/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.5366396]

Is it materialistic to collect books, dvds, and music? Or do you see it as archiving art?

[Anonymous No.5366410]

>>5366396
>Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.5366417]

>>5366396

for me it's just a habit, plus used bookstores don't pay shit for trade in books so I keep them.

[Anonymous No.5366427]

>>5366396
I see books as a nuisance to be honest, unless I'm particularly attached to them.
Maybe if I had a bigger room I would collect them

[Anonymous No.5366429]

⇒false dichotomy

There is nothing wrong with being "materialistic". Stop using that word pejoratively. It makes you look underaged.

[Anonymous No.5366441]

>>5366396
I keep some selections in physical form in order to introduce them to my children later. Though judging by the way media is going I'd probably be better of hoarding these things on a hard drive or something.

[Anonymous No.5366451]

>>5366429

says the guy who doesn't know how to green text and looks like a moron

[Anonymous No.5366458]

>>5366396
> Is it materialistic to...
1) yes
2) what the fuck does it matter. It's materialistic to shit in a toilet or sleep in anything other than a cave

[Anonymous No.5366473]

>>5366396
I just go to library and only buy books that are not in library and want to read really bad. I am about to buy Hell by Yasutaka Tsutsui. Then I may sell it. I only keep books that have profound impact on me and I know I will read them multiple times in future.

If I had to buy every single book I want to read I would be broke.

[Anonymous No.5366477]

>>5366473
>If I had to buy every single book I want to read I would be broke.
So you have more time than money? Doesn't time = money?

[Anonymous No.5366484]

>>5366477
Yes

[Anonymous No.5366491]

Only books I buy are those big bibles with pretty photographs. You know, books about art, different cultures, history etc. that I can take out anytime and study and learn and get inspired by. I don´t see a point in keeping fiction around me.

[Anonymous No.5366496]

>Is it materialistic to collect books, dvds, and music?
Yes.
>Or do you see it as archiving art?
Yes.
Having a library of my own--no batteries or internet needed--is important to me. I couldn't care less about whether I'm a materialist or not (though I certainly am, I tend to collect things generally).

[Anonymous No.5366515]

>>5366396

For all the vacuous horseshit things people are into in the world I don't think building your own collection of literature is that bad, m8.

Slow down with the hysterics.

[Anonymous No.5366520]

I like to buy/collect things in the hope that one day I can lend them to other people.

[Anonymous No.5366522]

>>5366396
materialism is not consumerism

[Anonymous No.5366528]

Materialism isn't such a bad thing in this day and age. Our relationship with data has given way to a society of convenience and I've no doubt that slowing things down and getting into a relationship with physical products again is a better thing for our ability to appreciate things.

All that shit can be bought second-hand for cheap and at the end of the day you feel pretty bad if you don't think you're doing something with your money (considering you will inevitably spend your life working for that very thing regardless of whether you value it or not)

[Anonymous No.5366534]

Yes and yes. Now fuck off.

[Anonymous No.5366567]

>>5366520
How about you just give them away?

[Anonymous No.5367305]

>>5366429
What the fuck? Why do you use that arrow? Its so fucking stupid holy shit. Like theres already the > why would you use some stupid fucking arrow?! I honestly hope this is bait.

[Anonymous No.5367536]

No, it's just stupid.
I "collect" my books in my "read"-list on Goodreads.

[Anonymous No.5367658]

it depends entirely on the reason your doing it

[Anonymous No.5367674]

Yea. and no. Just come to terms with being a materialistic consumer whore.

[Anonymous No.5367680]

>buying books is the same as buying 5 cars

[Anonymous No.5367709]

>>5366520
>>5366567
Giving away books is good too but, if you lend them, then you get them back and you can lend them to someone else.

Also, if you give them away, you lose track of the chain of possession. This isn't important except that it's more fun to talk to the lendees about the book you lent them. So if you lend, you get more fun conversations. Whereas, if you give, you probably get only one.

[Anonymous No.5367716]

>>5366396
>implying materialism is a bad thing
anti-materialism is an outdated philosophy based on medieval christian theology, at least partly developed as a means to keep the poor content with having shit-all property
we are material people in a material world, there's nothing wrong with having piles of books and some nice clothes

[Anonymous No.5367726]

when I finish I decide if I will give the book to a charity shop, or keep it to give to a friend or two that might get into it

[Anonymous No.5367728]

It depends, I think. I thought about this for a while and ended up stopping my music and DVD collection.

I really don't use DVDs or music without the associated electronic "instrument", IE the TV, Ipod, or computer. And it's very easy to buy the media online and just store in your computer, I did not see the point of having the physical box and in general, I think "collector's edition" packages are scams.

On books though, first of all, the technology hasn't gotten to the point where you can have a color book properly displayed on your screen without it hurting your eyes. The kindle paperwhite is black and white, it also messes up the formats of some books, especially the technical science/math books I read. Until such technology comes out, I will continue to buy books.

[Anonymous No.5367729]

>>5367658
that's retarded, reasons are far less relevant than people make out - an action is an action, and your actions matter to other people far more than your thoughts do
it's like that whole argument about whether people give to charity as a selfless act because they are good people, or whether it's a selfish act because they are ultimately doing it because they want to feel like they're a good person. it's a stupid argument because it doesn't matter, the action is the same and the charity gets the money. no one cares about your rationalization but you.

[Anonymous No.5367732]

>>5367726
I leave them in public places or on park benches.

>>5367680
>>5367716

You faggots stockpile these books you'll never read again and think yourselves edified by it. If you actually thought about it at all, you'd realize it's better just to release the book from captivity than have it sit on your self, but you're mental midgets.

[Anonymous No.5367753]

>>5366396

I have large collections of all of that that I mostly amassed before the internet made it all available free online without the hassle of going to the library.

I have debated getting rid of all of it, but still I think there is something nice about looking at it, and it is definitely a way to start conversations when people are over.

I'll ditch the cds first before they are totally worthless, then the dvds, and the books last if I ever do get rid of them.

[Anonymous No.5367760]

I only really buy/keep books that I'm particularly fond of or hold some special memory for me. I don't really think owning books comes off as materialistic, unless you define owning anything significant as such.

[Anonymous No.5367768]

>>5367732
>to release the book from captivity
I lend out books fairly often. I'd just rather lend them to the appreciative home of someone I actually know.

[Anonymous No.5367778]

>>5367768
>>5367732
Or one day maybe my children will read them. I loved being a kid, raiding my dad's bookshelves for Discworld or some sci-fi novel he bought when he was my age. The fact I have these books now doesn't mean no one else is going to have them again, and it's not like there's any shortage of books gathering dust in second hand bookshops.

[Anonymous No.5367785]

>>5367778
We all know you'll die a virgin.

>>5367768
We all know you have no friends.

Stop pretending, guys.

[Anonymous No.5367786]

>>5366396
Collecting something of intellectual value is the opposite of materialism.
>I collect them because that way my room matches my personality.

[Steki YUNG LEAN !!PuHUWgNu6I+ No.5367805]

>>5366396
The only argument I use when buyfags try to justify their shit is that I'm almost positive the space the shit they collect takes up costs way more than the shit itself in sq feet/meters, as actual space, real-estate wise.

If you don't even own your place you should seriously give the physical shit collecting a rest.

Not even kidding.

[Anonymous No.5367818]

>>5367805
Why would that argument make any sense? I pay the same for my apartment whether it's full of books or empty. I suppose if the option of downsizing was there it might be an issue, but even that ignores the pleasure you get from the books. The price of the books doesn't determine their value to me.

[Anonymous No.5367823]

>>5367805

I'm not for buying books but
that's a pretty retarded argument, I hope it's bait.

Yes if your collection of books is so large it necessitates renting a larger space than you would otherwise, then you re doing something wrong. This doesn't apply to 99% of people that "collect" books.

[Anonymous No.5367832]

>>5367786
>that way my room matches my personality.

Store-bought and false?

[Steki YUNG LEAN !!PuHUWgNu6I+ No.5367837]

>>5367818
>>5367823
That's the catch, most books don't cost that much to be worth more than the space they take up.

Which means they're not worth collecting.
Only hardbacks/limited prints are worth collecting, and those can be expensive as shit.
You either collect good rare shit, sentimental shit (although that's not really collectable, tbh), extremely cheap/stolen/gifted shit.
I don't collect books, games, cds, anything, but if someone gifts me a book I can't throw it away or sell it, or video games my parents bought for me back in the day, I don't sell that shit or move that shit unless absolutely, gunpoint needed.
>>5367832
underrated post

[Anonymous No.5367848]

I collect books and vinyl out of conspicuous pretentions. Don't get me wrong. I enjoy reading and listening to music, but first, both records and books look great in shelves, and second, I love when people asks "Did you read ALL those books"?

I could be reading e-books and not pay for music, but keeping the physical releases feels great.

[Anonymous No.5367867]

Yes.

An I like it.

[Anonymous No.5367871]

>>5367837
You keep using the word "worth" here, as if it wasn't subjective and changing. Obviously if anyone is choosing to buy and own a bunch of books, it's "worth" it to them. The opinions of others or the market value of their editions, is all beside the point. I have 5000 books, and I love them. I reread them, lend them out, use them to write papers, teach classes, relax, and for insulation. Heck, even the resale value of a book is entirely dependent on finding someone willing to actually purchase it.

[Steki YUNG LEAN !!PuHUWgNu6I+ No.5367881]

>>5367871
Fair enough, but I've also mentioned that collecting books because they were gifts/sentimental value of any kind is validated, which means they're worth in that regard.

It's just that when you have 5k books and if you say they're all worth the same to you, that's bullshit.

jus' sayin'

book hoarders nigga thats that shit i dont like

[Anonymous No.5367883]

>>5366396
I 'collect' books. I just like the sight of full packed bookshelves (I always lurk in the shelf threads).
Also it is a good feeling, that if I want to check something I can just pick it off the bookshelf (I mostly read nonfiction).

[Anonymous No.5367905]

>>5367881
Fair enough. I certainly have favourites, and moving is a nightmare!

[Anonymous No.5367911]

>>5366396
I'd rather buy books than pirate them.

I'm buying them to read them, not collect.

[Anonymous No.5367957]

>>5367786
>I collect them because that way my room matches my personality.
That sounds like an example of an attribute of consumerism.

[Anonymous No.5367962]

>>5366567
⇒getaloadofthisloser.jif

[Anonymous No.5367967]

>>5367962
Intended for >>5367305
My mobile is an ass.

[Anonymous No.5367968]

>>5366396

When I got an e-reader the only downside I could see was not being able to store all my books like trophies.

Then I realized that they were trophies.

[Anonymous No.5367972]

>>5367305
for same reason people use avatars or tripcodes.

[Anonymous No.5368042]

>>5367968
You also lost the capacity to check any two books at the same time, quickly switch from one point to another among the book and reading them at all after two days without electricity.
Still, I'll maybe buy one, but you can't really believe it's the same thing.

[Anonymous No.5368072]

>>5367968
>Then I realized that they were trophies.

Trophies you buy at a store rather than win through any sort of actual merit.

[Anonymous No.5368089]

>>5367968
It's likely not a downside applicable to you, but my ereader doesn't have all the books I want to read available for it. I'm part of private torrent trackers dedicated to obscure books, so I do know how to look.

[Anonymous No.5368164]

>>5368072
>merit
>taste
>education
>couple hours of work

[Anonymous No.5368193]

>>5368164
the fable you tell yourself to feel good about your fraudwerk

[Anonymous No.5368207]

>>5368072
What about when they're free copies of books you helped in the production of? Or review copies you get for writing published reviews?

you're silly, anon

[Anonymous No.5368214]

>>5368207
not even that guy but how many people get books this way?

it's a stupid as fuck reply

[Anonymous No.5368218]

>>5366396
Yes it's materialistic.
No, materialism isn't bad.

[Anonymous No.5368232]

How the fuck is it materialistic to get books the way people since books were invented got them
What the fuck, I mean because phones exist now everyone who has his personal library is a hipster? Wow look at those libraries, what a waste of paper!

Kill yourself

[Anonymous No.5368234]

Books are in more or less their best format as such, so it's useful to have them that way. Music depends on the format and your conditions of reproduction, maybe. DVDs and blueray discs are just digital versions in a certain format tied to a particual device, you might as well have a rip since it's pretty much the same in terms of quality and you have more freedom to operate them.

>>5368207
But that's not what the OP meant, that's keeping your own work.

[Anonymous No.5368238]

>>5368214
I do, and plenty of others who work in publishing or do reviews for books.

/lit/ should probably pick up reviewing more often

>>5368234
Review copies really wouldn't be. Unless you allow that we've written inside them and taken notes.

[Anonymous No.5368257]

>>5368232
this X2

[Anonymous No.5368278]

>>5367778
My dad just handed me his almost complete Discworld collection, and it is now my life's goal to complete it.

[Anonymous No.5368283]

>>5368278
Pratchett's gonna die soon, that's not exactly a grand life goal you have there.

[Anonymous No.5368286]

>>5368238
allow what? sorry, second language makes it hard to assume intended meanings some times.
also, if you wanna share some of the insight of the editorial world i'd be happy to read it.

[Anonymous No.5368293]

>>5368278
I love the covers of Discworld novels, I want to have them displayed on shelves. I'm really jew so I only got Interesting Times at a discount though

[Anonymous No.5368339]

>>5368286
Hm. I meant that keeping review books isn't "keeping your own work," because you didn't do anything to create that book. What you do is write a review for the book for publication elsewhere. However, if most of your review was written from the notes that you wrote inside of that book, you might consider it "keeping your own work" at that point.

Hope that makes more sense.

Anything specific you want to know? I'm still entry level, so it's not like I have rugged decades of experience to talk about. All I do is done remotely, which is what attracted me to it, since I live in the middle of nowhere. I'll say it's a lot easier to get into that you may think, and the people involved are personable and do really love literature - it's a sharp contrast from how you may view them coming in as a writer (maybe as picky, pedantic overlords of taste). This is small publishing, not the big guys like Penguin, Simon & Schuster, Macmillan, etc.

[Anonymous No.5368386]

>>5368339
Oh, I took it as copies reviewed by someone else. Do you do it for specialized magazines or to promote the books? What's requeired from you? As in, a certain time limit per book, pushing the good parts a little bit more, a certain structure...
How do you get into that? Do you just send your ressume to a publisher? Do you check the newspaper?

[Anonymous No.5368440]

>>5368386
I just email publishers I like asking for review copies. They'll usually have a page somewhere on their website for who specifically to send an email to asking for them. You're required to actually do a review, but where you post it is up to you. It's good practice to keep a personal site for the ones that don't get picked up by actual review blogs/zines.

I've never seen requirements spelled out for them. To actually have the review published somewhere, you go by the guidelines of whatever you're submitting to. Which can be anything from 20 one-liners to a few pages of summary.

I just sent out a cover letter to several dozen publishers I enjoy. It was easy to write, as I have a vested interest in the literature that all of them publish, so I gushed a bit. Gushing apparently can work.

I'd advise doing it that way more than picking up ads out of a newspaper - maybe you could, but spending that much time poring over writing that I don't care about would be more hellish than a regular office drone job.

[Anonymous No.5368464]

>implying the idea of "art" is not pure materialism

[Anonymous No.5368474]

>>5368440
Where do you publish the reviews? Do they check what you wrote to make sure you deserve more books?
You get a regular influx, you ask for each, or does it take some effort to get any?

[Anonymous No.5368478]

>>5367905
Man, someone really likes the Pre-Raphaelites. I'm more of an art nouveau/golden age guy myself.

[Anonymous No.5368519]

>>5368474
I ask for each, and it doesn't take any more effort than an email. You do have personalize each one as to why you want the book and your own reviewing information. You won't get every one you ask for, but my success rate has been >70% so far, so imo it's worth it.

An example of the types of places I mean would be HTML Giant. Their reviews page states "HTMLGIANT is currently accepting book review submissions. Formal reviews (800-1500 words) should be sent to [email]. Anonymous (300-500 words) and 25 Points reviews should be sent to [email]." Unpaid, high-traffic book blog.

It might seem like too much to do, but ~2 pages of writing or less for a free book works for me. Also helps you improve writing skills. And, for me, I got into it because I'm a serial procrastinator and needed something to motivate me to actually do things, with professional accountability instead of just school grades for when I fuck off.

[Anonymous No.5368539]

>>5368519
>~2 pages of writing or less for a free book works for me.
Yeah, it sounds pretty good. I'll check local publishers and see what I can find, thanks a lot!

[Anonymous No.5368545]

>>5367729
OP didnt ask whether other people would think you were materialistic for doing so, just whether or not it is materialistic, so the reason you're doing it makes the distinction of whether or not you are being materialistic in doing so.

[Anonymous No.5368606]

The only people who think materialism is bad are Yuppie scum who want to take a semester living under a bridge for an 'eye-opening experience'.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to own items.

Consumerism is the real issue, not materialism.

[Anonymous No.5368633]

>>5367881
Also, those limited edition/rare/old etc. books shouldn't be read, because that damages them and hurts resale value. That kinda shit is basically just an investment.

[Anonymous No.5368649]

>>5368278
It's not really that large, and the book not difficult. I could probably do it in two months, one if I didn't have school and a social life.

[Anonymous No.5368657]

>>5368606
the problem isnt with wanting to own things, the problem is wanting to own them just for the sake of having them, or as a status symbol

[Anonymous No.5368663]

>>5368657
That's consumerism.

[Anonymous No.5368748]

>>5368657
That's not materialism, that's consumerism. Which is what that anon was saying.

[Anonymous No.5368771]

>>5368663
>>5368748
are you purposefully ignoring the fact that social capital exists in material goods? it doesn't just vanish once the object has been consumed, its material existence has a dialectical relationship with its social value.

[Anonymous No.5368778]

>>5368771
autism

[Anonymous No.5368783]

>>5368778
is this how you justify your rampant petty materialism? 'autism'?

[Anonymous No.5368793]

>>5368783
autism

[Anonymous No.5368798]

>>5368793
i know you are but what am i

[Anonymous No.5368837]

>>5367732
>You faggots stockpile these books you'll never read again

I do though.

I got this same shit from my older relatives who didn't understand why anyone would buy a movie because they personally never watched a film twice.

Oddly enough they usually filled their house with tawdry knickknacks.

[Anonymous No.5368863]

>>5368798
autism

[Anonymous No.5368870]

It is if you dont read them.

[Anonymous No.5368877]

>>5367732

>thinks people only read books once like him

Leave this board.

You aren't a reader.

You aren't /lit/ material.

[Anonymous No.5369009]

>>5366451
>>5367305
>taking 4chan this seriously

[Anonymous No.5369469]

>>5366496
please take some closer pics

[Anonymous No.5369473]

>>5368837
>they usually filled their house with tawdry knickknacks.

Like books, or something else?

[Anonymous No.5369500]

>>5369009
Don't you mean:
⇒taking 4chan this seriously

[Anonymous No.5369654]

>>5369469
I have, and posted them in another thread, but between the lack of sorting these days, double rows, and stuff in the way of each bookcase, it's hard to see much. I sold about 2000 books last summer, so we have about 5000 left now (and a few thousand comics under the bed).

[Anonymous No.5369664]

>>5369473
>tawdry
>"showy but cheap and of poor quality"

How exactly do you justify calling regular paperback books "showy"? Or, if fine press editions, "cheap and of poor quality"? Because being bound in snakeskin and costing $2k is neither.