reading.

>>4771277
>There are plenty of amazing films being made now that are a direct response to those trends

Not really.
Oh, consumerism is bad and degrading. Oh, pop culture is stupid and cruel. Oh, angry, white men are angry and white. Oh, no one considers anything real unless it is recorded on video.
Thank you, Mr Goldthwait. I could never have figured any of these things out on my own!

Anyway, the problem with these films is the same problem with trash fiction and the same problem with people who think they're doing something good by putting Emerson quotes into image macros or putting "poetry" on Facebook/youtube.
It gives people the illusion of intelligence, and so satisfies their sense of guilt. Guilt, that aimless feeling that you're not doing what you should be doing with your life, was once a powerful motivating force. It made America a country capable of democracy, because every single person read. They read the newspaper and were in reading circles and this was once the country that European sociologists probed in a desperate search for illiterate peasants.
Now, people can have a twitter feed or read 50 Shades or Harry Potter, etc, etc, and it satisfies that sense of guilt at an easier cost than dragging yourself through Faulkner or Joyce or whomever.

define crap
define at least they're reading
define true

>>4771362

What are you even talking about? Did I anywhere list any films that I had in mind in my post? No, I don't mean mediocre American comedies that explicitly make fun of pop culture trends you arrogant dick. I meant films that are extremely aware of the mentality of our contemporary world and integrate it into their films stylistically. (see: Detention, Southland Tales, Gamer, etc and read Steven Shaviro's articles addressing these films)

Never make silly assumptions and then base an entire silly argument around them.

>>4771265
The truest statement.
To know good you have to know bad.

>>4771302
I want to know what it feels like to have your hands submerged in it, squeezing the clumps through your fingers, it sounds like complete ecstasy

itt: pretentious twats

pretty sure you neckbeards who are spending their lives getting some useless degree and then proceeding to do nothing have no right to determine what constitutes "good taste"

>>4771415
>itt: pretentious twats

And welcome! You're finally home.

>>4771415
pretty sure someone who posts on 4chan isn't particularly qualified to criticize how anyone spends their life
eating garbage isn't so bad

>>4771074
>>4771265
Meanwhile Schopenhauer is renowned the world over for being one of the greatest stylists of all time while Faulkner is some backwater wordy hack.

>>4771404

I want to know what it feels like to cuddle up next to Queequeg, wrap my arms around him, and find a warm center in a drafty room

>>4771415
Don't need the 'right' to have an opinion. Just the ability to form an opinion, and the motivation to share it.

50 shades of grey is shit. I don't care if people read it.

>>4771442
The best part of the book.

>>4771287
>I'll reread Moby-Dick and you'll read about the dick, no prob.
Moby Dick isn't bad but it drags on too long. A good editor could cut it down to about half length and it would be a much better book.

>>4771472

I'm not that dude but I disagree. I find basically the entire book hugely enjoyable and interesting and I think that the scope of the book and the structure are both necessary for building up the epic scope of the story that is so essential for building up a sense of dread as you become more and more aware of the depth of Ahab's need for revenge and of the sheer horrible size of the whale itself.

>>4771472
If only you had been part of the project that book could have been great!

/lit/ thinks listening to pop is wrong and complex artistic music is the only kind that is valid to enjoy.

That said, the books are crap, and reading being good for its own sake is a mind-numbingly stupid concept. Challenging books force you to think, but other than that books are just a form of entertainment.

>>4771293
nice argument

>>4771495
If anything there is a consensus that there is a correlation between philosophical literacy and appreciation of Gucci Mane.

>>4771495
no that's /mu/. /lit/ would the the equivalent of the person who listens exclusively to classical and derides all other artists and genres as inferior save for one or two 20th century composers.

>>4770960
>even if its fucking outside of marriage, its sex, right?
>Atleast he isnt a loser, right?

>>4771068
yes

how will i/they know its shit unless i read it and form my own opinion?

>>4771588
That's a terrible analogy, go back and try again.
Or better yet come up with an actual argument.

>>4771602
You can read top-rated Twilight fanfiction instead. Oh, wait.

>>4771621
what titles would you suggest

>>4771593

Never change /lit/, never change.

>>4771387
>Detention
lol you think detention was trying to make its viewers think deeply about their realities? i completely agree with you that they incorporated the trends and conditions of contemporary american culture into their film but i don't think they did so for a philosophical or inquisitive purpose (and if they really did then jesus titty fucking christ they missed their mark). i think they did it because in the united states, it is funny to make fun of ourselves and basically anyone and everyone. this is something americans can do and have been doing very well. but try and get them to laugh at themselves and then reconsider their actions and ways? that would be a big fat fucking no.

>>4771265
Faulkner is one of these assholes who literally wanted to be a professional quote maker.

great novelist tho

>>4771277
I agree with this guy. I'm not very knowledgeable about literature, but in other mediums this statement is especially true. In music, bands like the Unicorns, of Montreal, the Magnetic Fields, etc toy with the modern idea of pop music. In art, folks like Andy Warhol and other folks in the pop art movement played around with things like advertisements and consumer culture to create some great art.

Plus, anything can really spark an artist's imagination. Like Stephen King was first inspired by cheesy, shit-tier horror films and pulp fiction books.

Anything has worth depending on how you interpret it and how it affects you. And anyways I don't see how vague claims of bad literature "lowering the collective good taste" is worse than people just being complete philistines and not engaging in art at all.

>>4771265
But in this context he's saying to read bad writing to improve your writing craft. It doesn't imply that the average reader should subject themselves to trash. The sole value of bad books are to serve as negative examples.

>>4771546
This is so true of the smartest people I know.

>>4770983
Or reading 4chan

>>4771915
>LOOK GUYS SEE I POINTED OUT HOW POINTLESS 4CHAN IS AND THAT GUY IS PROBABLY A LOSER HAHAHA
>YEAH I'M THAT GUY!

>>>/reddit/

>>4771923
>so mad

>>4771929
>Better reddit harder
Why do you guys always get mad and announce it when you get told to stop being retards?

>>4771929
Not the same guy:
>>4771915

>>4771936
>Since I have no username , everyone is magically retarded

Every time. You guys have like a flowchart of how to be toxic retards on 4chan.

>>4770998
*best

>>4771986

No, worst.

I don't know what kind of lies certain people ITT are telling themselves to big-up their reading habits, but damn. You guys need a more fruitful source of self-worth and pronto.

>>4771932
stop being so /b/

>>4772006
>I don't know what kind of lies certain people ITT are telling themselves to big-up their reading habits, but damn. You guys need a more fruitful source of self-worth and pronto.
>hurr durr
>I don't get jokes
Calm down

>>4771004

As far as fantasy goes, GRRM is good. I don't read fantasy, but plenty of you faggots do and you could be reading much worse than GRRM.

>>4771120
>Banning books because some people are stupid.
Welcome to the nanny state, where parents expect the government to teach their own children how not to be assholes.

By the way, women already love BDSM. That's why the books sold in the first place.

Why do you care? How does it effect you if people read books that you deem crap?

>>4773029

we live on the same planet. people don't exist in bubbles. what they do have consequences.

>>4771593
Upper class commie anti-capitalist elitist fascist, please go.

>>4771573
/mu/ is all about ironic folk, not complex music.

>>4770960
>cropping out the faces of the thirsty milfs who are reading this
Do you get off on the aesthetics of book covers or milfs?

>>4774941
Hi Fem, I see you haven't responded to the offer of taking my 24 year old virginity.

>>4773029
why discuss anything

reading in public makes you seem cultured, even if it's that garbage

or did women actually read this in privacy?

>>4771201
yet everyone on /lit/ complains that they have no one to talk to about their more 'intellectually stimulating' reading material. The whole board mindset is an egotistic contradiction.

>>4771136
>Abzurdah by Cielo Latini
>Teenagers in Argentina think they can be borderline bitches
>2006
>get into chat
>lots of girls pretending they cut themselves and are anorexic
>my ex was one of them

if starving children are eating shit its ok because at least they're eating
idk man sounds sketchy

>>4770960
women read erotica for the same reason men watch porn

>>4781212
lol no they don't
>this is what male humans actually believe

>>4771253
I almost spit out my soup

To answer OP: No, but only if that is all a person reads.

Reading generic romance, thriller, adventure, and so forth do the same thing that television does. Which is overstimulate and titilate for nothing. In other words, it yields a reward for no input or work. As an occasional pleasure, this is fine. But when it composes the entirety of a persons input, it will make them boring and lazy. They expect you to lead conversation and rely on others for the impetus of going places and doing things. It makes a person into a spectator.

>>4771932
>>4771923
Its like Im really on /v/!

Itt:

no