/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.2600415]

Why do people come to /lit/ and ask if a specific book is "good"?

>implying books are objectively good
>implying they will like it because you liked it

Why can't they just go on amazon or goodreads and check out the reviews?

[Anonymous No.2600417]

I don't know but you're going to provide the sauce for that.

[Anonymous No.2600419]

I think it just very loosely means WORTH READING as in, important or significant or enriching or aesthetically excellent in some way

Either way, the threads are fucking irritating and I hate them

[Anonymous No.2600425]

Wait, so we shouldn't ask /lit/ (many of us have similar tastes in literature) if a certain book is any good, because /lit/'s opinions are objective; instead, we should go look at Amazon and Goodreads reviews?

That makes perfect sense OP.

[Anonymous No.2600424]

>>2600419

you gotta be pretty simple to be "enriched" by one book

[Anonymous No.2600429]

>>2600425

*subjective

[Anonymous No.2600441]

>>2600425
>>2600429

you shouldn't ask /lit/ at all because of subjectivity

"is dis book gud" is a retarded question.

you shouldn't look at amazon either, but if you're going to waste your time, go waste it on amazon, instead of wasting space on /lit/

this makes sense.
THIS MAKES A LOT OF SENSE

[Anonymous No.2600445]

>>2600417
A quick google search reveals it to be some random body builder's girlfriend. Sorry.

In any case, here's a larger version if the image, and a polite sage for non topic bump.

[Anonymous No.2600452]

>>2600445

terrible tan lines
3/10
would not bang.

[Anonymous No.2600462]

>>2600452

I am homosexual, and I would bang that. You must be more gay than i am

[Anonymous No.2600466]

>>2600462
>wonkanewhere.jpg

[Anonymous No.2600502]

>>2600445
Looks like Tasha Sky.

[Anonymous No.2600516]

>implying the opinions on good reads or amazon are any better than any opinions found elsewhere

You do have a point, though. I don't get why people simply read a book and then decide for themselves whether or not it was good.

[Anonymous No.2600962]

>>2600516

Because you don't want to waste your time?

Good reviews are guideposts. You can tell from a good reviewer whether or not you may be interested or enjoy a book— even a negative review may inspire you to give the book a chance… and a positive one can make you understand that you may not wish to. This holds even for classics.

Even for a person who (theoretically) would have the time to read every work of classic literature, they would be best served by first choosing those of their interest; if you begin to see your reading as a chore, you will avoid it like any other.

[Anonymous No.2600964]

>>2600415

There are a few good apples on /lit/ with decent taste, and I value their opinion far more than any amazon reviewer

[Anonymous No.2600968]

>Why do people come to /lit/ and ask if a specific book is "good"?
personally i don't do that, rather would tell them the subjects i'm interested in & some books i liked with that subject matter & ask for recommendations, whence i move onto:

>Why can't they just go on amazon or goodreads and check out the reviews?
then i do this. it's not hard to find a like-minded reviewer. amazon, maybe also goodreads, supports review THREADS, so basically any review can be the start of a thread. then if there's a dispute over someone's opinion, you can read through the thread and determine which side you'd likely go with, based on whose views seem to more generally align with yours.

that, and i also just pick up random shit without looking at any reviews or recommendations, just because i heard of it and it sounds interesting, and i give it a try.

[Anonymous No.2600978]

We're a fucking hive. Why don't people understand suggestions?

If they asked us to pick between Twilight and Harry Potter, we'd probably pick Harry Potter. Those who ask us for suggestions like our tastes and want to hear what we think.

[Anonymous No.2601061]

Because for some people they see their time as an investment. They want something vetted and giving the green light. Not all of us have the luxury of having a lot of down time.

[Anonymous No.2601170]

>>2601061
Yeah, but OP can't understand that.
He is probably an autistic underage.

[Anonymous No.2601182]

i came for the picture

[Anonymous No.2601199]

>>2601182
Same here.

[Anonymous No.2601201]

siddhartha is objectively good
so is the old man and the sea

the hunger games or twilight is NOT objectively good, because its YA romantic-fantasybullshit.

[Anonymous No.2601202]

>>2601201

There is no such thing as 'objective' when it comes to literary judgement.

[Anonymous No.2601220]

>>2601202

poop poop poop

what I just wrote is better then all of shakespeare's work combined

[Anonymous No.2601225]

>>2601220

There are some modern writers who would agree with you, sadly.

There is no way to say that the opinion just mentioned or its contrary is objectively right or wrong. That's a fallacy.

[Anonymous No.2601260]

>>2601202
So the work of a writer, who is educated in philosophy, psychology, literature, physics, medicine, and biology - with a complex structure, and a challenging narrative - complemented by his ability to create realistic worlds and characters, as well as his playful nature (that came from his interest in art, and literature)

Will still not be better, in terms of "literary judgement", than the sloppy YA-work of an uneducated, young woman?

[Anonymous No.2601264]

>>2601260

The point I'm making is there is no methodology for making, in the strictest terms, 'objective' claims about such things.

Art isn't science.

[Anonymous No.2601275]

>>2601264
You're making the mistake of reducing literature to the essential preception from the reader. For some reason, you seem to refuse to accept philology, literary criticism, or linguistics as a part of iterary judgement. .


Nor is literature art. Though I'm sure art can be literature.

[Anonymous No.2601277]

>>2601275

"Literature (n): the art of written work."

[Anonymous No.2601289]

>>2601277
Sure, if you want to play at the field of dictionary semantics, why don't you look up the aforementioned fields of science as well.

[Anonymous No.2601293]

>>2601289

You're proving my point.

[Anonymous No.2601309]

>>2601293
No. Your point is that " there is no methodology for making 'objective' claims about such things".

Where you are simply wrong. /lit has established certain values they appreciate, which tends to be reflected trough classical literature (read the sticky). Thus, saying the book is "good", is very much possible. And if you look up the studies I mentioned, you will see that it also is very much possible to keep it 'objective'.

[Anonymous No.2601312]

>>2601309

>/lit has established certain values

do you understand what subjective/objective mean?

[Anonymous No.2601337]

>>2601312
What, do I need to explain the sentence for you?
It means that /lit, this board, appreciate specific objective values, and when a text meets this set of standards, one can claim it to be "good". It is satisfactory and proper for /lit - it is "good".
That's why people ask if x book is "good".

That wasn't that hard, right?
Now hush along, I need to take a shower.

[Anonymous No.2601338]

>>2601260
>>2601264
>>2601275
I see a problem in your little back and forth right here. There are parallels between literary judgement and Artistic judgement, since they have certain crossovers like aesthetics. And so you can have kitsch literature in the same way as you can have kitsch art.

>So the work of a writer, who is educated in philosophy, psychology, literature, physics, medicine, and biology - with a complex structure, and a challenging narrative - complemented by his ability to create realistic worlds and characters, as well as his playful nature (that came from his interest in art, and literature)
If I'm following your train of thought correctly, they would write kitsch, simply because they're setting out with the aim of "writing a good book". It would be to literature what a garden gnome is to great architecture. You've nerdily collected in your mind what you consider to be the optimum attributes of a great writer. But writing great literature doesn't boil down to this, life is not a D&D game.

[Anonymous No.2602188]

I need salsa on that pic OP.

[Anonymous No.2602389]

>>2600445
Tits too saggy, too chubby and has gross cellulite

2/10

[Anonymous No.2602395]

this is the most arousing picture I've seen

god dayum I'm angry that some other nigga gets to touch her

would rape

[Anonymous No.2602410]

>>2602389
But all women have cellulite...

[Anonymous No.2602769]

>WHAT IS A "SUGGESTION"?
>WHAT IS "SOCIAL INTERACTION"? I DON'T "KNOW" THESE THINGS

I leave /lit/ for months and come back and I find people who still don't understand this rocket surgery fucking concept. Sure it's subjective as fuck but maybe they value your opinion more than some Twilight reading piece of shit friend of theirs.