Does reading bad literature have it's merits?

[Anonymous No.22809618]

Should one read bad literature on purpose to broaden ones understanding and ability to analyze? I'm not talking about YA slob, but more about lit fic that maybe even found some critical acclaim despite being trash.

[Anonymous No.22809671]

Its subjective, there is no objectively good literature. just because harold bloom likes something doesn't mean its good

[Anonymous No.22809705]

>>22809618
No.
I tried with 50 shades. It was pure garbage.
All you need to do to judge a book is read the first few pages. Ten minutes tops to differentiate gold from trash. Reading trash in its entirety would serve no purpose.
What understanding would you try to broaden? How people are retarded? I know they are, I don't need to read trash to know it.

[Anonymous No.22810335]

>>22809618
>on purpose
It's more likely that you end up reading some bad books either way.
I wouldn't seek them out, no.
Contrast is a method of judgement, however, so you you'll probably get something out of bad books too.

[Anonymous No.22810457]

>>22809705
10 first minutes of kafka's the trial sucks donkey balls your argument is invalid

[Anonymous No.22811225]

>>22809618
Faulkner seemed to think so.

[Anonymous No.22811907]

>>22809618
Yes. Consider that if you only read good books then you will build a taste that is increasingly harder to satisfy. Reading inferior or outright bad literature will give you perspective and it will test your ability to critique and analyze work. That kind of practice will let you look at good literature in a different light. You will also be able to identify nuance within good and bad literature and everything in between. A bad novel could get certain things right and a good novel could have its weak points.