[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 94 KB, 465x600, dammit.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11059666 No.11059666[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

https://www.gq.com/story/21-books-you-dont-have-to-read

Thoughts? Do you agree disagree? Are there any books in the lit canon you don't especially like or think are overrated, what would you replace them with?

pic unrelated

>> No.11059669

These threads are the same kind of shit clickbait that the article is. We had multiple threads already, move on.

>> No.11059673

Can you guys stop posting this dumb outrage-bait article, I've lost count now of how many threads have been started about it

>> No.11059695

>>11059666
A men's magazine opposed to masculinity? What do you think their literature commentary is worth?

>> No.11059732

>>11059666
A magazine which only exists to stoke desire of consumer goods with a primary target demographic is urban homosexuals proscribes a list of books not to consume on the basis of their perceived toxic masculinity.

Obviously this is stupid. Firstly, because their usage of the (sometimes useful) concept of "toxic masculinity" is overbroad. Secondly because -even if it were precise usage- the notion that you should avoid such works instead of engaging with them is anti-intellectual.

But again this is GQ. It's a rag for hyper-consumers and college virgins who are at the "maybe if I dress well" stage on the road to inceldom.

shit bait, go away.

>> No.11060665

>>11059666
Do the forms actually exist but are archetypes not weird metaphysical things?