[ 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: 29 KB, 200x315, worstbookever.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2973055 No.2973055 [Reply] [Original]

Books people pretend to love to make themselves look cultured.

>> No.2973059

I'm pretty sure catcher in the rye is the opposite of that. Most people I meet talk about how much they hate it because Holden is immature. I strongly suspect people hate the book to prove they've outgrown it.

>> No.2973061

You're a moron, OP. People don't pretend to love books that half the civilized world read in high school to look cultured. That's what Murakami fans are for

>> No.2973063

>>2973059

Exhibit A.

>>2973061

Exhibit B.

>> No.2973069

All those non-Christians that talk about how they study the Bible.

>> No.2973073

>>2973063
I'm sorry that your teacher made you read this book and I'm equally sorry that some of your friends liked it and you're now rationalizing that away with this thread. It'll get better in 11th grade, I promise.

>> No.2973075

>>2973073

Everyone liked it. You're not special.

>> No.2973076

>>2973059
And then you realise not liking a character and not liking the book are two separate things.

Holden is written like a cunt deliberately.

>> No.2973081

>>2973075
Proof I was right about your age. Wait until you all graduate high school and every friend of yours will talk endlessly about how they "can't believe they liked this" when they were younger and "it's really such a whiny book"

>> No.2973085

>>2973076
I completely agree with that. Read my post again.

>> No.2973090

>>2973085
Yep. I was just agreeing with you. Sorry that came out retarded.

>> No.2973092

>>2973081

Everyone raves about what an amazing book it is, even out of high school. I have no idea what you're talking about.

Protip: Insults about a person's age only work if they're actually in high school, like you.

>> No.2973095

>>2973092
Your teacher is an awfully small sample size for high school graduates, don't you think?

>> No.2973097

>>2973055
The real reason so many people like this books is because it is one of the few they've actually read. A vast majority of people don't read outside of school, and thus they only have 2 books to go off of, The Catcher in the Rye and/or The Great Gatsby.

>> No.2973101

>>2973097
>like this books is
Well, there goes my entire argument.

>> No.2973102

I'm not sure about everyone else here, but where I'm from saying you like Catcher in the Rye is pleb as shit (to the type of people who would ask you that question)

>> No.2973103

>>2973075
Unlike you, some people are capable of liking something without wanting to feel special about it. Hey, guess what, tons of people don't like it. You're not special either.

>> No.2973104

>>2973097

You're right. On OKCupid, everyone has this book on their favorite books list. It's entertaining.

>> No.2973108

>>2973102
It's like that everywhere that isn't high school.

>> No.2973109

>>2973103

Bullshit. This book is a classic example of a piece of literature that morons use to make themselves feel better about not ever reading.

>> No.2973112

But I loved this book OP, and I seem to be the only person I know of personally that does.

>> No.2973114

>>2973104
>On OKCupid

Nigger what the fuck are you doing

>> No.2973115

ITT: a lot of butthurt over a crappy book

>> No.2973117
File: 7 KB, 183x275, images.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2973117

Wasn't this a thread about books people pretend to like to seem more cultured? pic related.

>> No.2973118

>>2973095
>>2973092
>>everyotherpartofthisthread

I've seen more people hating Catcher more than I have people enjoying it. Though none of us can actually back anything up with ought but empty assertions because this is all anecdotal and subjective. So I'd prefer to criticize the first assertion, that people say they like a book to be pretentious, this assertion is itself incredibly pretentious.

>>2973104
And you *know* they're ALL (or at least even mostly) insincere about it?

>> No.2973119

Wow. I mean, I know /lit/ was going down the shitter but this is really the end.

Can't even sage; there's no reason to.

>> No.2973121

>>2973109
>You're not special either.

>Bullshit.

>> No.2973123

>>2973119
Do it, anyway.

>> No.2973128

>>2973117
Anything by Shakespeare.

It really fucking grinds my gears when people use him as an example of how well read they are when it's clear they couldn't get past the dramatis personae without giving up.

>> No.2973130

>>2973114

I'm a girl and I like being evil and standing guys up on dates.

But yeah, it's always the most illiterate that have "The Catcher in the Rye" as their favorite book. Maybe it speaks to the less educated.

>>2973117

Yes! Please fix the derail!

>> No.2973134
File: 44 KB, 250x250, 1347322585966.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2973134

>>2973130
>btw im a girl
>le epic troll keep it up mang

>> No.2973136

>>2973128
God fucking damn it.

>>2973130
>Please make the thread about our superiority to others for what we assume to be their insincerities.

>> No.2973137

>>2973119
>Wow. I mean, I know /lit/ was going down the shitter but this is really the end.

It's not as bad as you think. /lit/s collective posters at any given time is rather small. If two morons, or even three, happen to be posting at the same time, it really shows.

>> No.2973143

I'm confused. Why is someone a moron if they don't like the book? I remember reading it many years ago in high school, and I just didn't care for it. I found the plot very bland and pointless and the main character boring. Does this mean I'm stupid?

>> No.2973159

>>2973143
OP claims that you're a moron if you DO like the book. Or rather, that nobody likes the book genuinely. He is a very insightful young man.

>> No.2973165

>>2973159
>Nobody likes the book genuinely.

I want you to prove this.

>> No.2973179

>>2973165
OP is just lashing out because he had to read it for school. I might have given him the benefit of the doubt but "worstbookever.jpg" really sealed the deal for me.

>> No.2973186

>>2973159

Actually, I said, "Books people pretend to love to make themselves look cultured."

L2read

>>2973179

I actually did that intentionally to see if it would twist anyone's panties. It is definitely not the worst book I've ever read.

>> No.2973263

It's just a hip book to like. It's also required reading for a lot of highschools so it's probably one of the few books most people have even read.

See also: Grapes of Wrath, Great Gatsby, Heart of Darkness, Frankenstein, A Separate Peace.

>> No.2973282

>>2973263
Do people actually read Heart of Darkness in high school? I've never heard of such a thing

>> No.2973289

Every fucking book, according to someone. Reading is the most pretentious fucking thing. And watching popular television is just an effort to make yourself seem aware of things, listening to rap is just what's hip, no one sincerely likes any of it. Might as well say that no one's consumed any bit of popular media and genuinely liked it, because it all just sucks to me.

>>2973282
Read it senior year.

>> No.2973291

>>2973282
AP English we did.

>> No.2973299

>>2973289
Composing Tibetan experimental music sounds more pretenrious to me. So do nuclear physics.

>> No.2973304

>>2973299
>composing tibetan experimental music
Except that's not pretentious, because no pretentious person would put in the sheer effort it takes to understand something like that. A pretentious person takes the easiest route to improved social positioning.

>> No.2973305

people who aren't pretentious can go fuck themselves

>> No.2973314

Harry Potter.

I loved the books when I was young to a crazy level, but then I just outgrew them, simple as that.

And personally, I find it weird when people my age discuss it as something remarkable.

>> No.2973324

>>2973304
So let's say prentending to compose tibetan experimental music. But pretending to read books works as well (it is arguably easier than actually reading books).
>tfw I just remembered being pretentious is also about pretending

I'm fucking dumb sometimes.

>>2973305
Don't pretentious people fuck themselves also ? Making love to your glorious self seems one of the points of being pretentious. I can't see any better point to it at least.

>> No.2973356

>Books plebeians pretend to love to make themselves look cultured without realizing anyone actually of culture knows the book in question is shit and by touting it as a favorite only reinforce their plebeian status.

ftfy

>> No.2973357

Every book ever.
There's no pretentious books, there's only pretentious people. Pretentious people will pretend to like any book.

>> No.2973365

>>2973357
I find that pretentious people generally don't pretend to like "50 Shades of Gray", "Harry Potter", or "Twilight".

>> No.2973372

This book is like a 1930s version of Gossip Girl.

>> No.2973375

>>2973365
They do. Every high school kid does.

>> No.2973381
File: 50 KB, 414x550, ulysses.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2973381

>So complicated and deep tee hee xD

>> No.2973383

>>2973375
You're honestly trying to convince me that high school kids were only pretending to like Harry Potter? Why would they pretend to like such a book? To get laid?

What fucking high school did you go to? Pretentious high school kids where I was always pretended to like Stephen King or Isaac Asimov, not the popular stuff.

>> No.2973390

test

>> No.2973391

>>2973390
Yep, the posting function still works.

>> No.2973401

>>2973314
There aren't a lot of books that good at appealing to twelve-year-olds. Hell, there aren't any. That's an achievement of sorts.

>> No.2973413

>>2973383
Yes, I am.
Those kids really don't know that those books are hated. They think Twilight is actually universally respected and praised. So they ''like'' it without even thinking about it.
Don't believe me? Well, fuck you, because it's true.

>> No.2973424

>>2973383

>Stephen King or Isaac Asimov,
> not the popular stuff.

What the fuck are you smoking, negro? Stephen King has sold about 400,000,000 books. Not even exaggerating.

>> No.2973429

>>2973413
>ated. They think Twilight is actually universally respected and praised. So they ''like'' it without even thinking about it.
>Don't believe me? Well, fuck you, because it's true.
Compelling argument. I'm still skeptical as your claim goes against my personal experiences, but you certainly do present a logically sound argument.

I guess, if your claim is true, that this is a good thing. Thank God nobody actually likes Twilight. It's good to know it's only popular because it's popular.

>> No.2973441
File: 123 KB, 476x300, tumblr_kwkjq67tBg1qzv5noo1_500[1].png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2973441

People quoting Thus Spoke Zarathustra.

I SEEN'T IT

>> No.2973456

>>2973429
Oh, fuck you.
I'm talking about my personal experience myself. I've met many people who were blatantly pretentious about Twilight and many using ''it's popular'' as an argument for it being good.
Why do you think people ''like'' Twilight? Because it's fucking good?!

>> No.2973460

>>2973424
Eh, Stephen King wasn't really as popular (when I was in High School) as any of the three I just mentioned. The point I was trying to make is the haters would use just about any other author they could find to feel superior to J.K. Rowling or Stephanie Meyer. The point being it didn't seem like anyone would pretend to like Rowling or Meyer.

>> No.2973463

>>2973456
>Why do you think people ''like'' Twilight? Because it's fucking good?!
Yes, because they think it's good. That's why most people like things.
Pretentious implies they're being disingenuous and only putting up a front. I argue that its fans actually like it.

>> No.2973483

i quite liked catcher in the rye. and the great gatsby. sry
but then again i never read them in school and can definitely relate to hating people who claim to like the only 2 books they have ever read and only because a teacher forced them to read them

>> No.2973489

When I was in high school it was really on a select group of girls who were in to Twilight. It might have been a little more widespread than I was aware of though, considering I was a senior when Twilight was really peaking in popularity and it seems like an obsession for younger girls. Most of my female friends seemed to think it was dumb, but none of them really read anyway. Actually the only person I knew in HS who was actually a lit type was this hippie girl who was really into Emerson and Thoreau, and various feminist literature.

And of course Harry Potter always seemed like something that everyone enjoyed. Even after really outgrowing it, most people had probably read it and still held a place for it, or if they hadn't the movies were just as if not more popular anyway.

I can't imagine anyone being pretentious about either of these, though.

>> No.2973492

>>2973463
Why?
Why would they like it?
Have you ever tried to argue with a Twilight fan? Ever tried to ask them why they like it?
Their argument always goes back to ''well, it's famous, so it must have some appeal''.
It's interesting how people like this are not considered pretentious, but people who like Catcher in the Rye and can explain why they do with great detail are. It's the most annoying habit of 4channers and people in general, to think that certain pieces or artists are inherently pretentious and others are not. I feel that a lot of people make great effort to force themselves to like popular and commercial things to look unpretentious, while completely disregarding other works as pretentious and overhyped simply because they're more popular among ''intellectual'' people.

>> No.2973500

I think we're being awfully pretentious about the our use of the word pretentious. Why can't people who like plebeian books be pretentious too?

>> No.2973502

>>2973492
Girls like twilight because edward cullen is their hambeat wetdream. It's wish fulfillment. Really not difficult to see why they like it.

>> No.2973504
File: 66 KB, 296x419, 4chan.see, everybody cool smokes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2973504

>>2973492
th...this is the only worthwhile post in this thread.

>> No.2973506

>>2973502
forgive me, *hambeast

>> No.2973511

>>2973506


'Hambeat Wetdream' is now a character in my novel.

>> No.2973514

>>2973492

Have you? Are you talking out of your ass or what?

I've never met a Twilight fan that wasn't a female. Girls love hammy love stories with brooding, perfect male characters. I haven't been in deep conversation with many Twilight fans but that's generally the message they convey when they're talking about why they like it. It's a guilty pleasure.

>> No.2973521

>>2973511
i humbly request a copy when its finished

>> No.2973525

>>2973514
except i don't think many of them feel guilty about it

>> No.2973527

>>2973492
It's a logical fallacy to appeal to popularity, but it isn't necessarily pretension. If you confront them and tell them Twilight sucks, they'll say "but it's popular" as an argument for why it's good. That isn't to say they only like it because it's popular, that's just one argument they try to make to prove that they don't have shit taste.

They aren't pretending to like it. They actually like it. They're just using bullshit to try and excuse themselves for liking it.

I do hate how people consider certain things inherently pretentious. I hate when that word gets misused (similar to things being called "hipster"). I agree that a pretentious person can be pretentious about just about anything, but I seriously doubt a pretentious person would go around putting up the pretense of being a superficial Twilight fan. I really doubt people force themselves to like popular and commercial things to look unpretentious. How do you suppose those popular and commercial things got that way in the first place?

>> No.2973529

>>2973527
don't pretentious people have some council which decides things that are good and tasteful?

>> No.2973532

>>2973529
You're not a member of the PPP (Powerful Pretentious Poseurs)?

Yeah, we have a council. What's up, you wanna join?

>> No.2973533

>>2973502
You have no idea how serious some people take Twilight. Many do believe it's objectively a masterpiece and have it and their favorite book/movie.
Of course, not all people who like it are pretentious, that's what I've been saying for the start. You could also say ''it's not difficult to see why people like Catcher in the Rye'', but for some reason for most of you it seems harder to believe people actually enjoy it than to believe people actually enjoy Twilight.

>> No.2973539

>>2973533
i really like catcher in the rye. i thought OP was the only one bitching about it

>> No.2973542

>>2973533
But what are you arguing? Are you arguing that the people who take Twilight seriously are the pretentious ones? That isn't what pretentious means.

>> No.2973543

>>2973529
Yes, it's called /lit/. Currently, you're only allowed to like Pynchon and Dostoevsky.

>> No.2973548

>>2973527
Well, that makes sense. But still, look at an avarage 16 year old's facebook. It's blatant pretentiousness. Quoting shitty books, posting pictures of colored shoes or open fields with messed up contrast and stupid quotes written in a bold or fancy font. They obviously do all that to sound deep and smart in some way.

>>2973514
I haven't argued with a Twilight fan, but I have overheard discussions and seen the kind of stuff they post on facebook and tumblr.

>> No.2973551

>>2973543
okay thank you. i was in a bookstore the other day and wasn't even sure who to make audible chortles near

>> No.2973556

>>2973548
Not all sixty years old are like that. Some of them are pretentious with more refined and personal taste.

>> No.2973586
File: 55 KB, 350x473, 1347047273751.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2973586

>implying Catcher in the Rye isn't a masterpiece

>> No.2973647

>>2973055
Great point OP, i really liked the way it was written, i enjoyed his sentence structure and language choice, the subject/plot/character interaction did make me bristle a good bit.

>> No.2973720

Anything by DFW (most of you will stop reading there)
Dracula
Any of Dante's translated works-- the only beauty is found in the actual text
Any translated Canterbury Tales for the same reason
Beowulf for the same reason
The Odyssey
The Iliad
The Aeneid
American Psycho
Slaughterhouse 5
Nietzsche's compendium
Freud
1984
Animal Farm
Ana Karenina

>> No.2973729
File: 22 KB, 248x347, wms7.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2973729

>>2973720
picking on beginners as opposed to helping them creates worse readers, not better readers you can intelligently discuss things with so quit being a raging douche omg mom this guy sucks donkey dick

>> No.2973740

This thread is incredibly pathetic and sad.

>> No.2973769

I read CitR in high school. I didn't mind it so much, it certainly made me think about it in a way no other book had at the time. Afterwards, if I recall, I read The Gunslinger and I was like "aw yee dis shit is the bomb".

>> No.2973774

>>2973740
>/lit/ is incredibly sad and pathetic

fixed that

>> No.2973781

>>2973774
>4chan is incredibly sad and pathetic

ftfy

>> No.2973790

>>2973729
>picking on beginners as opposed to helping them creates worse readers, not better readers you can intelligently discuss things with so quit being a raging douche

yah the point where i realized this deffo brough about a major change in my postin' style on /lit/

>> No.2973807

>>2973165
I like this book genuinely. It was basically a guy who didn't want to grow up, but couldnt admit it and then he walks around the city by himself doing all kinds of things that are kindof eccentric

I identified heavily with Holden, despite him being a fucking child. I just wanted dat innocence mang. even if it didn't apply to me.


/incomprehensible rant
I just liked it okay?

>> No.2973811

>>2973807
that's cool and that's okay

talking about Catcher on /lit/ is just really unproductive honestly, just ignore any discussion on it, it's all pretty worthless

>> No.2973815
File: 23 KB, 291x299, wms28.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2973815

>>2973790
your posts are worse than ghosts; they never were relevant

>> No.2973820

>>2973811
I don't come here too often because this board is the definition of pretentious and taste.
you can't get one without the other though.

and 7chans literature board is way too slow

>> No.2973825

the lovely bones
and
a million little pieces

at the time they came out, I was surrounded by pretentious assholes. I hated both books. (skipped to the end on the first one, threw the other one away)

>> No.2973829

50 shades of grey

fucking women and their rape fantasies. thats seriously why ALL of them bought the book . thats why ANYONE bought the fucking book. but they'll say its because the plots deep.

fuck