I have literally never read a book voluntarily in my life

[Anonymous No.10323309]

Anytime I've read a book, it was for an assignment and I read maybe 3/4's of it before stopping and bsing the rest.

I want to get into reading, but I find a lot of the classics suggested here boring as fuck. where should I start to build up a tolerance of some sort?

[Anonymous No.10323337]

Try reading some short stories and novellas first, if you still find those boring, then I don't know what you're expecting when reading books.

[Anonymous No.10323362]

>>10323337
This is good advice.

Go to your local library or used book shop and see if they have any old Norton Readers available. Intro to Short Fiction, Intro to Literature, stuff like that. It is literally the kind of boring old shit you'd read in college classes. Immerse yourself. It will be good for you; you will find things you enjoy and things you don't and you will learn to discriminate and build a genuine enthusiasm.

[Anonymous No.10323375]

>>10323337
>>10323362
I just don't understand, do you guys genuinely find books like The Catcher in the Rye or Brave New World enjoyable? They're so dry.

[Anonymous No.10323403]

>>10323375
Lmao those are meant to be the entertaining juvenilia to prep you for big boy /lit/. Just give up, you're never going to make it, and if you try you'll just shit up the board like most idiots who can't into the Greeks, Bible or Continental Philosophy

[Anonymous No.10323409]

>>10323375
You don't enjoy any books at all and came here with a desire to learn, so why are you acting as if Catcher and BNW really are bad (or "dry", whatever that is supposed to mean), as if you know shit?

[Anonymous No.10323428]

>>10323309
what subjects do you think you'd like

much of /lit/ is dry so start with something juicy like Fear and Loathing

[Anonymous No.10323453]

>>10323309
Op, I was you. The first book I read recreationally was The Gunslinger by Stephen King, when I was 21. I haven't finished the series because it seemed to get exponentially more ridiculous with each novel and because King has a fetish for tying his stories together and I didn't want to have to read everything related to the series.

I also suggest buying a few books that were directly adapted into your favorite movies. I am not a book elitist, I am an avid consumer of all storytelling mediums, but even I have to admit I very commonly agree that "the book was better." In fact, off the top of my head, the only book I've ever read that I hated compared to the movie was Holes by Louis Sachar. All I remember is that he frequently addressed the reader, which I hate, and spelled out connections that the movie effectively let the viewers intuit.

Also, classics are classic for a reason. I purchased a bunch of Canterbury Classics compilation books in the pursuit of becoming 'well read.' I was hardly interested in them and I was purchasing new books I was interested in before I got to them for a long time. That being said, when I finally did force myself to read them, I wasn't disappointed.

Lastly, one of the biggest reasons I never read growing up was because, as a result of ADHD, I often daydreamed while reading and found that I didn't have any reflection of the last however many pages, and would go back and re-read. I would suggest to anyone with this problem that they simply do not re-read. You will be shocked how much you actually do recall as you continue on, and if you're actually interested enough in what you missed, you can re-read the book.

[Anonymous No.10323456]

>>10323362

This.

>>10323375
If you're not prepared to suffer some dullness or dryness and genuinely attempt to learn how to enjoy literature, you're never going to "get into lit." It's the same as any hobby. "Can you teach me woodworking without me having any patience for instruction manuals on the basics of woodworking? What if I find making small boxes and other beginner projects boring and I just want to make a canoe?"

[Anonymous No.10323460]

>>10323375
I read catcher in the rye like 15 years ago. It was dry, but I was a kid and I'm sure I missed a lot of the author's intent. If I read it again today I might really despise the misanthropic sperglet, especially if he reminds me of myself. Or I might just think it was boring again.

Point is I would never have developed the ability to analyze stories without putting in some time to understand what literature was about and the methods authors use. I recommended the Norton because it's cheap, readily available, and full of well regarded curated classics. You might be interested in these instead:

Borges - Labyrinths
>Collection of short stories featuring metafiction and magical realism. Fun.

Vonnegut - Slaughterhouse Five
>A fictionalized account of the author's experience as a US soldier on the ground during the firebombing of Dresden in WW2.

Nabokov - Lolita
>Pedo narrates his growing obsession with a girl. An encomium on the destructive power of love.

Bradbury - Fahrenheit 451
>The destruction of democracy as witnessed by a man in the near future.

Keep in mind a lot of so-called classics of literature ARE boring as shit but highly regarded because of some technique that was new at the time or because the work was beloved of normies of its day. E.g. Dickens and other magazine authors who would have been shitty sitcom writers today.

Literature is great. It's a field that is limitless as human experience. If it can be thought, it can be written. Don't give up on it.

[Anonymous No.10323465]

>>10323409
Because they're the only ones I've read for school and they were completely unenjoyable to read

[Anonymous No.10323472]

>>10323460
>>10323362
thanks for the recs ill try them out

>>10323428
i honestly have no idea what genres i like

[Anonymous No.10323488]

>>10323472
It's probably a good bet you have not been exposed to much sci-fi in any of your forced reading. Check out Frank Herbert. Or Philip K Dick, or Ray Bradbury. Start with whatever grabs your attention.

[Anonymous No.10323504]

>>10323460
>Keep in mind a lot of so-called classics of literature ARE boring as shit but highly regarded because of some technique that was new at the time or because the work was beloved of normies of its day.
You're an idiot.

>>10323465
Looks like you really can't read. So, first you admit that you don't know much about books, then you act like you do know. No, Catcher isn't "dry".

[Anonymous No.10323515]

>>10323504
>>10323504
>>10323504

[Anonymous No.10323545]

>>10323515
>if someone insults my stupidity and shit taste it must be bait

[Anonymous No.10323559]

>>10323545
>he takes my counterbait
>instead of making a contribution to OP's quest

Fuck off, thanks.

[Anonymous No.10323608]

>>10323504
a lot of classics of literature are boring tripe tho, this medium isn't immune to the fictionitis anon. You're still making shit up and applying high verbal intelligence to smooth over the schizo retard aspects to making up stories. There's a reason a lot of people prefer theory and non-fiction technical texts who are otherwise highly literate (because fiction is often insufferable). You can't deny the truth of this, no one wants to be an author really

[Anonymous No.10323811]

>>10323608
>a lot of classics of literature are boring tripe tho
If you're a basic pleb who reads for the plot, sure. Moby Dick is soo boring amiritie like just kill the whale lol
>You're still making shit up and applying high verbal intelligence to smooth over the schizo retard aspects to making up stories. There's a reason a lot of people prefer theory and non-fiction technical texts who are otherwise highly literate (because fiction is often insufferable).
What are you even doing on /lit/?
>no one wants to be an author really
Alright mister psychoanalist