[ 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: 37 KB, 423x436, dsfdsf.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2943690 No.2943690 [Reply] [Original]

OMG, who's the 'most serious' reader in here? Now, this is cover2cover, fiction, and don't lie, we'll know about it. Well.

I'd say almost 350 for me now. Getting towards extremely well read, rather than 'just' very well read (but the standards of Joe Shmo in the street, and his delightful friend Joanne Shmo).

>> No.2943697

687
But a lot of that is Genre stuff, Sci-Fi or mystery novels, I'd say only about 100 is stuff Lit would approve of.

>> No.2943696

...maybe 500? Would never claim to be well read.

>> No.2943699

over 9000

>> No.2943700
File: 287 KB, 465x664, Laughing FDR.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2943700

>Serious readers
>Based on number of books

>> No.2943701

a few thousands, but mostly "low brow".

>> No.2943710

>>2943701

Details? I'm still interested.

>> No.2943716

>>2943700
How's that Polio working out for you Mr. President?

>> No.2943717

I've read no novels, nor any book-length non-fiction. I do, however, read an average of 50 journal articles a day, and at least three literary journals per week.

Do you see the problem with your question?

I like you, Sunhawk, man, mainly for your staying power, but this is easily your worst thread ever.

>> No.2943719

Goodreads says 250, but I mark trilogies and multi-book sets as one volume wherever possible, so probably more like 300. Most (90%) of it is good literature, some of it is crap.

>> No.2943726

Reading a fuckton only means anything to writers (meaning, it's only useful to go out of your way to read a lot if you want to be a better writer). Even then, quality matters over quantity.

>> No.2943729

>>2943710
I used to read at least 8 books every week starting with 5th grade all the way to university.
Sci-fi, horror, astronomy, every now and then some classical literature, a bit of western canon, beginner's philosophy, etc.

>> No.2943730
File: 5 KB, 192x160, Hi.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2943730

"Hi guys, I'm a huge insecure jackass, and I like to maintain a well stroked ego at all times, so when I see people talking about how many books they've read, gosh darn-it, it makes me feel so stressed that they won't understand that it's the QUALITY of the reading that matters and not the QUANTITY. So I'm going to lay a big stinky generalization in the middle of the thread assuming that anyone who keeps track of the number of books they read is only judging their reading by that."
"Oh and if I get some time later I'll make a slapshod accusation that the books that they read are inferior to the ones that I read."

>> No.2943731
File: 50 KB, 500x591, FDR smiling.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2943731

>>2943716
It doesn't bother me much anymore.

>> No.2943736

>>2943730
This would have been better coming from Sunhawk. A heel turn is his only hope for redemption.

>> No.2943754

>>2943736
Yeah, but these threads always decay into shit-posting so fast, I thought I would speed things up. It really doesn't matter whether you keep track or don't keep track or whether you've read a few or read many, almost everyone on Lit is pretty serious about reading. And the problem with these threads is the same problem with those Kindle versus Analog threads, or God help us, the speed-reading threads. It devolves into one group of /Literati trying to justify whatever way they read.

This is Lit, we shouldn't be looking down on other people because of how they read. It takes too much time that could be used to look down on people for what they read.

>> No.2943760

> tfw you will probably never read as many books as Borges

>> No.2943761

>>2943690
try calculating by breadth of exposure and depth of understanding. 15 books each of paul auster and margaret atwood don't equal 1 a piece of 30 great writers spread over a millenium.

>> No.2943767

>>2943754
You forgot to mention the massive influx of self-help threads.

>> No.2943774

And just think, Sunhawk, If you had only read half of them, you would have had time to get a job and move out of your parents house.

>> No.2943791

>>2943760

You mean, Harold Bloom, right? I think you meant to put Harold Bloom.

Seriously though, his favourite books list is more than I've ever read.

>> No.2943884

>>2943690


waaaat sunacawk red so mach facking boks yo!!!!


one would think that the number of books read would be inversely proportional to retardedness but fuck you defy statistics and every law of nature sunhawk.
sunhawk
sunhawk
every time i say that word my balls recede half a centimeter as mountains of phlegm flash before my mind erupting with billions of lard and oil saturated baby calves. malnourished baby calves..
your bovine placidity makes me sick, turtles having sex, no life for the victim, etc.


bumping sunhawk thrad

>> No.2943889

Leave sunhawk alone stan. He isnt doing anything wrong

>> No.2943894

>>2943889
>Stan.
I still chuckle when I see that fucking cretin being called Stan.

>> No.2943904

>>2943791
I'd much rather read a book full of Borges' criticism than Bloom's, and I don't necessarily even dislike Bloom.

>> No.2943914 [DELETED] 

>>2943894
>>2943894

come one baby dont be like that...
my ongoing oeuvre of capturing the sunhawk spirit is annoying you for the wrong reasons. you need to excise your inner sunhawk in order to appreciate it.

>> No.2943918

>>2943894
>>2943894

come on baby dont be like that...
my ongoing oeuvre of capturing the sunhawk spirit is annoying you for the wrong reasons. you need to excise your inner sunhawk in order to appreciate it.