[ 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: 23 KB, 433x480, Sartre.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
968918 No.968918 [Reply] [Original]

So what makes a pretentious reader, lit? Aside from the obvious monocle and top hat.

Pic unrelated for the most part.

>> No.968928

The really pretentious reader is the one that uses the word 'pretentious' without any understanding whatsoever of its definition.

>> No.968927

I'm totally guilty of this, but when readers begin to name drop authors, novels, or theorists excessively, you can tell they are being pretentious.

>> No.968930

I think it is when a reader has more opinions in their head than facts. just my opinion bwahahahaha

>> No.968939

>>968927
I'm guilty of this too. I don't do it to show what I've read though--at least, I don't think I do. But it's my focus in life, for the most part, and it slips out.
>>968930
I get like that when I'm drunk.

>> No.968943

When someone cares about reading only the "relevant" and "notorious" authors just because they're "relevant" and "notorious" and not because they're good, disregarding at the same time every other author just because he was told (or he read about) that the ones he chose to read were superior.
Then he'd use his limited knowledge to say (and imply) that he's reading high, fine art and the rest is below his taste. This also applies a lot to these who take opinions of critics for granted, and specially, widely acclaimed books with a large academic following.

>> No.968950

When someone cares about appearance instead of knowledge.

>> No.968954

A pretentious reader tries to be something he is not. If you read Sartre, Proust, Joyce etc to look intelligent, you`re pretentious. If you`re actually interested, and read the same authors, you`re not being pretentious.

>> No.968955

>>968943
It seems to me the eras most approved of by elitists is the Modernist and Post-modernist movements. Would you agree?

>> No.968959

>>968954
My wife has a friend who bought Nietzsche simply to have on her book shelf. I think this epitomizes what you mean.

>> No.968968

not liking dan brown

>> No.968971

>>968968
I hate Dan Brown, but I am rather pretentious, so yeah, maybe you're right.

>> No.968989

going on lit
same way everyone on v and tv is pretentious

>> No.968996

>>968955
Yes, exactly, specially post-modernism. Stuff they can't grasp at a first glance (such as Surrealism) is beyond them, though.

>> No.968997

>>968968
If you have actually read some of his books and dislike him, that is perfectly justified. Hating or liking any author whose work you haven't experienced yourself is as pretentious as you can get.

>> No.969021

>>968997
pretentious

>> No.969024

>>968997
There are certain authors or books you just know are either bad or that you will not like them. I think we can all admit that.

>> No.969069

When he hates pulp books just because so many people love them.

>> No.969072

>>969069
Now, what exactly is a pulp book? I've read the technical definition, but it wasn't exactly specific. It seemed to change with the age.

>> No.969080

>>969024
It's not that simple, and depends on the subject, target and author.
Surely we won't claim here that Stephanie Meyer writes good literature, not just because it's aimed to girls (which is ridiculous in a sense), but the fact that her characters are one-sided, there's no consistent plot and the drama is pointless. And that can be concluded by reading the first book, so we can safely assume the sequels are exactly the same or even worse, considering she stopped trying.
That was an opinion based on experience since I took the time to read the original book, or actually, read half of it... Since I couldn't go on.

>> No.969082

>>969072
Pulp book is the literary equivalent to a blockbuster movie, aimed to the masses, really long and engaging but ultimatedly meaningless.

>> No.969085

>>969072

I think I used wrong word. I'm talking about popular books like Harry Potter, Dan Brown and that Vampire series. I find it extremely pretentious when people hate them with zealous anger without ever reading them or write whole lectures on how they dislike them just after being among the first buyers.

>> No.969104

>>969080
>>969085
I agree that one should not base what one reads on what is popular--meaning, from the standpoint of the intelligentsia (never read what is popular ideal). My favorite author--Dickens--was the most popular author his day. But I think common sense takes over at a point. When one hears of a book about shiny vampires and whiny teenagers, it's safe to assume that that book is bad. I will not venture to read it, but I have heard many plot points from my wife, whose friend drags her to each new movie. Whether the writing itself is bad or not, the story is most certainly.
In the case of popular authors in general though, I say read what you find enjoyable, unless you're actually trying to get something out of your reading. Then read the books which will edify and entertain. But it should always be both, in my opinion.