You must know the kind. Some books have so seeped into culture that cursory knowledge of them is required to understand common allusions or historical contexts, without them being worth reading in full:
>To Kill a Mockingbird, 1984, Harry Potter, the Catcher in the Rye, Fahrenheit 451, The Great Gatsby, The Count of Monte Cristo, Les Miserables, Neuromancer, Straight and Crooked Thinking, Madame Bovary, Twilight,
>The works of L. Ron Hubbard, Sigmund Freud or Ayn Rand...
What are other popular books one just shouldn't bother with, be it that they are poorly written, outdated, or otherwise plain uninteresting in their own right?
>>7720996
>Flaubert
>not worth reading
Probably the dumbest thing anyone has said on this board. For fuck's sake, Kafka wouldn't even exist without him.
now this, is incredible bait
>>7720996
Anon, your pic is the most horrible thing i ever saw
>>7721005
Kafka would suffer as Kafka regardless, and Kafka makes Flaubert redundant. How many people read Plutarch over Shakespeare?
>>7721005
There's of course no denying the historical (as opposed to intrinsic) importance of his works, which is precisely why one should be interested in learning about them without wasting more of her time than is necessary.
>>7721093
But what if I find Flaubert compelling enough to read?
>>7720996
>B&W, non-grayscale
>solid geometric graphic image
>jpeg
>1.8MB
It shouldn't be a bitmap in the first place, but here, take this. Delete that jpeg and never use it again.
>>7721081
>Kafka would suffer as Kafka regardless
But his style and ideas would be wholly different.
>and Kafka makes Flaubert redundant
No, he doesn't. That's like saying that Shakespeare is redundant because Joyce exists, or Joyce is redundant because Gaddis exists, or Gaddis is redundant because David Foster Wallace exists. See what I'm getting at? Authors aren't antiquated because they influenced later authors.
>How many people read Plutarch over Shakespeare?
The same amount of people that actually care about literature.
>>7721093
But it ISN'T a waste of time to read Flaubert, which you would know if you actually read him.
>>7721140
Joyce doesn't overtake Shakespeare because he only improves on Hamlet, while Shakespeare's works as a whole offer a vaster perspective on psychology than Joyce.
>Catcher in the Rye
>The Count of Monte Cristo
>Les Miserables
>Madame Bovary
>not worth reading
I'm leaving this board right fucking now
>>7721268
Good choice. Abandon ship.
>>7721148
And Kafka doesn't begin to overtake Flaubert. Even so, that's not a good reason to not read an author--it's just mental gymnastics.
>>7720996
If the only thing you want to get out of 1984 is "muh Big Brother" or "muh doublethink", then sure, go read Sparknotes on Orwell. Also top kek for putting Twilight anywhere near The Count of Monte Cristo or Freud.
>>7721148
>Joyce doesn't overtake Shakespeare because he only improves on Hamlet
You must be confusing Joyce with DFW
>>7721139
Thanks. I tried to use OP's pic but it'd be impossible to fill with the paint bucket tool.
>>7721660
>to fill
why would you ever
How about books better seen as movie adaptations? Lord of the Rings comes to mind.
>>7722790
shawshank, though it's a novella
>>7721655
Are you retarded?
bible
>>7722830
But the King's James version is a solid source of strong archaic prose
>>7720996
You can get a lot of the links to modern-day that ideas and themes that Neuromancer has from a summary, but it is nowhere near not worth reading. Plus there's Based Case as a character, top-tier antihero.
>>7721009
its really really great
>>7720996
mein gott pure ideology.
>>7723861
There's only like two notable prose paragraphs... might as well read the 80's comic book
>>7724473
forgot pic
