Do you think there are books that aren't worth reading after a certain age?
For example, I'm 24 and I only got into reading books """seriously""" like 2 years ago. I've read Infinite Jest, Ulysses, 2666 and The Recognitions to name some, but I've never read any of this stuff:
>Of Mice and Men
>Lolita
>1984
>One Hundred Years of Solitude
>War and Peace
>Don Quixote
>The Great Gatsby
>Lolita
>Catch-22
>A Heart of Darkness
>In Search of Lost Time
>The Odyssey
>The Catcher in the Rye
>The Sound and the Fury
>nothing from Hemingway
>nothing from Shakespeare except Julius Caesar
>nothing from Bukowski
>nothing from Dostoevsky
>nothing from Murakami
I don't know, but after experiencing postmodernism and postmodern literary techniques I feel like I won't find that much pleasure in reading many of the stuff that preceded it. Like there isn't much to gain from reading all that entry-level stuff or a Steinbeck book that's being read in high schools and by people who aren't that into literature. And all those books seem rather conventional and filled with the same tired old cliches and plot points told many times before. Reading East of Eden (for example) after Infinite Jest is like driving a Prius after a Ferrari. Why would anyone want to downgrade?
I don't know, what do you think?
>>8091218
OP, are you me? I've read some of the books you've listed, but have read more postmodern literature as well and struggle with the same feeling.
I think what is best is to appreciate the evolution of literature and remember that any given book (especially the ones you listed) are representative of a particular style or school of thought at a certain point in time. Also, just because you might prefer postmodernism, does not necessarily mean that another piece of literature is not good and that you can't appreciate it.
>>8091218
>>The Catcher in the Rye
I never read that book even though I probably should've because it's a classic, I know it would be pointless to read it now though, because I outgrew it and I don't feel like I'd have anything to learn from it anymore because I'm too fucking old, plus we all already know the story. Yes, I think I'm too mature for it and don't want to read a book about some angsty edgelord from the 50s.
>>8091255
the way i see it you can keep coming back to the book as you get older and take away something new
1. "i identify with holden" -- edgy teenager
2. "i reject holden and those who identify with him" -- edgy young adult
3. "i have compassion for holden and empathize with the people who take care of him" -- not-so-edgy older adult
god knows what i will think of the book if i read it again at 40 or 80 or some shit, my reaction will probably be "i can't imagine a world without digital social media"
>>8091218
>I'm 24
>a certain age
You're a child in today's standards, come back with this question when you're 40
>>8091218
No. A book is a fixed point. Going back to it allows you to measure yourself. Re-read as much as possible that you can get a better notion of your progression though life and experience.
>>8091353
But should he read stuff he was supposed to read when he was 15?
>>8091218
Worried this isn't bait
You're retarded and a fucking faggot.
I'm 25 and male and I read what I want. Harry Potter included.
>read and enjoyed infinite jest unironically
Your opinion is clearly easily swayed.
>>8091218
Don Quixote is one of the most important works ever, and Modernism>Po-Mo
>>8091218
this is a terrible mentality and you've probably rationalized this line of thought with the mental vacuum that's supposed to be filled with modern and classic lit.
A book is an objective system. you can't "outgrow" it anymore than you can "outgrow" Chinese food by moving to Mexican food. You're forcing a linear progression where there is none.
You're a human. You change, you grow, and you measure that change against objectivity, or more accurately you're response to that objectivity.
I'm 25 and I just finished Catcher for the first time. As I read it I could see how I would've responded to it had I read it at a more "appropriate" age, but being past my edgy teen phase I can relate to themes that my edgy teen would have overlooked.
Do you really think you have nothing to learn from modern literature? You think that "there isnt much to gain" from Dostoyevsky, Faulkner, and Conrad?
Who the fuck do you think influenced DFW and Pynchon?
congrats middlebrow
if you were really concerned with reading good shit, you'd have read shakespeare
Do whatever you want. I can't justify fiction as my main interest, I read a few a year at most. I prefer books I actually gain knowledge from rather than just stories.
>>8091433
>/lit/ - Literature
There are plenty of other good books out there. Don't go exclusively by /lit/ memes or 'classics' like Catcher or TKAM (a fuckton of these are literal children's books that are read in high school and occasionally suck). Catch-22 was a great book; I'll personally recommend Murakami for a comfy read. A lot of the stuff on your list is pretty decent, so just go read some of it, and if it really sucks, drop it. It won't kill you to read sucky literature, and it won't kill you to drop sucky literature either.
>>8091433
>it didn't actually happen therefore there is nothing to be learned from it
Hey guys I've read the final bosses of literature David Foster Wallace and Robert Bolano. Is it even worth it to read Shakespeare, Cervantes, Tolstoy, Proust, Conrad, Homer, Dostoevsky, etc. or is that kid's stuff? I mean I'm 24 fucking years old here
>>8091218
The only books that you would find uninteresting would probably be Bukowski and Murakami, everything else is at least enjoyable.
>>8091426
i feel like i outgrew all the ancient literature
people back then werent able to write as good as the people can today, plus they had a lower vocabulary and their knowledge of the world was infinitely smaller
>>8091478
>uninteresting would probably be Murakami
suck my fucking dick you fucking retard
Just because a book is short and has a basic writing style, It doesn't mean it's not worth reading. Honestly, the quality of literature is totally subjective. Read up on a book. If it interests you, read it. It's as simple as that.
>>8091520
What the fuck are you talking about?
>>8091508
Having read Murakami is like having a permanent "Pleb" tattoo on your forehead. It's never going away.
>>8091218
I'm 28, but Faulkner, to me, grows in stature every time I read him. I know I'm a different individual from you, though. I just prefer novels with great storytelling amid stylistic creativity.
I haven't read War and Peace, though. I probably won't read another Tolstoy.
>>8091523
About what OP asked, fucking doofus.
>>8091218
>Do you think there are books that aren't worth reading after a certain age?
Yes but half of the ones you listed are trash and the rest are actually really good top-tier /lit/
great /lit/erature
>Don Quixote
>The Odyssey
>In Search of Lost Time
>Shakespeare
>Dostoevsky
not amazing but still high quality
>Hemingway
>Heart of Darkness
>Sound and the Fury
>Lolita
>One Hundred Years of Solitude
iffy
>Murakami
>Bukowski
>Of Mice and Men
>Catch-22
you have to be 18 to post on this board tier
>1984
>Great Gatsby
>Catcher in the Rye
/thread
>>8091485
is this bait or are you actually retarded?
>>8091575
>great /lit/erature
>>Don Quixote
lol?
>>8091581
tell me what part of that post was incorrect?
>>8091588
fucking all of it you mouthbreather, this board is completely irredeemable
>>8091575
>you have to be 18 to post on this board tier
>>Great Gatsby
kill yourself, people under the age of 18 rarely are equipped to appreciate the elegant structure of the book
>>8091592
i feel u
ban the memers
>>8091575
I think Dostoevsky is definitely below Lolita, in terms of prose N slays D and really D is only good if you care about the complex themes and I personally did not. If I wanted to know about Russian Nihilism I'd just fucking read a book on that, one called: Russian Nihilism - the book.
Also, although I admit it's clumsy as hell in terms of structure, that bit in 1984 where W's reading about how the perpetual war serves all three states is really entertaining.
>>8091584
>invented the novel
>not great
>>8091381
>reading harry potter ever
You should be ashamed of your plebeian tastes.
>>8091586
fuck academia you'd have to be very, very thick not to join the 400 years of humans who lived and knew that shakespeare was a genius
>>8091575
>Murakami and Steinbeck are somehow on the same level
?
>>8091621
I'm not saying he wasn't a genius. Shakespeare is one of, if not my favorite, authors. I've studied him a lot over the course of my schooling. I'm just saying that his plays weren't/aren't highbrow
>>8091586
shakespeare wrote for the bawdy crowd - low/middlebrow during his lifetime
now, however, he is undoubtedly high-brow.
turn and face the change, anon.
>>8091632
okay you're getting ahead of yourself with this 'highbrow' idea now
a middlebrow, as outlined by virginia woolf, is someone who can't recognize a classic, and needs lists and direction and suggestions to know what's up
>>8091632
>I'm just saying that his plays weren't/aren't highbrow
see this is where you're wrong.
they weren't high brow, but now they are.
that's how it goes sometimes.
>>8091634
ok yeah I see where you're coming from with that. the content of his plays hasn't changed, though. it really comes down to authorial intent vs. critical opinion. while the authorial intent was lowbrow, critical opinion of him nowadays skews highbrow.
>>8091640
um, considering the level of literacy at the time of shakespeare, and the absolute cultural vacancy preceding him, i'd say he was pretty much at the cutting edge in his times
That's because you are a typical 4channer who wants to try meme books and brag about how you 'get it' instead of actually developing taste with time
>>8091624
Neither are particularly high quality but neither are complete trash that I would place in the lowest tier and so for simplicity I placed them in the in-between tier.
>>8091218
Does anybody remember the name of the website that produced OP's image where you ask "what if X was X" and it gave you a blend of the two pictures?
plz help
>>8091632
Dude I think I know what you mean but you're just ridiculously wrong. Shakespeare basically defines highbrow. If you mean he often dealt with 'low brow', base human topics, ok.
>>8091671
I feel like at the basic level Shakespeare's greatness has nothing to do with brows but if it helps guilt plebs into reading then sure he's high-brow
>>8091680
'Used colloquially as a noun or adjective, "highbrow" is synonymous with intellectual; as an adjective, it also means elite, and generally carries a connotation of high culture.'
When we're talking about a poet/playwrite 'greatness' is a synonym for highbrow.
talking about 'brows' gives the whole critical faculty a decisively classist imperative which doesn't do much for adjudicating 'greatness' in terms of sheer literary accomplishment. it's more a comment on shakespeare's readership than shakespeare's work
>id rather read meme literature thats going to be forgotten in 10 years than certified classics that stood the test of time and will be read for another 1000 years
/lit/ in a nutshell
>>8091218
As we age we must put away childish things, including the hatred of childhood.
Read what you want, faggot.
>>8091706
Lol its the complete opposite of what you're saying. The audience is irrelevant. Commoners can watch Hamlet and Stephen Hawking can DVR the kardashians but it doesn;t impact upon the quality of the work.
>>8091218
No, all books are worth reading at all ages. You'll just get different things from them.
>>8091742
before the eyes of dfw and plato, that's EXACTLY what i said
>>8091218
You absolutely must read Crime and Punishment, even if it's the only "old" book you read.
>>8091218
the only classic you should read are the Classics. stuff that deals in ontology with expert prose.
along the same vein, it all depends on what you are trying to achieve in reading such things.
There is absolutely no reason to now read stuff you were supposed to read while you were in high school.
>>8091758
What should I read by him?
>>8091575
>iffy
>Catch-22
you're retarded
>>8091218
When I read Infinite Jest I felt a tad bereft because I thought I would never read anything like it. So I immediately read Gravity's Rainbow.
Dude: read Gravity's Rainbow. Trust me on this. Read Gravity's Rainbow.
>>8091758
This.
Also The Idiot after that.
>>8091634
He did write for the bawdy crowd, but then there were many writers for the bawdy crowd who didn't begin to approach Shakespeare's achievements.
Shakespeare's brows are at all elevations. His themes are universal, but occasionally deeply profound and sophisticated. He was an existentialist before the word existed.
>>8091600
Are you kidding me?
>the entire oevre of dostoevsky is worth less than Loltia
>because muh, i didnt care for the complex themes.
I'm not saying you have to like Dosto, or that they are comparable, but ffs man, that argument is shit and you might as well acknowlegde Dosto as an influential writer, who handled complex human, psychological themes, who has a place in the canon for a host of reasons.
You could even argue that the question
>If god is real, isn't he also a torturer
is a deeper theme than
>should if fuck this 12year old?
But i'm not gonna go there, just throwing it out here.
>>8091726
/thread
>>8091581
Ofc he's trolling, it couldn't be more obvious
>>8091218
Faulkner is great. As I Lay Dying should be essential reading
>>8091381
STRETCHED
>>8091218
I think being prejudiced to anything before reading it is for literal retards.
Skim the book, if you feel it's too juvenile or not meant for you then just skip it. Reading just a few paragraphs can tell you so much about what style the book is.
All those books you listed should be read by the time you are 60, not fucking 24. So you aren't hopeless, you are just a pleb who hasn't fully developed taste.
>>8091218
>Welcome to /lit/. Now get out.
>>8091706
*sharts*
>>8092450
Crime and Punishment is essential.
After that, Notes from Underground (it's short), The Idiot, and The Brothers Karamazov.
He has many great works beyond those too.
>>8092512
i was actually serious, but whatever
if you really believe that people from 2000+ years ago knew as much as we know today then you are a moron
>>8091218
>Reading East of Eden (for example) after Infinite Jest is like driving a Prius after a Ferrari.
>>8091459
>>8094102
>The Catcher in the Rye is a legitimately great piece of literature
lol
>>8091218
If you took /lit/ memes seriously and think you're beyond classic literature because you read a lot of post-modern crap I'm afraid you may be beyond help
>>8091218
Well, i wish ive read Harry Potter when i was young.
>>8091746
This. There are books that I've read multiple times at different ages and gotten completely different things out of them.
e.g. My Idea of Fun by Will Self, which I thought was absolutely horrifying when I read it at 27, but I thought was straight hilarious when I read it again at 33.
>>8092506
No you're right, I just think putting N below D is silly because I see them as very different authors. I was a little reductive there though.
>>8093915
Have you heard the phrase "there's nothing new under the Sun"? Have you considered why the old are considered valuable to society, or why countries whose population is very young in average tend to turn extremely unstable and impoverished?
>>8091575
Same thing I see on goodreads; if a book is on a high school English curriculum it's considered bad.
>hasn't read Odyssey
>hasn't read Shakespeare
>hasn't read Tolstoy
>hasn't read Dostoyevsky
>has read Ulysses
You literally don't and can't understand what you're reading.
>>8091524
>le "Murakami is bad 'cuz he's mainstream and normies read him" maymay
stay edgelord, Aalewis
>>8094323
oh shit im sorry
>>8094323
>le references and allusions are important
you're the worst kind of reader
>>8095029
sorry for what?
>>8095815
i realize how stupid it is for me to say this but i really appreciate this response and you're a good human being
>>8095328
The references and allusions are about the whole point of Ulysses. You literally can't understand the novel properly without them, and if you didn't I am completely flabbergasted at why you would read it. Well, unless it was for bragging rights, I guess that'd make sense.
>>8091218
Existensialism in general is for children, the same goes for post-modern literature. Meme trash you get over soon if you're a serious reader.
>>8096018
Read what you want, look up what you can't understand or want to understand, infer the rest.
This is how you learn. You don't need to have read literally everything that influenced or is referenced by a piece of literature.
You don't have to have any prior knowledge of books to enjoy a book. It doesn't matter what inspired the material, all that matters is the material itself. References and knowledge are irrelevant. If you're a human being with an imagination you should enjoy literature on your own terms.
/Lit/ - you guys have practically descended to a level of mental retardation. Reddit really fucked this site up, and the biggest Catch-22 of this is that I assimilate with you retards by posting.
To answer the question at hand: there are certain books that aren't worth reading because they can be considered "rudimentary," "trivial," or maybe "sophomoric," but that is completely dependent on what you have gained from what you have read.
If I could answer your question in a few words: don't read any books based on what this site tells you, and decide for yourself what books are necessary to read and which aren't.
>>8096041
>Read what you want, look up what you can't understand or want to understand, infer the rest.
All that results in understanding the allusions and references, which was literally all I was arguing for. I have no idea where you got the rest of that post.
>If you're a human being with an imagination you should enjoy literature on your own terms.
Ulysses would be completely uninteresting and a chore to read without understanding its sources on some way, to me at least.
>>8096117
What are Ulysses' sources?
You have to be only slightly familiar with the story of Odysseus, but you don't have to read the whole Odyssey.
>>8096164
The Odyssey is the most obvious one but there's a reason why there's whole reading guides and online help for understanding all the references packed into it
>>8096192
My version of Ulysses is filled with hundreds of annotations, so...
Also, I'd say that reading Ulysses for the first time is better if you skip all the annotations/online guides.
>>8096164
Not him, but I must say that I enjoy references much more when I actually understand them, much less when I read a footnote explaining it.
>>8091218
That's exactly how I feel about 1984 and Animal Farm
>>8091485
you KNOW you're in some deep retard shit when you actually believe you outgrew the greeks
>>8091652
i get a real big fucking kick out of kids talking about Steinbeck as if he's somehow beneath them
like, you can't possibly be THIS stupid. Right?
>>8092506
>should I fuck a 12 year old being a theme of Lolita
It's funny how people on this board shit on literature that's on high school and college reading lists when their skill as readers stayed in elementary school.
>>8096192
>Odyssey is the most obvious one
What are the others?
