/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.1095213]

So, /lit/, a fellow student of mine had a breakdown under harsh questioning by my prof. which ended in an argument about the point of reading.

This classmate of mine said that the point of reading was escape from the world. A hobby, if you will.

My professor accused her of being sophomoric, and that the whole point of literature is to gain experience from authors.

Who do you side with?

[Anonymous No.1095220]

there's literally no point to anything, all human existence is meaningless, all human endeavors are ultimately futile, qtifyd

[Anonymous No.1095221]

>>1095213
>and that the
Should be
>and alleged that the

[Anonymous No.1095219]

It depends on the level of literary merit and the subject matter of the book.

[Anonymous No.1095223]

>>1095221
Forgot my picture. Jesus.

[Anonymous No.1095225]

>>1095220
Lets operate under false pretenses, it's more entertaining.

[Anonymous No.1095230]

>>1095219
The literature in question was fiction, if that makes any difference.

[Anonymous No.1095231]

>>1095220
So why don't you an hero?

[Anonymous No.1095235]

Depends on the person. They can both be right.

Besides, the only people who will ask you WHY you read would be uneducated rednecks from Tennessee or some shit like that.

[Anonymous No.1095236]

I think it's a false dichotomy, and I'd say both sides are right.

[Anonymous No.1095237]

Both?

Some people read for escapism, some read for knowledge, some read for entertainment

pinning it all down to one reason is silly

[Aspel No.1095239]

The student is more right than the teacher.

The teacher is write, but in the wrong.

Neither of them is right.

[Aspel No.1095248]

>>1095239
>The teacher is write
Goddamnit I am so tired and stupid lately.

[Anonymous No.1095249]

the professor.

Reading books just for escapism is why we have retards reading Harry Potter and Twilight and Mary Sues.

Reading books just for escapism pretty much says that you only read the dumbest literature available and take nothing valuable away from it.

There will be tons of faggots who repspond to me with "no fun allowed.jpg" but they're too stupid to understand that some people have fun reading stuff that they're too stupid to appreciate.

Escapism is a byproduct of some literature, but not the end justification of literature's existence.

[Anonymous No.1095250]

I'm with her, all the way.

Reading about things that never happened to people who never existed will never be anything more than a hobby, despite how much literature professors may want to convince themselves otherwise.

[Anonymous No.1095255]

>>1095250

>Reading about things that never happened to people who never existed

religion.png

[Anonymous No.1095324]

>>1095249

If the prof worded his argument the same as you did, I'd have to side with the student automatically.

Student: I only read to forget about my problems.
Prof: Oh yeah? Well you're an idiot faggot.

Does it really matter though? What difference does it make if someone's only goal in reading is for the enjoyment of it rather than for intellectual purposes?

Considering they were both throwing around absolutes (at least that's how OP phrased it), I disagree with both of them either way. You can "gain experience" from the author even if your original intent was to escape from reality. Happens to me all the time.

[Anonymous No.1095397]

>>1095324
>What difference does it make if someone's only goal in reading is for the enjoyment of it rather than for intellectual purposes?

One reads for intellectual purposes and for enjoyment; one reads only for enjoyment and not to stimulate their mind. Why would anyone listen to the person who shuns learning?

And what about stories that are depressing and offer no escapism? Those books are deemed worthless by the student, simply because they aren't entertaining.

[Anonymous No.1095419]

Why do they have to generalize people? Some read for pleasure, some need and escape, some crave knowledge, and some don't have a damn choice, they just need to write a 2 page report on the role of family in the Giver.

[Anonymous No.1095420]

>>1095249
Do you honestly believe that the average person is going to read for intellectual value? I'm not disagreeing with you, far from it, but think about the unwashed masses. The few that do read don't care about gaining experience, they just want to escape from their shitty little lives. Claiming that the whole point of literature is to gain experience from the authors and expecting everyone to follow that line of thinking is idealistic, at best.

[Anonymous No.1095423]

>>1095419
>some don't have a damn choice, they just need to write a 2 page report on the role of family in the Giver.

>some are forced to learn against their will

fix'd

[Anonymous No.1095433]

>>1095423
That's more or less what I was getting at. Some people really don't want to learn anything. They just want to do whatever it takes to earn enough money to purchase that which pleasures them most (whatever that may be).

[Aspel No.1095504]

>>1095249
Harry Potter is good escapism, though.

And the point of David Copperfield was not to expand the mind and broaden horizens.
It was to put food on Dickens' tables.

Anyone who doesn't see literature and reading as PRIMARILY a form of enjoyment is a cockheaded psuedointellectual.

Literature can teach, yes. Often times it can be primarily about teaching, in the case of soap boxes like Atlas Shrugged.
But there's a story there for a reason. Because it's the point. It's the purpose.
Reading can teach. Reading should teach.
But literature that does nothing but teach isn't literature, not in the sense of this board. It's literature in the sense of pamphlets of Watchtower and Chick Tracts, or 101 Steps to Self Betterment seminars.

[Anonymous No.1095521]

>>1095397

Anyone who reads for entertainment alone shuns learning and therefore shouldn't be listened to? The whole discussion of "reading for either fun or learning" is too vague to come to such a strange conclusion.

I'm not talking about a law student flipping through his casebook like it was written by John Grisham or a English major reading...I don't know, Wallace Stevens like it was Dr. Seuss. If you're a student, and you're forced to read something, you will "stimulate your mind" or fail, there's not much of an alternative to that situation. And EVEN IF it was the case that they read purely for the entertainment, who is to say they won't be intellectually stimulated? You assume that the two sides to the argument are mutually exclusive. It's not like you have to always force your mind to be stimulated.

The emotional range of the subject matter has nothing to do with escapism. Again you're assuming that all readers take away the same thing after "reading", whatever that activity may apply to. So what if they avoid that kind of reading anyways? Some people are emotionally troubled enough, pushing depressing lit in their face for the sake of intellectual stimulation might put the noose around their necks.

[Anonymous No.1095544]

>>1095504

Some people find intellectually stimulating things enjoyable. Trufax.

[Stagolee, Exiled Usurper of /lit/ !0Pey/QLK3E No.1095547]

if you're reading a book to gain something out of it you're doing it wrong

[Anonymous No.1095552]

>>1095521
>The emotional range of the subject matter has nothing to do with escapism.

I disagree. Escapist fiction (Harry Potter, Twilight, Eragon, etc) is generally about good things happening to good people which in turn makes the reader feel good and provides an escape from their boring or depressing life. So when you have a story where bad things happen to good people that ability to "escape" from reality isn't there.

>pushing depressing lit in their face for the sake of intellectual stimulation might put the noose around their necks.
If pulling a person's head out of the sand for two seconds drives them to suicide then nothing of value is lost by their death.