/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.2394598]

It seems to me that a lot of people who claim to enjoy novels only enjoy stories that have superficially exciting elements.

For example, my friend (a university graduate working on his Master's degree) claims that The Wheel of Time series is the greatest book series ever. He says that this is because it's a story full of monsters and magic and "every character turns out to be someone special in the end!".

This same person says that books like Crime and Punishment or The Sun Also Rises are boring.

I run into people like this all the time.

>"I like books!"
>"What are your favorite books?"
>"Oh, you know, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, and Eragon!"
>"Why do you like them?"
>"DRAGONS AND MAGIC"

It's not that they like things that I don't like. It's that they like things I don't like FOR SUPERFICIAL REASONS.

TL; DR: If someone gave people a choice between two paintings, one of a dragon and the other of a beautifully realized landscape, people will almost always choose the dragon because it's a fucking dragon.

[Anonymous No.2394601]

Yep. 'Good' literature has always been for a minority. Same with most 'good' art. The masses will always take the passionate romance, the Micheal Bay film, the dragon, etc.

They don't take effort to enjoy, and they don't usually reward effort from those capable of providing it.

[Anonymous No.2394640]

that's funny, because wot barely has monsters present in the story

maybe if you bothered to read it you'd see it's not as bad as you think, thought I'm not claiming it's the best ever

it's actually badly written compared to more modern stories like The First Law, and yet people pick up the story and love it, and you expect them to say what exactly?
that Rand's character is a boy forced to grow up and abandon everything he's known to sacrifice himself, literaly, that he has more power than god, that he's going insane, to be the target of plots, assassins, manipulations

and once again people like you proove their pretentiousness by demanding other people to explain objectively what's great about a book

they're just readers, not literary critics, they read the story for the characters that were realistic and could relate to, for the conflicts they wanted to see resolved

>TL; DR: If someone gave people a choice between two paintings, one of a dragon and the other of a beautifully realized landscape, people will almost always choose the dragon because it's a fucking dragon.

you're a retard that took your personal experience and quatified it

[Anonymous No.2394649]

>>2394640

>they're just readers, not literary critics

And that's why their opinions are usually shitty and superficial. They don't have the capability to appreciate literature, or to articulate their feelings about it.

You're saying the same thing OP did, you're just using more sympathetic terminology.

[Anonymous No.2394697]

>>2394649
no faggot, just because they can't point out to a greater degree why they enjoyed a novel doesn't mean you're right to dismiss their opinions

faggot

[Anonymous No.2394700]

>>2394697

They're not able to argue their opinion in any adequate fashion. Therefore the opinion they produce is inadequate, usually superficial and not very well developed. I am perfectly free to regard this opinion for what it is and dismiss it. All opinions are not equal.

[Anonymous No.2394705]

>>2394700
typical e/lit/ist right here

go fuck yourself and leave us plebs to enjoy reading

[Anonymous No.2394714]

>>2394705

I'm not stopping you. I'm just calling you what you are.

[Anonymous No.2394731]

People enjoy reading for different reasons. I know lots of dummies who like schlock fantasy novels and genre fiction. They're watching those because they don't enjoy literature as a ~~CULTURALLY SIGNIFICANT AND INTELLECTUALLY PROVOCATIVE~~~ medium, but just for entertainment.

Compare them to your average moviegoer who knows nothing about cinema, thinks Michael Bay movies are perfectly good, etc. They don't give a shit about film. Compare them to girls who play video games - they only ever play Pokemon and weeaboo shit and they're terrible at it. Doesn't mean their enjoyment of it is wrong.

[Anonymous No.2394763]

>>2394731

The problem is when the people who read for entertainment try to act like the people who read for deeper reasons.

>"I think that the book you like is BORING!"
>"Why?"
>"Not enough DRAGONS!"
>"Okay, but that's not really the point of the book."
>"Doesn't matter."

They come off as rude or stupid.

For example, I once had a friend tell me that A Clockwork Orange was a bad book because "It's too hard too read". When I tried to talk to him about it further, he just kept repeating "No. It's bad. It is a bad book. Bad. I cannot read it, therefore it is bad".