[ 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: 117 KB, 1193x931, 1316367875522.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2202048 No.2202048 [Reply] [Original]

>he reads classic literature

Why? It's neither educative like a text book or science book, nor is it enjoyable like genre fiction and stories with interesting plots and characters.

>> No.2202055

>>2202048
If you don't get it, you aren't going to get it.
Go back to /w/, pleb.

>> No.2202058

Because reading for plot got boring.

>> No.2202061

The pursuit of aesthetic quality and beauty is the noblest endeavour.

Anyway, /lit/ discusses genre fiction.

>> No.2202065

>>2202058

so you're like those Avatar fans who are simply impressed by superficial graphics or flowery prose?

When did the meat and substance of a book become secondary? What a strange time

>> No.2202070

>>2202065
Jesus Christ, everybody shut the fuck up.
This is a troll thread. Obvious troll is painfully obvious.
Do not feed the troll.

>> No.2202071

>>2202065
Technique is as important as character or plot.

Anyone at all can write what GRR Martin writes. Very few can write what Faulkner wrote.

Eventually, you refine your palate and you refuse to eat Pizza Hut, because it tastes so fucking bad.

>> No.2202072

>>2202071

So, Deep & Edgy, you're posting as anon now?

>> No.2202075 [DELETED] 

>>2202055
Because he doesn't enjoy something written for the enjoyment of a culture far different from today's? Who's writing about our culture? -answer: No one, it's broken. For some people pretty prose is not enough, you shallow bitch.

>> No.2202079

>>2202071


>Very few can write what Faulkner wrote.

Very few people paint using explosive diarrhea, what is your point?

Nothing Faulkner wrote is readable or enjoyable, that's why barely anyone reads him.

>> No.2202081

if anybody itt isn't op replying to himself you should be fucking ashamed of yourself

>> No.2202088

>>2202079
Few understand the works of Cummings,
And few James Joyce's mental slummings,
And few young Auden's coded chatter;
But then it is the few that matter.

>> No.2202090

****************************************
Obvious Troll Is Painfully Obvious
****************************************
Obvious Troll Is Painfully Obvious
****************************************
Obvious Troll Is Painfully Obvious
****************************************
That is all.

>> No.2202091

>>2202048
>nor is it enjoyable like genre fiction and stories with interesting plots and characters
This is where I disagree with you. However, I don't think there's anything wrong with your preference for genre fiction. I just don't share that preference.

There's no point in disputing things that are matters of taste. /half of the discussions on /lit/, /tv/, /ck/, /v/

>> No.2202092

The troll is in that the troll is so obvious, so the people complaining about it are the ones REALLY getting trolled

>> No.2202097

>>2202092
Nice try.

>> No.2202130

I prefer genre fiction myself, but that's no reason to hate people who read for intellectual pursuit instead of just reading for enjoyment and entertainment.

>> No.2203729
File: 1.84 MB, 211x173, turtle.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2203729

>> No.2203735

>>2202071
>Anyone at all can write what GRR Martin writes.

Why can't Harold Bloom write what GRR Martin writes?

>> No.2203743

>>2203735
Perhaps you don't understand the difference between ability and desire.

Bloom can write what GRRM writes. He doesn't want to.

>> No.2203796

>>2203743
[citation needed]

>> No.2203845

>>2202071

>Anyone at all can write what GRR Martin writes.

Then why is there a fuckload of fantasy writers who never make it?

>> No.2203849

/lit/ - Easy troll pickings

>> No.2203962

>>2203735
I see you haven't read his only novel, The Flight to Lucifer.

>> No.2203969

>>2203845

they don't look as good in a lobster bib

>> No.2203974

Yeah, reading literature of other past cultures doesn't tell you anything about other past cultures. Reading novels about life can't teach you anything about life.

OP you are an idiot. I have read many fiction and non-fiction. I would say I have learned more from reading fiction.

Garbage post OP.

>> No.2203985

>>2202079
*Obviously a troll but*
As I Lay Dying was actually enjoyable despite also having substance. The prose and characters were more engaging and evocative than a lot of two-dimensional, straightforward novels.
Just IMO.
However, despite loving Faulkner, I don't really care for Hemmingway or Joyce.

>> No.2203984

>>2202072

*sigh* I'm ashamed to admit I recognized him too.
I like him better when he's trolling /fa/, that shit is hilarious /fa/ggots get all defensive and angry and he just blabs on about nothing.

It's like watching a Nam Vet with PTSD have a flashback in the middle of a bunch of feeding pigeons.

>> No.2204779

>>2203984
I love it when he's trolling /v/, once I joined a trolling fest with him, that was hilarious. I was telling people their tastes in games and opinions sucked and he explained why (video games are not subjective etc.)

>> No.2204790

>nor is it enjoyable like genre fiction and stories with interesting plots and characters.
nice opinion there kiddo.

>> No.2204797

If you're not trolling you're probably an aspie.

>> No.2204836

It's really easy for me to understand classic literature. Actually, I pretty much understand everything that is known.

>> No.2204840

While genre fiction attempts to be a fun read with a great plot, classical literature attempts to delve into the psychological and paints beautiful paintings in your mind, also classical literature makes me feel while genre lit doesn't.

>> No.2204848

>nor is it enjoyable
"Classic literature" is not enjoyable because it's one to two thousand years old and you're probably reading in an inferior translation, too.

You probably called XIX century literature "classic" due to lack of knowledge, though. Well, there was just as much pulp back then as there is now, and good art was just as rare. Actually, what you probably call "classic" was part of the XIX century entertainment and popular culture, like Hugo, Dickens or Balzac.

>> No.2204854

>>2204840
>classical literature attempts to delve into the psychological and paints beautiful paintings in your mind
Genre works try doing the same thing more often then not. The only difference is quality of production. And "classic" literature can be pure entertainment, too - see, dunno, Moliere, or most of Shakespeare's comedies (and half the tragedies), etc..

>> No.2204856

>nor is it enjoyable like genre fiction

Nice generalization. I admittedly read more genre fiction than classics but this is wrong