ITT books /lit/ will lynch you for enjoyingplease don't hurt me
u can enjoy w/e u want
just dont pretend it's good because you like it
Don't be a silly, /lit/ loves you and likes to hear your funny little opinions.
I'm reading through game of thrones right now there I said it.
>>7576461
Das kapital
>>7576470
THIS
>ITT: films /tv/ will david you for enjoying
Space Walrus
>>7576502
no one implied that you projecting little shit
>>7576499
redditor spotted
>>7576504
C'mon man thats essentially one of the new meme trilogy candidates.
>>7576510
>Salty know-it-all prick detected
You can bet your ass I know-it-all. It's not my fault you're stupid.
>>7576519
redditor spotted
if I get dubs OP posts feet
It's horribly written with a limited vocabulary ("Chris grinned when he found the gun," "Jill grinned as the doorknob proved unlocked," "Rebecca grinned," etc.) but it actually has some good characterization for Jill Valentine. A guilty pleasure for sure. It hides on my bookshelf behind John Grisham and Carl Sagan.
>>7576527
Sorry, forgot to include my "scare quotes"
>>7576511
>just dont pretend it's good because you like it
>liking something
>thinking its good
>presented as potentially exclusive
top laff m8
>>7576526
Really? I didn't know. Well good then, I really enjoyed it. I also liked his "House Of Houses", but not as much "Night of the Assholes".
>>7576543
>"scare quotes"
Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself.
Slaughterhouse 5 and ASOIAF (especially AFFC)
Although desu I haven't read slaughterhouse 5 in like 6 years when I was a college freshman. I wonder what I would think of it now
>>7576537
this was a very immersive book when i read it as a kid.
i remember not liking how the characters talked internally with italic quotes, and sometimes those internal thoughts had a dialogue with the author's description of a place, like there was a third person in the room with me and the character
>>7576551
still no implication there
good try tho
>>7576566
the thing about implication is that it requires the receiver to personally fill in the gaps
this allows the sender to play schrodinger's insecure weiner
>>7576470
You're retarded and it is vital that you grasp this before you fuck up IRL. If something causes someone to enjoy it then it is good for them. Everything in this hobby is subjective to the specific reader.
>>7576537
>It hides on my bookshelf behind John Grisham and Carl Sagan.
As if it is less embarasing than those two.
>>7576554
This is an anonymous forum, I can't be embarrassed here
>>7576583
Ford County and Contact. Also Broca's Brain. They reside next to Lord of the Flies, Winesburg, Ohio, and Animal Farm.
Behind those are Watamote.
>>7576577
pomo please go
>>7576587
maybe that's the problem?
>>7576601
this perspective can be supported within an empirical model
>everyone is genetically different
>everyone's set of life experiences are inherently unique
>the brain is shaped by genetics and experience
>qualia and experience arise from, and are dependent on, the physical matter that is the brain
>therefore, qualia and emotion are different for each person
in essence, your brain can be viewed as a unique, metaphorical mathematical function. the same input to different functions produce different results. therefore, value and experience are subjective, and cannot be measured directly in an objective manner
>>7576614
pomo...please...for the good of mankind...go.
I loved this as a kid and I re-read it last year. Still good as shit.
>>7576641
nice assertions scrub, but where's the reasoning?
>>7576691
>muh assertions
get rekt sophist
>>7576614
>>7576682
If all my life experience leads me to learn how to play 4 chords on the guitar. I write a song that, at the very least, has the structure of a song.
I play that song for 100 people. 99 of those people don't understand what the fuck I was trying to say but there was 1 person who really loved it.
Is that song "good"?
Now, before you answer, "yes, it's good because it's good for that person," you should know I'm not disagreeing with that assertion.
Is that song "good(?)" is the question.
>>7576461
that book was entertaining. doesn't stop it from being a contrived and overall pretty bad work though
>>7576715
I understand the position you're describing - that value can be measured objectively, in a sense, by taking the overall consensus of a population, and then averaging it, or displaying it in a way associated with statistical data - standard deviations, etc.
This would measure how a population views value. This might be a practical aid for some people, but we're not really measuring value any more than we are by measuring an individual's response, we've simply changed the scale of our measurement. That doesn't make it any less arbitrary.
>>7576739
But this is the problem that pomo introduced. You can't judge anything because it refuses to allow itself to be judged. (Again, don't get me wrong, there's some inherent value to a person being confident or not caring what others think and still putting out work, but that's not what I'm talking about).
No, I'm not actually going to stop anyone from writing or actually lynch someone from saying they enjoy something, but I am definitely going to judge you or I'm definitely going to judge a book or a piece of art for something that is aesthetically just "bad" compared to something that is "good."
You can't just say, "you just don't get it," or "just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's not good." Saying that causes everything to stagnate. It brings progress and everything to a stand still. It shuts down. There's no where to go from there.
That's my problem with pomo and why, "good is subjective," is an argument I despise and should be completely eliminated.
Just like everything in life, there has to be a balance. Without the critic there is no artist.
>>7576592
Your bookshelf sounds abysmal
>>7576461
1984.
A preemptive fuck you - furthermore, I'd like to call attention to the fact that its cultural legacy has been massive.Not even a redditor. Ponder that.
All of Terry Brooks' older work. The Sword and Heritage of Shannara series in particular. Then he just starting fucking sucking.
>>7576833
BNW is superior.
>>7577035
Only for Americans, its part of their culture.
>>7576489
Moron.
>>7576470
/thread
This is the direct opposite of reddit. Good shit, friend.
>>7576483
The one literary thing he does (besides ascribing somewhat complex political motives to his characters) is juxtaposing these Romantically oversaturated descriptions of knights, lords, and ladies with horrific violence. It's like Hawthorne walked into his study to replicate that aesthetic of firelight and moonlight he describes, only to witness a graphic murder. I just wish he'd develop that stylistic motif more.
Reading all the asoiaf novels, even a tale of dunk and egg.
>>7576470
I will never stop being amazed how few people understand this
>>7576577
>Subjectivism
Well spooked, friend.
>ASOIAF
>Tolkien
>>7576785
>aesthetically just "bad" compared to something that is "good."
if the use of just "bad" isn't implying objective quality, that's fine to do - people like to hang out with people like themselves
>You can't just say, "you just don't get it," or "just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's not good." Saying that causes everything to stagnate. It brings progress and everything to a stand still. It shuts down. There's no where to go from there.
there is no "progress" in literature - the idea that there is some archetype or platonian ideal which we are steadily approaching via "progress" is nonsense. if you are dissatisfied that a conversation cannot be had if value is absolutely subjective, that's not anyone's problem. nobody said the model is obligated to facilitate conversation or it's somehow irrational. it's akin to a flat earther being upset they can't speculate about what the edge of the world looks like when they're told that the world is round.
>Just like everything in life, there has to be a balance. Without the critic there is no artist.
this is an appeal to moderation, not everything in life is balanced. the last line though - "without the critic there is no artist"? What? Artists do not depend on critics to create, critics depend on the production of art in order to operate.
>>7577568
>muh assertions
Just a reminder that Ready Player One is literally reddit: the book.
It is a shit book, and if you liked it, or even read it, then you're a plebeian.
>>7577040
the entire world is america.
>>7578039
I wonder how many and what kind of books these people read for them to conclude that ready player one is their favourite book. I can't imagine AtlasStrategem has read more than 15 books in his entire life, all of which are likely lowbrow YA scifi trash.
>>7577519
What an absurd scenario. Gondolas are not capable of feeling anger.
>>7576461
I CAN'T BELIEVE it took until January 2016 for the world to wake up and realize this book is plebdom purified
>>7578068
so, you rarely come here, right?
>>7576583
That was a fantastic sentence and you are a pleb for not appreciating it.
>>7578059
You're most likely correct about AtlasStrategem, nobody that would have read anything other than YA would say that RPO is their favorite book.
Unless real books were too hard for them.
>>7576461
This kickass book. Guess they don't like science and aren't into the nerd culture. XDDDDD
>>7578106
A+ my man
>>7577984
harry potter > the bible
fight me.
>>7577984
>Artists do not depend on critics to create, critics depend on the production of art in order to operate.
Artists have more incentive to write difficult (not even in the way Ulysses is, or The Cantos are -- even emotionally difficult, or socially difficult like Ibsen must've been) literature, or take artistic risks, because they know that their efforts aren't wasted and there will be someone out there with a critical eye that will vouch for their works if they wrote a good book. It might not change HOW they write their books, but it certainly provides an incentive to write what might not be commercially successful.
>>7578239
What?
>>7578302
A subjective viewpoint, which only some artists may agree with. Others may say that critics stifle creativity by creating a culture of categorisation and analysis, where identity is intrinsically linked to the media you consume (a negative concept as far as I'm concerned - the culture cares more about what is "hip" or "intelligent" to read, and less about personal enjoyment and fulfilment).
Artists would still not depend on critics nearly as much as critics do on artists, even if your idea were 100% true.
>>7578039
>try it in audio form
>It's narrated by Wil Wheaton
>I have two copies of it
>science fiction is demanding
>>7578342
I won't save that reaction pic, anon
>>7578361
That's great news!
I didn't create it, look at the filename my newly arrived friend!
Most of /lit/ are tryhards that see books as a way to make themselves better than others.
The truth is, it's okay to enjoy a book because it's just plain fun. It doesn't have to do anything other than entertain you. You do not need to get any practical information from it. Just read what appeals to you. Here's a bonus secret: You don't even have to let anyone know that you've read something you're ashamed of (which you shouldn't ever be)
>>7578219
Nerd culture is awful - what people mean when they say they are a nerd is that they just "like" something in pop culture, but a lot more than average. They ascribe it the name "nerd" as though it justifies their obsession with some sort of intellectual association that's also falsely self-deprecating.
Who seriously thinks that calling yourself a nerd automatically makes people think you're an intellectual?
>>7578371
>it's okay to enjoy a book because it's just plain fun
>>7578370
Why'd you delete your comment? Did you realized you were wrong?
>>7578367
you don't understand, I don't think you're trying to shill your work.
>>7578386
>>7578039
>that book is SHIT!
>But anon, have you read it?
>I FUCKING HAVEN'T BUT IT'S SHIT GODAMMIT!
>Hey anon, I can enjoy what-
>PLEB! PLEB! IF YOU LIKE WHAT I DON'T LIKE YOU ARE A FUCKING PLEB!
This board is seriously going downhill. Like every other board, it was good for a few months after it started, but this one became shitte very quickly.
>>7578371
>You don't even have to let anyone know that you've read something you're ashamed of (which you shouldn't ever be)
The fact that someone can be ashamed of what he reads makes me cringe.
>Why'd you delete your comment? Did you realized you were wrong?
I forgot to attached a picture of your lovely face.
I am never wrong anon, don't fool yourself. Get outta your ass for once.
>>7578395
Anon, I won't save this reaction pic
>>7578371
This might sound strange to you, once you get used to it reading demanding books can be as fun as reading shit, and shit feels like reading the back of a cereal box. Some books might seem too hard to be entertaining because you're afraid of them of they are above your current reading level, but that's not some universal constant. Being easy to read is not a basic aspect to be fun or entertaining, the marx brothers are much harder to follow than adam sandler but you can catch every joke if that's your thing.
>>7578402
That's great news!
I didn't create it, look at the filename my newly arrived friend!
McCarthy's The Road is better than Blood Meridian
fucking fight me irl
>>7577984
>it's akin to a flat earther being upset they can't speculate about what the edge of the world looks like when they're told that the world is round.
no. the flat earther is the one who argues that, "you can't criticize me because good is subjective."
>not everything in life is balanced.
yes it is, but that's a different discussion altogether.
>Artists do not depend on critics to create, critics depend on the production of art in order to operate.
bullshit. there is no art until there is a critique.
>>7578412
don't think of me as "the one who belittles your artwork"
>>7578418
>>7578405
The issue here is not reading or not demanding books, but the childish behaviour of making of what other people read.
This looks like people putting other people down in order to see themselves in a better position, even if they aren't (which is often the case). It's not only childish, but utterly pathetic.
>>7578423
not on MY hard drive, anon
>>7578415
>muh movie
>>7578434
That's great news!
I didn't create it, look at the filename my newly arrived friend!
>>7578430
no. the issue here is this is a place to discuss literature. not a place to discuss books. so yes, the people will make fun of people for reading what they are reading because they don't want to read or discuss the drivel that they're reading. there are plenty other places on the internet to discuss ready player one. go there.
>>7578438
Unknown sir you misinterpret my post:
I do not look haughtily on your painter's talent
Mockery on my part rather Death have the cost
Than hearing your angry blue painted lament
>>7578430
That would make sense if this were happening in a place where someone could be offended by that. We're just complaining about subpar writing, bad structure, lousy prose and pridefully rehashed ideas. I can't imagine a world where someone who has his life made out of really bad writing and will be known wrold wide is offended by treated as trash by a few anons.
The thing is, the book is shit that shouldn't even be used as distraction in a flight. If you think that's cool because it's fun you are rejecting your duty of improving as a reader. Do whatever you want, but this is /lit/ and we take /lit/ issues seriously to a certain point.
>>7578453
Iain Banks' Culture novels
Just finished Use of Weapons, enjoyed heartily. Probably the best of his Culture books.
>>7578460
Je ne veux pas de cette image
>>7578430
>>7578478
david foster wallace was autistic
>>7578487
What do you think of this girl?
>>7578502
>>7578417
not him, but:
>there is no art until there is a critique.
>THERE IS NO SELF-EXPRESSION UNTIL SOMEONE CRITICISES IT
top laff, what a bizarro world you must live in
>>7578527
I didn't say there's no self-expression until there is a critique. I said there is no art until there is a critique.
Jesus Christ, I'd rather play tennis with a fucking wall.
>>7578502
i might hit it
that kid to the left has a really funny head shape thouggh
>>7578541
>>7578541
What is art but self-expression?
I liked it too anon, but admittedly if there weren't any pop culture references it'd be boring as fuck.
>>7578561
Art is always self-expression but self-expression is not always Art.
>>7578567
Your definition is incomplete. Define art.
>>7576537
I read all of them, no regrets.
>>7578502
qt, but a total pleb.
>>7578570
No.
>>7578398
>rage comic reaction image
what year is this?
>>7578579
>tfw someone knows the argument they're trying to participate in has bested them and pretend they never cared anyway
stay rekt scrub
>>7578371
One can never read too little of bad, or too much of good books: bad books are intellectual poison; they destroy the mind.
In order to read what is good one must make it a condition never to read what is bad; for life is short, and both time and strength limited.
>>7578587
No. That's what you're doing. Because you just said this:
>tfw someone knows the argument they're trying to participate in has bested them and pretend they never cared anyway
>stay rekt scrub
Christ, man. Get your homework done. You can apologize in the morning.
>>7578444
Ready player one is literature anon.
Don't give me the cliche "literature needs to explore the mystery of human nature" bullshit.
Not only RPO but also every form of fiction, whether good or bad, is literature.
>>7578599
>tfw you're so salty that you engage in damage control for an anonymous identity
lmao
>>7578219
Reminder that Gravity's Rainbow is often no better than that book in its le nerdy references
>log(cabin) xDDDDDDDD
>Hilbert-Spaess omg I get that I'm such a nerd lmao
>le integral tunnles :O
>>7578603
No. But you can continue if you like.
>>7578608
>still replying
>>7578600
>Ready player one is literature anon.
>Not only RPO but also every form of fiction, whether good or bad, is literature.
No it's not.
>>7578615
Yup. You are too, sweetheart.
>>7578600
>Ready player one is literature anon.
>Not only RPO but also every form of fiction, whether good or bad, is literature.
No.
>>7578616
>literature
>written works, especially those considered of superior or lasting artistic merit.essential features, as poetry, novels, history, biography, and essays.
this post is literature, stay mad
>>7578377
Anyone who calls themselves a nerd should die in a fire.
The only people who deserve the label are probably the ones who don't want to be called it.
>i share a board with people who will unironically defend trash books like RPO
stop posting and get off me board, cunts.
>>7578630
shit forced meme. you should feel ashamed.
>>7578627
Your post is not considered of superior or lasting merit
Value cannot be directly measured. Value is inherently subjective. Every time someone professes to be able to measure value, what they actually mean is that they are able to measure some factor that they subjectively value, e.g "originality".
Most of the posts against this stance are just empty affirmations and assertions - arguments, they are not.
>>7578627
I'm not mad. But you need to know that you're a stupid person. I suggest you go back to school. Start over. Preferably a better one than the school you went to originally.
>>7578640
I consider it of superior and lasting merit
"A tour de force" - me
"Fantastic" - ur mom
"Changed my life" - Roger Ebert
>>7578646
>I consider it of superior and lasting merit
And that's why it, and all art, can not be defined by the artist.
>>7578646
no discernable talent.
>>7578644
>I'm not mad
>But I will insult you
stay mad
>>7578654
serious question, how old are you? alsodo you have autism?
>>7578657
i'm not at liberty to answer either of those questions
>>7578654
Still not mad. Still here.
>>7578455
>you are rejecting your duty of improving as a reader.
Oh, anon...
That is bullshit, and you know it.
I understand that some people take their literary studies seriously, but this isn't the place to have any literary discussion - in fact, I have started several threads on literary discussion that die easily because they aren't /lit/-material.
Looking at the threads is enough to get a glimpse of what this board is about: "Post what you're reading", "I'm reading this, how did I do?", "Guys, what should I read next?" and etc. but rather books and fiction, and that's it.
This board is not a place to have literary discussions, because no one cares - those who do are in college and that's where they discuss literature, those who aren't hardly have any knowledge of literature whatsoever (and not, simply reading 'hard' books doesn't count as studying literature).
>>7578627
Good, now the board is going to be /mu/ and their only accepted definition of 'music.
If you weren't blinded to stop at the first definition that coincides with your uneducated thoughts, you could easily find many definitions of literature.
"Literature: a term used to describe written material. Derived from the Latin litteratura meaning "writing formed with letters," literature most commonly refers to works of the creative imagination, including poetry, drama, fiction, nonfiction, journalism, and in some instances, song."
>>7578661
>"Literature: a term used to describe written material. Derived from the Latin litteratura meaning "writing formed with letters," literature most commonly refers to works of the creative imagination, including poetry, drama, fiction, nonfiction, journalism, and in some instances, song."
You got that from one Ester A. Lombardi on about.com. But why'd you stop there, anon? Why don't you finish what she says? Because she goes on to say:
>For many, the word literature suggests a higher art form, merely putting words on a page doesn't necessarily mean creating literature.
Look up the definition anywhere. Books are literature but they are not always literature. Sometimes they're just books.
So you're suggesting that one should read only as they are told to read, to not explore, make discoveries, and come to conclusions themselves on what they personally believe to be good or bad? Are you really suggesting that? You should realize that the world is gray, son. Morality is flexible and your opinion is dust in the wind.
>>7576461
Dragonlance
Anything by Michael Marshall Smith
>>7578685
>For many
Not for everyone then, thus, expecting everyone t fit in the definition you accept is pretty much repeating "stop thinking what I don't think".
>Books are literature but they are not always literature
Are you drunk? That would explain a lot.
>So you're suggesting that one should read only as they are told to read, to not explore, make discoveries, and come to conclusions themselves on what they personally believe to be good or bad?
That's funny, because that's precisely what some people here seem to be against.
Reading the /lit/ syllabus is probably one of the worst way to get into reading. Almost as bad as reading great books and claiming that they are masterpieces without understanding a word of it, something that happens quite often around here.
>>7578627
>nigger logic
>>7578690
>You should realize that the world is gray, son. Morality is flexible and your opinion is dust in the wind.
>>7578781
>that meme
Go back to reddit.
>>7578777
Trips of truth.
>>7578773
No. That meant that you cherry picked some rando from about.com that fit your definition. Go look it up most anywhere. Literature is more than just any book. Certainly more than ready player one.
>>7578773
If by the /lit/ syllabus you mean the Greeks (Homer, Hesiod, Plato, play-wrights, etc.) then you are factually incorrect. I can't imagine any collegiate course that would advise against starting with the Greeks, assuming a high-school education. Hell, Norton's Anthology of Western Literature, the standard collegiate text book, starts with the Greeks, following the Sumerians and the Hebrews.
>>7578913
Don't bother. I'm convinced this person has zero education.
>>7578773
>>Books are literature but they are not always literature
>Are you drunk? That would explain a lot.
All literature is books, but not all books are literature.
Is it that hard to understand?
>146 replies and 24 images omitted. Click here to view.
