Is there any value in only reading books that entertaint you?

[Anonymous No.10875799]

>you might not read any or most of the "classics" if you find them boring/uninteresting.
>You probably will read many books that anons here consider plebbit tier, degenerate, cliche.
>That means that you might only read a few books from the highly regarded writers if any, and dozens of books from writers that people consider obscure or even shitty but you find greatly entertaining.
>You might also read dozens of books by great writers, but only those that caught your interest and not a single book beyond that scope.

Is there any merit to this? I am not much interested in Greek philosophy or even reading the great classics of fictions for the sake of reading them. I want to read books by great writers but only those that I can comprehend and derive enjoyment out of. I don't want to read books that everyone worships as classics, and I have no curiosity or desire to explore any particular writer's work for the sake of saying I read every book of some famous writer. In fact, I might only read a book if the cover art is interesting or if the plot seems interesting to me. I might read a single book of philosophy in my life time or twenty, but only if they somehow catch my interest.

Can reading have any value or intellectual merit for a person like me? Is there any sort of value I can derive in the long term from reading books in this matter? Or am I better off just watching TV if I only read what is entertaining?

[Anonymous No.10875880]

>>10875799

That really just depends on you.

I'm not partial to the classics, either, but I've still read the Greeks and a handful of Victorian and Colonial authors. My focus has primarily been mythology and landmark literature. While I don't always enjoy slogging through, I've found having at least a basic understanding of historical writing allows me to understand certain references, metaphors, and allegories common throughout contemporary Western reading.

Having said that, I do not prioritize Dostoevsky or Nietzsche and Hume over books better suited to my interests.

I lived in India for several years -- I'd rather wade through poorly-translated articles by Mahasweta Devi than dig into the Russians.

But that sits me, because I'm pursuing an academic program with a research emphasis on socioeconomic development in South Asia. I wouldn't be doing what I do if I dismissed William Dalrymple, Jhumpa Lahiri, Aravind Adiga, Sumanta Banerjee and Rabindra Ray to appease /lit/'s supposedly high-brow tastes in antique philosophy.

I don't fault anyone for being enthralled by the writing of any particular period or place, but I do think it's magnificently stupid to dismiss works which fall outside an arbitrary 'Golden Age' of literature.

[Anonymous No.10875894]

just read whatever the fuck you want

[Anonymous No.10876464]

>>10875799

What is the point of a hobby if you don't derive any sort of pleasure from it?

[Anonymous No.10876656]

>>10875799

If you can't comprehend classical literature out of lack of mental you will probably never venture out beyond your comfort zone.However if your problem is only in a lack of current interest in these sorts of books all you have to do is read whatever interests you. You will find that as you consume more and more literature and you start developing an appetite you will very likely develop the interest for more complex and difficult books.

[Anonymous No.10876965]

>>10875799
Start with the plays of Aristophanes. They're short, very funny, vulgar, dirty, classics, that incidentally worldbuild Classical Greece for a modern reader. By associating the Classics with their comedies it will entertain and endear you to their weltanschauung and make reading the more serious classical works an easier task because you then now have an affection for the people writing them.