[ 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: 12 KB, 225x224, images (5)..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1427150 No.1427150 [Reply] [Original]

>>1427063
You don't sound like a guy who has only read books all their childhood.

This week a classmate asked if I read. Yes, I said, with a natural accent of pride because of the tone of her question, as in, people don't read. However, this is not the problem, this is the symptom. The problem is that the population is not reading as much as it used to. Sure, in terms of mass, books like Twilight have a more massive audience to the release of any modernist novel published at the turn of the twentieth century, however, the population in yesteryears read more in percentage, I believe, anyhow, and I think believing this instead of proving it with numbers is important because statistics abuse is too common nowadays to lend any credibility from one anonymous speaker to the next. What I am saying is that media in all its forms before this century have lost steam as the majority of the masses refocus their attention, or rather, their attention spans, to new sources of media like e-readers, smartphones, and PVR. This however, seems more like a symptom.

There doesn't seem to be any anti-book propaganda in mass media (although I would love some examples if you have them), and you have a Huxleyan dystopia in its heyday: a future which discriminates the past inadvertently by excessively promoting the future. And why do we find it excessive? Because of the symptoms, such as entire communities that find reading a rare hobby compared to its aforementioned previous commonality. In fact, I was thinking about it and it isn't rare to find a God-fearing atheist in North America today.

Until we identify a way to cope with this evercresting dystopia of classic media or otherwise overthrow it, we must discuss it as publicly as possible with more credibility than those who propagate modern media, so as to combat the excess in promotion of the new sources of entertainment.

>> No.1427155

this fucking board

>> No.1427157

>>1427150
part II
Here's a related article: http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/student-bibliophobes/6141

And a tip for further research, for further discussion, try googling (post-)modern bibliophobia.

>> No.1427158

OP, have you ever derped so hard that you herped?

>> No.1427160

so was this intended to be a new thread if not inb4 delete

>> No.1427162

too poorly written; didn't read

>> No.1427163

>symptom media symptom dystopia symptom herp derp

>> No.1427208

So Deep and edgy finally gives us his magnum opus. I am an impressed.

>> No.1427217
File: 12 KB, 250x361, davidfosterwallace.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1427217

Such Insight... s00000 deep. Are you DFW?

>> No.1427228

>>1427162
it made sense to me. are you retarded?

>> No.1427257

>the population in yesteryears read more in percentage, I believe, anyhow,
This is dead wrong. Completely wrong. Absolutely wrong. You have no idea what you're talking about.

>instead of proving it with numbers is important because statistics abuse is too common nowadays to lend any credibility from one anonymous speaker to the next.
You are possibly stupid. Not saying you definitely are, but it is possible, based on statements like this. Literacy rates skyrocketed in the 20th century thanks to the (true) advent of socialized education. Before that kids were "required" to go to school and left by the 8th grade to work with their parents or learn a trade.

>> No.1427285

I will stick with Baudrillard, thx