Classics

[Anonymous No.11482396]

Reminder that there is no such thing as a classic. There are only outdated books that no longer connect with modern readers.

[Anonymous No.11482579]

This is what modern readers have been saying since long before they were modern, and yet the classics remain. The modern will always be the bitch of the classic. You will be bent over your desk and BAM Chaucer BAM BAM Shakespeare... right about now is when I stick my Dickens in you. I call him Charlie. That's how the masters taught English lit to me as I was a lad, and that's how it'll be done forever.

[Anonymous No.11482623]

>>11482396

Reminder that you're the reason books translated into emojis exist.

[Anonymous No.11482634]

>>11482579
And yet murakami is better than dante, because he connects with the modern reader.

[Anonymous No.11482671]

>>11482634
I can't hear over the sound of you screaming like Young Lady Chatterley as Oscar is going Wilde in your Middlemarch.

[Anonymous No.11482783]

>>11482579
>>11482671
based

[Anonymous No.11483139]

what do you think her favourite book is?

[Anonymous No.11483243]

>>11483139
Hm. Probably a toss-up between Dos Passos' USA Trilogy and Watchmen..

[Anonymous No.11483258]

>>11483139
Don Quixote

[Anonymous No.11483262]

>>11483243
I'm thinking more DeLillo's Underworld and The Sot-Weed Factor.

[Anonymous No.11483265]

>>11482396
but classical concepts can connect with modern lives. your post is invalid.

[Anonymous No.11483351]

>>11482396
Truly, there are no classics that can compete with Da Vinci Code, Hunger Games and Harry Potter. We've peaked. It's all downhill from here.

[Anonymous No.11483551]

>>11483139

[Anonymous No.11483574]

if you're unhistorically minded and not at home in a mid-sixteenth-century english castle, or a late-eighteenth-century dublin thieves' kitchen you won't be able to connect with the 'classics'. likewise if you're not a scientist you'll probably find an important scientific treatise obscure.

[Anonymous No.11483677]

>>11482396
Literary piety is vile, if that's what you mean

[Anonymous No.11483874]

>>11482579
>being this unfunny

I appreciate the defense of the classics but if you do it like this you just prove OPs point

[Anonymous No.11484884]

we posting kiddyass now?

[Anonymous No.11486894]

Wuthering heights captures women perfectly in Cathy. Always amazed me how a beta incel like emily bronte managed to so perfectly write both women, and the bitter twised men they create. Utter tragedy, that story. Ill make a thread on her birthday and we can all tslk about it in more detal. Youve got 10 days to read it

[Anonymous No.11486926]

>>11482396
>modern readers

Those don't exist. The only people who read anymore are pseuds who read nothing except for the "classics".

[Anonymous No.11487460]

>>11482579
CRINGE

[Anonymous No.11487488]

>>11482396
Typical /tv/ crossposter. I bet you love Zack Snyder and think all pre-1980 films are boring. Go back to masturbating to your intellectual equals, you pedo retard.

[Anonymous No.11487497]

>>11482396
Your mind is as vulgar as that girl you probably deem to be perfect.

[Anonymous No.11487532]

>it's a /tv/ wanders out of its quarantine zone and lashes out at its superiors thread

[Anonymous No.11487577]

>>11482396
Reminder there are hundreds of works of literature that have survived centuries and those works will outlive whatever young adult garbage you enjoy. There is such a thing as a classic and the only reason you refuse to acknowledge this is you're an insecure pleb.

[Anonymous No.11489033]

>>11482396
What about the Bible?

[Anonymous No.11490215]

>>11483874
How so?

[Anonymous No.11490231]

>>11487497
You be quiet she is an angel